47
29
23
One particular feature of this calls for special comment, namely, the substance of your Petitioner's prayer pleaded in that Petition.
It was the view of your Petitioner that the granting by Government of an exclusive Motor Bus franchise to a competitive undertaking which caused in the first year's operation-a decrease in Tramway receipts of (approximately) $300,000, con- stituted a departure from the spirit and intentions upon which the Tramway Ordin- ance of 1902 was framed. And as the Hong Kong & Shanghai Hotels, Ltd. was required to pay no Royalty for the Motor-Bus concession your Petitioner felt justified in appealing for similar compensatory relief.
Hence the request that Government should agree to revise the governing Ordi- nance by cancelling Section No. 47 thereof which requires your Petitioner to pay a Royalty to Government.
On 10th March, 1930, it was conveyed that His Excellency found himself unable to accede to your Petitioner's request for remission of the Royalty provisions of the Ordinance.
In endeavouring to discover Government's reason for ignoring your Petitioner's claim to consideration over the "Queen's Road" bus route one theory put forward was that Government perhaps objected to your Petitioner enjoying a monopoly of both trams and buses in the City of Victoria.
That theory is incorrect. Efforts were made by your Petitioner early in 1929 and reopened by the Hotel Company a year later to purchase the rights of the "Queen's Road" route from the Hotel Company. The Government was asked to state its attitude in this matter and its reply of 1st April, 1930, is clear :-
"The Government will raise no objection to the purchase by your Company of the benefits and advantages conferred by the Government on the Hong "Kong & Shanghai Hotels, Ltd.”
On July 12th, 1929 (i.e. the year prior to the passing of the Road Traffic Act 1930) the General Secretary of the Municipal Tramways and Transport Association in a paper at Newcastle-on-Tyne said :—
"Lastly, let me stress one important consequence of the present system of "licensing privately-owned motor omnibuses.
"When a bus licence is granted, the Licensing Authority is at present "practically impotent either to withdraw it or materially modify its conditions, "with this startling result :-That when a Bus Company obtains a licence it "secures an interest in what is, in effect, a monopoly, as a gift from the com- "munity (acting through the Licensing Authority) which is, in fact, bartered, "and which often represents one-half of the value of the Company's total "'assets."
The Hong Kong Government was prepared to countenance the bartering of the gift of the "Queen's Road" Motor Bus concession.
The Hotel Company, however, refused to sell the Motor-Bus interests alone but agreed to negotiate on condition that such negotiations covered the Hotel Company's motorcar repair and livery business in addition to the motor bus undertaking. These negotiations finally broke down because of the exorbitant and unreasonable terms de- manded by the Hotel Company who, upon a capitalization of goodwill of the Motor- Bus rights at approximately $2,000,000 asked for 100,000 fully paid-up shares of the Tramway Company and $1,500,000 in Cash.
Your Petitioner's shares at that time were standing at $20. Thus $2,000,000 plus $1,500,000 was demanded--a total of $3,500,000—which was a figure $250,000 in excess of your Petitioner's entire paid-up capital.
That the extraordinary manner of these developments and the importance of consequential issues did not fail to give rise to considerable public comment is shown by quoting from "The Hong Kong Daily Press" of 21st March, 1930 (Enclosure No. 8).
Before closing this Memorandum your Petitioner desires to refer to three matters within the last 13 or 14 years-which might be regarded as unfavourable to them if the Police view, only, were submitted.
The first relates to a statement by Mr. Wolfe that your Petitioner was "not at all anxious either to extend its own services or to put on motor buses "anywhere and you will in this connection probably remember the difficulties con- "nected with my request that the trams should circulate round Happy Valley instead "of terminating at the Jockey Club stands.”
The tramway extension round Happy Valley was asked for in 1921 and although your Petitioner considers that such extension (if rails etc. had been available) should have been done immediately, it was, actually, done the following year (1922).
Secondly, your Petitioner has extended its lines elsewhere in the only possible direction-i.e. to the village of Shaukiwan (its most easterly terminus). This short (quarter mile) extension was carried out in 1929. No tramway extension westward or southward is, or has ever been, either practicable or desirable.
Thirdly, there was a political General Strike in the year 1925 and in a subse- quent letter Mr. Wolfe observed that "the Hotel buses, throughout, ran successfully "while the tramways ceased running."
This was rather a misleading statement.
The facts are that chauffeurs and motor bus drivers were amongst the very few Chinese in the Colony who did not go on strike; nevertheless, had your Petitioner been allowed to do so it could and would have operated a skeleton service during the opening days of that strike.
Your Petitioner's traffic employees in common with the vast majority of all employed labour within the Colony-struck on midnight, the 20th June, 1925, and for nine days no tramcar left the depot. The Police, until June 29th, opposed the sug- gestion that any attempt should be made to operate and then only on condition that two special constables were carried on each tramcar.
From the first day that tramcars were allowed to resume running the whole of your Petitioner's European staff (including the General Manager, the Deputy Manager and the Secretary) with a neucleus of loyal subordinates turned out either as motormen or conductors and continued so to act whilst volunteer employees were being recruited and trained. This training went ahead rapidly and by July 30th one- half of the normal number of tramcars were being maintained in service.
Meanwhile, however, the motor-bus chauffeurs had remained at work.
48
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.