RAISING THE RAILWAY FARES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 667, 18 November 1909, Page 8

RAISING THE RAILWAY FARES.

''■,-.' - -.' : A RETROGRADE STEP. ' ' , '',' : Sir,—The Prime Minister seems to have lost his head, in his frantic endeavour to increase taxation, and it. appears to me that he is riding for a.fall; as, if he persists in raising the railway fares, ho will lose votes all over the'country. : The principle on which the present passenger fares were computed, is the right one, viz., as the distance increases, so the rate per mile should diminish. Instead of advancing in statesmanship under Sir Joseph Ward's guidance we are going back, as witness the second ballot, single electorates, and other exploded fallacies. . Your article ori "Long Distance Pares" in the Dominion of November 12-requires the addition of a penny to each of the two increased! amounts men..tioned, as I will now explain. , The present railway fares are computed as follow, for single fares'.. No,' of ; .-miles. First-class'. ; Second-class. . .. 1 to; 50- IJd. per mile. Id. per mile. * 50 to 100, lid. per mile. Jd-.. per mile.. . Over 100 . - Id. per mile. . 'Jd. per mile.

Besides the above, a "terminal charge of Id. is added to all single fares. Return fares are double the single fares. Suburban, lines have special: scales of fares, and the return fares are less than double the single fares. : Now, tne Roman Catholic Church in ancient times levied an annual toll of a penny on.overy householder in England. This was imposed on the principle that "many'a mickle makes a mncklo." This tax was called."Peter's pence,", and brought in a good round sum annually. I --think Sir Joseph • Ward must have had this itax in-his mind when he added a penny to every fare, on every line in New Zealand. He calls it a "terminal charge," but I think a more suitable name-would he "Joseph's pence." ; Thon he "has us" again" in the way the mileage'is reckoned. "In computing fares, five chains and. over will be counted as an' additional mile; less than five chains will be omitted." Seeing that there.are 80, chains in'a mile, thisdoes not seem to'be a very "liberal" arrangement. In looking over the "new taxa- . tion proposals" on page 8 of' your issue-, of November 11, I looked in vain for "increased railway fares," but under' tho heading "results of proposed changes,"., it is stated that "by abolishing the break'in the long-distance mileage lates upon tho 1 railways, making the rates uniform to Id. per mile, secdnd-classj and ljd. per mile first-classj I- propose to. obtain .£10.0,000 '• per annum." This pill is sugar-; coated in mellifluous.; phrases, but why did he not make .the plain statement, that, for every, mile the secondrclass .passenger travels, after the first hundred, he will, have .to. pay exactly double what he is'paying at present! This is the plain', fact, and I, for one, dp' not think the people will put up with'it. Taking the through journey from Wellington to Auckland, ,the second-class fare, which at present is 21s. 2d„ will .be. increased ;to 355, 7d„ an increase of ,14s. or more than two-thirds of the. original fare .extra. The present firstclass fare is 395. Id., and,- under the new proposal, this :will,; be .increased' to 535. 4d., an t increase of 14s. ,3d. on ,-the present- fare; but why; the second-class fare .is.to be increased by 14s. 5d.,: while the firsWass is increased by 14s. 3d., does not-appear-very obvious. But what does. appear, .very clear,, is - that if the. threatened increases are. put in force, there will'be such a. falling off,in; the .receipts, es-' pecially oh .the -long-Klistance lines, that the Premiers expectations.-;will.bo'. wofully. disappointed.—l. am, etc.,. v-; .;' ~"•■ \ ... .*;. .";.'■■■• ■ ; .- ■■-.'.' TRAVELLER.