CITY TRAMS.

Evening Star, Issue 23099, 27 October 1938, Page 19

CITY TRAMS.

IU lUK ton UK. Sir, —Far from my statements facing reckless, it is your own and (Jr Taverner’s iliat cannot be substantiated oy fact. Ju your leading article, headed ‘ The City Trams,’ you quote and support (Jr Taverner’s statement that the linaucial position to-day was the direct result of the lavish expenditure by the previous council. A statement more contrary to fact is difficult to imagine. A study of the balance sheets of the trams shown that the drift in finances is not due to lavish expenditure liy the previous conned. At the end of last nnancial year under the Labour Council the tramways account had a credit of £'15,870. Six months later, at the end of .-September, 1938, we find that this credit lias been changed into a debit of £2,789. As IV Gibson, chairman of the Tramways Committee, says, the drift is due to increased operating expenses plus a fail in revenue. Or Gibson is right, and it is unfair of botli yourself ami Cr Taverner to mislead the public by saying that the drift is due to the policy of the previous council. Indeed, the previous council was aware of the drifting tendency, and, as stated in onr election manifesto, we had a plan prepared to obviate the loss. A study of the balance sheets shows that Cr Gibson is correct and Cr Taverner wrong. Let me quote the figures for the city trains for the first six months of 1937 and 1938; Gross revenue—l 937, £73,129; 1938, £70,152. A fall in revenue of £2,977, which in itself would have reduced the net profit very considerably. Expenditure—l 937, £68,896; 1938. £73.775. Those facts show how erroneous and . misleading were the statements that the trouble is due to reckless expenditure by the previous council.—l am, etc., D. G. M’Miu.an. October 27.