OUR PUBLIC WORKS POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 836, 7 June 1910, Page 3

OUR PUBLIC WORKS POLICY.

DISTRIBUTION OP RAILWAY EXPENDITURE. FACILITIES GRANTED. (By Samuel Vaile.) 11. No one can protend to say, without any truthfulness, that tho New Zealand railways havo been iu any sense a success; and the cause of the failure is not far to seek. It is because in laying out tho thirty millions they have cost; the interests of tho Dominion were never studied, but only the supposed interests of tho mis-called Liberal party. It clearly was the duty of the various Cabinets to invest tho railway loans where they would give tho best results in opening up and settling tho country and making work for the railway. This clearly was, not done.. .If, for instance, tho million and more spent on that abortive line, tho Otago Central, had been spent in opening up the port and district of Kaivhia, what a difference it would have made to tho import and export trado of the Dominion. Numerous other instances might be named, as the Midland, in Canterbury, another- purely political line.

Table, showing the appropriation of the public funds in tho North and South Islands of the New Zealand Dominion "from tho very first"; that is, from 1870:— Excess of Per- Percentage mileage and centage of expenMiles. Miles. , Expenditure. expenditure. of mile- diturej Tear. North. South. N. Island. S. Island. in South.- age, South. South. 121 miles. 1875 78 190 ,£1,130,890 . ,£2,439,752 J51,308,5C2 155.12 115.73 ■127 miles. 1885 525 952 ■ .£4,375,117 .£8,431,510 .Ct.IOG.M 81.33 93.85 • | 4G5 miles. 1890 672 1137 .£5,655,G95 .£9,479,003 .£3,703,308 69.20 06.72 . ■~ 473 miles. 1895 760 ' 1233 .£6,318,104 .£9,824,503 .£3,506,459 62.24 55.49 .456 miles. 1900 824 12S0 ,£7,096,001 .£10,458,271 . .£3,302,270 55.34 47.38' 1 530 miles. . 1905 919 1455 i!13,G08,451 ,£4,333,198 . 58.32 47.48 410 miles. 1909 1132 1512 .£16,011,820 .£2,971,208 36.30 22.78 Note.—Tho last line deals with four years only. To take the account fairly, the million paid for the Wellington-Manuwatu lino ought to he deducted from the northern account, leaving it at ,£12,010,612, and .£150,000 added to the southern account for debentures paid to tho Midland Company, bringing that account up to ,£16,161,820, and showing that tho South, by far the smallest contributor, has had .£4,121,208 more expended on its railways than the North has. As regards rolling stock and other transit facilities, this is how the Government has provided for tho rapidly-increasing business in tho North and the very slow progress of the South. - They havo given to the South 2948 more wagons, etc., than they have to tho North, 2579 more tarpaulins, 12 locomotives, 117 weighing machines, 17 weighbridges, 19 traversers, 45 turntables, 17 cranes, 71 water services, 184 stations and stoppiug-places, 76 private sidings, 1744 more employees. These items are all in excess of what has been supplied to the North.

in which tho waste lands of the North —Crown lands, Native lands, lands for settlement—hare been persistently kept out of the market, and settlers by_ tho thousand sent away from tho North Island, is it possiblo to believe that tho Government arc acting in the interests of the country? Why is it that on March 31, 1909, there was in the North over 110,000 acres of "lands for settlement" unoccupied, while in the South there was only 13.500 acres so situated? To all thoughtful men it must bo apparent that there is something very wrong the world over in (he administration of working railways. As an illustration of m.v meaning, let- me refer to the railways of the United Kingdon, Jn Whit they had 1(1,433 miloa running. These then carried 163,435,678 passengers (exclusive of season-ticket holders), and 89,857,719 tons of goods. Their total paid-up capital was £348,130,127, and on this they paid a dividend of 4.19 per cent. The last British railway returns presented to both Houses of Parliament aro for 1903. These show that in that year they had 23,205 miles oneu for traffic. These carried over I.'iTfyOUO.OOO of passengers, and 491,600,000 tons of "goods and minerals." Their paid-up capital increased to £1,310,533,212, but they could only pay a dividend of 3.32 per cent. Seeing that their, mileago increased 122.42 per cent., or, say, one and a quarter times more, their passenger traffic over 7 times, and their 'goods traffic has expanded to about 5J times its size, and tho paid-up capital invested has increased by nearly a thousand millions of British pounds and yet with it all the dividend paid has steadilv decreased until in 1903 it was but 3.32 (£3 6s.

That tlio Government is aware that a shamefully partisan distribution of tho railway construction funds has been made is evident by tho attempts they malio to conceal what has been dolio. The Right Hon. .It. J. Seddon, P. 0., Sij Joseph Ward} Mr. George Fowlds (Minister for Education), and Roderick M'Kenzie (Minister for Public' Works) have all made statements endeavouring to prove that nioro money lias been spent in railway construction in the North Island than in tho South. The above table, however, gives tho correct amounts, according to the public records. This unfair appropriation of over four millions of pounds and four hundred and ten miles of railway, serious and: disgraceful as it is, is" as nothing compared with the heavy differential rates imposed 'in favour of tho South and against the North Island. During the last three .years the [ proferenco 'given .to .the South Island'as against tho North on tho transit of "goods" charged at per.ton, only, amounted to £1,668,34", and if passengers, season tiekeui, parcels, carriages, drays, live stock, storage, etc., were brought in, I diavo little doubt tho amount would reach fully two millions. What, then, must have been the burden and drawback on the North during the last.quarter of,a century? Tho average cliarge made for the transit of each ton of goods, no matter of what class, was in the three last years in tho North 9s. 4jd!, Bs. and 9s. 10$ d., while in the South it was only os. OJd., 6s.} and ss. Old. By this means South Island, railway users escaped payment of nearly two, if not fully two, millions which had to bo. paid out. of general taxation, of which tho'North,provides at least from 60 to 70 per cent. What do the working men of tho North say to this? As a proof of the' truth of my, statement, and an instance of what is "dona in this country by differential rating, I ask attention to what occurs in the. Government tariff of January 8, 1885, Mr. E. Richardson being Minister. In the "Local Rates" for Auckland, on page 67 these provisions arc made: "Goods of class E will be charged a rate and a quarter," "Goods of class V will be charged as Class N." On page 70 of the same tariff wo find this: "Goods of Class E carried between stations north of Oamaru and including Oaiuaru and Breakwater, will bo charged classified rates up to eight miles, and for all distances over eight miles at the rate of Is. 6d. per ton less [not more, but less] than tho classified rates." This little arrangement'as to Class E worked out thus for tho Auckland and the Canterbury, farmer. Supposing each had five tons of potatoes, or other agricultural produce, to take twenty 'miles to market, the chargo to tho Auckland farmer was 375. 6t1., to the Canterbury man it was only 28s. 6d. As regards Class P, it meant that the Auckland man for carrying bricks or drain pipes thirty miles would bo charged 6s. 6d. per ton, while the Canterbury man paid only ss. per ton. On the same page (70) there is another delightful little arrangement in favour of Canterbury and against all tho rest. This is it: "For the purpose of computing tho charges .for parcels conveyed between Rangiora and Christchurch the distance will bo deemed to bo fifteen miles." The actual distance being then called 21 miles, now 20 miles. This follows: "For tho purpose of charging for tho conveyance of goods of Classes A B C D, consigned between Kaiapoi and Christchurch, tho distance will be deemed to be 9 miles, the real distance being/14 miles." I am not aware of what Christchurch has done for the Dominion that should cn'titlo it to this exceptional treatment. I could give many more instances. It fell to my lot at the Parliamentary inquiry of 18S6 to so thoroughly expose the impropriety of this system of rating that for a time it had to disappear from the goods tariff. (Sec Parliamentary Papor, I—IX., pages 50 to 55 inclusive.) It is, however, again in full force, but so carefully wrapped up that it would take month's of work to unravel the tangle. This fact, however, is beyond dispute: tho average charge for convoying a tun of goods over the lines in tho South Island is four shillings and a penny farthing (4s. l}d.) per ton less than it is in tho North Island. This applies no matter whether the article carried is a ton of broadcloth or a ton of road metal. AVhat then must be tho tax levied on some of tho higherclass traffic in tho North Island? It is only those who liavo somo real knowledge of the effect of railway rating that can form any idea of the tremendous naturo of the blow aimed at the prosperity and development of tho North Island. When in conjunction with this disgraceful treatment in railway matters, we remember the way

4 80-100 d.). Surely there must bo something very wrong in tho system pursued. To mo, as a business man, tho idea that a virtual, monopoly of tho.inland carrying trade of the British Isles cannot bo made to pay , more than 3.32 per cent, is a downright absurdity. 1 say that tho cause of the failure is duo to the fact that English railway finance (which has been adopted everywhere, except where an adaptation of tho stage system of New Zealand has como in) has no scientific basis to rest on. So far tho only railway system that is before tho world that has any such basis for its finance is the sta&e system. . I shall bo asked what has England to do with us. Simply tin's: Thar, wo aro slavishly' copying tho. English .system, and similar results aro following; and must follow. To mo it is quite clear |tlih't tho present. Government are already contemplating again placing our railways upon what they aro pleased to term'a non-political board, presided oyer by an "English expert. 1 ' God help us! Imagino our railways dealt with as they please by irresponsible men—men who can do just what they please and no'.one call them to account—appointed by Messrs. Ward, Roderick M'Kenzic, George Fowlds, and Co. P.S.—My next will deal with tho contradictory statements of Crown Ministers in reference to our railways.