OUR TRAMWAYS.

Evening Star, Issue 12167, 11 April 1904, Page 7

OUR TRAMWAYS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I have observed some peevish correspondents complaining of extravagance in the management of our new electric system —complaining of what is common enough during the day: three officials to drive, conduct, and inspect a small boy and a small girl. These correspondents ought to know that to be well in-spectored ” is an evolution of the most advanced civilisation, though, to be sure, it is not a testimonial to onr moral standards. But, knowing our own frailty, we have a perfect right to appoint an army of inspectors to keep us on the right path, also to become our masters instead of our servants. But, to give the tramway folks their due, they are economical in one direction—they save their wind and voices. How is that? this way: Instead of being told, as at one time, that the car had reached Frederick street, or St. David street, or St. Andrew street, all we are allowed now is “Frederick,” or “St. David,” or “St. Andrew.” If not too presumptuous, I might suggest that these and other names might be still farther contracted. It would mean a considerable saving in twelve months, if, instead of the above, the conductor were instructed to call out '“Fred,” “Andv” "Dave” (“Saint” is an excrescence), “Rat'” eto., and in due time this could be further reduced to “F.,” “A.,” “D„” and so on. Is might be a bit confusing to visitors (little more so than the present method) • but bother the visitors, it is not they but we who have to pay for the overtaxed tongue of the conductor. Reverting to the noble army of inspectors, consider how we can “put down" the Melbourne people, who, so far as I recollect, heed ho “ inspection ” ; indeed, I have never been honored with “ inspection ” on a penny or twopenny fare on either side the Line except in Dunedin. If that is

not proof positive that we lead the van, what would you have?—l am, etc., Traveller. April 9.