PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1880. FAIR-PLAY. RAIL TO WELLINGTON.

Patea Mail, 2 October 1880, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1880. FAIR-PLAY.

RAIL TO WELLINGTON.

The new contractor for rationing the Armed Constabulary on the Plains is not to have the use of Government steamers to carry provisions to Opnnake. The previous contractor has been allowed this privilege. It would he interesting to know what ho paid for it. The new contractor is entitled to have his goods carried on the same terms as before, unless otherwise stated in the specification. How can a tender for rationing troops be fairly calculated in advance unless the conditions as to carriage are known ? If not made known in this case, the new tenderers were entitled to assume that the carriage would be done in future as it had been done in the past. The knowledge of what had been done was the only guide in the case. There was no provision for carriage in the previous contract: there is no provision for carriage in the present contract. The former contractor was allowed to use the Hinemoa steamer

to cany his goods without charge. When the new contractor, who had intimate knowledge of the previous practice, asks for the use of the Hinemoa, he is told that all goods carried by it will be charged 30s a ton for freight. Why was not that charged against the goods of the previous contractor ? If it was an oversight, do the Government intend to take steps to recover the cost of freight? We ask these questions in order to have perfect equality. It is absurd and unfair that either the old or the new contiactor should have his goods carried at the expense of the colony, unless the colony gets the difference by a lower charge for the goods. In the former contract the rations were charged at fifteen-pence a head per diem, whereas the new contract is at Klj-d, a difference of about four thousand three hundred pounds a year on an average of GOO men. The colony has given that sum to the former contractor for no equivalent; it has also carried his goods for nothing, and provided him with men to land them at Qpuxiakl, tlic value of a year’s freight being over a thousand pounds. The resuit stands thus. If the price of the new contract be fair, the colony has given to the former contractor at ' least five thousand pounds in one year, for no value received.

Mismanagement of this kind is not what the colony expects from its servants. It is intolerable, ami the public will insist on stopping it. If their efforts to get pure administration are frustrated by unwilling or incompetent or interested servants, those servants will have to bo swept aside. This contract for rationing the Armed Constabulary is a gross example of mismanagement. Men who take contracts cannot bo blamed for making the best bargain they can. Those who let contracts for the public should be scrupulously careful of. the public interest, and should make the best terms. Was that so in this case ? The former contract was and is a mystery, except to two or three persons. It was let before the iate Government went out of office, and that Government is entirely answerable for making a contract without proper publicity. The present Government is concerned in the affair only so far as the Government had power to stop the contract or regulate the charge for freight. Neither Major Atkinson nor Mr, Bryce should be blamed for one tittle more than is due. If they tried to put the contract on a proper footing, but failed for want of power and not for want of will, they are entitled to the good opinion and thanks of all publicspirited men in this district. It will be a pleasure to know that they did make reasonable and proper efforts, and we invite information for the public satisfactionTo leave ns in the dark will only increase the mischief, tor the late contract has been a serious grievance on the Coast for many months.

The new contract provides that three months’ notice on either side may terminate the engagement. Is it not a fact that the Government had power to terminate the late contract in the same way? It is in the belief they had such power that we have commented on the transaction. The grounds of that belief are these. The contract was let shortly before the general election, and if it were for one year without option to terminate earlier, the contract has been allowed to run more than a. year, terminating September 30th. Now how can it be shown that the Government have taken the earliest opportunity to invite tenders publicly ? A contract for one year should terminate at the year-end, else there must be some person or persons interested in continuing it, and with power to continue it. It would be doing a public service to expose to public criticism the hidden influence which has caused this contract to continue after the proper date for expiry, and at a serious loss to the colony. Hence we have said, and repeat, that the present Government are responsible for continuing that contract. The Mail expressed an opinion on the 18th September in these words: “It (the contract) was given by the late

Government, and it is creditable to the

present Administration that they are putting it on a proper tooting by inviting public tenders. We honor them for it,” This is quoted to show that the Mail does not blame the present Government for originating that private contract, but only for continuing after they had power to stop it. We cannot help seeing that the contract has been terminated, not because the term had run out, but in deference to protests and letters which the Government received during the latter six months. They wore shamed into taking action. Our opinion is that the contract was put an end to by three months’ notice given to the contractor) and that the contract did not expire by efflux of time. It is desirable the public should know whether the former contract did or did not contain a' clause about three months’ notice, as in the new contract. Also whether three months’ notice did actually terminate the contract. And whether the cost of freight is to be refunded, or whether it was provided for iu the original contract. If not so provided, why did the present Government allow that practice of free freight to continue during thirteen months in which they have had power to charge for goods carried in a Government steamer ? If any official has permitted the free carriage of goods without Ministerial knowledge or sanction, what will the Colonial Treasurer do to recover the £I2OO or £I3OO lost to the Treasury during the 13 mouths he has had care of the public money ?

Thu Chamber of Commerce at Wellington have appointed a committee to take steps for promoting a .North Island West Coast Ilailway Company. The object is to raise private capital for constructing a line to Foxton, connecting with the West Coast Railway up to Waitara. A first section to Porirua harbor might be completed for a small capital, and the lino up to Foxton could be left an open question for the present. A line to Porirua would develop the West Coast trade very largely. Passenger traffic both ways would be encouraged by quick and cheap transit, the steamers connecting with trains at Porirua, and forming a regular through traffic. The opening of this route would effectually draw the West Coast trade to Wellington, ami would, >n our opinion, bo the salvation of that depressed capital. Cattle landed at Porirua could be paddockcd there, and be slaughtered for railway transit to Wellington. The stream of passengers in quest of land would be attracted in this direction, for the new-comer who wants to see the North Island will not take a gea voyage if he can help it> whereas a railway at Wellington would start him on the way, and if he knew a steamboat was awaiting arrival of the train at Porirua for a short run to Patoa or Wanganui, he would not reckon that as an impediment. Ho would book through, and would have no trouble in changing except to step from the railway wharf on to the boat ready to start in toil minutes. It is not a little surprising to observe how indifferent is Wanganui, as represented by its journals, to the importance of opening a land communication with Wellington. It should be obvious that Wanganui will benefit by the stream of traffic coming northward, while it is not conceivable that any loss to present trade con Id result from quicker communication. The influence and voting power of Taranaki are operating against the efforts of Wellington to open a Coast railway. There is an insane notion up there that the business of the colony should stand still until New Plymouth has made a deep-water, harbor some ten years hence at least, and then Wellington may shut up, and its starved-out people migrate to Taranaki. New Plymouth policy is this: let everybody starve till we are ready to feed them. Patea policy is: let trade be developed along natural channels, and give each district a fair share of public money to develop natural advantages.