ST. MARTINS TRAMWAY BILL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 187, 12 September 1914, Page 10

ST. MARTINS TRAMWAY BILL.

REPUDIATION ALLEGED.

REPLY BY MR J. A. PLESHER. „

When the report of the Local Bills Committee was before the House the other evening, Mr G. W. Russell said that the Bill was a repudiation of an obligation which had been deliberately incurred by the St. Martins ratepayers. Mr McCombs stated that Mr Russell's statements were grossly unfair, and a similar protest has been published by the president of the St. Martins Burgesses' Association.

Mr J. A. Flesher, chairman of tffil -\ Tramway Board, states that the Bill ' promoted by the St. Martins Burgesses' Association, and which Mr Russell was discussing, did propose a legislative alteration of a compact which had been entered into by the St. Martins ratepapers—an alteration which would have the effect of relieving the ratepayers of a considerable share of a rating obligation which they had voluntarily taken on themselves. The Tramway Board had agreed to construct the St. Martins tramway on the distinct understanding expressed in correspondence over and v over again, that 2 per cent, depreciatio* and "2 per cent." renewal charges would be made at the commencement of operating, and that any deficiency aftei these charges had been made would be made good by the ratepayers by way oi rate.

The Bill in connection with which Mi Russell-used the strong term mentioned, proposed that these depreciation and renewal charges should not be made for two years, and that during the third year only half the amount should b« charged. After the objects of the Bill had been exposed, and after other members'besides Mr Eussell had referred to the pro> ceeding .in similar • uncomplimentaryterms, Mr MeGombs suggested a radical alteration which he claimed would have the same effect" in N the long run as the proposal first agreed- upon by the Martins Burgesses' Association, but which they had attempted to alter. The board would express its opinion on thia proposal in due course. ..• . ,

It was idle for the St. Martins people to. now attempt to get away from the fact that their Bill, which they pressed on the House, did contain proposals which justified the severe criticism tft, which it had been subjected, if this was not so, why had Mr MeGombs submitted this radical alteration?

During the discussion Mr Witty is reported to have said that the board '. was now seeking to enforce strict compliance with a contract which it-at-tempted itself to break last year.; This is not correct. When the proposals for previous extensions were being discussed with the ratepayers concerned it was clearly stated that the board would charge against the revenue of such extensions if sanctioned an annual levj of 2 per. cent, for depreciation and a, similar amount for renewals. This .is also proved by the correspondence which took place with those interested in the matter. ' The estimated rate was based on the inclusion -■ of eharges for depreciation and renewals. Although, the board did ;not then- possess power to levy a rate for* such -charges, its intention to seek:such power was clearly indicated.

The board, in seeking to obtain legislative authority in regard to these matters, was merely "carrying out its previously expressed intention, .and was not breaking any contract,' because nona had been entered into in this respect.

To the Editor of THE SUIT,

Sir, —Judging from the report of the proceedings in Parliament (as contained in .THE SUN of even, date), on Thursday night, some, of the members are greatly alarmed over the proposals contained in the St.* Martins, Burgesses Association 's Tramway Amendment Bill.

One or .two of .these worthy gentlemen did not scruple to apply the word '' repudiation-'' to the prpposals contained in the Bill. . *-

Here are the proposals regarding the "renewal and .depreciation fund," viz., "that the operations of'the fund should" be suspended for two years, the third year two per cent', should be set aside for the fund; and thereafter as in the principal Act." Now there is ; ndt"a word that would"* bear the construction placed upon it by the opponents of the Bill, and if a precedent is required, to go upon, then I can point to the fact that for several years after the Christchurch Tramways were run, there was nothing at all pai<3 over to such a fund;*yet no one even ' hinted at '' repudiation',' at that time. . New men, new ideas,, I-. suppose in this as in many other : things. There is nc danger whatever to therdebenture hold-. ers in. the, proposals of.-;the St.'Martins - people, and no one. who; is not already biased would see it inthe light spoken of by Messrs G. W. Bussell and Pearce. The word was coined by Mr J. Flesher, chairman', of the Tramway Board, at a meeting of the Local Bills Committee, and several members of the committee took him to task very severely for making use of <such a word. The St. Martins people are ithe only people who have taken" upon themselves extra financial responsibilities in connection with a tramway line; and they will carry put their obligations to the satisfaction of the debenture holders, without fail. In regard to the supposed " syndicate,'' let me say that so far as I know there is no'such a body in existence in the St. Martins district.—l am, etc.,

JAMES W. HUNTER, President, St. Martins Burgesses' Association. 11/9/14.