THE NEW RAILWAY TARIFF.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2403, 29 November 1880, Page 4

THE NEW RAILWAY TARIFF.

A deputation to the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce waited on the Hon. Mr Oliver on Thursday, in reference to the new railway tariff. The deputation stated that there was some uneasiness regarding an agitation in Canterbury for differential rates on grain on the Plains as compared with the grades of Otago. Mr Oliver, in reply, assured the deputation that the matter of the railway tariff had had careful consideration. He found that, as a matter of fact, the railways in Canterbury had cost more by £7OO per mile than those of Otago, and that the* summit level of the Canterbmy main line was 387 ft, as against 372 ft. in Otago. The grades in Canterbury were 1 in 80, as compared with 1 in 50 in Otago, and the additional cost of haulage over the Otago grades was not more than one-lifth of a penny per ton per mile. He could not recognise differential tariff except such as was absolutely necessary to secure the traffic in certain cases. The present rates on grain in Canterbury were almost the same as those which existed in the old Provincial days, and tinder which the traffic had grown up ; and the special rates between Tirnaru and Christchurch, and Dunedin and Oamaru, were lower than they formerly were. He saw no justilication whatever for the alteration of the rates in the direction desired by some Christchurch merchants.

At a public meeting held at Ashburton, the Mayor of that borough (Mr H. Friedlander) alluded to some of the anomalies on the present tariff. He remarked that if the tariff was examined it would be found that by sending goods from Lyttelton to Tcmuka via Tirnaru, they would effect a saving of IGs per ton on the price at which they could send the same goods direct from Lyttelton to Temuka. That was information for merchants. Hut they were not all consignors. Perhaps some of them might wish to (ravel from Dunedin to Rolleston. Well, they should take a ticket through to Christchurch, get out at Rolleston, and dispose of the ticket there to some one who wanted to go on to Christchurch. They would thus save 9s 3d, besides what they sold the ticket for. Again a ticket from Ashburton to Dunedin only costs twopence less than one from Christchurch to Dunedin. Thus they were carried the fifty-two miles between here and Christchurch for twopence. Hut the most glaring blunder was in the timber tariff. He could show that wherever timber was carried over seventy-five miles by rail on a heavy grade, it was a substantial loss to the Department. Why should the Department wish to pay 50s to get 20s by timber-' If they could save (his alone, it would be a great thing for the Colony-, and they would not be called upon to pay three farthings more on their grain.

At a meeting of the Ashburton County Council Mr E. G. Wright, the member for the district is reported to have said : —There must have been a great saving of expenditure during (he last year ; for in 1879, I see from the “ Gazette” that the Canterbury railways only paid 3i per cent over expenses in that year ; whereas, by the ligurcs I have quoted, you will see that from the 7th of Jan. this year to the JBth Sept., the Christchurch Section and branches gave the large return of 7i per cent per annum for 255 days ; and if we take the Christchurch Section alone, the return was absolutely 9 per cent. These figures are founded on Mr Blair’s figures when he gave to the Railway Commission the estimate of the works, and I am sure they are by- no means too favorable to the estimate I have made, but rather the other way. This being the case, this district under the late tariff yielded a return over all expenses of £45,000 per annum, and under the one now in force would yield £IOO,OOO. That this district should be called upon to contribute such a sum I consider a monstrous injustice, and the only possible excuse 1 can make for the Minister for Public Works and the Railway Manager is that they are wholly ignorant of the matter. I say again it is monstrous that this district should be so heavily taxed to make other railways pay. Why- should the farmer be called on to pay increased rates when the timber merchant was encouraged ? Speaking of the timber trade, the new tariff seems designed to foster Invercargill at the expense of the Peninsula and Oxford. Even if wc had to pay one shilling more for our timber, 'would it not be better than that our Canterbury millowners should suffer? Why- should the charge'for carrying coal over a given number of miles be 8s lid here and only--6s 6d on a certain line in the North Island. This is another thing to the Middle Island’s prejudice. It was resolved that the Council should invite the co-operation of all representative bodies in Canterbury to assist them in the removal of the injustice inflicted upon the grain-growers of the colonyunder the present railway tariff.”