32
fares over routes laid down and it is your Petitioner's strong contention that these fares should not be altered without fair opportunity being afforded the Tramway Company of submitting representations; similarly, of stating its claim for protection against intensified competition by concession of powers as to route extensions.
39. However, on 1st April, 1935, without any such opportunity to your Peti- tioner The China Motor Bus Co., Ltd., were permitted-in addition to certain ex- tensions of routes to institute 2nd class fares equal to the lowest tramway fare on those routes directly competitive with the tramways whilst upon non-competitive routes fare reductions were not introduced.
40. Your Petitioner under the terms of the Tramway Ordinance of 1902 may be required to sell its undertaking (at its then value) in the year 1952 to the Govern- ment who have (quite rightly) never suggested that your Petitioner should replace the tramway system by trackless trolley vehicles or motor buses. At the present time, in fact, Government is constructing a new road of between 75′ 0′′ and 100′ 0′′ in width and is leaving the centre portion of 15' 0" in width and two miles in length for your Petitioner to construct preparatory to laying thereon a reinforced concrete tram- way track.
41. By the relaxation of the original conditions (see para. 48) laid down for motor bus competition your Petitioner is suffering such serious damage as to threaten its ability to maintain what is ultimately the basic and most economical system of mass passenger movement in the City.
42. Your Petitioner most strongly contends that such reduction of a motor bus fare to the lowest tramway fare over the particular immediately competitive routes was not only never contemplated by those who were responsible for drafting Govern- ment Notification No. S. 319 but that the particular provisions were never intended to allow of such adjustment. Further, your Petitioner refers you to Schedule "B" of that Notification for the purpose of showing that your Petitioner was correct in resting assured that on routes where buses competed with trams the bus fare-as hitherto would not be less than the first class tram fare, by reason of the fact that the column provided for "second class" fares is left blank opposite those routes concerned.
43. Your Petitioner has stated that The China Motor Bus Co., Ltd.-within four or five months of commencing operations-applied to Government for certain extensions of routes. Although, on that occasion, Government did not approach your Petitioner as to the increased competitive effect which this would involve, news that applications for such route extensions were under consideration by Govern- ment was with the special permission of His Excellency the Governor, Sir William Peel, K.C.M.G., K.B.E.-privately conveyed to your Petitioner by a member of the Executive Council.
44. Thereupon by its letter to the Hon. the Colonial Secretary dated 3rd November, 1933-Appendix K hereof- -your Petitioner made strong represen- tations to Government with the result that such extensions did not then become effective.
45. Nothing further was heard of contemplated concessions to the Motor Bus licensee until March 1st, 1935, when-through the casual medium of a Chinese newspaper your Petitioner learnt that Covernment had sanctioned certain exten- sions of routes and the introduction of second class fares by The China Motor Bus Co., Ltd., upon directly competitive routes.
46. This your Petitioner would emphasize has been allowed to happen not- withstanding the submissions contained in its letter of 3rd November, 1933.
-7
Although no reply thereto was ever received your Petitioner was left to assume it had satisfied Government that such extensions should not be sanctioned.
47. It should be explained that the tramcars in Hong Kong are double-deckers with the upper deck (as in England) enclosed by a vestibule saloon. The top deck is first class 10 cents-and the lower deck second class-5 cents.
48. When competitive motor bus services were introduced into the City of Victoria (Hong Kong) second class motor bus fares on routes competing with tram- cars were expressly forbidden; the Government by its letter of the 11th June, 1928, addressed to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Hotels, Ltd., laying down the conditions that such services were
to be for one class of passenger only'
and
"fares to be not less than first class fares for the time being on the trains.' Further, over the period during which your Petitioner operated motor buses on the Island of Hong Kong it was also forbidden, similarly, to charge fares less than the first class tram fare. Thus before the passing in England of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 the principle of protection of the established road passenger transport undertaking from unfair and wasteful competition by a new motor omnibus company was recog- nised.
49. When four-a-and-half years later Government called for tenders for the motor bus franchise there was nothing in the wording of Government Notification No. 8.319 of 2nd September, 1932, indicating a departure from this principle.
50. On the contrary there was very definite implication in Schedule B" of that Notification-by reason of the absence, in respect of such routes, of any provis- ion for Second Class fares that on routes where buses would compete with trams there would be no second class fares.
51. From the fact that the tramway services were specifically excluded from the purport and effect of the said Notification and by an expectation of equitable protection implied under the Tramway Ordinance of 1902, your Petitioner also contends that the specification of routes upon which the tender was based indicated a limitation of encroachment upon the tramway area. The natural conclusion is that material departures therefrom are contrary to the spirit and general intention of the newly awarded franchise.
52. Consequently the rumour (and it was nothing more) that Government contemplated permitting such concessions to The China Motor Bus Co., Ltd., in respect of routes competing with the trams was received by your Petitioner with incredulity.
53. However, upon your Petitioner's solicitors' enquiry by their letter of 4th March and subsequent interviews with the Hon. the Colonial Secretary and the In- spector General of Police it became clear that reports contained in the Chinese news- paper to the effect that these concessions had been authorised was not only correct but that the route extensions and second class fares referred to would probably be put into operation within one month. Accordingly, your Petitioner's solicitors again approached the Hon. the Colonial Secretary by letter of 12th March. These two letters are set out as Letters Nos. (1) and (2) of Appendix "S" hereof.
54. Thus, although your Petitioner--thanks to an unofficial member of the Executive Council-was given opportunity to state its case regarding the proposed route extensions in 1933, the recent concessions to the licensee of a far more damaging nature were to have become operative without any chance of objection by your Petitioner had it not been for the statement which appeared in a local Chinese newspaper.
الله
33