VAILE'S RAILWAY SCHEME. CHEAP FREIGHT FOR PRODUCE.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 236, 7 January 1888, Page 2

VAILE'S RAILWAY SCHEME. CHEAP FREIGHT FOR PRODUCE.

(to the editor.') Sib:— l recently wrote you Condemning Mt Vaile's railway scheme, in so fur asHt referred to passenger fares. There is another part of the st-hemo which baa I think been mistakenly placed as a secondary consideration, which in my opinion would be of material value to the country at large and this district xa particular. I allude to a reduction m railway freii»htu on agricultural produo©,-manure,-efccr-'-I com end that the railway managers, whether Government or a non politioal Board of Directors, would act wisely in reducing their charge for bringing manure up country to the lowest possible figure, as by bo doing they would encourage the production of a large increase in (ho produce of the country, which produce must be brought d>wn by rail to find a market; so that although the charges on the nunure would be less, still the very much larger amount of produce brought down might recoup tliem for this apparent 1039. But to carry out the scheme completely and satisfactorily, the freights charged on agricultural produce would need to be very largely reduced also. The whole ess nee of Mr Vailw's scheme is that by re luci'ig cuarges we increase traffic. With regard to passenger traffic, I have ahvady taken the lib rty of differing with Mr Vaile, for ttiis mi-an : We want, the population to make it pay. Mr Vaile quotes statistics from other covmtr.es to prove his theory. Bub I submit that here the circumstances are, not tie same. Wv are not proposing lojoin together two cities containing each a large popula ion, many of whoso Inhabitants be.n- poor,- are -prohibited from travelling in consequence of the high rates charged ; but we propose to reduce the fares oh a rat way running from sparsely populated country districts to a comparatively email town, most of toe inhabitants beins sufficiently well off to afford the present fares, when it was neoessarv for them to travel-, and further I questioned the a Wantage of encom aging people to travrl more than they d •, a3 thmga are at present. With regard to reduction of freight charges however, the position is reversed. I venture to think that smaller charges on manure and ag icultural produce, would leatl to a mucn lirger production, and conseque tly to a far larger freight traffic _on the railway. And I im.vgmo thac no t-iinkinii man will question the advantage of tne larger possible production in the country, provided always tn at the prolucers oouM make it pay, *n<\ this I think might be possible with the reduced height charges. We vnuat b ar 1,1 mi.i.i t tab tho pureh situ power of a countiy is jus! in proportion to its producing power. In oth.r words, for every bale of wool or fur ev^ry ton of grain or other pro mcc that we send to another country, we are enti led to receive its value in c isn or in other commo.iiti. s. Th reforo '.henn.e *c can produce, and send aw*Y. the more we shall rt eive in exchange, and thereto! c ihe greater will be tho wealth ot th- oun ' vy Tho practical question then is, how lar do we want the freights to be reduced, and can the railway managers bo reasonably expected to meet our demand ? At piesent we pay a prohib live price for ending produce by tail, and what 13 worse, the scalo of charges is so explicated tint many at a deterre.l trom bringing the.* pro.luio to th« r,.ihvay action, leßt they should be charged an exorbitant rate. To show tho absurdity of the present ajarem.-A *^ «ml bold a tons oe either sugar or salt, the difficulty of handling, .nd the COSt of haulage is the same for both, yet the charge on a tract of sugar excemis'that on a tru. k of salt, by £2 lUs ; which is absurd. Who 1 woul.l ask can reconcile the differences- in the following charges with common sense; arid what is more important who can afford to pay these charges; levie.i for distances oncp 100 and under 125 miles, say between Auckland and Te Aroha; , £ 8. d. Class A— Tinware, tobacco, etc., per ton 2 2 6 „ B— Dairy produce unpacked, boots, etc 1 16 6 „ C— Dairy produce, packed . . 110 0 „ D— Com, flour, eti'., snail lota 15 0 tt E — Two tons or more of do. 014 1 fosts and rail', houseblocks and firewood, por truck of 8 tons 2 19 0 Why I vrould ask should (he unfortunate small eafctler pay almost as inuoh for aen ling down 1 ton of corn, as his more favoured neighbour pays for sending down two tons; one ton costs 35 shillings, and two tons only 28 shilling* and twopence The same rule apoUes to getting up manure. One ton of manure tsoharged at £ I 5s while two tons are charged afe -18s"7djjerton, ic,£l 7> 2d. Yet these railways are ironically s»kl to-be for the p^rpo»o*of encouraging settlement on small farms up country, and it. is on this plea thac pwt governments 1 av> -'u-t-fied the hvge Expenditure on railway maid ig. The charges on small nv'ights u perhaps dull moro absurd. The charges on such things as wallow osier* for instsa c are : Per ton, £1 ss ; per owt, 2s Bd.-, for H cwt. 28l0d.; 1* do., 39 2J.; 2d0.,3 38l 3 8l. } 2k do SsScU ' 1 Now, why, in tho name of Bedlam shown there be only a difference of one penny in the charge on 1| cwt, and 2owt, but a difference of 6 pjnoe between 2owt an 124 owb l % «e» is no sense or logic in it what- wr* ant it xs high tme that it was altered. Tae^ objeoc of the railway management Rhould be t> simply, L charges a, much as possible, so that the public may know whafc^Ke. probable charge on a givea amount ai *ny arU Q le may ba ; aua DL D L that if they p»y. 6d for the carriage ■„ !£ peas th^t- they may expeofc *> - , na^besade for apeat.of. beans; and aot IZ olfat the station that beans are m ■, anoint ***** *° ** ° har « o ?U? U Jl at* Now^at so much .noner- has been ake*ly put iuto tbe railways, it w^ *^ t S ' bertef policy to try., and WWPBto with } m ? «-«♦ and waknow beforehand tlbat P SaVe^ap^ 1 bope that U» a* Ski &a> P &rd *m%> ** Wto , S?S2«5r dwi« below tfwsa of the boat 3 ,, 80S they may rrirTfull trains nistead of emptj^ 6§* ana>M benefi^both; the paWic a?|#^lwayfifiLanpes. Pf*£Wjfe* traok £S is Sibling a«W*.WK^Wf .* 6*71 « h*»d\o:» P caife myfy t«] . Wk i§ a halfpenny on every she.ep (60 sheep tp M*e

MPjiiJl]^ "Vfould it not be better to carry a Ki§||||ittmber of cattle at Mess cost per head? ■V mBKm&M&* argument as to passengers, will I I with much more fot^ce to f wights. I M^Hp ou^ i»ke to bb6 xfiis lattt-r.sohenae