THE AUCKLAND TRAMWAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11147, 21 August 1899, Page 3

THE AUCKLAND TRAMWAYS.

OPEN-AIR MEETING, RESOLUTIONS IN FAVOUR OP MUNICIPALISATION. Ax open-air meeting was held on Saturday evening, at the Grey-street firebell, under the' auspices of the Auckland Trades and Labour Council, to protest against the handing over of the Auckland tramways to a monopoly. Mr. W. C. Eraser, the president of the Council, presided. There were from 300 to 400 persons gathered round the waggon from which the speakers addressed the crowd. Mr. R. R. Hunt, after a few words of personal explanation, said the monopoly which the City Council intended to grant was for 30 years, during which time the holders were allowed to charge maximum fares, and neither the people nor the City Council could get them reduced. At the end of that 30 years the city had to pay the full value of the concern if it wished to take the trams over, a sum of probably £400,000, and then, as now, the cry would be that the Council could not run the trams. So the thing would be thrown on one side, and the monopoly continue. It would be a monopoly that the people would never shake off. He advocated the Melbourne plan, which had been decided upon after 12 corporations had thrashed the matter out thoroughly. There a Trust Board was appointed to borrow all the money required for the tramways, and then a company of local men was formed to construct and run the trams ; a sinking fund being established for the purpose of redeeming the trams at the end of 30 years. Fifty per cent, of the profits went to the city, and that amount enabled the corporation to make a reduction in the fares charged, or else it went to relieve the city rates. Then, at the end of the term the whole plant reverted to the people free. His plan for Auckland was tho same, slightly modified in this way, that tho city should guarantee four-fifths of the money wanted to construct the tramways. Say that £200,000 cash would do it, then the city would guarantee £160,000, and a local company would find the other £40,000. If the present scheme were killed at the poll there were men in Auckland who were prepared to do that, and then the people Would have a local board, instead of a board hundreds of miles away. After payment of, say, 8 per cent, on the company's capital, then there should be an equal division of profits. Under the monopoly the revenue to the city would be £650, while under the Melbourne system he reckoned the city would make at least £1500 a year, which would enablo fares to be reduced, or taxes lessened, and then tho

whole tiling reverted free to the people. In Wellington, Ohristchurcb, and Dunedin they had all declared for municipal ownership. Dealing with this question of municipal ownership Mr. Hunt pointed out that municipal ownership of the water meant a profit of £7000 a year to the city, and had they had courage to grasp the gas and can-) that on under municipal ownership, as it should have been carried on, that would have meant a profit of £26,000 a year. If municipal ownership was so successful, then why should they not have municipal ownership of the trams'! When he asked the Chamber of Commerce to express an opinion on the matter of the present contemplated monopoly, they said that the city was making a bad bargain, and that was all he (Mr. Hunt) was claiming. As to the position of the Council in .the matter, Mr. Goldie, the Mayor, had told him that lie (the Mayor) had informed - the Council that they had been very foolish in granting the concession, but he did not see how they could get out of it, having committed themselves, but if it were killed at the poll he was going for municipal ownership. Mr. Hunt hoped it would be killed at the poll. With regard to the money required to construct the trams, he was told that it could be raised within 24 hours in London. Then there need be no further delay, and the scheme could proceed at once. If the City Council granted the scheme, as he supposed they would, then five per cent, of the ratepayers on the roll might demand a poll on the question. At the poll one-third of the total number of persons on the roll must vote to kill the concession. The unfortunate part of it was that those who did not. vote practically voted for the monopoly, and so it was rather a difficult thing to get the nepessary number. He would simply say to them, " Be true to yourselves and your children." (Applause.) Mr. A. Rosser said Mr. Hunt had claimed to appeal as a convert to municipal ownership, but he (Mr. Rosser) could not claim to be a convert, since, from a very early age, he bad considered that the water, the light, and the traction power should be owned by the city. His attention had first been drawn to this in Glasgow, where they did not run a thing if it was a losing concern. If he was to preach to them that night he would take as his text, " And Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage." But Esau was hungry, and what would a 1 man not do when he was hungry? But they v re not hungry. For some time they had had no settled scheme, so that they had not known where they were. Now, however, 1 they did know where they were. According to the proposed system in Auckland, the money went into pockets that were already full, and not into the pockets of the working classes. It went into the wrung sort of pockets. They had no power to : interfere with the present Auckland Trainways Company, and could they say that 1 they would have any control over the company that they were to give concessions to? It was proposed that they should part with their privileges to a company when electricity was just in its infancy. He believed that many of the city councillors would slake hands with themselves if the ratepayers stepped in and prevented them (the ' city councillors) from the consequences of ; their action. The burgesses roll numbered a little over 7000. and 5 per cent, of that number (the number required to demand a poll), would be under 400. If, after the poll was taken, the ratepayers were in favour : of the scheme, then they would go into it ' with their •'yes open, and would not be led like lambs to the slaughter. He then moved, "That in the opinion of this mass meeting, municipal ownership of the Auckland tramways would be preferable to monopoly by a company." Mr. George Fowlds seconded. He said be was a great believer in monopoly, but he was opposed to private monopoly. Every monopoly should be held by the people for the people. In every community there were certain things that must take the nalure of a monopoly. It was impossible to have free and open competition in the use of our streets, therefore it was absolutely essential that that monopoly should be held by the people for the people. When travelling through America, he had come to the (rncliision that the secret of the rottenness and corruption that characterised municipal matters there was due to the monopolies held by the tramcar companies. The question of tramways in Auckland was a very serious matter. They had heard some whispers of corruption in the Oit.\ Council. He did not want to speak disparagingly of the City Council. He believed they were good men, but he hoped theii successors would be better men. He hoped the citizens of Auckland would use their power at the ballot-box, and prevent the matter going through. They were selling not only their own birthright, but the birthright of "the unborn millions," that Sir George Grey had talked about. Six years ago Glasgow - had decided to take over the trams, and there had been very much the same cry there as there was now in Auckland, that the City Council ccnld not manage them. Well, the Glasgow City Council took the trams over, and had not 'onlv improved the service, but had also lowered the fares from Id to Jd for the same stages. Within the last 12 months they had instituted electricity, frith the result that the cost of maintaining the trams had decreased considerably, while the fares had been greatly lowered, and the value * of the trams increased. With the increase of passenger traffic, reduction of the cost was bound to taki place, and they must, remembei that the cost of generating electricitv was decreasing every day. He hoped that they would not follow the cry that they were committed to the scheme. Who ! was committed? Had they voted for it? They had a right to demand a poll, and they should do so. The chairman then put Mr. Rosser s resolution to the meeting, it being carried unanimously. Mr.' W. Peake, the next speaker, said he thought it was high time that the ratepayers awoke from their lethargy and got the ■ right men in the City Council.. They had heard what the councils had done in other cities, and why should Auckland not do the same? Why should ' the profits go ■ ■ away from. the ratepayers? He thought it was high time the city took charge of the j grains and ran them. - He moved,, '' Tlta.tj j

the foregoing resolution be respectfully conveyed to the Auckland City Council, and that should the Council grant the concession of a monopoly to Mr. Bingham, this mass meeting pledges itself to demand a poll and to oppose'the concession at the poll with all possible energy." Mr. P. E. Cheal seconded. He maintained that 30 years was too long to give a monopoly to any private company. The overhead system would be obsolete long before that. When he saw what tho London County Council was doing in the way of mnnicipalisation he was constrained to think that we in the colonies were not yet born as far as municipalities were concerned. Whatever the city did with the trams, they should see that a share of the profits were secured to the ratepayers. He heartily supported the proposition that the Council should be asked not to go on with the concession, and if the Council determined to grant it, then a poll should be demanded. The motion was adopted by the meeting, only two hands being held up against it. Mr. Eosser said that the Premier was bringing in a Local Government Reform Bill, which provided that a bare majority of the ratepayers voting should rule any question submitted to the ratepayers. He moved, "That this meeting, having heard of the proposed Local Government Reform Bill, to enablo a majority vote at the municipal polls to carry or veto all municipal matters, desire to heartily thank the Premier for its introduction, and trust that it will pass both Houses of the Legislature in the interests of the citizens." The motion was carried, and the meeting dispersed.