THE CHAMBERS PROPOSALS

Observer, Volume XVIII, Issue 1018, 2 July 1898, Page 2

THE CHAMBERS PROPOSALS

Is Epstein Behind Them?

An adroit and cunning endeavour is being made to create sympathy for Messrs Chambers and Son and their scheme by the story that their principals were not in a position to instruct tbem to tender until the very day on which (he Council decided the matter. Perhaps this is true. And, granting the troth of this story, who are John Chambers and Son's principals ? Are they not Epstein and . Co ? Also, was this not the reason why Chambers and Son were unable to tender until last 1 hnrsday week, that Epstein did not hiow until that day that Jiis proposals would be rejected ? There is no use beating about the bush. It is impossible to disassociate Max Epstein from the Chambers scheme.

The Chambers proposals are simply a modification of -Epstein's. This may be seen at a glance. 1

Then, again, Mr Epstein has pnt himself forward as abaolnte owner of the existing tramways, and is possessed of documents to prove that be is the owner. Notwithstanding thia ownership, Chambers and Son have offered to forfeit £1000 if they are not ifi a position to pull up the present tram-rails within two months. We appeal to their own letter for proof of what •we Bay. Now, how in the name of all that is sensible could Chambers and Son guarantee under a penalty of £1000 to pu'l up the tram-rails belonging to Epstein within two months unless tbey had a hard and-fast agreement with Epstein assuring them that power ? Moreover, Chambers and Son's letter giving this undertaking was in the Council's possession before Epstein's proposals were rejected, so that the hard-and-faßt agreement between Chambers and Epstein must have been made before the Epstein scheme toas thrown out by the Council. Is it not more than probable that it was actually made in view of this contingency ?

Do the people who are patting forward this sympathy story think the Councillors are fools and cannot see through this business as plainly as themselves ? It is simple enough. Epstein is a tenderer for the construction of the electric tramways, and to strengthen his own hands he acquires the rights to the existing tramways at great expense. Is he going Jo convey an as* surance of those rights to John Chambers and Son, and place them in a position to compete with him at no cost to themselves, if there is the slightest chance of his own tender being accepted ? Max Epstein is not goat enough for that. But finding the Streets Committee's report was against him, and that there was no chance of his tender being accepted, is it not more than probable that he arranged with John Chambers and Son to put in a lower tender than Mr Bingham's at the twelfth hour, and authorised them to gaarantee to commence work on the present tram-lines within two months under a penalty of £1000 ? This is the explanation that naturally suggests itself.

Now, it this waß the origin of the Chambers and Son tender — and the probability is that it wae — then it furnishes a powerful additional reason why this' question should not be re-opened. Mr Epstein and Mr Binghard were afforded a fair and equal opportunity of placing their tenders before the Council. The terms offered by Mr Bingham were the more liberal and were accepted. The Council had no alternative bat to make the best bargain it could for the city, and the bargain it made was an excellent one. Snrely this ought to end the matter. But it does not. Lo and behold, John Chambers and Son, who are residents in the city, who trade in electrical appliances, and who were consequently familiar with every step of these negotiations, come knocking at the door -of the Council at the twelfth honr with a fresh scheme which smells ao strongly of Epstein that, to employ a metaphor, the Councillors are fain to hold their nostrils lest they should be overpowered. And it is under such conditions as these that some newspaper writers would like to make better terms for the City at the cost of the Council's dignity and honour. Eangh !

Heaven knows that Epstein and his schemes have had very patient consideration from the City Conncil. It is not very long since the Conncil was wholly at his mercy in this electrical tramways matter. He was the only tenderer. And if he had not been too exacting, and over-anxious to make a big bargain for himself and his people, the contract with him wo aid have been signed long ago, and he would now be constructing the new tramways. But he wanted far too much. It was in his power long long ago to close the whole matter on the basis of a thirty years' lease. Then he wanted a forty years' lease. And when this was conceded, nothing but a fifty years' lease would satisfy him.

Surely the Council exercised great patience with him. Then Mr Bingham came along with hia business-like deposit of £1000, his lower scale of fares, and hia

offer to construct the tramways on the basis of a thirty-years' lease. Whereupon Mr Epstein immediately dropped down in his terms, and he has been dropping down ever since, until, as we shrewdly Buapect, he dropped down to bed-rock in the Chambers and Son's tender. This is a further reason why the City Council should tarn a deaf ear to any back- stairs proposals to repudiate the contract with Mr Eingham, who has been so straightforward and liberal in his dealings.