KING BROGDEN I.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 197, 19 August 1873, Page 6

KING BROGDEN I.

A Review of the Pamphlet on the Brogden Itailway Proposals. —* — By Viator. A high-sounding title, your readers will exclaim, and naturally may want to know what it means. Well, it is simply this : If the Government to whom the liberties of New Zealand's population are entrusted should be so far dazzled as to assent to the proposal of Mr Brogden, they will actually place him in the position of monarch absolute and despotic ojta? this favoured land. He proposes "to form a company which shall take over all existing railways in the Colony, and contract to make all that are further required, on a definite and comprehensive plan." And all he asks in return is, that Government shall guarantee a minimum rate of interest (51 per cent.) on the capital of the company for forty years, allow them to fix the rates of traffic, &c, and generally to uid them in the way of legislation. To the uninitiated, outside the "railway world," this offer will sound extremely liberal. To me it seemed so, until I read of "the high sense with which the visit of Mr James Brogden had impressed the firm of the great resources and prospects of New Zealand, and •of the numerous attractions which it offers for the profitable investment of capital, and for the satisfactory settlement of a large, industrious, and thriving population." I then fancied there might be two sides to the question, and turning the shield round, lo ! that ugly word "monopoly" appeared to my mind's eye. I then set to work and ferreted out a few facts and ideas on the subject of railways in general, which 1 will proceed to lay before your readers, hoping to point the dangers of a path which, if pursued, will only lead to a revival of the ancient tradition of Esau and the mess of pottage. Very apropos of the subject, I happened to somewhere the other day, that before railways supersede the turnpikes in any country, the roads are known proverbially as the " king's highway," and consequently the people's highway. Therefore they should be considered an inalienable national inheritance. If this is granted, we may assume that railways are essentially national property. As a. proof that this is about to be recognised as a fact, British statesmen are even now engaged in framing a measure by which the vast railjway monopolies of Great Britain, in which £600,000,000 sterling are invested, can be broken up, and the entire system brought under the guardianship of the Government. It would indeed be a singular confirmation of the vulgar antipodean idea of " topsy-turvir ness," if we were to hand over in perpetuity all locomotion and transit of goods to monopolists, just as that other "Britain" has found out her error in the matter and is trying to remedy it. Mr Brogden, or rather the writer of the pamphlet in his interest, says, "To every reflecting observer, the evils of employing direct Government machinery for this purpose"—i.e., of instituting an efficient ■system of railway construction—"will be at once apparent." I cannot see it. The Government are considered fit to make our. laws and to be entrusted with the guardianship of the Postal and Telegraphic systems ; and why not of Railways? Mr Brogden gives as a reason : "The political condition of every Government in New Zealand is inevitably such, that a desire to acquire and retain the special Parliamentary support of certain individuals, and of the* communities which they represent respectively, must noxiously interfere with the material efficiency and commercial success of an official railway department." Bosh ! Is not the Government directly responsible to the entire body of the people, who are not likely to submit tamely to such a rotten political condition 1 If any fear of political influences is likely to arise, it would rather be from Mr Brogden's side of the question,—as witness the railway " Rings" of America, which actually control the State elections, and inflict serious injury on other interests. No, no, Mrß.,that v s a lame'un. He says further that the exigencies of Parliamentary influence are almost sure to prevail over the legitimate selection of the most competent men as officers and workmen. This is merely an assumption without proof, and rather an uncomplimentary- one to our politicians, 1 should think ; in fact, Mr Brogden seems to urge the political aspect of the question as the allpowerful reason why he should be made the Railway King of New Zealand. In the appendices to the pamphlet various instances are given of the working of the different systems of railway construction. Space will not permit me here to repeat them in extenso. I therefore cull one, naturally on my side of the question. It treats of the railways of the little kingdom of Belgium, (constructed and worked by the Government,) thus : "They have been the main cause of

the steady advance of Belgium in wealth and prosperity. Although worked at low rates for the benefit of the nation, they pay on the average five per cent., or more than the interest on the loans raised for their construction. They did not cost more than lines constructed by private enterprise, and their management by the State, though somewhat slow and unbending, is safe, solid, and has on the whole given satisfaction." Different systems, it is admitted, succeed in different countries, but what is good for Belgium is bad„fqr>New Zealand, on the dictum of Mr Brogden. '• I Let'us look nearer home. i(ew South Wales has 358 miles of railway, constructed by Government, in which is invested nearly £6,000,000 sterling. The net result of the returns for last year appear to involve the State in an annual loss of £150,000, equivalent to a tax of 6s. per head of the whole population. The loss arises from the fact that the capital invested was borrowed at 5 per cent., and the interest yielded was only at the rate of 2.688 per cent. But this return compares favourably with preceding years, so we may assume that the paying nature of the New South Wales railway speculation is only a question of time: The authority from whom T have the foi*egoing adds : "Of course, as a set-off to this loss, there are to be placed the profits derived from the enhanced sale of lar.ds, due to the presence of railways, and the facilities given to the mail service and the general operations of Government. There is also the consideration that while the railways are aiding the development of the country, the increasing population is ; evidently aiding and will still more aid the railways, as shown by the increasing profits. Further, there is the fact that the mining industry of the country, which gives promise of assuming very large proportions, is beginning to make a veiy perceptible contribution towards the railway returns, and may fairly be expected to do so in a large measure in the future." Here, then,.are some data for our Government, if willing to base their plans for the disappointment of Mr Brogden's ambitious dream. That they will do so, I.do them the justice to suppose. To do otherwise were idiotic and ruinous. In such a case, they would discover eventually that, in making Brogden king of the New Zealand railway " ring," they would, iike Frankenstein, have created a monster, hideous and uncontrollable. I will conclude this lengthy epistle by mentioning one modest (!) restriction to which Mr Brogden is willing to consent, and that is : When the net profits of any line exceed ten per cent., the Government to have the power of requiring the company to reduce traffic rates to the extent of the excess. If the railways were national property, the Government would undoubtedly stop short when the undertaking paid the interest of the capital borrowed for construction, but under the Brogden regime we would have to "pay the piper" to the tune of 4i- or 5 per cent, additional taxation in the way of traffic charges on all capital invested. Pleasant in the abstract, very—for Brogden the First and, I hope for the future welfare of New Zealand, the Last. Bendigo, August 12, 1873.