The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1909. RAILWAYS NORTH AND SOUTH.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 564, 20 July 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1909. RAILWAYS NORTH AND SOUTH.

The Ministerialist journal in Christchurch is stiil industriously seeking to hide the fact that the North Island railways havo to bear the loss of the railways in the South Island. On Friday it admitted that the figures in our little table are correct. It has 1 manufactured a table of its own' as being the most : recent statistical representation of the position. Here is what.it calls "tho figures for the year ended March 31, 1909": Capital' . Net Percentage cost. , '■■'. revenue. of ■ '■■*", £ £. ■'■■ ■ capital. North 12,744,754 420,031 3.29 South ...... ''14,045,709 394,679 2.64, Even that table abundantly proves exactly'what we have, all along been saying. Thirty thousand pounds , less revenue, although the capital is over two million pounds greater! -Surely that is conclusive'onough. But the true,position makes the disparity between the two sets of lines even more The capita] cost of the Northern: lines at March 31, '1908,; was £9,713,534. At March 31, 1909, it was, £12,744,754. .lf_ it: had. been £12,744,754 for the whole year, the table quoted would be correct. But the extra three million pounds of capital—made up of thecost of the Manawatu line and the balance of the Main Trunk line— r did not come into the account until late J n the year. Interest had only to be paid upon it, from the point of view of the railways, for part of the year. Our Southern contemporary wants the public to believe that the wh01e , £12,744,754 was working all the year. . The correct; figure would be about £11,000,000—Mr. Millar will doubtless, endorse this. In that case the return from the; Northern lines would be between 3.7 and 3.8 t per cent. But even our contemporary's table, distorted as.;it is from the'facts,-makes the' low earning capacity ; of; the Southern I lines ciear ; enough. It may; be Useful to print here a table" showing the "net profits", fbr some years past;./ '- ! ■■■■•'.;:.'.■.■' '■~,Year ending North ■. South ; -, : ; : ■■'■'•: 'March 31.i per cent; percent. , . 1002 :■■■■'■■ 3.04 ■■' , .3.69 . : ■•'■'■ r'loo3' ■■■.■-.-3.20- ! ": "■'■■ .■■■•••■'•3.B9 : - . ■■'■ ■ • 1904 ■ ;■■'; 3.72 • v'- ,1 3.50'' ■ : ! ; .; ■: 1805 i ■■■ l: : 3.70 ■■■• W3.03 1, ;:; -•■" ,■'"-••' ;•"■"'l9O6' : -- : -:.. 3.6o■'■:,'■.:".■,■ .'2.99••'>•.-.■; : 1907 ' 4.11 ■ ■:'. •-'" -3.02:,■:'.-. ■ ■■;."' :;'1903.: . .;. 4.28. V^.• 2.71. : : :■ The thing to be'.-noticed is the steady and continuous rise in the case of the North, and the eteady decline in the case of.the South.;• ..Here; > is" 'another interesting table/ showing the ; net profits; , for.- the. ypars■.l9o2-1909:.; .:, ; V •;V : ;>". :y." ■ '". •"■■,■ ■ ■ • North.-;.: ■ South..: V. ■;. : - : :v.-■ ' •'■ ■ -.£■■ ■■'■- .:/■:.;'&:- : ;-- '-■": 1901-2 218,692 " .' - 403,667 1902-3 .' 247,898 ";'• 382,724; r :■'.'•■ 19034' " 305,900! ■■:'■ 436,017': •':'' ; I'- 1904-6 ■'■', ' 322,301 : ,; 394,030: : ::: 1905-6 ' : K 328,866.;■ ■ r U: 399,599.' ; ;" ■".. 1906-7 ' 382,374, 429,717 <■.>■•, 1907-8 , • 416,000: ,: 396,179 ' .'A-; :■;;., 1908-9' -V ;,420,031,;: ; ;394,679;,. Here again is a rapid ; arid steady, increase in the case 'of the'■; North,', and , a ; fluctuation, tending downwards, in the case of the South. The net revp'nue'jfrom the Northern-, lines iin .'I9OB-9: y as almost , doubieV..th'e' ; net' revenue from the". Southern lines, .in 1908:9, was actually less; than the. net'revenue in 1001-2, and this- although over four millions more of capital was , working in the' South in 1908-9 than in 1901-2.1 Does anybody ■■ require more' convincing figures than/these? //.;.,': . .:,,;'■ ...•.:; : ;,/ CITY COUNCIL AND QAS COMPANY. ■v\ .-•■. :—. ,*.,.,°.' '■: ■,-: ■.{• ■•''■.' ~ ;" ' The- controversy- between the City Council and the; Gas Company concerning:, the issue of" vfch'e, Order-in-Council authorising the 'company to; connect its works'.,'in ■ "the-.; city,,with : its 'recently-, erected; works at Miramar has advanced to a'stage when the parties would do well ;to pause, and, allow; their- heated feelings to cool down a little. This advice appears-to be particularly needed in the case of- the council and its supporters. They: are extremely indignant, and properly so, at the position in which they have been placed 1 by the action,: of the Government in smuggling a clause into an 'Act which' undoubtedly- permits an interference by.'.the Crown with the affairs of the,municipality. But .they must not permit their ..feelings to run away with;them. They consider that the proposal of the. Acting-Prime Minister to issue the Orderrih-Council authorising the Gas Company to lay the twenty-six chains'of gas-pipes required to connect •its: works in the city with those at Miramar 'is detrimental to the interests of citizens!' Their reason for holding this opinion is that if the Minister delays the issue of the Order the city will be able to force the hands of the company, and get a higher price /than the company now offers for_ the privilege., This is putting 'the .'matter bluntly, but it is well that the. public should: know exactly what is being fought for, the issue having been somewhat obscured by the dragging in of the question of supplying MelrosQ with, gas,; which has nothing to do with, the matter. The City Council's desire to force as much as possible from a wealthy company will; no doubt be highly applauded by citizens. The company probably is well, aware that it will meet with very little sympathy from th'e public; and the most that it can hope for is the barest justice/We hope that it will receive justice. .In ;their very natural indignation at being tricked by the Gov--ernment, the City Council may lose sight :of the. fact that the company, even though it may be a wealthy private corporation, and an unpopular one, has a right to fair treatment., We should; for instance, like to see the position cleared up fas to the conditions under which the company erected its works at Miramar, said to have cost £50,000. Did the company incur this expenditure on tho undertaking that it would be permitted to, lay the mains necessary to connect it with its city works, or did it gamble on the chance'of being able to make the con-, nection 1 If the latter, then the company must take the risk which it has incurred and pay for its imprudence. But if it had a definite undertaking on the subject, based on the clause in the Act, of Parliament, - the position is differ-; ent. The City Council must drive as hard a bargain as possible—-thu harder the better—hut it must not allow itself.tobe led into doing injustice to a private company merely because that company has had for a great many years a very valuable monopoly which it obtained in a perfectly proper way. \ ■ ■