Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1878.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 205, 27 September 1878, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1878.

In- a very temperately written article the New Zmlander in its issue of Monday ];ist replies to out- leader, of' tile l.«th hist' iH reference W the railway ijuestioa. Our coulemporary commences as follows.- — " As a test case thot may servo as a precedent to decide many of a similar nature, the claim set forth by XeJson to be included in Mr Macandrew'a scheme fov the construction of reproductive public y/orfc? & O F. auflloW, Pp'dhfWce to warrant further reference to tlie subject. Our sub-leaders of the 10th and llth inst. have evoked a long reply in the Nelson Mail of Wednesday last, wherein the subject is well treated from a Nelson point of view. It has b<it bare justice to the writer W> d£j that the rational and temperate tone of the leader in a great measure atones for the absurdities uttered at the public meeting—which first called forth our hostile comments— anent obstructing the business of the House, or the unpardonable solecism of writing a semi-private letter, and allowing the contents to be giggled over in a printing office, or commented upon by the Press previous to its reception by the person to whom it was addressed. Though ably written, however, the article it is our present purpose to review says very little that is Calculated to advance the cause of the citizens of Nelson for the reconsideration of the proposals submitted to the House in regard to the extension of the railway system. Our coin temporary commences by the discovery of a seemiug contradiction betweeu the opinions expressed in our leader and sub-leader of the llth instant, the former expressing a regret that the original idea of making main trunk lines had not been adhered to, the latter showing the unreasonableness of the people of Nelson in making a present demand for the expenditure of a million sterling upon the construction of a railway, the remunerative results whereof are extremely problematical. It is noticeable at a glance that there is no incongruity in these opinions. It is much to be regretted that, instead of wasting money in such projects as the Nelson Creek or Waimea Waterraces, it was not expended in completing a railway system, even though portions of that system should bo iu themselves unwarranted as separate works. But then there were borrowed millions in perspective. Now these millions are spent, and iu future the railways taken in haud must be paid for out of the land they open up, ahd by the people they are constructed to benefit. It would be a very pleasing task to advocate the wants of our Nelson neighbors in this matter if they could only put forth some good and sufficient reason at present existing for the Construction of this Foxhill and West Coast line instead of relying upon a promise made years ago for the express purpose of being broken. This, however, they seem disinclined to do, preferring to taunt the members of the present Government into undertaking the work by citing the pledge given by their predecessors. The absurdity of this course to anyone acquainted with the facts of the case is apparent at a glance, but that the people of Nelson, represented by the Mail, refuse to take a rational view of the question is proved by the following extract from the article we refer to."

In support of its assertion that the Nelson people refuse to " take a rational view of the question;" the New Zealander proceeds to quote that portion of our article in which we referred to the repeated promises made by the Premier and the Minister for Public Works in the Vogel Government that the main trunk line should be continued to Nelson, and then goes on to argue that these promises were of an "utterly unreliable nature." Supposing for argument's sake that they were so. What about the Act of 1873 in which the Legislature confirmed the promises of Ministers, and enacted that the railway which we now claim should be constructed? Surely this was not "a promise made for the express purpose of being broken." If our contemporary meant this he might as well have pointed his fiuger at the members of the New Zealand Parliament as he gravely asseited, " all men are liars " But he has adopted a far wiser course. He has chosen, instead of making so grave a charge, to completely ignore the Railways Act of 1873, and to confine his accusations of untrutbfulness and unreliability to Sir Julius Vogel and Mr Richardson. The JSew Zealander still holds to the opinion that the main trunk line as originally proposed ought to have been carried out, but appears to consider that it is not desirable now, for the reason that "in future the, railways taken iu hand must be paid for out ot the land they open up, and by the people they are constructed to benefit." Tbi3 is absolutely incorrect. It is proposed to raise a new loan for the purpose of contributing to the cost of railway construction, just as it was in the days of Sir Julius Vogel, and, of the fresh responsibility to be incurred, Nelson will have to bear its share, not only without receiving any corresponding benefit but with exactly the opposite result. Our contemporary expresses regret that a portion of the previous loan had been wasted on useless water races. So do we, but we fail to see why the people, of Nelson are to be the sole sufferers from this foolish expenditure ou the part of the Government. If it could be said that no more money was to be available for railway purposes except that which might flow into the Treasury from the sale of lands to be opened up, our claim would certainly be weakened, but Bince there is to be a fresh loan, we assert without hesitation, and we believe that we shall have the support of all who are disposed to look at the matter fairly, that the first duty of the Government is to carry out the leading feature of the original public works policy, namely the construction of a main trunk line. Where money is to be borrowed for the purpose of extending our railway system, this should take precedence of all branch lines. On this point we take a firm stand, and upon it we appeal to the Legislature for protection against the wrong that is proposed to be inflicted upon us. The New Zealander concludes its article as follows:—" Having said sufficient to remove the erroneous impression entertained by the people of Nelson as to the promises of the past, and present their being again gulled by interested political agitators, a very few words will suffice to show what is really required to ensure for their claim the consideration of the present Government. Let it be shown that the proposed extension of the Foxhiil railway lairly promises to be a reproductive work — that sufficient land suitable for agricultural purposes can be brought into the market by the construction of this line to defray at least a fair proportion of its cost, and prevent it becoming an additional burden to the people of the colony. If this can be made manifest, we shall be only well pleesed to alter our opinion of a work at present the subject of hostile criticism for the only reason that induces an opposition to any scheme of magnitude that at the public cost is calculated to injure the many for the beuefit of the few." On tbi3 point we start with the assumption that it is most desirable to connect all the principal centres of population in the colony by a trunk line of railway. Now with the proposed extension of the lino from Amberley to Brunnerton, that which wo require can no

longer b'e designated .1 Nelson and West Coast railway) but it will be a section of the main line, and as such it is quite impossible to calculate its probable receipts or the benefits it will confer on the colony as ;t whole. . When in 1573 the Inlaud Coriimtiniofyton Cpmii'itte* '.Veut into the matter iW collected statistics, the whole ot ! their calculatious were based wpou the proposed line being simply one that was to connect the enstern and western extre vities of the Nelson province, and <;ven under such restrictions they were able to show a probable satisfactory, rest'.U. ,If tiie^, we're correct Jn so doing, ilow rauclii mo<e ilkelj is it th'St Lite lhie will prove payable if, instead of iiierel*" connecting Nelson with Groymouth, it is to be one link in the chain of railway communication between Nelson and the Bluff? We arc not going; to injure our cause by exaggerated shUeliietits aa to the,"hi!u«; of .the country that would be opened dp fo'y itik section of the main line, but we may fairly point to the large extent of timber and agricultural land in Uie Grey "Valley! to ttie miniug district of Reefton where; despite tlie eriormotis cost of (■ouveyiug machinery on to tlie ground < there are already several quartz crushing companies at work, which iast year turned out gold to the value of over £100,000. Here too is coal of excellent quality, and of untold quantity, which would be conveyed to Nelson were a, railway constructed, and, if it is to the trausit of coal that Mr Macandrow looks to a large extent for the remunerative character of the Amberier-Brunnerton line, the same argument holds good In support of the Nelson and Coast line. Above Reefton ia the Inangahua Pallet, some '20 miles in length by two in breadth/ containing excellent soil, and where, bad as are the present means of comrriunicatio'n, hind has recently changed hands at £11 per acre. Here, too, there are fine belts of timber of the best kind— totara and rimu. There is tlie Suller Valley, with plenty of good land in the neighborhood, there are the valleys of the Matakitaki and the Maruiii, containing quantities of laud of a very fair character, and excellent timber. Ail this country would be tapped by the railway, and, with such connection with the town aild port of Nelson would, as estimated by Mr Dobson, from whose report we quoted last week, afford occupation to a population of at least 35,00 ). When it is remembered that a very large proportion of the land to be thus opened up is still in the hands of the Crown; and that the proceeds of its sale would go far tdwiird.3 meeting the cost of the construction of the railway, aiid when it is remembered that this line is not merely an isolated one, but is a section of the railway ruuning from the extreme north to the extreme south of the island, and that without it no connection will exist between the two-, when all these matteis are taken into consideration, they surely afford a very strong argument for its being carried out, an argument that is not to be pooh-poohed or lightly set ou one side on the ground that somebody had once said that the line — as a distiuct line and taken by itself— would not prove remunerative. _ Besides these,- there is another consideration that is well worthy of attention, although by some it may be deemed a fflere matter of sentiment. It is this; that under the scheme as at present proposed, the northern portion of this island will be very materially injured. Its trade will be diverted, and its population, in consequence, will be very largely decreased, while those who remain will never cease to labor under the sense of being the victims of grossly unfair treatment at the hands of those to whom they looked to advance rather than to retard their welfare. Is it politic, is it statesmanlike so to deil with a community that comprises one fifteenth of the whole population? Mr Slicehan makes a great point of raising from a state of "sulky isulation" some thirty or forty thousand Maoris; Mr Macandrew proposes to reduce to that state some thirty or forty thousand settlers, many of whom have bravely borne their share in the work of colonising New Zealand. With an earnestness that we cauuot express in words we commend all these considerations not only to our representatives, but to every member of the two Houses of Assembly and to the Ministry of the colony, of which we still hope to see Nelson remain a part, iu reality as well as in name despite Mr Macandrew's expressed intention of expatriating us.