THE PREMIER AND MR. VAILE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 853, 27 June 1910, Page 5

THE PREMIER AND MR. VAILE.

A VIGOROUS KKJOINDER. Sir,—Permit ine space for fnrthoi' reply to Sir Joseph Ward's criticisms of what ] said at tho Chamber of (.'oinmorco on February M last. As I expected criticism 1 took t lie precaution to road instead of speak, ,-ind as the original paper is deposited with the Chamber there can be no question that the following is a correct report, of that portion of my paper with which the Prime Minister professed to deal. 'Table showing fie average charge for the transportation of goods charged at 'per ton' on the Nurth and South islands of New Zealand, and also showing ihe extra amount the Southern merchants and producers would have had io pay into the Treasury each year had they been charged the same as in the North:— s".e 3 i.'J~- 3 s. fl. s.d. s.d. .C 1!>07 0 -IJ sni 37! 5?7,J)4 I'JOS 8 73 BO 27J 418,420 1909 I) 103 59i ili 673.653 Thus we sep that, during the last three years only, through differential rates, our Southern governors have compelled the .North to make up this .£1,068,317 which the. South Island people ought to have paid into the Treasury." This statement has been reproduced in numerous papers south of Auckland, and. as it was made considerably over three months ago, Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. M.'Vil3y have had plenty of time to concoct their reply. Jt will be seen that their figures fully prove the truth of my statement, but as usual the Prime Minister threw dust in the eyes of his audience, lie jumbled the figures and took the three years in one lump, instead of year by year as J. took them, because the three years' average does not so clearly show tlie truth of inv statement. Mv table shows that in 1007 the differential rate against the North and in favour of the South was Bs. 7!d. per ton. Next: year an alteration was made in the tariff which appears, unexpectedly, to have, given a liltle fairer treatment to the North and the rate in favour of the South was reduced to lis. 73d. per ton. This would never do, so tiie differential rate ngamst the North was promptly raised to Is. |.\d. per (on. Mr. ll'Villy says: "Mr. Vaile has dealt with the railway question in his usual extraordinary manner. ... It is impossible to accurately ascertain the average rate per lon for goods by adopting Mr. Vailc's system of simply dividing the total goods revenue by the tonnage." This is their statement. If there is any other way of ascertaining the average rale, it clearly was the dutv of the Premier and Mr. M'Villy to produce it. This they have utterly failed to do, for the simple reason that they know they cau]iot._ There is no other way. M hat appears to me to be the "extraordinary" thing is that neither the Premier nor the chief clerk of the Railway Department apiwars to know tho difference k-twwn a differential rale and the causes that give rise to that rate. According to their own showing, for the last, three yea.i> (here has existed an average differential rate of 3s. 9d. per ton against the North and hi favour of the South on every ton of goods that passed over the North Island lines, no matter if the "haul" (distance carried) was three miles or three hundred; whether it was "merchandise" of the h'ghe.it class or minerals of the lowest class, this differential rate of (is. ad. per lon_ was, on the Premier's and Mr. M'Villy's own showing, rigidlv enforced against, the North for the last throe, years, and when we remember that from 70 lo SO per rent, of the "goods" revenue is derived from .the low class traffic, vec shalt Re* how cruelly oppressive must have been the rates charged on some of our products. I, of course, acknowledge that under the existing system a preferential rale may arise fairly, but 1 deny that it is so in this case. They have all the information at hand, alul they know that I his extra rate of 3s. ftd. pe'r le-a has been charged, and if fairly it in their duty to show how; but this fhev dare not attempt, for they know that i'f they did I should at once be able to refute their statements. For downright distortion of a question, especially a grea.t one, 1 have never seen the following equalled. Sir Joseph Ward said: "Tho following figures show the absurdity of his (Mr. Vailc's) statement that the South Island has in tlrree successive years paid nearly .£1,670,000 less than the North Island goods tonnage." It is amazing that a man in the Premier's position could make a misrepresentation like this. I never said one word of what lie attribute; to me, nor anything in the least degree like it. There is not one word of truth in it from beginning to end. What I did say is fully slated in the extract from my Chamber of Commerce paper at the commencement of this leiiier. The Premier's statement that "Mr. Vailc's calculation is therefore cut to the extent of ,£>,347,000" is so absolutely absurd as not to be worthy of one word's notice. Let me, sir. again remind your readers that, according io the Hon. ,1. A. Millar, in addition to this differential rate of 3s. Od. (now probably nearly, if not over, 55.) per ton, it was 4s. Ijd. in 1908, on goods, we have a differential passenger fare of 5 Ut-IOOd., not only on every first and second class fare, but also on every child's half-lare. that passes over tho North Isiand lines. To this serious charge, as also the gross inaccuracies by the Hon. R. M'Keuzie, the Premier did not even allude. I know a good deal about differential rating, but. 1 know of nothing so grossly unjust as the rating between tho North and South Islands of New Zealand.—l am, etc., SAMUEL VAILE. Auckland. June 15. P.S.—lf the figures given by the Premier and Mr. M'Villy at our Chamber of Commerce dinner are correct, then, on their own showing. 1 have understate*! tho wrong done to the North by J;loij,ojl. —S.V.