38
13
12
the relations between your Petitioner and that Department have been and continue to be of the most amicable and mutually helpful nature.
93. Finally, as referred to in para. 42, your Petitioner contends
That Government's original policy, in respect of competitive routes, of licen- sing a first class service only at fares not less than the first class tram fare should be restored.
That Section 8 of Notification No. 8.319 of 2nd September, 1932, whilst providing full power for the Governor-in-Council to increase, extend, curtail or otherwise vary the matter of routes, the running times or passenger capacity of vehicles and to institute additional or substitute routes, does not include any reference to the introduction of second class fares where not specifically provided for,
and especially, that it never was the meaning or intention that second class fares should be introduced on those particular directly competitive routes where no fare is stated in the column headed ** Second Class in Schedule "B of Notification No. 8.319 of 2nd September, 1932.
94. The accompanying road-map plan of the whole of the Tramway area and the competitive Motor Bus routes shows the No. 1 motor-bus route in Green and the No. 5 bus route in Red. These are the routes which, at present, compete most intensively with your Petitioner.
Route No. 2, shown in Violet, would appear to compete equally seriously but at the date of this Petition there is operated on that route a half-hourly bus service only. Further, the Motor Bus Company has not, as yet, reduced the fares on this route below 10 cents.
Hence your Petitioner calls particular attention to Routes Nos. 1 and 5 and a glance at the map will indicate the serious vulnerability of your Petitioner from motor bus competition at equal fares. It will be seen, for example, that both termini of the No. 5 bus route are within a stone's throw of the tramway track and that the No. 1 bus route in its circuit of Happy Valley is actually along the tramway track
95. The Hong Kong Government may hold the view that the recently intro- duced second class bus fare on these routes is in the interests of the Colony in that a large number of the Colony's population greatly convenienced thereby.
96. Your Petitioner declares this view to be a shortsighted one.
As point- ed out by Sir Josiah Stamp, 6.C.B., G.B.E.. and referred to by your Petitioner's Chair- man in Appendix "O hereof it is
"
وو
a fallacy inherent in the popular view, that it is both economically and socially to the advantage of a community that goods or services should
be provided on a low basis of charge which does not afford an economic
return.
Can it be foretold with any confidence that the present low price of petrol and fuel oil will continue over the next 10, 15 or 20 years? Again, should the local Dollar once more drop in value to the very much lower sterling equivalent at which it stood over the years 1930-1933 expenses of petrol, oil, tyres and motor-bus spare parts will greatly increase in terms of Hong Kong Currency.
97. This argument, however, does not apply in the same degree to electric tramways. Due to the much higher efficiency of modern generating stations the tendency is for the cost of electricity to decrease rather than increase and renewals of electric motors are required very much less frequently than renewals of petrol or fuel oil motors (in the proportion of 1 electric motor to 3 or perhaps 4 internal com- bustion engines). Further, electricity for the tramways is produced within the Colony
and not only does this assist one of the Colony's principal public utility companies but the valuable tramway load on the generating station enables other users of electricity to obtain supplies at lower rates than might be economically possible if the tramway load were withdrawn.
98. Your Petitioner claims that it is likely to experience much less difficulty in maintaining its 5-cent tram fare than the Motor Bus Company will experience in maintaining the 5-cent bus fare, always provided that the density of tramway traffic is not seriously reduced by unfair competition.
99. In short, your Petitioner contends that just as railways will continue to be a necessity in Great Britain and for that reason are being protected against intensive and uneconomic bus and road-coach fares so will electric tramways con- tinue to be for many years-a necessity in Hong Kong if low fares over a term of years (and not only over two or three years) are to be regarded as a vitally important consideration.
100. Your Petitioner pleads
That in the full spirit of the purposes, intentions, obligations and agreement enacted by the Tramway Ordinance No. 10 of 1902 your Petitioner's undertaking has been loyally and efficiently maintained, developed and operated throughout its history not solely to its own profit but in the interests of Government and the general public.
That authorities well recognise the fact that such an enterprise cannot con- tinue to be efficiently maintained in the sense of the best public interest if its financial stability is to be undermined by unrestricted competitive attacks.
That the accepted principle of equitable protection to an established and efficient public utility undertaking giving an adequate service is upheld not only in Great Britain but in other parts of the world. That preservation of the existing tramway services in Hong Kong is necessary and its protection a matter of vital importance in the public interest.
In support of the final submission here emphasized, a statement of Mileage Operated and Passengers Carried by your Petitioner's tramcars since 1922 and cover- ing the past six years during which motor-bus competition has been experienced, is set out in Appendix "P".
101. In its recent final appeal to the Hong Kong Government your Petitioner recognised that-in the Government view the claims expressed in the preceed- ing paragraph must, as possibly biased, be accepted with reservation. There fore, your Petitioner, in asking for an official of the Ministry of Transport to be sent to Hong Kong (and suspension in the interim of any further concessions to the motor bus licensee), stressed the importance of an independent transport arbiter whose impartiality, essential experience and technical qualification would--whilst serving to devise reasonable measures for protecting the interests of this long established under- taking, on the lines of Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930-result in recom- mendations acceptable both to Government and your Petitioner.
102. In conclusion your Petitioner sets out in Appendix "S" hereof a record of correspondence between Messrs. Deacons, your Petitioner's solicitors, and Govern- ment upon news of the present development and subsequent to the meeting of the Executive Council held on the 28th March last. Your Petitioner, and its solicitors, are still without reply to the last (No. 6) of those letters.
39