New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4315, 19 January 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1875.

The Otago Daily Times, of the 15th instant, has a very amusing leading article. It purports to be a reply to our strictures on the management of constructed railways by the Provincial Governments of Otago and Canterbury, which appeared in our issue of the 7th instant. The article in question is not at all meant to be amusing. It is written in the most serious mood ; but its style is so coarse, and its statements are altogether so opposed to fact, and to the testimony of its own leading columns, that wo charitably ascribe it to an amateur, who seats to please his provincial patrons by the sacrifice at once of truth and selfrespect. It is rumored that our Dunedin contemporary retains a chaplain for the solo purpose of making intercession with its tutelary deity, the public, for its manifold transgressions ; and we seriously recommend the respon sible authorities of the Daily Times to send the author of its lucubration of the 15th, to the accredited “ Slraightner ” of the establishment, for the purpose of undergoing a course of moral pm-gation. Our contemporary has discovered something vex - y like “ a mare’s nest.” He credits us with a perverse ingenuity which wo certainly do not possess. This is his reading of our article, so far as motive is concerned; — It la always an interesting sight to watch tho manmuvrssof those astute and wary souls who go a long way round to accomplish their purposes. In politics, as in war, combined movements are either eminently successful, or they are tho causes of hopeless ruin to the projector. To make a coup depend upon half a dozen different events all coming off at tho right moment, is simply to multiply the causes of disaster. When the fox in the story found Jus own tail dropping off, ho attempted gradually to persuade his brethren that they must carry their brushes more gracefully,' or lose them. With true vulpine cunning, our Northern contemporaries see that the great Southern provinces must be underrated, their management bemuddled, their exploits belittled, in order to prepare tho public mind for their extinction. u e may suppose to ourselves the managers of the campaign assembled in corroboree, and devising the method of their stratagems, with the avowed Resign of preparing the public mind for the deprovmcialismg of tho South. Now we do not write as defenders of provincialism especially. On tho contrary, so that good faith and plighted troth bo observed, we do not care a great deal if provincialism be extinguished. Then follows the charge against ourselves, which we shall reproduce in our contemporary’s own words, not following his example of culling a Single sentence from a long paragraph and completely falsifying our language and intention. The Daily .7two*:continues We cannot congratulate the New Zealand Times, we merely cite this one paper as a sample of the prevailing method, upon tho ingenuity of their last strategical movement. In a late Issue this very excellent paper takes infinite pains to show that the management of railways In Otago and Canterbury is so unsuccessful that—they had better hand them over to the colony. Many answers to the attack are to our hand. First, wo reply that the allegation is absolutely and entirely untrue. Again, we may answer that tho minor premise of the syllogism is not admitted. The argument assumes that the railways of the colony aro well managed. We deny tire fact, and challenge proof. Or, again, if both major and minor premise were true, the conclusion by no means fol1' w». In its issue of the.Tth inst., the New Zealand Times says of the Southern Uailways:—“As to the first point—loss of revenue—that is notorious. The management of the Dunedin and Port Chalmers railway since it passed out of the hands' of -the' coapar.y into tho hands of tiro Provincial Government has simply been a standing disgrace.” After . recording some tittle tattle, forwarded, we suppose, by the man in the street, the article in question refers to “the conspicuous. failure in railway management made by Otago," as If the point had been proved instead of assximed. Now reckless misstatements of this kind are most fitly dealt with in private life by means of a horsewhip. In the case of • province we cannot detail the Speaker of the Council to administer chastisement. We must simply reply, and prove our reply by figures, that such a statement is a disgrace to tlie paper that made it, being entirely false in fact, inference and argument. The gross receipts of the Port Chalmers lino for December were £3433 os. 4d., the expenses were £1290 10s, Id., leaving a profit of £2IBB 103. 3d. for the month. The dutha line receipts for the same month were £533 Os. od,, tho expenses wore £lO3 55.'31., leaving a clear profit of £328 15s. Od. The Southland railways made £2169 175., while the expenses were £1175 13s. Id., leaving a net return of £934 3s. lid. The total profits, therefore, of the Otagd and Southland lines amounted for one month to £3499 9s. Sd., or very neatly £42,000 per annum. Now, to the foregoing we answer, first, that the Daily Times has knowingly and wilfully misrepresented ns, because he had our article before him. Our charge against the Provincial Government of Otago : was qualified, but it was true to the minuest detail, as wo shall prove from the records of the Provincial Council of Otago and the leading columns of the Daily Times before wo have done.- VVe certainly said that “ tho management of “ the Dunedin and Port Chalmers rail-- “ way since it passed out of the hands of “tho company into the hands of the “Provincial . Government has simply “ been a standing disgrace.” This is true, ns we shall prove; and we added, in illustration of our statement, “ that for several months no traffic “accounts had been;'rendered, and “ that when it was deemed desir- “ able to collect freight, shippers and “ importers were simply requested to in- “ form the railway officials what quantity “ of goods they had passed along the “ line.” We mentioned that as a rumor ; we now state it as a fact, so notorious in Dunedin as to have become a public scandal, although it did hot find its way into tho local newspapers ; and we challenge tho Provincial Government to a full inquiryih disproof. Wejthoii proceeded to, state that latterly, through a change of considerable improvement was effected, but that “even then, the “ lighters'oh the fiver, which had beori “driven off by the company, competed “ successfully with the railway, and car- “ ried the bulk of the heavy merchandise “ between Port Chalmers and Dunedin.” This 1 is notoriously the case, and the Daily Times, when culling one sentence from our -article, and suppressing the qualifying remarks, well knew that it 1 was true. We further excepted the Southland railways from our strictures, because there happened to bo an efficient manager, although the Daily 'limes writes as if we classed these with the Port Chalmers line, which was managed in such a discreditable manner under the very eyes of tho Provincial Government; but wo certainly did say, that had it boon otherwise the Provincial Government would not have provided any check. Neither would the Port Chalmers line have been in a whit more satisfactory position at tho present day if the Government had not been coerced into changing, tho mimgeraent through public discontent, and entrusting the work of administrative reform to tho efficient manager of the Southland railways. But tho whole thing depended upon that gentleman : the Provincial Government wore innocent of any control or supervision such as would be exercised by a board of railway directors. And wo concluded our charge against the Otago Provincial Government with these words: “ The result, however, “ is that the Otago railways did not pay, “ oven nominally, until very recently, “ and that they do not now pay nearly so “well as they might, or as they would, “were they in the hands of a private “ company. . Wo reiterate these remarks: the reply of our contemporary is quoted above. Coining to, that reply, we have to remark, first, that tho traffic returns for Docombyr, 1874, are no answer to our general siatomont that until recently the Otago railways did not pay even nominally, and that they do not now pay

nearly so well as they might under private direction.. The December returns are altogether : exceptional. They the whole of the holidays, when there is an immense passenger traffic, which t _pays best.. To take December as an average of the year is simply absurd ; but even then, we have no knowledge that the figures quoted by the Daily Times are authentic. But if they were, they are only partial returns. What we want to see is a properly audited return of income and expenditure of the Port Chalmers railway, in terms of the agreement by which it was handed over to the Provincial Government. No such return has yet been published ; and wo call the attention of the General Government to the fact. The Provincial Auditor should certainly, in the performance of his duties, have audited these returns quarterly: if so, where are they? Now that the question has been raised in this shape, the colony, which purchased the railway, has a right to know whether the Otago Government has kept faith, and made provision for a depreciation fund, as Canterbury scrupulously does every year, amounting to 5 per cent, of the gross receipts. Wo say, therefore, that the figures quoted by our. contemporary are delusive. Whether a railway pays, or does not pay, is not to be determined by a single month’s receipts. We now come to the question of management. To show that we did not depend upon “the man in the street” for our information, we quote from the Journals of thb Otago Provincial Council for 1874. A select committee of the Council was appointed to enquire into “ the management and''carrying capacity “of the Port Chalmers railway.” The report was brought up on the 30th of May, 1874, from which we extract the following : Your committee has now to report having carefully considered the remit made to it, and that it has, after a most searching investigation, arrived at the following conclusions, viz. Ist. That up to the present time the Dunedin and Port Chalmers railway has not given satisfaction to importers or exporters, or to the public generally, and has not carried nearly the quantity of goods it might have done. 2nd. That tin’s state of things lias resulted from the following, causes(lst.) Inefficient management. (2nd). Want of additional shed accommodation, (3rd). Want of sufficient rolling-stock. (4th). Want of additional engines, piers, cranes, &c. That is tolerably conclusive on score of mismanagement; but we have more damnatory evidence to produce. We refer not alone to this, but also to the fact, stated by ns, that owing to such mismanagement by the Provincial Government, the lighters, which had been driven off by the railway company, were competing successfully with the railway. The first evidence we adduce is that of the manager of the Port Chalmers railway. In his printed report for tho year ending March 31st, 1874, we find the following significant passage : I would respectfully recommend that when the wool season ceases, a reduction in the tariff be made to enable the line to successfully compete with water carriage, say to 4s. per ton, the rate charged by the lighters. This, I think, would have the effect of keeping the line well employed during the slack months. Should the Government not approve of this course, I would recommend that an arrangement be come to on the basis of an offer made to me recently by Messrs. Guthrie and Larnacli, the lighter agents, and which I believe would bo to the mutual advantage of both railway and lighters; viz., to charge a uniform rate of ,6s. per ton. The railway and lighters to have ship and ship about, each taking the whole of the cargo of such ship. But that is not all. The following is from the printed minutes of evidence taken before the select committee Mr. Robert Glendinning, of ,tho firm of Ross and Glendlnning, Dunedin, made the following statementWe have been in the habit of getting goods •by the Port Chalmers railway. Wo have not found it. to answer better than the lighters. We have to complain of the delay in delivering the goods that come by rail. We have found frequently that our goods, to a considerable value, lay in the shed for several days, and in one cose for weeks. When tho shed was in this state, and we were applying in vain for goods that we much needed, we were served with a notice from tho railway authorities', "that unless our goods were removed from the trucks rent would bo charged. With our overland packages there was always great confusion and delay, ' and their value;depends on their prompt despatch. We have also had considerable trouble in shipping our goods by coastal steamers, the time for receiving being limited to. some hours before coastal steamers sail. When we have sent goods down early enough, they have been short shipped, and we had to accept from the steamer’s agent as a reason, the bungling of the railway. As we found that wo could not depend upon the railway, we have been obliged to got our goods brought up by lighter, towed by a steamer, at a cost of 6s. per ton, and have found this much more advantageous. Even suppose tho rate of railway freight was reduced to 45., as proposed by tho manager, this would prove no inducement to us except in tho case of unimportant shipments. If the delivery was prompt, wc would prefer tho railway, oven at a higher coat of freight, because that our goods being so valuable, wo would require prompt delivery. Were we to leave our case at this stage, we should have proved it to the satisfaction of every one; but we shall go further, and quote our contemporary in support of our accusations against the Provincial management of the Port Chalmers railway, and its ,consequent failure to pay satisfactory returns. The Otago Daily times, of May 20, 1874, writing on the i report froth which we have quoted, has the following pertinent and truthful remarks : It will bo seen from tho report itself—which will bo found in our present issue—that the first conclusion, at which the committee have arrived is “ That up to the present time tho Port Chalmers railway has not given satisfaction to Importers or exporters, or to the public generally.” This was a fact that was perfectly notorious even before tho members of the committee commenced their deliberations. But there is a quos- ' tion of far more importance, which wo regret to say the committee have left wholly untouched. Has the railway,been.a profitable speculation to tho province in a money point of view? and, If so, to what extent has the province profited, and what aro the relate prospects of profit and loss from tho continued renewal of .the lease? - Wo recently pointed out that tho statement contained in tho manager’s report, that the “profit on working” the railway was £7020 oa. Gel is altogether unreliable, because certain very serious charges on the railway, in accordance with the terms of agreement hod been wholly ignored. AVo trust that this matter will not ,be overlooked when tho matter comes up for discussion to day. We have done." We think wo have proved our case and confuted our contemporary out of his own mouth. He invites us to apologise and admit our error, under pains and penalties highly damaging to a public man and newspaper. In reply, wo invite him to have the honesty to quote, our vindication in full, or to admit that an enemy obtained access to his broadsheet, and promulgated falsehoods to tho great detriment of his readers and the public generally. If we had been wrong, we should have admitted our error without hesitation ; but being in tho right, wo expect tho Daily / ime't to admit that in a weak moment 'it has been imposed upon. In Conclusion, wo may state, for his further information, that whatever the Otago railways may have done under Mr. Oontbk’s management since tho Ist of April, 1874, up till that date they certainly did not not pay interest and provide a depreciation fund over and above working expenses.