RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2702, 14 October 1871, Page 2

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

In view of the public meeting called for Monday, to consider the Brogden contracts, the following article from the LyfleUon Times is worthy of perusal : When it has been agreed what railways shall bo constructed in the various parts of the Colony we have next to consider how they are to be paid for—whether by land or cash, or partly by both ; or by guaranteeing a certain fixed per-ccntage annually on the outlay incurred. It is Useless now to inquire whether the Colonial Treasurer exceeded his powers by entering into the agreements with Messrs Brogden. What has been done, in so far as tlie Colony is committed and legally bound, cannot be undone, and we must therefore make the best we can of the bargain. In reply to a question put by Mr Stafford, the Minister of Public Works stated distiutly that the Government avas pledged to carry out the smaller agreement, or such modification of it as might be arrived at by conference with a member of the Brogden firm. As this representative is expected to arrive by the next Sau Francisco steamer, the Government avill in all probability be able to lay the result of their deliberations avith him befor the House at an early date. In the meantime it is clear, and ought to be steadily borne in mind, that the Colony is bound to the smaller contract, unless it chooses to accept the penalty and disgrace attaching to repudiation.

■Suppose the Assembly were to be guided by the expressed wishes of those who object to both agreements with Messrs Brogden, and refused to accept even the smaller, what effect would such refusa' have on our credit in the London money market? It would be called by a very plain name indeed, and the public may depend on it that such an extreme course as has been ad”o cated in some quarters would, if adopted, recoil upon us in a variety of ways. The agreements with Messrs Brogden are of course as well known among capitalists in England as they are here, and the credit of the Colony is therefore vitally concerned in honorably carrying out what it is legally bound to. ' We are not now expressing any opinion upon the agreements themselves, but are simply pointing out an element in the question which appears to us to have been altogether overlooked by those who oppose the agreements as ca'culated to increase the cost of railway construction by giving a monopoly to one firm. • Mr Gisborne says, truly enough, that the Legislature last session evidently favored the principle of guarantee ; and he cites this as a sufficient reason for the action taken by the Colonial Treasurer in London. “If the guarantee principle is adopted,” be says, “it is indispensable, with a view to economy, efficiency, and despatch in the construction of public works, that the contract should be made with persons possessed of extensive means and credit ” And he goes on to state, what is also perfectly true, that it would be false economy to give the colonial guarantee to the lowest bidder, or to speculators without means and no capital at command.' That, he contends, would lead to delay, confusion, and probable collapse. In cases of cash pay merits, on the other hand, private contract need not, and as a rule thonld not, be resorted to ; “ but when a guarantee of interest is to be given it is, 1 believe, the invariable practice, and one no doubt adopted on strong grounds, to select and make private arrangements with contractors of repute an I responsibility.” Acting, therefore, on the conviction that the Legislature was in favor of the guarantee principle, Mr Vogel selected what is admittedly the firm of highest standing in England. It is evident that, whatever may have been the feeling of the Legislature last session on the guarantee principle, the public are now strongly ip favor of cash payments and open competition. In this we think they are quite right, provided the latter principle is not carried to an extreme length. If the money can be obtained at a reasonable rate., and so far there has been no difficulty whatever in this respect, it is undoubtedly better to say,—we have so marry miles of railway to construct; we will divide the lines into short sections, and cad for tenders. But ff there should be any difficulty about obtaining money, and if thereby the construction of urgently required railways were to be indefinitely delayed, we think the principle of guarantee might be judiciously resorted to wit birr reasonable limitations. The change in public opinion, the contrast between the views entertained last 'year and the views so repeatedly expressed now, is due to the fact that the Colonial Treasurer was able to raise the first instalment of the loan on Such favorable terms. It would be a mistake to suppose that the Government are insensible to this change, or that they intend to adhere obstinately to tbe principle of guarantee. We have, indeed, the express declaration of the Minister of Public Works that such is not their intention. The telegraphic summary of his reply to a question put by Mr Stafford was incomplete in so far as it omitted a very important—in many respects the most important—part. Mr Gisborne, as we are informed, distinctly stated that the Government were of opinion railways should be paid for in cash rather than by land or guarantee. The fact is, no definite and fixed proposal has yet been made by the Government on the subject of railway construction, if we except the schedule of lines which they intend to ask the House to sanction.