ALBERT STREET TRAMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20599, 25 June 1930, Page 13

ALBERT STREET TRAMS.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ATTITUDE DEFINED. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL. With reference to the Albert Street tram proposal Dr. E. P. Neale, secretary of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, writes:— The anonymous letter from " Civic" in Monday's Herald contains so many inaccuracies that it calls for comment as follows: — (1) The resolution passed at Thursday's meeting of the council of the Chamber of Commerce was recommended by the Chamber of Commerce executke, and was not influenced by the deputation in any way. ' (2) It is not correct (as Civic " states) that the chamber passed a resolution without consulting the Transport Board. On the contrary, some months ago the chamber drew the board's attention to the increasing congestion in Queen Street likely to result from the opening of the new railway station, and in the course of the subsequent correspondence was invited to submit its views on the Albert Street extension to the board. (5) The council of the Chamber of Commerce did not condemn the Albert Street proposal. Its xesolution merely asks the Transport Board to prove beyond all doubt that all capital expenditure on this or any other work contemplated is necessary and economic. (4) As-the Transport Board itself has not yet come to a decision on the Albert Street extension question, it is difficult to see why Mr. Ford and the chairman and members of the board should be feeling hurt at the chamber's attitude, as " Civic " suggests they are. The chamber is, of course, not responsible in detail for the statements made before it by a deputation (or for that matter for any misrepresentation of its attitude). (5) The passing of a resolution by the council of the Cnamoer of Commerce on this subject without referring the matter to the members of the chamber is in accordance with the established custom and the written constitution of the chamber, and is analogous to the passing of a resolution by the City Council without taking a referendum of the ratepayers. • Mr. E. Kitchener writes: —oti have been most generous in giving so much space to my views on tramway extensions. Therefore, "in replying to Sir. Laidlaw's letter in Tuesday's Hebald I will content mvsek" at this juncture by expressing the" wish that he had left generalities alone, and given some attention to the figures I quoted.

POLICY OF SUFPOSTE3S. NO MORE DEPUTATIONS. A deputation recently waited cn the Ciry Council to protest against the Transport Board manager's scheme for bringing trams into Albert Street. No deputation will wait upon the council cn behalf of the Albert Street tram advocates, as the Transport Board was informed yesterday by the West of Queen Street Development Association that it did not propose to organise a deputation to the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce or other bodies. " Our view is that, having made representations direct to the Transport Board we are now prepared to let the matter rest there, recognising that a deputation to the City Council or to other local bodies might savour of an attempt to bring pressure to bear upon your board," stated the association's letter. " This would be entirely contrary to our policy as expressed by the spokesmen from the deputation of our association which waited upon the Transport Board last year. We realise that the matter must be decided by the board with due regard to the need cf giving transportation service to the public, and that, therefore, it would be unfair of our association to seek to prejudice yonr decision bv makine representations to other bodies."