The Lyttelton Times SATURDAY, DEC. 17, 1881.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6492, 17 December 1881, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times SATURDAY, DEC. 17, 1881.

No. nano man over doubted tlie retd object of the Government any mors tban that of the Abolitionists. The manner In which the railways have been managed from the days of Abolition to the present hour have taken care of that. Abolition was based on a phrase, or rather upon an adjective. To bo “Colonial" wan, in the minds of the Abolitionists, the supremo virtue. The advantages were so obvious, it was a wonder to them that anybody could bo prevented from seeing them. They oer* ettinly were obvious to the men who carried Abolition, and they have since become more than obvious. They have, become real. To got money from the districts that are squeeaible for the benefit of those that are not; this is the grand principle on which wo are governed. The railways supply a re* markable instance in point. The great advantage of Abolition was to bo the

Sieitlurlljr of gAiip, of tariff. fiioiUatlty of Rccouota. •imiiarUjr of owythlug. All ibcfic eliuilaritua were •opfHMMtd to canaliluto porfroiioii. It wn» in tain to urge tlmt in alt itioto eiuikriiiiM. or inony onoof ihotn, thoro ■«« no magical effect. Born# poor roftiwianbic beings even ventured to protest that in some things It {« belter not to h# too like one’s neigh hours. It was usekss. The « milaritks carried the day, and now we have the result. The Province of Canterbury was the pioneer of railway enterprise in Mew Zealand. Even in those days Canterbury felt that it eonld raise the funds accessary for railway construetietj, pay the whole charges out of the railway profits, and develop the resources of the land without getting anything more out of the railways. Abolition saw realised tbo two first calculations in the hopeful triple proarotmne, and took care to neutralise io third. It woe at the time when the Colonial power had pasted into the hands of the men—-Messrs Hall and Rolieaton—who had fought unsuccessfully in the early Canterbury days against tbo inception of the railway policy. They preferred donkey-carts, as the cartoons of the time remind us. to the locomotive. Having tried to prevent the sowing of the seed, they, in the coarse of rolling years find themselves holding the power of laying under contribution the splendid harvest. The amusing thing about their reaping —lor they have taken good care to reap an extortionate unjust inexpedient tax of £60,000 a-year—is that while reaping they keep bragging of their devotion to the cause of progress.

Since the elections the correctness of this description not new in these columns bos been admitted in the chief Ministerial organ. As this is the only journal in New Zealand whoso fidelity to the Government was proof against the autocratic attempt of oMr Bryce to stifle newspaper description of his illegal acts, we may accept the admission as equal In value to on official utterance. The admission would have been dangerous during the progress of the elections. That is the reason why we have only got it after the polling day has made Ministerial plain speaking safe lor three years, ns far as the electors are concerned. Accordingly there has been no' beating about the bash, nor any unnecessary delay. We have been informed at the earliest sale moment, m the plainest manner, that the Government intends to manage the railways oolonislly, and that by that the Government understands the policy of substituting the squeezibie limit of the railway districts, for the limit of justice, fairness, and expediency, as a bar to the extraction of railway profit. In the working of the Colonial railways, there is a deficiency every year at present. The question in the public mind is how shall that deficiency be made good. In answer, there are various theories. One of these is that the districts in which the railway deficiencies occur should make good the losses by the proceeds of a special local rale. This was the condition on which the railway policy was originally undertaken by the Colony. Another theory is that those who actually use the railways should pay for them, the contribution of each district being regulated by a differential tariff calculated on the basis of the deficiency of the district This is the system of differential rates which has many advocates, whose numbers are increasing. A third theory is that the whole Colony should make good the deficiency oat of the proceeds of the general taxation, so that no district should be mode to pay more than it oan afford in the way of railway rates, and more than is necessary for the payment of its own lawful railway charges. The fourth and last is that the railways should if possible be made to pay the whole of the charges on railway construction, the tariff being so arranged that the main burden must be borne by the districts which pay the beat, without regard to their claims political or of justice. The last is the theory adopted by the Government and advocated by the chief Ministerial organ. In its justification the discovery is put forward that the Canterbury districts are 11 favoured districts," and that as such they must pay a penalty for tbeir prosperity. It is the basis on which the much scouted *' bursting up" theory is founded. We have become—apparently by a conspiracy between nature and art—wealthy in the matter of railways. Bleeding is the proper remedy. The arguments in support of this policy are not a little strange. Local rating is, we are told, impossible, because the original intention of the Colony, and agreement between its several parts, respecting that practice have been neglected. Therefore, wo most submit to specially heavy tariffs. The reasoning Is bad, because ait injustice is not the proper thing for repairing an omission. Another argument is that a commercial company doing as it pleased, would most certainly manage the railways go us to squeeze the fat for the benefit of the lean. This reasoning is bad, lor a very simple reason. A company is a despotic authority, and oan do as it pleases. A Government is not, A Government is bound to consider what has gone before. Canterbury would have bad her own railways, whether the Colony had any railways or bad remained content with the donkey-cart of Messrs Holieston and John Hall, When the Colony determined against the said donkeycart, the Colony exacted a guarantee from the districts that by signing the general accommodation bill for the general railways, the Colony would bo protected by the districts. The arrangement was supposed to be like many others of similar character, purely formal. The general understanding. as embodied in the local rating clause, was that no district unable to pay railway charges within a reasonable time should ask for a share in the proceeds of the general railway guarantee. Canterbury applied lor railways in the spirit of that understanding, and has performed her share of the bargain, u others have failed to keep their word, that is not a reason

why the resulting deficiency should tie paid by Canterbury. It is not a question of what a commercial company would now do with the railways. The niion it of justice to a district which nes to he punished for having loyalty performed its share of a bargain. Thu Colony ought to make compoosa lion. It is unfair to make Canterbury pay compensation for the Colonial breach of faith. There are only two ways in which the commercial argument can apply. Hither the railways must have been from the first under the management of a commercial company, or th< y must ho managed so that lh« cost of hnulnge is paid by those whoso goods are hauled. The first is, in the nature of things, impossible. The second is the only alternative to bo accepted if we are to have g«voroment of the railways on commercial principles. The only alternative to that is to adopt the principle that no rail way should pay more than its own railway charges, leaving the Colony as a whole to make op the general deficiency, if any. This alternative is condemned as mean and sordid—an argument which applies to all differences of opinion concerning matters financial. If to oppose a proposition of finance is mean and sordid, then all propositions of finance must he accepted without debate. The fact is that nearly alt the Canterbury members are pledged to resist railway robbery, owing their seats in a great measure to the pledge. Hence it has been judged necessary—after the elections let os not forges—to brand resistance to absolute spoliation as an act of sordid meanness. If the Canterbury members allow tbit reasoning to make them forget their pledges, their constituencies will not, wo feel snre, forget them.