ROSLYN TRAMWAY EXTENSION.

Evening Star, Issue 10401, 24 August 1897, Page 3

ROSLYN TRAMWAY EXTENSION.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir, —Mr L. Kemnitz, who at present holds the office of mayor of the Roslyn Borough, has favored you with his view of the proceedings now causing some stir in Roslyn connected with the Roslyn Tramway Extension. I would ask your indulgence while I offer a iew considerations upon his letter. He deals, first, with the provisions of the Tramways Act, 1894, and seeks to explain away misapprehensions which he opines to «xiat as to the meaning of a demand that a poll should be taken. Mr Kemnitz, however, stops short in his explanation, and thereby reads into the Act a meaning which does not there exist, for a poll is not to be taken as to whether the Council shall or shall not be permitted to apply for an authorising order and to delegate such an order to the Roslyn Tramway Company, hut instead thereof the poll is confined simply to those who wish to record their votes forbidding the Council making the application. A manifest difference, as ratepayers will readily perceive, for the result will be decided according as one-third only of the whole votes in the burgess list shall or shall not be recorded negativing the application. The remaining two-thirds of the ratepayers are virtually disenfranchised—no ratepayer who wishes to record his vote for the work proceeding has any say on the subject. Now this is a bald statement of the matter ; how this method nf voting plays into the hands of opponents of the works is self-evident; a ratepayer interested in a part of the borough remote from the line has manifestly a greater power than has one past whose very door the line would be laid. A foolish piece of legislation, surely. Yet there it is, and what those desirous of seeing these works progress complain of at tho present juncture is that advantage should be taken of such an unjust provision to harass a company desirous of serving the ratepayers of the Roslyn Borough, and that there is cause for resentment in the fact that some of the signatories have already intimated that they were led to sign under misleading circumstances. Let me say here that I shall not make any statement I am not prepared to prove, and that on a further occasion I shall, for the benefit of ratepayers, make public an analysis of the document of demand, I submit, sir, that Mr Kemnitz’a letter did not lay bare the true position under the Tramways Act, Secondly, Mr Kemnitz alleges that were what has lately been transpiring known there would be little matter for surprise at the course taken by those signing this requisition of demand. Well, keeping in mind that I shall not make any statement which I cannot prove, I assert that Mr Kemnitz’s allegations in support of the objectors whom he champions are, to say the least of them, disingenuous. I am not going to spoil a full statement of the proceedings which have transpired at the recent meetings of tho Roslyn Borough Council by giving out the statement in dr|bleta, but I give Mr Kemnitz due notice that the whole matter shall, at its proper time, and that shortly, be published, and he is welcome to get ready. I do not write in a boastful spirit, but I wish him to know that I flatly contrrdict the implication of 44 undue consideration” of the ratepayers’ interests which he desires to convey, and in this contradiction I take leave to say I shall have the ratification of the majority of the councillors. The questions of monopoly of Ross street, the limiting of the Roslyn Company to the same terms in regard to fares and hours of running as the projected Kaikorai Company, are stuffed in as side issues. These will be fully dealt with by me on a future occasion. That they were not put beyond consideration Mr Kemnitz knows, and knows right well, and men more experienced in Council matters than he is showed him at the Council table that there were proper times and proper methods of dealing with these subjects. I was present at the meeting to which be alludes, and can testify to the truth of what I say, as others also can. He ventures the opinion that I did a little special pleading. Come, now, Mr Kemnitz, be fair if you cannot be generous, and admit that I gave an impartial statement of the position. But whether you do so or not, I challenge you with having endeavored to stop my addressing your Council, and that the means you resorted to were by declaring that an equality of votes were cast on either side (counting your own deliberative vote), and by your giving your casting vote against hearing me, when, curiously enough, there were eleven persons at the Council table. But a councillor perceived the “mistake” you had made, and demanded that the names of the voters should be taken down, and you were outgeneralled. 1 again say I am not making any statements which cannot be'proved—the records of the Council show that what I say is correct. But more of all this anon; yet why should Mr Kemnitz, occupying the position of mayor of onr borough, act as a partisan? Well, this also shall be explained in due

course. Some may say that lam “ putting it strong,” in view of the fact that Mr Kemnitz Will after this use whatever influence he has to block the progress of the tramway works. Well, to be consistent with what he has already done (notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary) he will in any event continue his methods, and the truth had better be told right out, and I trust that ratepayers will carefully note it.

Thirdly, Mr Kemnitz protests loudly to the effect that he is anxious to promote the welfare of the borough by numerous and improved means of transit, and, having made his protest, proceeds to offer an opinion upon the first duty of the Council—viz., the safeguard of the interests of the ratepayers and the making the best possible bargain on their behalf. Well, this is funnyi Does Mr Kemnitz not perceive that this poll, which he has evidently so much desired, or, at any rate, hails as a protest against his own Council, is aimed at forbidding the extending of the line? Will that be safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers ? Will it not be making no bargain at all ? Does Mr Kemnitz not know that a deed of delegation has to be made of the Council’s rights to the Roslyn Tramway Company, and was this not pointed out to him by more than one councillor ? ■ Does Mr Kemnitz. not perceive that the authorising order is granted to the Council, and not to the company ; and that it is well, for the sake of the borough, that the provisions of that authorising order should be amply framed ? Moreover, does Mr Kemnitz know so little of the history of tramways throughout the world that he will not take care to so frame the authority of the Council so that if the tram lines in his borough come into the hands of, or are taken over by, the Borough Council they should be laid down with a view to public service, and possibly to revenue producing, to say nothing of being made profitable, which last he evidently does not desire them to be ? No ; unfortunately at every meeting of the Council at which this business has come up—namely, at the meetings in May, June, July, and August (no great speed here, surely), Mr Kemnitz has (with the exception of the May meeting, of which I cannot speak) persistently cried out something or other about the Kaikorai Tram Company; and the belief begins to harden that in this he is more concerned about the affairs of that company than the actual “safeguard,” etc., of the interests of ratepayers. He should remember that at present he sits at the Council table as mayor of the borough. Lastly, Mr Kemnitz says he is in possession of some astounding information as to coercion and intimidation used towards those who signed the requisition of demand. Well, sir, I had occasion to pen a letter to you calling upon a certain “Kaikorai Valleyite” to formulate his charges of log-rolling or gracefully apologise. I now challenge Mr Kemnitz to bring forward the proof of these alleged means of coercion and intimidation which, in the form of innuendo, he charges to those whom he in questionable languags accuses of being “so base and contemptible as to obtain their own ends by scandalous means.” Strong words, these; let him substantiate them, and lest he fears that the publication of the evidence on which he bases his assertions should be libellous, I offer him such dispensation as he can gain from a full, but let it be reliable, statement, in presence of myself and witnesses, before the editor of the Star, and I for one shall stand or fall by that gentleman’s decision. I trust, however, that both “Kaikorai Valleyite” and Mr Kemnitz (who are no doubt well known to one another) will act quickly, for time passes on, and the ratepayers rightly demand a full and correct statement of this matter.— I am, etc., P. Duncan. Roslyn, August 24.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Messrs Duncan and MacGregor, in their letter of yesterday, rush into the breach and say metaphorically “ Come on.” Why should they be so ready to undertake such a large ordtr? It wcu'd be cruel to allow them ! Log-rolling is too big a job for one or two. to tackle. It needs a considerable number of workers to have the effect of shifting it out of the public’s way, and this particular log, judging by the Mayor of Roalyn’s letter, is a very knotty and ugly one, Messrs Duncan and MacGregor inform me that they lave had the conduct of the whole of the affairs relating to the application made to the Roslyn Borough Council. This is news indeed! Poor Council! They may well say, in the words of the immortal “Insect,” Where do I (we) come in ? Perhaps the ratepayers will be able to answer that at tho forthcoming poll and elections.—l am, etc., Kaikorai Valleyitf.. Kaikorai, August 24.