Feilding Star. THURSDAY. MARCH 19, 1885. Railway Reform

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 117, 19 March 1885, Page 2

Feilding Star. THURSDAY. MARCH 19, 1885. Railway Reform

+ No subject is of more interest to the settlers on the Wanganui-Mana-watu section of railway than the question of reform in the tariff. We therefore will endeavor, in the limited space of a leading article, to discuss the matter with the valuable assistance of Mr 8. Yaile, an Auckland gentlenan, who has been for some years a persistent agitator in this direction. In a letter to a contemporary this gen* tleman says : — " My assertion U that by altering our system of management and lowering passenger fares to about one-fifth of the present rates we can make a clear gaia of £200,000 per annum at the least, and I beliere the gfcin would not be less than £500,000. If we applied the £200,000 to the reduction of goods freights it would relieve them to tb« extent of over onethird all round. Thus w« could reduce passenger fares to one-fifth and goods and cattle freights to two-thirds without adding anything to existing burdens. I propose also to deal as fully as time will allow with the pernicious and dishonest system ef ' differential rating.' " We are prepared to admit that on the whole the system of railway management of the Colony is capable of great improvement so far as regards passenger and goods tariff, but we are not clear that Mr Vaile has shadowed out a plan which in the end would not be found to contain grave errors. We are of opinion that Mr Vaile' s reform begins at the wrong end, inasmuch us he appears to think that the first object of importance is the revenue derivable from passengers, and to secure an increase in this, he would lower the passenger fares to one-fifth of the present rates, and by this so multiply the number of travellers as to make a clear gain of £200,000 per annum. If Mr Vaile can do this he will bear away the palm from any railway financiers that have yet existed. In a densely populated country like England, where there are many thousands of people of leisure who may be tempted to travel by cheap fares, the scheme works well, but in the Colonies, where, virtually, there are no idle people, it does not seem feasible. Colonists travel only when their business compels them. It is better that it should be so. We see no reason why direct inducement should be held out to people to waste valuable time in a railway carriage on an objectless journey. The moving population is not as a rule characterised by poverty. The only occasions on which we would advocate cheap fares are when any great gathering of people is to be held at any point ; then by all means encourage the masses to travel. Where we agree entirely with Mr Vaile is in his proposal to reduce the goods freights, and especially do we agree with him as to the " pernicious and dishonest system of differential rating" — for dishonest it is, inasmuch as a charge is made for work that is not done. All calculations of freight in the case of other carriers are either by weight or measurement, and the railway authorities profess to be ruled by similar laws as the drayman or shipowner. All goods and minerals are rated at dead weight and timber by measurement. But when "differential rating" is applied the pleasant fiction is upset. As grain is one of the staple productions and a recognized standard of weight, we may safely take it as a basis to start from. For 30 miles the present grain rate is 7s 8d per ton, and for goods under class A 20s — that is to say the charge made on the latter is equal to two tons thirteen hundredweight of ■grain, within a fraction. Yet it costs exactly the same money to the railway for hauluge. If any private contractor was to offer to make such a charge he would be laughed at. Some extra risk may be in the liability of expensive goods to suffer damage in transit, but the bye-laws in force afford ample protection to secure the railways from loss in this connection. At one time in discussing this subject we said, speaking of the tariff as affecting this district, that we would submit to increased charges on goods carried under classes A and B provided that the rates f er timber were reduced, on the grounds that as we depended so much on this one industry, its encouragement would so increase population, and consequently the consumption of goods carried under these classes that the commercial men on whom the tax would first fall would gladly meet it, as they would be liberally recouped by their increased business. We have seen pf> reason sine© to change these views, but they must be .understood as

J applying only to Manawatu. We will I refer to this subject in a future issue. Mr Yaile has undertaken the task of railway reform single-handed, at his own cost, and although we may differ from him in a minor detail yet he has our best wishes for his general success.