Rangitikei Advocate FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9387, 5 March 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate FRIDAY, MARCH 5,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

AT a time when nearly every elec tor finds it necessary to economise it might be reasonably expected that those administering the affairs of the country would endeavour to cut down the expenses of running the machinery of Government, and avoid all unnecessary outlay. But so far no effort has been made to retrench or economise ; indeed every opportunity for extravagance appears to be seized. For instance we find that money is wasted on snob things as erecting an obelisk to mark the spot where a Premier drove the last spike on the Main Trank line. This is intended to perpetuate the memory of a politician, and if is erected it should bear an inscription setting out the extraordinary length of time occupied in constructing the railway, and its enormous cost as compared with similar lines in other countries. It might also record the speed of “the Government stroke,” and be made to tell future generations where the ‘‘surpluses” have gone—if this is possible. Another proposal is to spend money on a monument to a deceased member of Parliament. If the taxpayers are to provide monuments to remind people that certain persons were once members of Parliament it will mean a and quite unnecessary drain i

on the public purse. Monuments to departed politicians should be paid for either by the constituencies they represented, or by the party they served, and if neither of these was inclined to subscribe the necessary funds, the general taxpayer Should not be asked to provide the funds. The politician who is also a true statesman will provide his own monument, and any of the others who wish for post mortem display, •lesi they be entirely forgotten, should provide the money by paying into a special fund a certain proportion of their annual salary.

THERE is not the slightest doubt that the finances of the railways in this country are in a thoroughly bad condition, and all parties alike will give Mr Millar heartv support in his efforts to clear oat the Augean stable. The new Minister for Railways has, we believe, the very best intentions, but it is doubtful whether he has the knowledge of business, and especially of railway matters, which are essential for the successful carrying out of his task. No private firm would think of putting an amateur, however well intentioned, to reorganise a large business which was not paying, but once a man becomes a Minister he is supposed suddenly to become endowed with a knowledge of affairs which it would take years to acquire in the ordinary way. It may be that Mr Millar will turn out to be a heaven sent railway manager, and we hope, for the sake of the country, that this will prove to be the base, but such a happy accident will in no way prove that the railways would not be far better managed by aboard of experts free from political influence, than by the man whom the political exigencies of the party in power happen to put in charge of the Railway Department.

SOME interesting figures aa to the railways have been set forth by Mr A. G. tatever s in a series of articles appearing in the Post. Mr Stevens tells us that “only £692,858 was spent on railway construction last andl| it took £333,386 —or £364,068, according to the Public Works Statement—to meet the deficit on operating the existing lines, which is in addition to the interest deficit. In the last 17% years, from January, 1891, to March, 1908, While only £6.216,761 was spent on railway extension, it took £3,892,433, or more than half as much, to prop up the existing lines and to fill the gap between revenue and expenditure caused by spendthrift political management. That is, in the last 17 years—most of them very prospreons years, years of thriving trade, “cheap money,” and “record surpluses*” —we have spent only about £360,000 a year in building new lines and about £220,000 a year to make up the extensive expenditure on the old lines. If the interest deficit is added, the old lines have been costing us during 17 years nearly £300,000 a yearmoney taken out of the Public Works Fund to make good the annual railway shortage; and therefore we have been able to spare only about £360,000 a year for building newlines. That is, “the 3 per cent, policy,” and I that handy backdoor for wasteful management, the “Open Lines” account, have been blocking railway development to the extent of nearly £300,000 a year. Why, the mere interest on the accumulated debt on “Open Lines” account at 3% per cent is now £224,418 a year, ox only about £140,000 a year s hort of the average amount spent on new railway construction during the last 17 years. This is the result of the losing system of railway management.”