1:
443
be submitted to the Secretary of State ar there seemed some
divergency of opinion on the subject.
I may point out that when the 1883 Ordinance was
passed, electricity was not an ordinary motive power, but the
Ordinance provides, by section 36, that the "carriages may be
moved by animal, steam or any mechanical power".
When the Electric telegraph companies heart of the
proposal to use the electric trolley system, the Acting Manager
wrote to the Colonial Secretary the letter of 8th. February
1899. (annexed).
Whether any weight is to be attached to that and
other objections as to the effect of the electric trolley
system on pipes and wires adjacent to the line, I do not know.
It is rather a question for experts.
It seems to me the points to be settled are (a) should
Ordinance 6 of 1883 as amended be repealed.
(b) Should the alleged rights of the survivors of the
original Promoters named in that Ordinance be, in
any way; recognised in any new or amending Ordinance
regulating tramway construction along the routes
contemplated by Ordinance No. 6 of 1883.
(c) If a General Tranwys Ordinance is to be passed
giving power to issue licenses what is the best model
to follow.
Personally it seems to me:-
(1) That, the gentlemen forming the original syndicate
have no legal claims whatever.
(2) That the Promoters have some technical legal claim,
to be allowed to grant rights of construction minus
the compulsory powers; but that as the assent and
approval of the Governor-in-Council is a condition
precedent the question is narrowed down to this,
"what will justify with holding ruch assent and
approval".?
·1
A