MOUNT EDEN ROAD BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12856, 3 May 1905, Page 7

MOUNT EDEN ROAD BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Speaking at the annual meeting of the ratepayers in 1902, Mr. Nicholson, one of the members of the above Board, stated, dealing with the tramway question, that " nothing had been lost by the delay in making the concessions to the Tramways Company. They would profit by it by having the experience of other districts." At last year's meeting the .same gentleman, quoting from the annual report, said "the Board had no reason to doubt the correctness of certain statements which had been made that the tramcars would be running on both roads in the district before the end of the year." But 1904- has gone, and four months of 1905 have also passed, and the question one a.-Jcs one- I self is: "Where arc the train cars?" To ; which echo answers "Where'.''' Why those of us who listened to Mr. Nicholson allowed ourselves to be gulled into voting for the members of the Board at next day's poll is a mystery to many of us now, though one thing is quite certain, we will not make the same mistake again. The annual report to March 31, 1905, is now in the hands of the ratepayers, and those ] of us who have supported the Board in the I past because- we believed their policy with ' regard to the' tramways was the best for the district, have reason to regret having ever eorno to such a conclusion, Instead of "nothing being lost," as stated by Mr. Nicholson in 1902, it now appears that the Tramways Company have got practically everything their own way, and the Board, instead of dictating terms, will have to accept the company's terms, which the ratepayers will not fail to observe are nothing like as favourable as those that might have been obtained some years ago but for the mistaken attitude of the Board. .Allow me very briefly to draw attention to two of the many weak points in the„ proposals submitted by Mr. ■ Hansen to his directors. 1. Tho construction of the tramways need not be completed for three years. Had the original otter of the company been accepted cars would in all probability have been running on both roads long ago. 2 .The company are not bound to make any concessions to residents. Tin'."! means that working men, who should not be slow to note tho fact, will havo to pay at least, 4d per day instead of 3d (return fare), an increase of 33 1-3 per cent., or £5 4s instead of £3 18s per annum. Tin's may not be a serious matter to the members of the Board, but I venture to say that it will be to the majority of the residents. How, in the face of the foregoing facts, the Board can conclude the report, with a, statement that " the ratepayers will see that a. satisfactory solution of the difficulty has been arrived at" passes my comprehension. —I. am, etc., Watchman, TO THE BUITOE. ►Sir,—On reading the Herald this morning I was very much surprised to learn that if we are to have tramways at all in our district we must of necessity have the cars running on Sundays. Th» Board have stated at their meeting- on Monday night that the Tramways Company refuses to discuss matters except on the terms proposed by them, including the right to run cars on Sundays. I cannot help thinking that it would have been much better if the Board had accepted the offer of tho Tramways Company threo or four years ago before the question of Sunday trains was raised, and when we would certainly then have had tho samo concessions of 25 per cent, as have been allowed, to Eden Terrace and other districts. The Board have held out for a long time in their refusal to permit tramways in the district, but it seems that there is not a single one of the Tramways Company's proposals now made that the Board are objecting to. According to the Board's statement, the tramways are not to come within three years from the date of the Order-iii-Council, but even within this period we have not the right, as tho other districts have bail, to decide for ourselves whether or not Sunday should ho desecrated and the quiet Sabbath rest which our district lias heretofore enjoyed broken by the hurry and scurry incident to the running of trams. I am quite certain that, if a poll of the ratepayers were taken there is not one out of 10 who would favour the running of tramways on Sundays. Is it not, possible that another representative might be able to arrange some modifications with the Tramways Company, both as regards this matter and in respect to concessions to residents''—[ am, etc.. May 2. Mount Eden Ratepayer.