RAILWAY POLICY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 830, 23 April 1910, Page 3

RAILWAY POLICY.

STATEMENT BY PREMIER. Whilst at Eevin on Thursday the Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Ward) made some interesting remarks on an important phase of the railways policy, when replying to representations from the Horowhenua County Council and the Levin Borough Council in favour of the construction of a line from Levin to Greattord. Referring to the proposed line, Mr Field M.P., said that it would pass through much valuable fiat country. In addition, it would mean that the journey from Wellington to Auckland would be shortened by r 6 miles, which would be equivalent to one hour. Mr Gardener ( Mayor of Levin ) declared that scores of people would be willing to pul capita! into the proposed line, which should pay handsomely. If, however, the Government would agree, to construct it, there would be no difficulty in getting a guarantee to make up any difference in the earnings up to y/> per cent, on the cost. They wished to know exactly what were the intentions of the Government in the matter. Some years ago a promise was made that the line would be surveyed, but that had never been done.

Mr M’Leavey pointed out that there might at any time be difficulty in connection with the present line owing to the fact of the Makerua swamp, which was being drained, sinking. Sir Joseph explained that the Government was not in favour of private people making railways. Almost, everywhere that there has been private railways in addition to State lines, the former has been a failure, and as a rule pressure was sooner or laterr brought on the Government of the country to purchase them. In fact, it usually turned out that it would have been better for the Government to have constructed the lines in the first place. He knew something about negotiations for the acquisition of private lines, as, for instance, he took part in those in connection with the Manawatu line. If the Government allowed the proposed railway to be built by private enterprise, it would be charged with the stoppage of the circulation of the money that was expended in it and told that if the line had been necessary it should have been built by the Government. Asjregards the decision of the Government that future railways must pay y/z per cent, on the cost of construction, he would like to make the position quite clear. If the proposal had been in operation 25 years ago he was sure that one or two of the present railways would never have been built. The fact was that the Government would require to get a guarantee of a return ever a period of years of the 3J3 per cent, on the cost of construction of a proposed line. If that were not insisted upon the result would be one of two things —either a less vigorous policy of construction or a very great increase of the cost of freights and rates to make a reasonable return in respect of the whole of the railways. Before starting on a line the Government should ascertain whether it would be able to pay 3/2 per cent, on the cost ol construction within a reasonable time. Tines which would be a very heavy burden for all lime were undesirable. To prevent the construction of really unprofitable lines the Government was following a sound route by saying that there should be a system —he did not say as inflexible as the laws of the Medcs and the Persians—under which there would be what was only a reasonable return on the cost within a reasonable time. Districts benelilling would be required to guarantee to contribute any difference between the earnings and 3>2 per cent, of the cost. That was exactly what the Government proposed to ask the country to agree to. It should be agreed to in order to get the uncompleted lines finished as early as possible, as, in the meantime, these railways could not give their full return on their outlay. He realised that the present railways fell far short of the requirements of the future ; many hundreds, or he should say thousands, of miles had yet to be made. There was * one line in particular, and lor its inauguration the present Government was not responsible, which paid only about 7s. per cent, on a very large sum. about two millions. The fact of the loss on that line was being used against the whole railway system —the South Island particularly—as though the whole of them did not pay. As he had said before, the Government could not help the present position of that line. The people should be asked to protect the Government the possibility of undertakthe construction of lines which would not pay a reasonable percentage. If the Government were to undertake to make all the railways wherever a guarantee was given to make up any loss up to 3per cent., it would require to spend a very large amount, perhaps twenty millions in one year. The duty of the Government, however, was to protect the people against themselves. If New Zealand wanted to preserve its good name financially, it should not go in for over-railroading, even although guarantees were offered. If the Government were 1 to go in for wholesale borrowing ' for railways, under those circumstances the result would be that its good name would stink in financial circles, and the effects would re-act on everybody in the country. The Governmeut must pot yield to people who were par-

ticularly anxious to get railways —the requests should receive mature consideration, for it might turn out that the railway in question would never pay a reasonable percentage. In his opinion, the best course for the Government to adopt would be to lay down a straight-out policy, and to name the railways which were to be undertaken first and within a reasonable time. He also thought that the Government should ask the people to assist it to adhere to its policy in the matter in order that too much might not be undertaken at one time. If there was a promise made to have the proposed line surveyed, and reported upon, that would be done, but that, of course, would not imply that the Government would go on with the work.