THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Evening Star, Issue 2995, 24 September 1872, Page 4

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

We continue Mr Ormond’s speech :

VICTORIAN AND NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS. In confirmation of the opinion of the En-gineer-in-Chief, as to the prices for which we contracted with Messrs Brogden for railways, I will quote to the House some information with regard to railways in Victoria. The honorable member for the Hutt twitted my honorable colleague the Colonial Treasurer that the information which he had quoted to the House, with regard to the construction of railways in the other Colonies, was of an old date. Sir, the information I am going to quote is of recent date. I have the report of the Engineer-in-Chief of Victoria, Mr Higinbothatn, dated the 27th April, 1872. 1 have only taken from it such information as I thought would be useful to quote to the House. I have also a return connected with it, which I shall be very glad to lay on the table of the House. The report says “Attached to this repeat is a table, showing the cost per mile, and also the total cost of each of the lines which have been surveyed for the purpose of connecting Hamilton with Melbourne by railway. Three estimates are given for each line. The first estimate is for substantial but perfectly plain -works, of the same character as those of the North-Eastern Railway. The second is for the lightest possible works, on the standard gauge of 5 feet 3 inches. The third is for the slightest possible works, on the narrow gauge of 3 feet 6 inches. “All the estimates include rolling stock, stations, land engineering, and 10 per cent, for contingencies. “ The question of cheap railways for India, constructed both on the standard gauge (5 feet (i inches) and on narrower gauges, has lately received a great deal of attention in connection with the proposal to make from 7,000 to 10,000 miles of new railway in that country, and the moat eminent engineers in England have reported on the subject. The Government of India desired to obtain the cheapest railways which would meet the requirements of the districts through which the projected extensions will pass, and the engineers who were consulted express their concurrence in the view's of the Government in this respect, and have framed their estimates accordingly. The engineers consulted by the Government were Mr Fowler, Colonel Strachey, Colonel Dickens, and Mr Reudel. The lowest rate in Mr Powder’s estimate for a light railway on a 5 feet 6 inches gauge is L6,3(17 per mile, and for a similar railway on a 3 feet 6 inches gauge, L 6,501 per mile. The lowest rate in the estimate given by Colonels Strachey and Dickens and Mr Rendel is L 6 900 per mile for a light railway on the 5 feet 6 inches gauage, and L 5, ICO for a still lighter railway on a gauge of 2 feet 9 inches only. “ These"estimates, made by men who are eminent in their profession, and who have a thorough knowledge of the subject on which they give their opinions, are in striking contrast to the random statements so constantly put forward here as to the cost at which railways might be made, if only the plans of particular inventors were adopted.” When I read that, Sir, I thought it was particularly applicable to the statements that have been made throughout the Colony during the last few months. It must be remembered that, both in Victoria and in India labor is infinitely cheaper than it is in New Zealand, and that those estimates, by men of eminence in their profession, and such as we have not and are not likely to have in this country, are and ought to he taken as worth a great deal. I will quote from the return a few figures which I consider applicable, and which give the cost per mile of railways of light construction and of 3 feet fi inch gauge

“ Geelong to Hamilton, via Colac and Camperdown, 152 miles ; cost per mile, L 5.833. “Ballarat to Hamilton, via Burrurabeot and Dunkeld, 106 miies ; cost per mile, 14,906. “Castlemaine to Hamilton,via bewstead, Maryborough, and Ararat, 150 miles ; cost per mile, L 5.846. “Castlemaine to Hamilton, via Maldon, Maryborough, and Ararat, 145 miles ; cost per mile, L 6,045. “Ballarat to Hamilton, via Climes, Maryborough, and Ararat, 54 miles ; cost per mile, L 5,409. “Ballarat to Hamilton, via Beaufort and Ararat, 119 miles ; cost per mile, L 5,072. “Ballarat to Hamilton, via Carngham and Dnnkeld, 106 miles ; cost per mile, L 0,075. “Ballarat to Hamilton, via Scarsdale and Dnnkeld, 110 miles ; cost per mile, L 6,076.” It will be seen that the estimates, ranging from L4,90G to L 6,000, are in excess of the prices we have contracted with Messrs Brogden for, that price being L 4,800, which is below the lowest price estimated to be contracted for in Victoria, by the Chief Engineer of that Colony, for large works such as 1 have quoted. I think the words used by that gentleman in his report are singularly applicable to our case. Very few definite statements as to the cost of railways have been made in this House ; but among the most reckless may be included that of the honorable member for W airarapa (Mr Bunny), which was endorsed by the honorable member for Collingwood. Wherever he might have obtained his information or whatever it might have been founded upon, I do not know; but I am sorry to say it was also supported to a certain extent by (he honorable member for Waikouaiti, who I should never have expected would have given his countenance to a statement which 1 shall presently show had not a shadow of foundation, I do not remember in what terms the member for Wai kouaiti spoke in reference to the Hutt Railway, but his speech certainly led me to understand he confirmed the statement of the honorable members for Wairarapa and Collingwood, which was to the effect that something like L 1,500 or L 1,600 a mile might have been saved on the piece of railway contracted for by Messrs Brogden between Wellington and the Hutt. The honorable member says, “Hear, hear.” I can only regret that he should think it right to make a statement in this House which I am authorised to say, by Messrs Brogden, had not a shadow of foundation of any kind or description. The honorable member for Collingwood stated there had been an offer to do for L 1,700 what Messrs Brogden get L 3,500 for. The statement of the honorable member for Wairarapa was, that the contract for the Hutt line was let for L 1,600 per mile higher than it ought to have been; and my own impression is that he led the House to understand that an offer for L 1,700 had been refused. The facts of the case are these : Messrs Brogden had a tender

from the sub-contractor for earth-work, culverts, pitching, and bottom-ballasting, at the rate of L 1,700 per mile. The other works let to Messrs Brogden, not including those items which I have named, cost L 2,298 per mile; and the total cost of the sub-contracts, if accepted at this rate —taking the rate Messrs Brogden are allowed for the other works, and taking the rate of L 1,700 per mile —would have amounted to a total cost of L 0,998 per mile ; whereas the amount which is to be paid to be paid to Messrs Brogden under their contract is L 3,577. So that, had they accepted the sub-contractor’s offer, there would have been a loss per mile on his tender of L 421. That is the answer to the reckless assertions on that subject which have been put before this House—assertions which honorable gentlemen should hesitate before making, and which are absolutely without foundation or correctness. It was further stated that the third and fourth miles of this railway were the most difficult. 1 have not had time to ascertain by whom that statement was made, but honorable members are more in error with regard to that than they were with regard to the other matter to which I have just referred. The Engineer-in-Chief, whom 1 requested to make enquiries, tells me that the quantities and prices, when carefully worked out for tho third and fourth miles, show a cost of LI4OO, which is nearly the sum which Messrs Brogden receive for tho same kind of works I have described; and the tender which they received from the sub-contractor for the same works as they receive LI4OO for was for L 3577. Those are the kind of reckless statements which are made, and from which it is inferred that the Government have made engagements with Messrs Brogden for excessive prices. The honorable member for Timaru, in his speech, made a statement which has not been referred to by any of my colleagues, and which I desire to notice. He said that the Government had been warned that the price of iron was to rise, and blamed us for not having made arrangements in consequence. I have communicated with my colleagues, and I am in a position to tell the honorable gentleman that I absolutely deny that any such information was ever given to us. If such information had been given to us, and we had entered into a speculation in iron, which it would have been, the honorable gentleman would be one of the first to turn round and say we were in error in so doing; and some of those more energetic followers of his would have said wo were gambling in iron. We never had such a warning. Of course it has been to us a matter of great concern to hear, month after month, that the price of iron was rising, and that the public works of the Colony were becoming more and more expensive in consequence. The advices we have had from the Agent General, although informing us of the rise in the price of iron, had never led us to understand that he believed it would be more or less, and if we had desired the contractors to include rails in their contracts in the present uncertain state of the iron market, they would, of course, have wanted very large proportionate prices—proportionate to the risk which they might run. (To he continued. )