I.—la.

16

road, where the evidence tends to show that plaintiff may obviate the disturbance by the use of a single return-wire on each route disturbed by the railway service to which each telephone is connected, and which operates to complete the metallic circuit, and that such device is simpler and less expensive than any the railway could adopt to effect the same end. (Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company v. United Electric Eailway : 42, " Federal Eeporter," 273.) I would now refer to an extract from a number of " Practical Engineering," a standard work, published three or four months ago. This is not a work devoted to one branch of mechanical science more than to another. It is a sort of encyclopaedia:— "... The kind of overhead conductors now most widely used are ordinary round wires. They have been applied in America, both with double and single conductors, with great success. In some American cities laws have been passed prohibiting earth-returns, and the tramway companies have been compelled to put up double conductors. This, of course, much increases the cost of the line, and entails many additional difficulties, chief amongst which is the construction of shunting-switches for passing the cars on to different lines. It is also necessary that the contact-device or trolly should touch both wires at the same time, and great care is required in putting up the conductors. " At the Eoundhay electric tramway, at Leeds, which is an example of the latest and best American practice, one overhead wire is used, and there is now a open war between them and the telephone company, who object to the earth being used as a return, because it interferes with their telephone service. " A similar contest took place at Halle, in Germany, where a small tramway, running about twenty cars, was put into operation a year ago, with overhead conductors and an earthreturn. In Germany the telephones, as well as the telegraphs, are in the hands of the Government; and, directly the tramway company began running, it was stated that they interfered with the proper working of the telephone and telegraph services, and the case came before the lawcourts. It is a very curious thing that in a semi-despotic country like Germany a private company should determine to fight the Government. But they did do so, and, what is more, they won the'day.' ..." These authorities, I submit, clearly show that street-travel is the paramount consideration, and that telephone companies can assert no exclusive right to the use of the streets as a return circuit because they have preoccupied them in advance of the trams, and that, as the single-trolly system is the best, and involves the use of the, streets as a return circuit, none has a higher right to that use than the trams, which are designed to facilitate street-travel and transportation. The question then comes down to this : Is the Government, because it has a defective telephone system —a local profit-making concern—within certain municipalities, to exclude those municipalities from using electric trams —also a local profit-making concern, but likewise of a public character—to exclude them from using their streets for facilitating the very purposes of streets, unless the tramways pay the cost of doing now what the Government will ultimately have to do at its own expense—namely, make perfect its present imperfect system ? That is what the proposals of the Telephone Department amount to. In other words, it seeks to do what a private company, acting under the Electric Lines Act (and there may be cases of that kind — see Section 14) would not have the least foundation for doing. In other words, the Telephone Department ask as the price of its sanction to the Order in Council the cost of giving it a good in place of a defective exchange, and to the benefit of—whom ? Clearly, of itself, because the secrecy and efficiency otherwise of the telephone will be enhanced, and its extension will be more practicable. Such a position on the part of a telephone company would, I submit, for the reasons given, and on the authority of the law cases cited, be wholly untenable. "Why should the Government which fills the place of the private company be in a different position ? The whole trouble arises from the fact that the agreements with the local bodies have to be ratified by an Order in Council. Suppose those local bodies could have granted the right asked for, and the Telephone Department had then attempted to stop the trams. All the cases cited show that the Telephone Department must put itself right, and must make its system self-contained at its own expense. Was it intended that the Government, because it institutes a _ commercial department, by establishing local profit-making conveniences subordinate to the primary use of streets, should withhold its consent to a tramway system, or to an improved motive-power thereon, because thereby such local convenience might be prejudiced ? I submit that the Governor's consent should be granted irrespective of such a consideration, and that the question should be considered as it would be if it were a private company, or some local body, that worked the telephones. Brought down to that point, I submit the position is clear that the tramways ought not to bear any of the cost of putting the telephone system right.

Mr. J. H. Hosking, Dunedin, to the Chairman, A to L Petitions Committee. g IB) — Exchange Chambers, Dunedin, 23rd August, 1893. Ec Dunedin City and Suburban Tramways Company's Petition. I desire, with your permission, to supplement the statements I made before the Committee by adding that the Leeds Tramway case—that is, the National Telephone Company v. Baker—is now reported in the authorised Law Eeports—viz., in the number for June, 1893, of the Chancery Division of the English Law Eeports, p. 186. This case contains a reference to the Watervliet case, mentioned by Dr. Lemon. It is a case called "The Hudson Eiver Telephone Company v. Watervliet Turnpike and Eailroad Company." This case was cited by the Attorney-General as an authority in favour of the telephone company; but on his doing so it was pointed out that in that