South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2260, 15 June 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1880.

Wk have long been under the impression that the management of the railway lines of the colony has been far from satisfactory. The railway department has been a most unhappy family. Long hours, inadequate pay, and unrecognised merit are periodically urged in the shape of general indictments by the subordinates of the staff against their superiors. But the internal grumbling has been but a mild wail compared to the loudly expressed dissatisfaction of the public. Passengers grumble at the cost of travelling, commerce growls at the inequalities of the goods tariff, members of Parliament complain bitterly of the non-productiveness of the lines, and the taxpayers arc exasperated at the annual contributions required to keep our railway machinery going. The only reasonable interpretation for this state of things, we should imagine, is that there is something seriously defective in the management of the New Zealand Railways. Such, at least, has been our impression.

It will, however, astonish those of our readers who, like ourselves, have been listening to this universal grumbling, to learn that in the estimation of the Commissioner of Railways—Mr Conyers—-

our railways have been “ successfully managed.” Mr Conyers presided at a festive gathering of tire railway employees in Dunedin, the other evening, and in responding to the principal toast, “ The New Zealand Railways,” which was coupled with his name, he proclaimed these railwa} r s a success. The “ Otago Daily Times ” thus refers to his remarks :

In speaking of the paying capabilities of the lines he characterised many of the branches constructed as “ suckers,” not “ feeders.” Without being egotistical, he believed he could claim to have successfully managed the Middle Island railways, and to have made them what they were in spite of the many difficulties against which he had to contend. While he had striven his best to meet the necessities of the public, he had always faithfully fought the battles of the employes, and he asked it of them with confidence that they should aid and assist him in working the lines satisfactorily and profitably.

Mr Conyers, be it recollected, was presiding over a convivial gathering of bis underlings when be gave utterance to these somewhat remarkable statements. It is easy to realise how under such circumstances “ the chairman’s remarks were received with every demonstration of approval, and his health was drunk with three hearty cheers.” It is said that Nero fiddled when Rome was burning ; a popular author gives a lively sketch of an undertakers’banquet during the plague in London ; and it is alleged that Lord Bcaconslicld in a forgetful moment proposed “ success to the Irish famine.” The high-falutin of Mr Conyers, and the merriment of his obsequious friends, seems almost in keeping with the indecency that marks these historic incidents. I*’ rarefy happens that the Commissioner of; Railways unfolds his bosom thoughts. He is regarded by those who know him best as a man of very few words. His operations are usually surrounded with an air of mystery. Ho is affable, and in many respects estimable, but his sentiments, though soft, are usually characterised by brevity. It may he natural modesty ;or itmaybo discretion; or it may bo that he hides his light under a bushel, or desires to cultivate a reputation for wit. For reasons best known to himself, Mr Conyers rarely shows off in public, and therefore it is, that when he travels beyond the golden realms of silence, we are led to attach considerable importance to his words. The Commissioner of Railways claims the credit of having “ successfully managed the Middle Island railways.” Was Mr Conyers speaking seriously ? If so, we should like to know kis definition of success ? The general impression is that the management of the railways of this island has boon a most lamentable failure. Did Mr Conyers mean that ho has managed the railways successfully for himself or for his employers—the public? Was be referring to a prolific sinecure or to the growing costliness of the white elephant which he has the privilege of driving? Was lie thinking of £I2OO a year and the cool appropriation of the inventive brains of locomotive managers and foremen, or was he alluding to the heavy tax upon the community which the maintenance of the railways, under his management, involves. Mr Conyers may have peculiar ideas, and lie may ho subtle at argument, but wo should like him to explain his ideas of successful management. If he means that he lias managed the railwaj's of the Middle Island lo his own advantage, and that lie lias successfully cultivated a good billet, wo can appreciate his boast, although wo may not admire his disregard of the feelings of Iris severely taxed, and much oppressed, paymasters. But if he intends to affirm that the railways have been successfully managed from a popular or national point of view, wc would point to the heavy drain upon the consolidated revenue, which the maintenance of those railways necessitates, and advise him to refrain from such transparent endeavours to humbug the public. If the Commissioner of Railways is under the incomprehensible impression that the railways of the Middle Island arc “ successfully managed,” the sooner he is undeceived the better. Tiie railways are suspended like a millstone round the necks of the population, and it is high time that hotter management were insisted upon. So long as the working head of the department believes that the management is satisfactory, it needless to look for reform. After what we have experienced of Mr Conycr’s successful management, it might be advisable to try the experiment of somebody clsc’s failure. The fact that “suckers,” not “feeders” exist, tells strongly against the management. Why docs the Commissioner not specify the suckers, and recommend that they be weeded out ? As the head gardener, tins is surely an important duty. If wc arc correctly informed, the management of the railways is just the reverse of what it ought to be. The passenger traffic has been discouraged instead of being properly developed, and rolling stock has been worn out doing nothing. The goods traffic lias been worked in a most extravagant fashion, and in such a way as to discourage private enterprise. The lines have been turned to malevolent account in the insane endeavor to injure such rising seaports as Timaru and Cam urn ; and in competing with the coastal traffic material has been carried, at rates that would hardly pay for axle grease. Yet this, wo presume, is what Mr Conyers terras successful management ! Then there arc broad allegations of internal abuses—of undue favoritism, unjust dis-

missals and transfers, and a general reign of tyranny in connection with subordinate offices. It is stated that there is no inducement held out for ability or fidelity, and that, as regards promotion or recognition of special merit, tno servants of the department have nothing to hope for. Is it true that the authors of various improvements such as the application of the bogie principle to ordinary carriages, have been treated with the utmost contempt and indifference ? Is the manager of our railways in the habit of encouraging useful suggestions, or docs he simply appropriate the credit to himself without so much as the slightest acknowledgement ? If (hose abuses exist what inducement is offered to the ompkyccs to “ aid and assist him in working the lines satisfactorily and profitably ? ” Is it not a notorious fact that the department, through an overhearing and autocratic disregard of individual merit, has become both demoralised and disorganised ? And this is what Mr Conyers terms “ successful management !”