Sir, —In a letter which appeared in your issue of the 31st inst. on thi3 subject the writer refers to the opposition to our local tram ser vice as one of the greatest pieces of sweating thafc has ever been seen. This I believe, to be a correct definition, as I am certain that the competition now existing between these rival carrying companies can have tut one result— viz., a tendency to lower wages; and in the face of the recent agitation re thn sweating system, any lowering of what is now little better thau a mere living rate of wages musfc be bad for both the men more immediately concerned and the general public; and I cannot understand why the working classes—who should be tho greatest supporters of a fair day's wages for a fair day's work—should support anything, the only chance of success of which meaus lowering another man's wages. We have often heard a lot about the hours of labour and the rate of pay of the city tramway employes, yet some of their men tell me their hours are shorter aud their wages tetter than tbe opposition men, whilst it is well known that they employ many more men thau the 'buses, both in the stables and on the road; and anyone looking at the different styles of vehicles can see that tho tramcars must cost a greafc deal more to keep in repair thau the 'buses. All this means •noney locally gathered together and locally spent, and were the company compelled through lack of support to suspend running it would mean a largo addition so the uuemployed. I thiuk I have written sufficient to show tho publio where its true interests lies, and beg lo subscribe myself September 2. Anti-Sweateu.
