The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1910. IRISH RAILWAY POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 915, 7 September 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1910. IRISH RAILWAY POLICY.

j' Four years ago a Vice-Regal Commission on Irish Railways, consisting of seven members, was set up to inquire "what causes have retarded the expansion of traffic on the Irish lines and their full utilisation for the development of the agricultural and.industrial resources of the country, and,; generally, by what means the economical, efficient, and harmonious working of the Irish railways can be best secured." The mail brings us the fifth and final' report of the Commission, and it appears to us that its findings will ibeof interest to .this country ;at the present time.- The Commissioners were'unanimous upon the/necessity for .a' unification of the various lines, and upon .the necessity, -also, that if the rates of Ireland are to be chargeable in respect of, deficits (if any):in the. net revenue 'of' the unified system, the' ratepayers should have, control of the.working,and administration.' There-was an -important difference 1 of opinion,- hbw : lever, as to the'method by, which the unification should;be carried; into effect. A minority of three members expressed the opinion'that the comparative want of success': of -/the smaller _lines is. due more to defective legislation than to any other reason,. and that the.' slow rate of .traffic expansion. is attributable less to the methods of -the'.managers-than; to causes wholly, independent of them. They recommended that -the best means of securing the economical, efficient, _ and hafmpnidus working of the' railways " would be effected through the amalgamation of all the principal lines into a single , com-' mercial. system . by ! the' voluntary action of the companies, assisted by permissive legislation and by limited financial aid. /The majority of .four gave the' following -. as the three. possible' ' solutions from which , : they .: might choose: ,-,-(a) Purchase, of; the railways, by,, the State,, and,-administration .by,-a Government Department; (b) acquisition of the, Railways by an Irish elected authority under a. 'State guarantee; (c) compulsory - amalgamation, with a controlling Government interest, and administration ' by a directorate elected by the shareholders of the company. ■ . ; It is interesting and significant that the majority rejected the, first of these three proposals*, 'to- which the minority was also opposed. '. The one point, therefore, upon which tho' Commission was unanimous was the 'uhdesirableness of that .policy which" is pursued' in New Zealand. The majority also rejected the third scheme, which is approved by the minority, and decided to recommend the second method. Their proposal is for the acquisition of the railways by the issue -of a State-guaranteed stock, the interest on which;, would be a : first charge on the "net revenue of the unified system. Deficits would Ibe made up Out of an annual Exchequer grant of £250,000, which, when there was no'defieit, would go to a reserve'fund, applicable to fiir- • ther extension, and which,, when exceeded by. the deficit, would be supplemented by. a general rate struck for the purpose by the Irish, Railway Authority. The Authority, it was proposed, should consist of twenty directors, twelvo elected by the ratepayers and four : by.; Irish local, bodies, - while four would./ be nominated 'by., the Lord-Lieufen'anfi and the Treasury.- The \yeakness of this constitution is obvious enough: the elected directors would of necessity- work through concessions . and' waste for the capture'of tire Exchequer grant. That, however, is by the way. The points of special interest to New Zealand are two in number. The first is that the limited State aid recommended by the majority is not recommended as'a matter of principle On the contrary, tho report expressly states that the finding is based upon "the peculiar circumstances and special requirements of Ireland." - The second point is the one we have already mentioned, ■• namely,' that while the Commission disagreed fundamentally in their recommendations, they were all agreed in rejecting that system of State.owncrship and. Departmental administration which we have in this country. Even the ''peculiar, circumstances and. special requirements" of Ireland could not induce them to swal- [ low that proposal. ■