LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1166, 17 June 1911, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE TALE OF OUR RAILWAYS. 1 ' BOGUS CALCULATIONS. .Sir,—ln your issue of Juno 3 appears . letter from Mr. Coleman Phillips on w above subject. Like Mr. Phillips, I illy believe iu "private enterprise." "wo uur railways privately owned there not the slightest' doubt they would bo orked upon commercial lines and could :• made to pay reasonable interest upon ic purchase-money. Tliero is, however, deeply-rooted übjoetiun against private ivnersliip, as there is again "private cn--31-pnso'' in many diilcrent directions, hst, there is the Socialistic 'idea of oposing anything and everything that - •ould savour ot monopoly. This, strange > say, is endorsed by tho very pcoplo ho, by tho operation of law, invariably ' ish to secure to themselves an unouosionablo monopoly. What, for instance, s preference to unionists but' a monopoly pecially granted in numerous cases of wards under a so-called Arbitration ict? Then it is opposed by tho Governlent and all its humble followers on tho round that' it would remove all controln railway matters from Parliament. A ery plausible argument', certainly; but s it not a fact that Parliament' has really . lad no more control over railway matters , inco 1803 than tho proverbial man in he moon? I admit if is trua that Pariament actually authorises the construcion of each and every lino or section, nit it has always \K<m\ driven to do (ho vill, first of Mr. Scddon, then of Sir loseph Ward, in every instance. After he farce of authorisation is duly perornicd, what happens Tho Cabinet an- ■ horises the expenditure just as it likes, vhcro it likes, and when it likes. Tho supposed omnipotent Parliament' has no noro control than the man in tho street, ■jo it is with regard to tho working. What effect has any complaint made in Parliament/ no matter how well founded? • It might cause a division, but the final result would bo a foregone conclusion. ■ Another reason given in favour of Stale railways is thai' tho charges would be ■ much increased. But -would they? [ doubt it. And for this excellent reason: Any purchasing company would ivork them in such a manner as to induce Hie greatest possible use. \Thero would be no such display of lack of commercial lapacit'y as appeared in tho south when traction engines, drawing wool and grain, successfully competed against tho railways. Increase of rates would be a last resort, as tho result must tend t'o lessen, rather than increase, the patronage. But assuming that some increase of rates actually took place, what then? Is it not manifest that if the debt wcro reduced by the amount, of .€30,000,000, or more, the people could well afford to pay tho extra charge if such were made? It is asserted that it would bo unwise to sell because they pay, but do they? Of course, tho Pailways Statement, presented annually to Parliament, does not rocogniso a deficit', but shows a "net profit on working," but, as Professor Eossignal' and Mr. Stewart have pointed out, "without noting it is always insufficient to pay interest on tho cost of construction at tho average rate of interest paid by tho Government on the Public Debt." In the year ending March 31, 1909, tho railways earned a "net profit" of 2.93 per cent on the cost of construction of open lines, but, since (ho average ralo of interest was about 3.7 per cent, t'ho "net profit" is absorbed in interest payments, and a deficit emerges, amounting to ,£212,168, if interest is'reckoned on tho cost of the open lines only. But Professor I.e Eossignal contends, and with justification, that "the real cost of construction on which interest should bo reckoned, includes tho cost of the unopened lines, making a total of £29,052,432 reducing (he 'net profit' to 2.80 per cent, and increasing tho deficit to ~£2G2,7G0." "Reckoning interest on the cost of open lines only, as in tho table, the .total deficit from ISB2 to 1909 is, in round numbers, JM.500,000." How is it, wo never get tho real truth, presumably becauso it would be impolitic'to tell it? If we'had tho statement differently worded,' showing tho capital cost, tuen tho "actual earnings," wo should soon be ablo to ascertain -whether, or not (hero was any such thing as a "net profit." This is precisely what we never get, and apparently it is not intended that \vc should 'get it. But to overcome any dread of the suggested results of monopoly nnd any possible incrcaso of rates, resulting from sale, a simple remedy could easily be provided, limiting tho future increase of rate to, say, 5 per cent. If no purchaser could be found to comply with such a condition, then it may be safely taken for granted that the prospect was not sufficiently good, and also that our. possessions were not of the value generally attributed to them. That any such thing, as selling tho railways would not be favoured by the powers that be, one can easily understand. Look what political, influence would bo lost when it was shown of what has been little better than a huge corruption fund. Yet another objection exists with regard to State railways, while tliey are so manipulated, any deficit, no matter how large, is made up by the general public; of, course, indirectly including those who have no railway facilities of' any kind whatever, often poor roods, and lacking bridges for public safety. Is this honest? I submit it is not, but then it is just tho kind of treatment that ono can expect to have meted but when, political considerations reign supreme. Professor Lo Eossignal further states: "Pieckoning interest at i per cent on Iho cost of open and unopened lines the deficit for 1908-09 would Ik £3t7,35G, and the total deficit since ISBI-S2 would -probably be at least .08,000,000, and possibly .£10,000,000."' It is not difficult lo understand how this accumulated deficit has'arisen. Take tho North Island Main Trunk lino as an illustration. Assuming the line to be 216 miles, and Hie period of construct ion 24 years, as I believe to be correct. Assuming also that an annual expenditure continued for tho wljolo period, it is clear that many years' interest would accrue, and .have to be paid, before any earnings would bo credited. Interest on borrowed money, like a rolling snowball, increases wilh wonderful rapidity. The actual money cost, minus tho interest accrued and paid, is not tho true state of affairs,' but it is given lo the public, and accepted' by the public, as being unchallengeable. No private company could so conduct its affairs and keep clear of the' Bankrupt Court, and if the whole transactions wero dealt with by comnetont and unbiased expert', would be a revelation that, would astonish (he people. Moreover, if "privptc enterprise" had been in tho ascendant some of enr political railways would have had no existence to-day, nnr would (heir debt have hung round our necks like a millstone.—l am. etc., AGKICOLA. THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAY'S FIGURES. Sir,—"Fairplay," in commenting upon Mr. Millar's alleged statement that ho pays his stationmastcrs .£230 per annum' in tho AYairarapa district, and has also to pay interest on their houses, submits certain fijjiircs which, if correct, enables us to form n fair estimate as to tho valuo of the Minislor's statement. Thus, if tho salaries specified for the nine stations are aric'.'l together the lotal amounts to J.'2ojo. Divide this amount by nine, and wo got' Ihu average of .£227 las. (id. per station, which, if expressed in round figures as .£230, prove.?, upon "FairplayV ow.n figures, that the Minister is ju.sl about correct. All railway house.-, ore built from votes of money passed by ParlhiineSl. and interest upon capital thus expended is a charge upon (ho Department. There docs not appear to be anything wrong in tho Minister's alleged elaloie.ent in (his direction. II w ob'vlic!. however, that

"I'uirpiay," in pivi:i2 the saloriop paid In Btatiiiiini'.siws, specifics llio aivioiint? thoj are charjiml for Ihvumi vent, and iho i 11 ft-iv <■!!?(> is, I take it. that in estimating a lilalioni'nasler's salary, Iris house rent should first he deducted, and the balance declared to 1h! (lie salary. ]f ], employed, sav. by ;\ mere limit at .£3 per week, should reside' in a house of iny employer's, mid for which I pay £i per week, would it lxi riprlit to claim that my wages arc ,£2 per week? Most decidedly not, and why should n different principle he applied in (lie case of tho railway employees? These stationmns.ters receive a salary, and require a house to live in, the same as tho rest of the community. Tho vent they pay is a matter of their own domestia

concern. I sea the lowest paid stationmaster at SM por annum pays 7s. Sd. per week rent, and tho highest paid Btetionmaster, instanced at JI3CO, pays lis. 6d. per week rent. It is quite evident that sfationmasters are most liberally daalfc with in the matter of house rent. Coming to the question of passenger revenue, I presume tho Ministor has tho same date at his disposal which "Fnirploy" culls from the Railway Statement of 1910? Vicwiucr these figures, and bearing in mind the alleged statement of the Minister to the effect that "only two stations, Pahiatua and Masterton, produce n. passenger -return of ,£500." I am rather disposed to think the Minister has been misreported. Stationmnsters arc not tho only men employed at stations, as thero are porters, tabletmen, shunters, clerks, and many others, all of illicit nro a chareo ■upon stations,' to w;hich we havo to add innumerable expenses in other directions. Maybe, taking tho cost of working theso stations ' there may bo only two which yield a net balance of over ,CSOO in the passenger division. The suggestion of a ■'Jack-in-office" patiently waiting and cunningly working for a high position, indicates a personal motive, rather than a desire to discuss railway topic 3 in a fair spirit.—l am, etc., , CAUTION.