Sept. 2. yesterday's issue of the "North-China Daily. News" an anonymous correspondent took up the cudgels on behalf of the Tramway Company with no small amount. of confidence.
Twice he makes practically a demand for an answer to his arguments, thereby conveying the impression that he regards his contentions as unanswerable, else that we are frightened to join issue with the Tramway Company, an attitude rather dificult to understand.—Our correspondent's arguments are, in point of fact, very easily answerable, A few general observations regarding the recent criticisms of the company may be advisable, Anyone who cares to study the "North-China Herald" of some few years ayo, or any old resident with a good memory, will see or will remember that, since the earliest days of the Tramway Company's existence, there have been protests innumerable with regard to overcrowding on the trams and the dangers attaching thereto, yet the practice has continued in spite of the existence of both police and company rules against it, Prior to, say, the last two years, is there any evidence that the Company has made any serious effort to prevent overcrowding? For instance, let us take three years at random and ask what prosecutions for breach of its rules were instituted by the Tramway Company in 1910, 1918 and 1919,. If we could get an answer to this it would be interesting to publish it side by side with a list of prosecutions and convictions of mafoos and chauffeurs (especially mafoos) for allowing more than the authorized number of passengers carriages, or permitting people to ride on the steps of motor-cars, or of truck drivers for allowing dangerous riding on their vehicles. Yet is there any difference?
Criticism became more pointed and eventually—we think it was well over a year ago—the Municipal Council insisted that all tram cars should be fitted with safety gates. Kven yet many of them are without gates. Further, it was ordered that numbers signifying the carrying capacity of the cars should be painted in a prominent place, obviously with the idea that none in excess of such numbers should be carried. Thereafter we saw in the cars "20 seats," "22 seats," or whatever the number happen-be, but can any person give evidence of any attempt whatever to limit the number of passengers accordingly? Indeed, has been remarked before, it seemed to be imagined that the only purpose of the gates was to prevent people falling off the cars, for passengers were packed clit as ever and not infrequently it was alla conductor could do to force the gate home. The agitation continued, with the result that quite recently the police insisted that the carrying capacity de finitely should be stated and that no excess passengers should be carried. Such a rule is not unique: indeed, it is doubtful whether there is one city in a hundred possessing tram cars that does not enforce it. Now we come to one of the points regarding which our correspondent thinks we have been unfair to the Tramway Company. We have said that the Company appears to have made scarcely any effort to enforce this rule, the contention being that the police will not enforce it and that the company's officials cannot enforce it because one of the inspectors once was held
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.