Page images
PDF
EPUB

to allow a tramway company to rely upon another Chap. II. Bill for the purchase of two other ferries, which was not yet before the Court, in order to establish a locus standi on the ground of competition; but against the second Bill, when it came before them, they allowed the company a competitive locus, since the ferries to be acquired by the two Bills were situate along the route of the tramways, and the corporation would not pledge themselves not to run boats from ferry to ferry (y).

C. Locus Standi on Applications for Light Railway Orders.

By Light Railways Act, 1896, s. 7 (3), the Commissioners shall give full opportunity for any objections to the application to be laid before them, and shall consider all such objections, whether made formally or informally, and sect. 22 specially provides for objections based on interference with historical objects or natural scenery. These provisions are wide enough to cover any conceivable sort of objection, and so it appears that any conceivable sort of objector has a right to be heard by the Commissioners, or to submit his objections in any way he chooses. Again, by sect. 9 (1), the Board of Trade shall consider any Order with special reference to any objection lodged with them in accordance with the Act (i.e., in accordance with sect. 8 (2)). There seems to be nothing here to limit objectors or objections before the Board of Trade to those appearing or made before the Commissioners, and in fact there are instances of objectors appearing for the first time when the Order had reached the Board of Trade (e.g., in the Liverpool and Prescot Case) (yy). Rule 7 of the Light Railway Rules of 1898, however, says that any objection to an

(y) Birkenhead Corporation Bill (1897), 1 S. & A. 148; Birkenhead Corporation (Ferries) Bill (1897), 1 S. & A. 152.

(yy) (1898), Rep. IV. 14, Oxley, 180.

Chap. II. application made to the Commissioners should be in writing and a copy should be sent to the promoters; but in face of the Act this cannot be regarded as imperative. Every kind of objector with every kind of objection has, in fact, been heard by the Commissioners and the Board of Trade, and locus standi has only been disallowed where the objector clearly had no interest (e.g., in the Bere Alston and Calstock Case) (2). The Board of Trade, however, seem to have had doubts whether the promoters of an Order have a right to appear against it before the Board of Trade (Cranbrook, Tenterden and Ashford Case)(a); and until the Coatbridge and Airdrie Case (b), it was the practice of the Commissioners not to hear evidence as to objections on the ground of competition, but merely to make a note of them for submission to the Board of Trade (c). It would appear that competi tion may be alleged against an Order, though it be of such a kind as would not justify a locus standi under the cases cited on pp. 14 sqq. (Coatbridge and Airdrie Case) (b). The following list of persons who have been heard will give an idea of the comprehensiveness of the Commissioners and the Board of Trade: railway companies (on all sorts of grounds); local authorities of every kind, including parish councils; residents (of whom in one case the Commissioners ordered a poll to be taken); landowners; promoters; intending promoters; frontagers; omnibus proprietors; tradesmen's associations; water, gas, telephone and electric lighting companies; the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; the Crown (in respect of the rights of the Secretary of State for War and of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and generally); the Com

(z) (1899), Rep. VI. 4, Oxley, 102.
(a) (1899), Rep. V. 11, Oxley, 84.
(b) (1898), Rep. III. 30, Oxley, 149.

(c) See notes (y) to sect. 7 and (i) to sect. 9 of Light Railways Act, 1896.

mons Preservation Society; and the National Trust Chap. II. for the Preservation of Places of Natural Beauty.

D. Locus Standi on Applications for Scots Provisional
Orders.

Under Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 47), if the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons report that a Provisional Order applied for under that Act may proceed, the Secretary for Scotland orders an inquiry, if there is opposition or if he thinks an inquiry otherwise necessary, and this inquiry is held before Commissioners appointed under the Act. By sect. 6 (2), "Commissioners shall hear and determine any question of locus standi, but they shall not sustain the locus standi of any person who has not in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time objected to the proposed Order, unless on special grounds established to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and subject to such conditions as to payment of costs or otherwise as the Commissioners may determine." Sect. 17 provides that any objection made on the ground that the undertaking proposed to be authorised will destroy or injure any building or other object of historical interest, or will injuriously affect any natural scenery, shall be considered by the Secretary for Scotland, and may be referred by him to the Commissioners, who shall give to those by whom it is made a proper opportunity of being heard in support of it. The Provisional Order, if approved by the Commissioners, is confirmed by Act in the usual way; but by sect. 9 (1), an opposed Confirmation Bill may be referred on the motion of a member to a Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee shall hear and determine any question of locus standi.

At the first sitting of Commissioners the chairman stated that the procedure to be adopted would be

Chap. II. practically that of House of Lords Committees on Private Bills, both as regards the question of locus standi and in other respects (e). No locus standi, however, will be allowed to objectors who have not com plied with sect. 6 (2) and the General Orders made under sect. 15, unless they produce some valid excuse (f). The Commissioners refused to regard as a valid excuse the plea that a much longer time was allowed for petitioning before the Committees of Parliament, and that the only means which the petitioners (who were landowners) had of knowing of the proposed scheme was provided by the advertisements, as no notices were served on them (g).

A railway company has been allowed a locus on the ground of competition against an Order to authorise electric tramways, though the committee sought to limit the locus in some way so as to prevent the company from raising questions as to the feasibility or desirability of the scheme (h). A locus has also been allowed to a railway company against a clause to authorise a tramway company to run motor cars in connection with and in prolongation of their tramway route, and to carry on a parcel delivery by means of motor cars (i).

(e) Highland Railway Co. (1901), 38 S. L. R. 860.

(f) See Arizona Copper Co., Ltd. (1901), 38 S. L. R. 862.

(g) Glasgow Corporation (Tramways and General) (1901), 38 S. L. R. 865. (h) Aberdeen Suburban Tramways (1902), 39 S. L. R. 872.

(i) Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Extension (1902), 39 S. L. R. $80.

CHAPTER III.

THE RATING OF TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS.

I. Rateability.

LIGHT railways of Class A-that is to say, light railways which are constructed with a track of their own, and not along a public thoroughfare-will be subject, to speak generally, to the ordinary principles of railway rating. There may, however, be two things which will differentiate them from railways for rating purposes: (i) The existence of a special provision in the Order limiting their assessment in any parish to that at which the land occupied by them was assessed before they were constructed, under Light Railways Act, 1896, s. 5 (1c). (ii) Their employment of a central power station, or central power stations, in lieu of locomotive engines, whereby the incidence of rating as between one parish and another may be affected.

Tramways, however, and light railways of Class B -that is to say, those which wholly or mainly traverse public thoroughfares-require special consideration. But in the course of such consideration it would be unsatisfactory to attempt to discuss at large the elaborate subject of railway rating, with which the rating of tramways stands in close connection (a). It must suffice to allude to it only to the extent to which it is directly involved in, and throws light on the question how tramways and light railways on public thoroughfares are to be rated.

(a) See London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth (1874), 31 L. T. 319.

S.

E

« EelmineJätka »