PARNELL AND THE ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12000, 24 June 1902, Page 3

PARNELL AND THE ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.

A DISPUTE OVER THE CONDUIT PIPES. A long discussion took place at ilie meeting of the Parnell Borough Council last evening regarding a dispute which lias arisen between that body and the Auckland Electric Tramways Company as to the right of the latter to lay its conduit pipes under the footpaths in the borough.

Mr. Hansen, attorney of the Tramways Company, wrote acknowledging receipt of a letter from the Council in which a request was made for £50 fur the right of laying conduit pipes tinder the footpath, and stating that, on behalf of his company, he must, absolutely and definitely decline to pay the Council the sum asked. The company's agreement with the Council did not, he said, provide for such a payment, and, furthermore, such a payment or an equivalent concession, if made, would also have to be made in other districts. After his recent conference with the Mayor, town clerk and one of the councillors (where everything appeared to be satisfactorily settled and consent given to the new route of the conduits) he was greatly surprised to receive such a request from the Council. The company hud not asked the Council's permission to do the work, as such permission had already been branted by Order-in-Council and the deed of delegation. The company merely asked the Council's approval of the new route, which was forced upon the company by the demands of the Telephone Department. The work had been approved by the Council in November last. it was now more than seven weeks since the plans were placed before the Council, and considering the recent bad weather, it would be only fair on the part of the Council to give the company every possible facility to do the work promptly. The Council must not arbitrarily withhold permission for the laying of the conduit pipes, ami the demand for the payment of £50 was contrary to the terms of the agreement. In conclusion Mr. Hansen said:—"We are now so close to the completion of our scheme that any unnecessary delay in connection with our construction works may result in great lo=s of time, and it will certainly bo in the interests of the inhabitants of your borough to give my company every possible facility and inducement to complete our works as quickly as circumstances will permit us to do." Mr. London said that the company was setting tho Council at defiance. Mr. Hansen stated that the plans showing the deviation of the conduit pipes would bo sent in seven weeks ago, but lie omitted to state that tho Council had not given its approval to those plans. It was time that some substantial steps were taken to bring the company to its bearings and to make it realise that the Council was not now quite so supine as it had been in the past. The company's attitude was simply another attempt to override the borough. He moved, "That the letter be referred to the borough's solicitors with instructions to take whatever action they may think necessary." Mr. Slater seconded. He considered the action of the company most extraordinary. Mr. Gilmour moved as an amendment that the letter be received. The Council had already granted the company permission to carry the conduit, as well as the tramway, through the borough. Mr. Slater: Yes, on the streets. Mr. Gilmour said that the question as to whether the route of the conduit should be along the street or along the footpath was a mere technical one. A great many people were of opinion that the deviation to the footway was a good thing. The Council should give the company every possible facility to get the work carried through, and in this case the easiest way was the right and best way. There was no room for the conduit pipes on the street, and it was better for all concerned that it should be taken under the footpath. There, had been no inconvenience whatever to the public, and the objection that was now being raised was, he repeated, only a technicality. The Council would be very unwise to enter into any legal proceedings. The Mayor (Mr. Fit!) seconded the amendment. Mr. Wood said that the Council had granted the permission to lay the pipes, and he agreed with the arguments of Mr. Gilir.our. The company was only doing work, for which the right had been granted to it, and the Council would be prudent not to waste its money. Their position was one of which they need not be ashamed. Mr. Briggs'said that the Streets Committee had given the company permission to go under the footpath on certain conditions, which the company would not accept. The Mayor and one of the councillors afterwards had seen Mr. Hansen, and had given him permission to carry out the deviation, but this permission had never been given by, the Council. The cutting up of the footpath meant a great deal of inconvenience to the people, and the Council should take a. stand in the matter. Mr. Gilmour repeated that, the Council would be very foolish to carry the matter any further. It was not the first time that the "Council had made a demand and then had to back down. He had not heard anyone say that there was any inconvenience arising from the deviation. As to going to law that might mean a matter of £200. The Mayor: It may cost us £3000. Mr. Petfcrd said that if the company had the right which other councillors said they had, it was strange that it should ask the Council's permission at all. It might be the right thing to nut the pipes under the footpath, but the Council should uphold its own dignity. Mr. London was surprised at some of the expressions which he had just heard. Should they, he asked, for the sake of a few pounds, be content to sit still and be kicked, whenever a person or a company was in the humour "to kick? The orginal plans were still in force, and the fact that the company haul asked the Council's assent to the deviation, was proof enough that the Council's permission was considered necessary. As to the cost involved by his motion, he merely proposed that the Council be guided by those who were paid to guide them in such matters. If their solicitors advised that the company were acting improperly, they should proceed accordingly, and move for an injunction to compel the stopping of the work. This could be done in 48 hours, and would he a matter of only a few pounds. The amendment was lost, and the motion carried, Messrs. Gilmour and Wood dissenting. _, ■