THE RAILWAY QUESTION.

Patea Mail, Volume III, Issue 232, 30 June 1877, Page 2

THE RAILWAY QUESTION.

(To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sir—ln your issue of the 23rd instant, I saw a letter from Mr Bridge, and the copy of a letter from Mr Bryce, M.11.R., both upon the subject of the inland line of railway, and referring generally to the action taken by the meeting held at Waverley, upon that subject, on the 6th instant.

Mr Bridge’s letter is quite intelligible, and I clearly understand it, and it needs little or no comment; but Ido not quite understand Mr Bryce’s letter. On the subject of the resolution passed at the meeting held on the 6th instant, Mr B'ryce says—“ I .perfectly agree with the sentiment of the resolution in respect to keeping the line inland, but I do not pretend to sufficient engineering skill to be able to decide between the respective merits of Mr Hogg’s line, and that of any other engineer, more especially as I am not acquainted with cither.” I am glad that Mr Bryce “ perfectly ” agrees with the “sonliiyent” of the resolution, in respect to keeping the line inland. But why, then, docs Mr Bryce “deprecate” the action taken by the settlers in passing that resolution ? Mr Bryce appears to make great capital out of the fact that he is not much of an engineer, but I cannot cleatly make out whether Mr Bryce means that he does not possess sufficient engineering knowledge to enable him to judge between the respective merits of the lines, or the respective merits of the engineers who laid off the linos? It is of importance to which lie refers ; because if the engineers in both cases are competent, then the inland line is perfectly practicable. It may be a little more expensive to make, perhaps, but it will pay vastly more interest upon the outlay than the lino proposed to be taken along the sandhills ; and this is of importance to the settlers in these districts, as they will have to make good any shortcomings in the earnings of the railway. Mr "Bryce continues —“ lam not quite sure what the meeting meant by ‘the special action ’ which it desired Mr Fox to take in the matter ; but, I venture to express a hope that neither Mr Fox nor tiie settlers of Wairoa, will do anything to retard the construction of a line which, as yet, has progressed in an extremely leisurely manner. In my opinion a motion in the House, which would seem to he the course indicated, would have the effect I deprecate.” I drew up and proposed the resolution alluded to by Mr Bryce, and I meant, and the meeting meant, that as somebody should take the lead, it was only proper that the Hon. Mr Fox should do so, and, if necessary, bring the subject before the House of Representatives. The Hon. Mr Fox is one of the oldest and most prominent statesmen in New Zealand ; lie is one of the members for the district, and he lias done more towards starting'these districts into life and prosperity, than any other statesman in the country. And I do not consider it at all derogatory to Mr Bryce to follow and assist the Hon. Mr Fox in the special matter of this railway ; although the evidently irritable feeling shown throughout -Mr Bryce’s letter, seems to indicate that he considers it would be so. This is not a question involving a difference in politics. What does Mr Bryce mean when he he expresses the hope that the settlers will do nothing to retard the construction of a line that has hitherto proceeded in an “ extremely leisurely ” maimer. Is it because the settlers have remained quiet, that the Government have taken then - leisure with this line, while the New Plymouth end of the line is progressing rapidly ? Or is it owing to neglect on the part of our representatives? The New Plymouth end of the line is being pushed on with energy, with a view to tap the rich country of Patea, as a writer in a New Plymouth paper eloquently expresses it, and mean time Wanganui, as a wholesale market, is to be left out in the cold —dispossessed ! Who is to blame ? Does Mr Bryce think he is talking to children, or idiots, when he cynically advises us to do nothing to retard the progress of this line ? Retard what progress ? The largest public meeting ever held in Waverley pass a respectful resolution requesting that the railway be taken inland, as near as possible in accordance line already laid off, and they are told, in effect, to keep quiet, or the line will be bung up indefinitely. Surely we live under a peculiar system of government. The settlers ask to have the railway taken by the inland route, so as to utilise the natural product of the country, and facilitate settlement still further inland. They ask to have the railway taken so that it may be fed from each side of the line, and not taken as far away as possible from present and all chance of future settlement. They want the line taken so as to relieve, as far as possible, the present main line of road, and thereby enable them to make more cross roads, to feed the_ railway, without having recourse to additional taxation, if possible and there and then we are told by deputy, at a public meeting, that if we open our mouths the line will bo hung up indefinitely, and “no more nonsense about it.”

The action taken by the settlers in this matter, is reasonable and courteous, and I should really like to know why the line is likely to be hung up, or even retarded, because of that action. If Mr Bryce were one of the adepts in the Native Office, I could well understand his holding up his hands and crying “ hush ! if you say a single word you will spoil everything but I cannot understand Mr Bryce crying “ hush ” in the present case. In conclusion, sir, I do not think there will be any occasion to bring this case before the House of Representatives ; but if there should be occasion to do so, I feel quite confident the House will listen to the reasonable claim of the settlers, and that the miking of the line will be in no way retarded.—l am, &c., THOMAS KELLS. Waitotara, Jnne 24.