The Daily News. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1920. REVISED RAILWAY TARIFF.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 August 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1920. REVISED RAILWAY TARIFF.

In revising railway fares and freights the Government has utilised the railway service as a means to an end. The reason 'put forward for increasing railway charges is—as in the case of the postal and telegraph services—to meet the increased expenditure for wages. Of course the principle that each trading department shall ptay its way is sound, but we are afraid the Government is using the services for taxation purposes. The Government believes in the passing on system, under which the public are made to pay. but never thinks of instituting drastic economies to lighten the growing burdens. The adoption of the line of least resistance appears to have an irresistible attraction in these days of financial stress. The public may well ask: Where will it end? The present increase in railway charges is the third within five years. In 1915 there was added eight and a half per cent, to railway fares and ten per cent, on freight, exclusive of timber. That raid was equivalent to more than £350,000 a year. Two years later a further ten per cent, was imposed on fares and freights, except as to certain foodstuffs, the only advantages , connected with that rise being a long deferred adjustment of timber freights to place this traffic on the same level as other goods, and the removal of anomalies on South land rates so as to raise them to the general level. The effect of the rise that now operates is that fares reach an increase of twentyfive per cent., while freights are forty per cent, above pre-war level, the heavier share of the burden falling on the primary producers, apparently because they are the largest contributors to the railway revenue, and possibly also for the reason that they have been, and are, enjoying exceptional prosperity. There is no quesj tion that when the 1915 revision ' was made there were many inequalities that needed rectifying, and it is matter for regret that a more thorough overhaul of rates ■ was not made, and that steps were not taken to devise means for the more economical working of the service. Frequent tinkerings are a source of much irritation. It .is

difficult to conceive what basis is adopted when charges are raised. For instance, in 1896 the freight on wool was 7s 5d a bale, and in 1920 it was 6s 9d; hemp was £1 6s 6d per ton, but fell to 17s 6d; butter and cheese were £ll3s 7d, but fell to 17s 6d; while meat rose from £1 6s 6d per ton to £ll2s Id, and live sheep from £2 10s per truck to £3 0s 6d. There is every reason'to believe that the tariff fate needs completely recasting. That wo did involve a thorough investigation and most careful consideration, and it is quite possible the departmental officers are not disposed to enter upon this tedious, but very necessary, work if it can be avoided. Yet ihe duty should be performed, and the Minister may justly be expected to have it carried out in spite of any objections that may be brought forward. It has been laid down as a that the railways should be able to pay three and a half per cent, on the capital invested. As a matter of fact the percentage of profit has of late years been higher. In 1915 it was ! 3.53; iu 1916, 4.72; 1917, 5.30; 1918, 4.60; 1919, 4.65; and in 1920, 4.53. It is not only the fares and freights that should receive the needful attention, but intelligent and progressive means should be taken to increase the revenue by specially catering for remunerative traffic. Unfortunately there is a disposition to remain in a fixed groove instead of developing on enterprising lines. Every opportunity that offers for obtaining revenue should be seized. The railways should be worked for all they are worth, and until the true spirit of commercial enterprise animates the department the public will have to be penalised, instead of getting good value for the huge expenditure involved in the railway service.