THE ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.

Observer, Volume XVIII, Issue 1017, 25 June 1898, Page 2

THE ELECTRIC TRAM WAYS.

Me Biagham's Scheme Adopted.

We congratulate the City Council upon the straightforward and honest policy it pursued at the meeting on '! hursday night with reference to the tramway question which has been under its conaid eration off and on for the last two years. Mr Bingham's scheme, which was conceded to be the better for the city, and the more liberal in its term? to the travelling public, was adopted in preference to Mr Epstein's, and two years were granted to Mr Bingham in which to acquire the almost expired rights of the present tramways and start to work. The advocates of the Epstein' scheme abandoned their cause. They found it impossible to argue any longer that Mr Epstein's proposals were the better ones in the face of the independent and disin- j terested opinion of the City Solicitor and City Engineer to the contrary. Moreover, they could see for themselves that the Bingham scheme was the better of the two. And so it was adopted.

We suggested in onr last, issue that strong influences were at work in support of proposals which the Bank of New Zealand intended to make, offering to put in electrical traction at once. This, be it remembered, was notwithstanding a letter addressed to. the Streets Committee of the City Council six weeks previously by tha Manager of the Bank of New Zealand, stating that the Bank had finally and absolutely sold the tramways to Mr Epstein, and had no longer any interest in them. Yet, in the face of this latter, the Bank of New Zealand approached the Council with unblushing audacity, virtually representing itself as still the owner of the tramways, and asking that the tramway question should be still further delayed for a period of five days to enable the bank management to decide whether it would commence the construction of the electrical tramways.

This is no mere aasertion on oar part. Here are Mr Murray's two letters printed side by side together in parallel columns. They give an unqualified contradiction to each other : — Bank of New Zealand, Bank of New Zealand, Auckland, April 25, Auckland, June 15, 1898. 1698. The Chairman and Mayor and Members Members of the of the Auckland Streets Committee, City Council. City Council, Auck- Sirs,— land. As we understand Sirs,— the question of grant. Auckland Tramways, ing a concession of With reference to the City Tramways is previous . correspond- about to be decided ence, I beg to inform by the Council "we you that the Auckland -would respectfully Tramways have been submit that before absolutely and finally any of the proposals sold to Mr Max Bp- be accepted, in fairstein, on whose- ac- ness to ourselves we count the concern is should be allowed to being worked since have any terms the the Ist instant. I Council is willing to think it desirable to accept first submitted draw your attention to us with a view to to this fact, so that decide within; say, the City Council may five days whether the know the exact posi- Bank itself is willing tion of affairs, and to commence the conany misunderstand- straction within six ing be avoided. — months' time on mak- " Yours faithfully, ing a deposit of £1000.' T. L. Murray, —Yours faithfully, Manager. T. L. Murray, Manager.

Amazement was plainly written on every countenance when the second of these letters was read to the Council Already, the assurance conveyed in'the first letter was familial to every councillor, and yet here was a second letter from the same band confessing in effect that the

statement which constituted the" purpose of the former communication was not true. Was it any wonder then that the Council in> its ' indignation received the letter in stony silence with no more comment than the uplifting of an eyebrow and the significant shrug of a shoulder: If the second letter meant anything, -iC meant that the former one was a diplomatic communication framed for a- specific purpose, ■ and the purpose having failed of accomplishment the Council need not take it seriously.