MR WRIGHT IN REPLY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1309, 21 July 1884, Page 2

MR WRIGHT IN REPLY.

To the Editor. Si*, —Mr Wason's proposed method of dealing with our railways confirms me in the opinion that ha has not sufficient intelligence to grapple with this question. ~ In his great eagerness to promise everything to everybody if they will only return him to Parliament he rather overdoes the business, and exposes hisignor-. ance of the subject under consideration. When questioned at Ghertsey as to whether he would support a non-political - Board of Management, he replied that he would have a Board for every district, I and he has since elaborated this idea to the extent of advocating that eaoh Board should have running powers over the lines managed by every other Board with a system of clearing houses, etc. Can anythlhg be conceived bo totally out of place is applied to our New Zealand railways or mose calculated to bring about utter chaos, bewilderment and confusion? Whereas in England the railways are all the property of private Companies, a Board of Directors is essential for each, but even there the evils arising s from a multiplicity of tariffs and endless accounts are sought to be imminsed by leading the lines of the weaker Companies to the stronger ones. Mr Wason's proposal to place the railways of the Middle Island under several Boards shows that he is incapable of understanding or appreciating the difficulties to be contended with. We have ' Government railways throughout the 1 colony. Those in the Middle Island 1 could even now be made to pay 1 interest on their cost by judicious ' management, and without robbing the farmers}; those in the North Island will not attain so desirable a posi- , ; tionforat least another generation, hence the violent opposition of Wellington against the proposal to separate the rail- ' way administration of the two Islands. t What we require is one Board for each 1 Island, more than that is neither desirable ' nor attainable. Canterbury cannot stand . alone in this matter. If she could cut 1 the painter from the rest of the colony, ' so far as regards the working of her own railways, that would be her greatest gain, 1 but this she cannot do, therefore to enable ? her to escape from the ruinous partnership 1 which now exists with the North Island, i Canterbury must be content to make ' common cause with Otago and Southland " in fighting to sever the railway administration of the two Islands which have ne--1 thing in common under this head, and if we 3 fail to elicit the support of Otago and > Southland (from any display of extreme * selfishness in advooating a Board for Can--1 terb iry) then we shall remain bound hand and foot by the North Island interests. ' Our demand must be one Board for each 1 Island, ho more and no less. Mr Waaon's 1 proposal to hive several Boards for this " island with conflicting tariffs, conflicting 5 interests and regulations, and clearing ' houses, would only make confusion worse i confounded. To send a member to Welb lingtoa at the present time, advocating i such absurdities, would be most diaas- ' trouß to our prospect of obtaining a change ' in railway management, and therefore * hurtful to the agricultural interests of 9 Canterbury. By hearty co-operation with ' Otago and Southland we may succeed in 9 removing our railways from politic d conr trol and jobbery, but by that aid a]one. Mr Wason's proposal is ill-considered, / ' ultra-selfish, and unattainable, and justi- ' fies my opinion that he h?s not sufficient r intelligence or breadth gof view to deal ' with so important a question.—l am, eta, } Edward G. Weight.