THE TRAMWAY POLL.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16476, 21 October 1927, Page 4

THE TRAMWAY POLL.

(To tho Editor of the Herald.) Sir, —I notice legal advice has been forwarded to the Borough Council, pointing out the pains and penalties should a further poll not be taken in lieu of tho one recently voided. The position now appears very complicated. The last, poll upon the tramway question was declared void, following upon the Supreme Court decision by Mr. Justice Herdman, which. Mr. Levvey considers, applies to oar local tramways problem. What is our (rue legal position? Mr. Justice Herdman has decided that the " full franchise" is necessary to determine a tramway proposal, and the Tramways Act, 1908, and amendments, clearly states that a poll of " ratepayers " may determine whether or not a discontinuing Order-in-Council shall be applied for. To save further litigation, it is incumbent upon the Borough Council to hava Mr. Justice Herdman's verdict, and the demands of tho : Tramways Act reconciled. If 1 am not mistaken, Mr. Justice Herdman decided upon tho question, as to who should affirm the principle of inaugurating a municipal tramway system. Upon tliis verdict Mr. Levvey has de-. cided that a full franchise is necessary at tho next poll upon the rjuestion of discontinuing our trams. The question appears to be, " What proposal must the burgesses decide upon in the full franchise?" The. public cannot apparently decido whether an Order-in-Coun-cil shall be applied for or not, the Tramways Act undeniably delegates that privilege to tho ratepayers alone. Tt! certainly appears that all procedure followed so far to secure tram discontinuance has been wrong, and not in legal form. The theory I advance for con-, sidoration is that a proposal is put to, the full franchiso relative to the question, " Shall tho tramb he discontinued, or not?" I am further of opinion that the intent of the Tramways Act implies the necessity for some concrete alternative to the system in vogue being submitted to the burgesses, prior to a poll being taken. There must be two factors to determine upon in a public

service question. No public community could be expected to vote blind to throw away substance for a shadow. Presuming "the suggested proposal was put to the vote, and the burgesses, by a majority, voted' discontinuance of the present system, in favor of the .submitted alternative system, the council would then in sequence advertise, as demanded by the Tramways Act, thai they intended to apply" for a discontinuing Order-in-Council. This gives tho • ratepayers the privilege conferred by tho Tramways Act, to petition, by 5 per cent, of their number, demanding a further poll, should:the financial outlook not be to the ratepayers' liking. This provision of the Tramways Act is certainly a wise one, for although the burgesses may favor a change, the financial position, relative to the ratepayers, may have a different aspect. Of course the ratepayers may agree with the burgesses that the change -would be advisable, and then a simple process, of

allowing the proposal to apply for an Order-in-Oouncil to pass unchallenged, would automatically grant the council full permission to secure the discontinuing Order-in-Council. Some of yoar readers may say to themselves, " Yes, but supposing 'the burgesses vote to keep the trams?" Well sir, seeing that, it. tram system is deemed a public service, paramount to any financial question, after the system is installed, I don't think any sane municipal body would proceed in defiance of a majorityvote of the public. There' appears to be a sound argument to contest any further poll upon the lines previously I followed, and the council should g»M down to absolute bedrock on the legaly side of the tramway question, and possibly save money.—l am. etc. SAM J. PEARSON.