7
the petition, but has failed to see any
ground on which he would be justified
in interfering with the discretion of the
Hồng hong
overnment.
#Rlowell
4-8.35
Min. Duncan
lagree with Mr. Cowell's observations.
This Petition does not raise seriously any
lefal question.
The
only point of
a
lyal nahm
seems to be that raised by paras. 42 and 5.0 Notification for Kenders and of the of time Petition, that the times of the Recence to
^
the Bus Coy C Affender GVH) qui mai lo te inference that fares would and he ass than those
indicated in Schud B of the Notification.
Infact
Infact -ten
Notification quis nie to no such inference, it (and tim licina) being concerned with maximum fares and if it had, it would crah no legal right in the Tramway Coy. The Licuice also contanis provision (para. 6)
for satrusion and alteration of routes, so tiu Pékinoness
ligal
have
no complaint
this
ground.
ᄉ
The
only ground on which I tamil the Phus have
some cause to complain is that they
weve
ent moind
to make representations to the Goo. when the application
was made by the Bus Coy at the beginning of this
J
Jean
to extend their routes. His clear that such Exkursion
and be likely to affect the Tramway Co; and, though the
wo