Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4426, 27 May 1875, Page 2

We recently explained that the attack ! of Superintendent Curtis, on the Minister for Public Works, in the matter of the Brunner railway, was founded upon a misapprehension ; and we traced the history of the appropriations for the line, to -which Mr. Curtis referred, as briefly as we possibly could. Our remarks have been the subject of indignant comment by Nelson journals, although we have the satisfaction of knowing that the Greymouth papers, while condemning the work as “an extravagant blunder,” do not seek to saddle it upon tho present head of the Public Works department. On the contrary, Mr. Curtis is not held blameless in the matter. But the Nelson Evening Mail of the 18th instant, contains a long and elaborate reply to our remarks, which we are bound to regard in the light of an authorised statement. We have read it carefully through, and do not find anything in it which controverts our statement of facts. We stated that the first vote was taken for seven miles of ordinary country, a survey not having been made; and the Mail quotes the report by Messrs. Blackett and Hector in 1871, to prove that a careful estimate was prepared, and that the appropriation was made in good faith by the Assembly, in the belief that tho amount (£26,250) would cover the entire cost of making the line, erecting a bridge across the Grey, connecting the mines on both sides of the river, extra sidings at Greymouth, and wharf improvement and protection works. But if our contemporary had only taken the trouble to think, he would have seen that tho report was by a commission appointed to determine the site for the railway, that no survey had been made, and that the estimate, if estimate it could be called, was simply approximate. The commission named was assisted by the Chief Engineer and Chief Surveyor of Westland, and by tho Provincial Engineer of Nelson, the professional member of the commission having formerly been Provincial Engineer for Nelson, and therefore well acquainted with the locality. They examined the ground carefully, and reported that “ the ‘ ‘ chief advantage of this line is found in “the small expense of the works, com- “ pared with the complete manner in “ which it fulfils the requirements of the “ case.” Wo are now told by every local authority that this report was a huge blunder, and wo know ourselves without being told, that tho work will cost much more than tho approximate estimate. But tho site having been determined by an independent commission, to remove, any suspicion of its being “a political “ railway,” and the first vote being insufficient, it followed that tho Minister for Public Works should go to tho Assembly from time to time and ask for money to complete it, -That has been done, neither more nor less, and we maintain therefore that the Government is blameless in this matter. Tho work itself was regarded as a colonial undertaking. It may, unfortunately, turn out to be too costly; but wo most decidedly object to any imputation of blarno to the General Government in this matter. To hold the Minister for Public Works to tho sketch estimate of the Brunner Railway Commission would indeed be a ridiculous proceeding. If Mr. Curtis had remained in office from 1872 does he think his colleague, Mr. Donald Reid, who was Minister for Public Works, could havo carried out tho undertaking more economically than ’ Mr. Richardson has done] Would Mr. Stafford’s Government havo disregarded the report of the commission, and made

it “a political railway” in reality, by changing the site to the Nelson side of the Grey ? Unless one or other of these improbable things .would have happened, Mr. Curtis is not justified in speaking as he has done of the Brunner railway.