WE MUST BUY EVENTUALly.

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 925, 19 September 1896, Page 6

WE MUST BUY EVENTUALIy .

Then, "Why Not Face the Position

Now?

Another point that requires consideration is that at the end of forty years the Council must pay for the tramways onehalf the original cost. Now, the original cost is just what this syndicate chooses to say it is. Forty years from now, the tramway lines and plant will be pretty well worn ont, the system will probably be obsolete, and yet the Council will be bound to buy the whole concern back at what a new outfit would have cost forty years previously, when materials and labour were more costly, and when labour-saving appliances had not reached the degree of perfection that they are bound to attain forty years hence. Now, if it is a good thing to buy these tramways back in forty years, when they are worn out, why not build them at once, when they would be new and remunerative '? On the one hand, we allow this syndicate to work the tramways and take the profits from them until they are so much old iron, and then the ratepayers must perforct step in and relieve the syndicate of a played-out service. On the other, the ratepayers build the tramways at once and reap the profit from them, and then, forty years hence, when they are worn out they can tell them and go in for a better and more modern system. The latter proposal is good business. The former is simple folly.

It is not that the amount of money involved is a very great snm. The city and suburban boroughs can raise £150,000 quite as easily as the Messrs Parrish can. And as for the annual interest of £5,000 or £6,000, what is it when we contrast it with the advantages that would bo secured to us,

and the profits the service would earn? And when we reflect that we shall be committed to this expenditure forty years hence, whether we like it or not, in buying these tramways from this syndicate when they are worn out and so much old iron, the wisdom of a policy of enterprise and self-reliance now is palpable. The Observeb quite agrees with the councillors who think the electrical system of tramways is the best. But it is strongly of opinion that these tramways will prove to be a most remunerative estate, and should be owned by the people.

One ground for uneasiness in connection with this tramway matter is the overweening eagerness of some of the councillors to burke discussion and push this Parrish Echeme through with indecent haste. It is all very well for Councillor Kidd and others to adopt the role of Simon Pare and hold up their hands to show they are clean. Surely they doth protest too much. Also, they are not all so discreet and tactful as Councillor Kidd. Someone occasionally puts his foot into it, and as often as not that someone is the Mayor. Was it not he who made the sly attempt to invest his special committee of six with power to att, which attempt followed a whispered conversation with Mr It. EHunt, but was shut down upon by a Btorm of ' noes ' from the startled councillors ?

And, also, was it not our worthy Mayor who endeavoured to steal a march upon the opponents of these concessions by declaring tLe vote upon Councillor Farrell's amendment a tie and giving his casting vote against it. Councillor Farrell had been counting hands also, and promptly retoited that there was no tie, and called for a division. The result of that division was once more against the Mayor. These little things don't look well. Mr Holland is a trifle too anxious, and over-anxiety in delicate matters of this kind is apt to spoil the soup.

But His Worship's faux pas is as nothing compared with one perpetrated by the Town Clerk. The arrangement was that the special committee of the whole Council should meet on Thursday evening. Since then, however, the following official circular has been issued to councillors : — ' Re Tramways : Special Meeting.— Owing to the unavoidable absence of the promoters, the Special Meeting convened for Thursday, the 17th instant, will be postponed until Tuesday, 22nd inst.— P. A. Philips, Town Clerk.' Now, it would be interesting to know who are the promoters mentioned in this circular. Mr E. B. Hunt and Councillor Kidd are the only gentlemen who, being present at the last Council meeting, are now absent from Auckland. Surely we are not to understand from the circular that Councillor Kidd is one of the promoters. That is certainly the impression officially conveyed. And, so far as Mr Hunt is concerned, why should the Council not proceed to the consideration of such an important matter of public business as the tramways question in his absence? Ishis presence imperatively necessary ? And, if so, why so ? This circular is certainly odd. Somehow, it looks as if Mr Hunt had a lease of the-Council, if not of the tramways.

The attitude of Councillor Farrell and those who are supporting him in this matter commands the warmest admiration of the Ouserveb. Councillor Farrell is invariably found to be fighting the cause of the people. And in this matter he has the interests of the people at heart. His motion was a judicious and sensible one, viz., ' That the report be referred back to the Special Committee with instructions to prepare proposals for taking a vote of the city ratepayers on the following issties : («) To acquire the existing tramway right and undertake in conjunction with the suburban boroughs the construction of an efficient tramway system ; (b) that the Council be authorised to contract with the Messrs Parrish or any other responsible company, for the erection and completion oi an efficient tramway system.' This was seconded by Mr Warren, but after being adopted; was set aside in favour of a proposal to refer the question to a special committee to be composed of the whole Council. But before this tramway estate is finally dealt with the sense of the ratepayers.should be taken on the question.