THAT TRAMWAY GRAB

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 922, 12 September 1896, Page 2

THAT TRAMWAY GRAB

The 'Star' Pleads the ßoodlin? Cause.

If there is one thing more than another that should arouse the citizens of Auckland to an interest in the tramway question, it is the attitude assumed by the Star. Time was in the history of Auckland when the Star was an earnest advocate in the cause of the people. Time was when its foot rested heavily on the boodler and monopolist. Leastways, the Star said it did, and the people believed the fiction, and supported the Star, which gradually waxed fat, and wealthy and prosperous. And now> being a wealthy concern, the Sfar is invariably found to be on the side of the capitalist and the monopolist. It advocated the cau9e of the Kauri Timber Company against the miners of the Hauraki goldfields ; it supported J. C. Firth in his scheme to spread-eagle the Waikato river for bis electric power scheme ; and now it is pleading with all its artful craftiness that a local syndicate should have, free of charge, the option of Belling to Parrish Brothers the tramway rights of our city for a period of forty years.

Even the Herald, -which is the accredited organ of capital in Auckland, stands aghast at the audacity of this grab, and urges the City Council to follow the lead of Glasgow, and take over and run these tramways in the interests of the inhabitants of the city, to whom they naturally belong. The Herald is an uncompromising opponent of State socialism, and yet it sees in this tramway estate a considerable and constantly increasing revenue, -which would go a long way, by-and-bye, towards lessening the city taxation. This is self-evident. Our water supply system is a useful object lesson in this connection. At the outset, it was strenuously opposed on the score of expense, which is also the bogie created to frighten the ratepayers into compliance with this Stewait-Parrish gift, and yet we have no service that is paying us so well today as our water supply. Then, again, look at the enormously-wealthy trust which the Auckland Gas Company has built up solely from the gigantic concessions gifted to it by the corporation and suburban boroughs of Auckland. Every year it is accumulating and dividing vast profits which should be going into the municipal coffers and lightening the load of taxation that presses so heavily upon the property owners of the city.

Surely this tough experience of a gas monopoly alone ought to teach us the lesson that what will pay other people to do for us will also pay us to do for ourselves. This Parrish company would not huy the option of these tramways from James Stewart if it did not see in the transaction the certainty of a considerable annual profit. The Parrishes are men of knowledge and experience, their judgment may be relied upon, and there is in these negotiations alone a guarantee that the annual interest and cost of working the tramways would be more than covered by the revenue. Then, if an electric tramway service will pay the Messrs Parrish, it would equally pay the city. Also, we would have the advantage of local control, the manage-

ment would be subjected to local criticism, and the service would be run in the best interests of the community.

The cost of the scheme is the bogie which is being effectively used in the interests of James Stewart and the Messrs Parrish. The Star trots it out when it asks : Will the ratepayers be willing to increase the present public debt of the City of Auckland, amounting to £449,900, by say £200,000, for this purpose ? Now, £200,000 is not even required for the scheme. Competent electrical engineers estimate that the whole expenditure would be less than £150,000. And, allowing that this would be added to the public debt, the income from the tramways would defray the interest and leave a substantial annual profit towards the borough finances, which profit under the present arrangement must go into the pockets of a foreign syndicate.

Moreover, £150,000 is not a great sum of money. The Harbour Board threw away more than this on a graving dock that is fifty years ahead of the times. It squandered half as much on another dock on the western side of the wharf which is useless except as a swimming bath. But here, we have a vast passenger traffic awaiting these tramways. The service would pay handsomely from the outset, because the system is an inexpensive one to work. Also, money is very cheap just now. The whole £150,000, even if so much were required, could be borrowed at 3§ per cent, or an annual charge of £5000. This, then, is the extent of the bogie. Five thousand pounds per annum would secure to the people a tramway service of their own, which service would have a great annual earning power, and would gradually grow with the expansion of the city into a magnificent and valuable public estate. And we are asked to give up this estate of the people in order that a few speculators may sell these rights for their own profit ) and divide forty or fifty thousand pounds of foreign money between them as a re ward for their cnteness.

Also, this .£SOOO per annum would not fall solely on the city. It has been proposed, and sensibly so, that these tramways should be built by the city and suburban boroughs, andmanaged by atrust composed of delegates from each. Under such a scheme, each borough wonld own its share of the electric tramways, would bear its proportion of the cost, and would participate annually in the profits. The scheme is not only feasible — it is sensible and judicious. The Star tries to frighten the ratepayers by certain figures in relation to the Melbourne tramways. But the Star knows full well that the cable system used in Melbourne is the most costly system there is ; that in the boom period the Melbourne tramways were built to suburbs which do not now yield traffic enough to pay for greasing the axles of the cars ; and, finally, that the Melbourne trams, in spite of these disadvantages, pay a very good profit on their original cost. Also, if the argument of the Star means anything at all, it is that tramways are not a payable investment, and that is a contention that even their own friends, the Messrs Parrish, evidently don't agree with.