CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4] — Page 442

441

Tramways should be constructed. Those letters are all in

c. S. 0.2350. Further attempts were made later in 189% to

1892. procure a reversal of His Excellency's decision, but the Governor in Council refused to alter it. Rightly or wrongly it was considered that the construction of the New Praye would ren- der the widened road of the old Praya a more suitable route than Queen's Road, at all events west of the Cricket Ground.

In 1896, the Government was approached by another gen- tleman and again,, in 1897, another application from the Belgian Consul was sent in, to allow the construction of an Electric Tramway in Queen's Road,and refused.

Indeed, while any doubts as to the cesser of the rights claimed by the three surviving Promoters exist, it would scarcely be prudent for the Government to grant rights of construction to third persons, against the wish of the Promoters, as regards the routes mentioned in the Ordinance

of 1883.

Since the final decision that the New Praya is not to be extended along the front of the Naval Yard property, it is evident that the Queen's Road route from the Cricket Ground. eastward is the only route for a tramline joining the tramways at the eastern and western extremitirs of the City of Victoria, and this portion of the Queen's Road forms part of tramway No. 2, mentioned in the Ordinance of 1883. So things are rather at a dead lock,- assuring the rights of the original Promoters to remain the real question is, "Can the Governor-in-Council refuse assent to the grant by the Promoters of the right to construct on the ground of lapre of time and the desirability of an alteration of part of the route formally sanctioned?"

The Promoters, or rather the Syndicate, who appear

to me to be the real people interested, and to treat the Pro- moters rather as figurehrads, say "No".

In this state of things, Mr.Orange addressed a letter

dated

?

wiff