The Southland Times. INVERCARGILL: TUESDAY, DEC. 2, 1873.

Southland Times, Issue 1826, 2 December 1873, Page 2

The Southland Times. INVERCARGILL: TUESDAY, DEC. 2, 1873.

The absence of serious accident on the Southland lines of railway may be rather attributed to good fortune than to precaution. In this remark we do not intend any imputation on the railway officials, the plant, or the permanent way, but Bimply to refer to the casualties which might be reasonably expected to result from its unfenced and therefore unprotected state. A warning now and then occurs, and the magnitude of the danger daily incurred appears tolerably evident, but with the passing away of the occasion, the danger is apparently suppoeed to pass away, all interest in the matter seeming to cease. " Upon whom does the duty devolve of fenciug the railway lines ?" is a question more easily asked than answered, there being so many points to be considered in connection with it. In the first place it seems to be plainly the duty of the Government to fence the frontages of all reserves abutting upon a railway, as being Government property exclusively, and for the same reason, together with the additional reason that a revenue is derived therefrom, Bhould all th 6 frontages to the line of land within the hundreds be fenced. In all those cases in which the railway either cuts through or is fronted by private property, the first view of the matter would lead to the conclusion that the cost should be jointly borne between the Government and the owners, as between private individuals. There is, however, the consideration affecting the conclusion that in all these cases the compensation paid by the Government to the owners of land taken was very much in excess of its original value ; and it may be fairly questioned whether, in the absence of stipulations to the contrary, the liability on the part of the owners was not understood by them and intended by Government. The matter has been under the consideration of the Government, but has been shelved on account of the cost (some £0,000), the outlay being regarded more as a matter of convenience to cattleowners than as being a requisite for public safety. The fact of compensation upon a liberal scale baviug been made for the land taken, no doubt had also its weight in the postponement of the matter. It cannot, however, be much longer delayed, and in the apportionment of the cost, while we are not prepared to Bay there would be an injustice in compelling owners of land frontages to fence their holdings at their own cost, we have no hesitation in asserting that they are morally if not | legally liable for half cost as between party and party. We trust that the attention of the Government will be again directed to the matter, and whatever may be the decision as to liability, that the work will be shortly proceeded with. Many of us have felt the dißcomfort and sense of danger of travelling upon the line after dark, arising from dread of obstructions, and to this discomfort and sense of danger the loss of time and inconvenience of slow progress is necessarily added. In the case tried in the Resident Magistrate's Court a few days since, in which the defendant was charged by the Railway Manager with obstructing the free passage of the railway by driving cattle thereon, the defence set up and sustained was that of accidental trespass, being in fact that the cattle were frightened upon the line, and that they had to be driven some distance before they could be turned oft*. Whether the defence was genuine or not, it points to a matter that might happen on any day, and the possible consequences of such an accident during the running of the trains, are too fearful to contemplate. The escapes which we have had may reasonably enough induce fear, but the worst of the matter is that the danger is of such a character as that the largest amount of caution cannot absolutely ensure safety.