THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 1881. THE MEMBER FOR CHRIST. CHURCH AND THE DRAINAGE BILL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2248, 17 June 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 1881. THE MEMBER FOR CHRIST. CHURCH AND THE DRAINAGE BILL.

Oue friends, the members of the Drainage Board, had, it appears, reckoned without their host when they stated that Mr. S. P. Andrews would very likely take charge of the new Bill purposed to bo brought in during this session. As will be remembered, the chairman made a statement at the last meeting to the effect that Mr. E. C. J. Stevens, one of the members for the city, declined to take charge of the Bill, on the ground that the ratepayers wore opposed to it. One of the members hereupon seemed to

bo of opinion that Mr, Andrews would no doubt bo roady to take charge of it. Any idea of this kind, however, must bo at once dispelled—if it existed—by the straightforward and clear avowal of Mr. Andrews in his letter to the Mayor. In that ho states not only that he should decline to take charge of the Bill, but that he shall oppose it to the best of his power. The reasons he gives for this course are so pertinent and cleat that the Drainage Board would do well to reconsider their decision as to attempting to get their skeleton of a Bill through the House. “ The Bill,” says Mr. Andrews, “ I consider opposed to the wishes of the ratepayers and to the best interests of the city and suburbs.” This is pretty plain speaking, and it is somewhat peculiar that, holding those views, Mr. Andrews should have been selected as the member likely to take charge of the Drainage Board infant. It is only fair that Mr. Andrews should be put right with his constituents, who are opposed to the Bill, and therefore wo have deemed it our duty to direct attention to it. The moral to be drawn from what has taken place is that the members of the Drainage Board should, before making an assertion regarding the probable public action of any public man, first ascertain that they have good premises to go on. THE TRAMWAY BY-LAW. It is rumored — with what truth we know not—that the tramway by-law will most probably be abandoned. If this is so we congratulate the Council upon having, however late, yielded to public opinion to get rid of a by-law which admittedly, as now framed, will hamper and restrict the working of the Tramway Company without any advantage arising to the public. We have on more than one occasion urged that the Council should assume the powers granted them under the Act, but they have gone beyond this altogether, and framed by-laws which are of far too interfering a character. It cannot, however, so far as we can see, be decided upon Councillor Cuff’s notice of motion, because that, to a very great extent, asks the members deliberately to ’ stultify themselves. They had the clauses of the by-law read over seriatim and discussed. It was afterwards put as a whole, so that each member had an * opportunity to move amendments or to strike out any particular clause. But we 1 would desire to point out the Council were unanimous in passing the by-law clause by clause, and then in gldbo. It * would, therefore, under those circnmstances, be far better for the notice of motion given by Councillor Cuff to bo allowed to lapse. The By-law Committee would then bo able to come forward and move that the by-law be recommitted. When this was done, the clauses could be re-considered, and as it is understood that they do not intend to proceed with the matter, the clauses may be formally thrown out. This will save such a deliberate act of stultification as that proposed under Councillor Cuff’s motion, which means just this, that the Council is to be asked to undo at one meeting what it deliberately did at the preceding. It may be urged that the course now proposed g comes to the same thing practically. No doubt this is so, but then it saves the Council such an open and public retraction of their steps. Of course, in so doing they are only bowing to the will i of the ratepayers, and are not to be judged as having done this of their own motion. As has been pointed out, the real power of dealing with any matter affecting the public convenience exists in the Act, in the administration of which the Council can find plenty of work to do in conserving the interests of the public, without descending to the petty details contained in the by-law. LIGHTS ON VEHICLES. The accident which occurred only the other evening, by which one of the horses driven in the vehicles coming into collision was killed, once more forces upon our attention the necessity which exists for vehicles driving through our streets carrying lights. It has been a matter for wonder that, ere this, no lives have been lost from the haphazard way in which vehicles without lights are driven about our streets aftar dark. There could bo no hardship in a bylaw of the Council making it imj perative on all vehicles entering the , city after dark to carry lights, because the necessity for it would only exist for, 3 say, throe months—those of winter—- * during the year. It would, wo feel sure, , greatly conduce alike to the public safety i and convenience, and therefore we trust 1 to see the matter considered at no distant date by the City Council, with a view to some practical relief being afforded.