POLITICAL RAILWAYS.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 365, 4 March 1876, Page 3

POLITICAL RAILWAYS.

It is pretty generally admitted in all countries to be expedient that Government should be able to control or veto all railways projected. It is not admitted to be wise for Government to construct and work railways itself. In a few countries Government railways are being tried. In 1834 Belgium, by choice began the system at a cost of over £IB,OOO per mile. India, under the Marquis Dalhousie, adopted of necessity the same system —so far as responsibility for payment went. At the first, indeed, in India, the railways were to be constructed on a mixed partnership style, which did not succeed, and was abandoned by Earl Mayo. In Russia and Prussia the State constructs as well as grant aid to companies. Egypt has also dabbled a good deal with Government public works, the last venture being a big share in the Suez Canal. In Belgium the nett profits shown have been satisfactory, but the Belgium railways were thoroughly well constructed, and their routes lay through a thickly populated country, peculiarly well adapted for rail traffic. There is no reason to suppose but that just as many railways would be open in Belgium now if the Government had never interfered at all. At the same time the rates charged would probably be higher. In India the result has been directly a failure. Lord Sandhurst, writing in December last, advocating that the British purchase of Egypt's rights in the Supz Canal should be thrown into the hands of a company, pointed out the failure in India of Government supervision of public works. He says :—«" I need not remind you that as a money speculation, so far as the State is concerned, the Indian Government railway system has hitherto proved a most disastrous though I believe the indirect benefits it sheds on India afford sufficient amends for the taxes thus rendered necessary." In New Zealand, so far as present results go, we cannot speak with any confidence for or against the Public Works scheme. We i certainly know that ohr railways are cheap, and of a most temporary character,, and that the short lengths already open near.jbhe centres of trade are payiDg a good interest, if we put a'side all consideration of the rapid destruction of cheap plant., We know that Government harbor and water works have been hitherto most disastrous financial failures. Whether Government should interfere or not with private enterprise in the construction of public works has yet to be decided. Granting the general principle of Government interference as being in some cases justified, the secondary problem —What works shall be included ? —comes at once into prominence. In New Zealand, Otago only has had to deal with this second phase of the question. An accurate judicial line can no doubt be drawn between main works necessary for the development of large tracts of unalienated lands and local works projected for the benefit of alienated lands. For instance, it is easily seen that the construction of a main line of railway from Dunedin to Invercargill might be justified, although every shilling came from the general taxpayer. It would Dot therefore follow that a branch line to a coalpit at Kaitangata, or to a 10,000-acre unimproved freehold at Maerewhenua, would also be justified. The fact that all the lines would pay interest and working expenses would be no justification. The public capital of the country available for works must be limited, and therefore can be distributed to better or worse indirect public advantage, according to the lines sanctioned. In 1873 the Waiareka Railway—running altogether through private estates, some two or three of very large area—was irregularly sanctioned by the Provincial Executive, and condoned afterwards by the Council. The Awomoko Railway, running up the Waitaki under similar conditions, was sanctioned at the same time in the same irregular way. In both these cases private proprietors—who had bought their lands in some instances at as low a rate as 20s. to 10s. per acre, without the slightest exertion on their part, and without being called upon to take any risk—suddenly found their properties raised in value to sums varying from £5 to £lO per acre, owing to the activity of their political friends. The public capital, which should have been available for opening up public lands for extended, settlement, was locked up for the benefit of those already settled, and who were within an easy distance of railway communication. J h 1874 the Provincial Government of Otago saw the difficulty, and we may add the injustice of giving way to political pressure to aggrandise a few with public money. Accordingly, when the pressure got beyond Executive control, Mr. Reid asked the Council to agree to certain resolutions:— Ist. That no district railway shall be undertaken or authorised by the Provincial Government to be constructed un- — til.the consent of not less than twothirds of the owners of property in the district supposed to be benefitted by ".• ■•. Biich railway (the boundaries of such district to be defined by the Council) shall have been obtained to a rate being levied from time to time on all property within such district, to a

sufficient amount to make up two-fifths of the deficiency (if any) of the cost of working the line, over and above the cost of levying and collecting such rat>s. 2nd. [This clause provides for collection of district opinion] 3rd. [Provides Crown lsmds should be. liable to be rated until sold, the sum to come out of Provincial revenue.] 4th. [Provides that special provision be made by owners of mines or other works, to which any line shall be constructed, for contributing to the work- ■ ing expenses and interest, as may be determined by the Council.] sth. A district railway shall mean a railway connecting with amain branch, or main line of railway. These resolutions were affirmed, although many Members objected to them as being too vague.. Their spirit' was, however, excellent. The letter is unfortunately useless. The projectors of any distinct railway who have friends at Rome succeed in calling their line a main railway or a main branch, and at once escape local responsibility. Resolution 5 ought to have disregarded the accidental and unimportant point ; of connection, and considered only in its definition what relation general traffic would bear to the line, irrespective of local traffic in its immediate vicinity. A line constructed to Tuapeka or to Waihemo, to carry the traffic of the Interior, could not be charged against the present freeholders, whose lands it ran through, rlthough the proposed rating of Crown lands was intended to equalise such a charge. A line made in a loop from Mosgiel to Outram, leading to nowhere, and receiving no perceptible outside traffic, and, for all its length, within a trifle over two miles of a main line, most certainly should. Tet the Mosgiel line is sanctioned as a main line, and the cost and responsibility thrown upon the general revenue. The resolutions of 1874,' although in the right direction are manifestly waste paper. It is necessary some clear principle should be laid down to protect the public revenues from the schemes of unscrupulous men. The possible enhancement in value'of large estates is an immense, bribe sure to lead to political corruption. The soundest principle would be for Government to refuse to construct district railways in any case. There is no reason why private companies should not be encouraged to open such lines themselves,. Road Boards might find it economical to combine to construct such lines to relieve their main district lines from heavy traffic. In any case, except by Government interference, the cost and responsibility would fall upon the right parties.