THE CZAR OF NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 890, 10 September 1910, Page 2

THE CZAR OF NEW ZEALAND RAILWAYS.

A STINGING CRITICISM.

The Dominion in enticing the Minister’s action in respect to the extension says:—

“Although he has often enough stood up in the House in the past in defence of strange and indefensible doctrines, we do not think the Hon. J. A. Millar has ever appeared to less advantage than when he declared in strident tones on Thursday that as Minister for Railways he is prepared to bend all his energies towards making the Foxton Harbour “go bung.’’ The style is the man, and the phrase we have placed in turned commas is the natural expression of the frame of mind in which Mr Millar approaches the question of the Sandon light railway extension- Most people will be inclined to fancy that it is not the frame of mind that should be expected in a Minister—that narrowness, ruthlessness, and insensate obstinacy are not the qualities upon Which good government can be founded. The facts of the case are simple enough. From J*ongburn, on the Main Trunk line, four miles on this side of Pal»

merstou, a spur Hue runs southwest for 20 miles to Foxtou, through Himatangi, which is six miles Irom the port- From Himatangi the locally-owned light railway runs northward for 17 miles to Pukenui. This place is within five miles of Greatford, which is on the Main Trunk Hue about 30 miles north of Eougburn. The Manawatu district is petitioning Parliament for leave to extend the light railway to bridge this gap of five miles between Pukenui and Greatford. It is urged that freight from Marton, the junction on the trunk line three miles north of Greatford, to the district served by the light railway must be carried round on the railway south to Himatangi, and then north again on the light railway, whereas if the local line were extended to Greatford they could be delivered direct. For example, goods from Martou could be delivered at Pukenui after a carriage of eight miles as against 6r miles necessary at present. “Mr Millar is determined to prevent the extension from Pukenui to Greatford, or, if be cannot do this, to manipulate the freight rates on the State line between Foxtou and Greatford so as to destroy Foxton as a port. And his reason ? Because he does not mean to allow the light railway to take traffic away from the State line. It is nothing to him that if the little gap of five miles were filled up the Manawatu district would merely be provided with the natural and normal avenue of transport. It is useless to appeal to him on the ground that that country is best served in which the means of internal communication are the easiest and cheapest. He is convinced that the “ interests of the country as a whole ” are best served by forcing the public to send its goods the longest way round. With such ignorance as this it is impossible to reason. By throwing himself against the proposed extension Mr Millar is operating against the interest of good transport and economical development just as much as if he were to shut up the Hutt road on the ground that it reduces the railway revenue by allowing people and goods to get into the Hutt Valley without paying railway fares and freights. Everybody in New Zealand, excepting apparently Mr Millar, believes that the easier and more convenient and slaightforward the means of transport and communication the better it is for the country. Mr Millar, however, holds that the true way to national wealth is to sacrifice ease, speed, and convenience to the policy of forcing everything on to the railways. It is not straining his arguments to say that they involve the reductio ad absurdum that “ the interests of the people as a whole ” would be better served if goods, instead of being sent from Wellington direct to the Hutt Valley, were sent up to Palmerston, across to Woodville, and thence down through the Wairarapa and over the Rimutakas. “The flagrant absurdity of Mr Millar’s economies, however, must be patent to everybody who troubles to think about the matter, A Minister for Railways who thinks the country is made for the railways, and not the railways for the country, is a large obstruction in the path of progress. By carrying out to its full extent the policy with which he justifies his opposition to the Pukeuui-Greatford extension — and the full extent of that policy would mean the blocking up of every means of transport but the railways, and the introduction of the rule that everything should be carried round and round and round before being set down — Mr Millar might, for a time, go a little nearer towards making the railways pay than he is able to go at present, but where would the country be ? If he wishes to make the railways pay, let him cut off the monstrous waste in running and in construction. Eet him place the system in the hands of intelligent Commissioners. What would he say, what would the Government say, if the Manawatu Company had proclaimed that it would manipulate its rates so as to make Foxton “go bung?” Should we not have had a clamour for the suppression of such an “enemy of the people?” So far as Mr Millar’s doctrine that the interests of the people can be served by destroying a natural port is concerned, one can only sympathise with a mind so benighted. Apart from the economics of the position, what is the public to think of a Minister who is capable of offering such a cruel and dangerous threat to any section of the community ? And does the public, from Invercargill to Bluff, approve of the use of its money to make Foxton ‘go bung’ in order that Mr Millar’s management may not appear even more unsatisfactory than it is under existing conditions ?’ r