The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1910. CONVERTED AT LAST.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 820, 18 May 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1910. CONVERTED AT LAST.

Those of our readers who have jeon interested in the astonishing persistence with which the Christchurch organ of the Ministry has for a year past striven against the resistless tide of facts and figures respecting the relative earningpower of the South Island and the Worth Island railways will, we are sure, he interested to know what our contemporary has to say about the final figures for the your 1909-10, which we discussed in some detail last Friday. We are pleased to be able to say that it is very subdued. In place of its jaunty assertions that The Dominion "cooked" the monthly returns, its airy ridicule of the idea that there was anything in our complaint that the Southern lines were carried on the back of the North, and its cheery prediction that the end of the year would cover us with confusion, it can offer nothing bettor in the way of pugnao ity than a statement that we "seem unable to state the position quite fairly." In its desperation at being unable to question the fact that the net revenue from the 1135 miles of line in this island was greater than that from the 1574 miles in the South Island, and the further fact that the net return per cent, on capital was 4.19 in the case of this island and 3.37 in the case of the South, it says: "What we did say was that' our contemporary' had grossly pisrepresented the results obtained from the South Island railways, and this charge it has since tacitly admitted. " To this we have only to say two things: iirsfc, that every statement we have made has been based on official figures and has been absolutely correct aud honest, and, Eecond, that it is false to say that we have tacitly admitted the charge of misrepresentation.' We have not, cither tacitly or in any other way, admitted any such gross charge, and our contemporary must know this , perfectly well. Our public is of course not interested in the Christchurch . journal's misrepresentation of our position, and we trouble ■ them with the preceding sentences , only because it is rather important that our repudiation of our contemporary's improper suggestion should go on record. In the meantime there is one final , piece of pleading in the Christchurch paper too delicious to leave . unnoticed. It insists strongly on one particular point, which is ■ this: that the Manawatu line contributed "probably as much as £G0,000" to the revenue, while the r Otago Central line "fails to earn the " cost of its construction by the same amount." Therefore: "If .CGO.OOO were deducted from the revenue of the North Island system and .I'GO.OOO from tho expenditure of the South Island system, tho net earnings of the two systems would be practically the same." This may be quite true. It probably is true: it is'not necessary to stop to verify the figures. Let us say it is absolutely true. What, then, does it prove'i Simply; that the North Island system is a hugely ' more profitable system than the Southern system, which is what we have been saying for over two years. But the joke of it is that our contemporary presents this point as an argument against us! Really, it would have been just as easy to say that if, after the deductions and additions, the Southern figures were multiplied by two and the Northern figures divided by two, the result would have been wonderfully in favour of the South. Tho one satisfactory thing in our unfortunate friend's article is the admission that "the North has made out a good case-for a larger share of the expenditure from the Public Works Fund." That admission from so stubborn an opponent of the facts is ample reward for our long agitation of the question. It is even _ more satisfactory to us than the quiet somersault of a local contemporary, which, although a few weeks ago it was very violently angry witli n us for our "parochial" attitude in pleading for justice for this island, has quite turned round and is-now in its own fashion seconding our advocacy of a change from the unfaii - and nationally foolish policy of the Government in the matter of allo eating the railway constructor °- funds.