The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1888. THE OTAGO CENTRAL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1771, 2 August 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1888. THE OTAGO CENTRAL.

Mr Pike’s Otago Central Eailway Bill has furnished the sensation of the session. This Bill proposes to give immense areas of Crown lands in Otago to a company in consideration of building the railway. It was submitted to a Select Committee, and , reported on very unfavorably, Mr McKerrow giving most damaging evidence against it. Notwithstanding 1 this, it passed its second reading, and got into Committee, but there it was crushed to death. The majority were ' in favor of it, but it was stonewalled by the minority, and thus completely annihilated. In the ordinary debates a member can speak only once, but in Committee he can speak as often as he likes, as long as he likes, and as nonsensically as he likes. The minority took advantage of this privilege to talk the Bill out, and they did it. In a community governed by majorities, stonewalling cannot easily be justified, but under the circumstance we must say that w* do not feel inclined to find much fault with the action taken by those who talked out the Otago Central Railway Bill. If ever there was a case in which “ the end justified the means,” this is one, and we think that the blame is attachable to those who voted for its second reading. We had fondly hoped that at last our representatives had opened their eyes to the fact that our railways, had already outgrown our population and -that, for a time at anyrate, railway construction would be carried on economically. Our railways now do not pay, because they are far and away in advance of our population, and of course any addition to them must only render them less profitable. It may be said that the line under discussion would not inflict either an increased burden nor a n ecessity to provide interest on its cost of construction on the colony, but it would do worse. It would alienate something like half a million acres of land. We would have to pay one-third the cost of construction in land, and then we would not have one-third interest in it; it would all belong to the company. We are glad, therefore, that the Bill has been rejected, first, because we do not think it wise that our railways should be extended, and second, because we think it would bo far better, if it must be built, to have it built by the Govern ment, It is u curious fact in connection with it that the majority of the Otago people opposed it. The Maniototo County

Council and a public meeting at Naseby have condemned it in unmeasured terms. When we find the settlers in the districts through which it would pass condemning it, we cannot but ask, “ Where are its friends ?” A meeting was recently held in Dunedin to support it, but after hearing Sir Robert Stout speak in opposition to it, the people walked out of the room without voting for or against it, only a few taking sufficient interest in the matter to vote either way. The people of Otago would, without doubt, like to see the railway made. It would probably be to the advantage of the great majority r>f them that it should be made, but it is evident that they are too canny to allow themselves to be hoodwinked into making so bad a bargain, and are determined that instead of throwing away their patrimony, they will wait until some other means are suggested. Sir Robert Stout has come forward with a very reasonable, and to our mind sensible, alternative scheme. He is of opinion that £500,000 would build and equip the line as far as Lake Wanaka, and that this money could be raised in the colony at 5 per cent, the interest ,of which would amount to £25,000 a year. To construct the line he proposes to constitute the four counties interested, vie.* ; Taieri, Maniototo, Vincent, and Lake Counties, into a Board of Works, and hand over to them that part of the line already constructed, together with the land proposed to be given to the syndicate under MrPyke’s Bill. He maintains that this Board can as easily borrow the money as any syndicate. The Crown lands, which would have been benefited by this railway yield a rental of £48,000 a year, and it would be greatly increased by the railway. Of this increased rental, the Government should hand £7500 a year to the railway. The rental from the land of the Board would amount to £SOOO, thus making £12,500 altogether, and the railway itself would pay over working expenses the difference between that sum and the £25,000 required to pay interest on the borrowed capital. For our part, as we have said, we object I to the making of the line at all, but, if it must be made, there cannot be the slightest doubt but i the proposal of Sir Robert Stout is far and away preferable to the giving away of our lands to a foreign syndicate. In giving the land to a company we part with it for ever, and we get nothing for it. The railway jwould be made, but the railway and the laud, with its unearned increment, would for ever remain the property of a company of foreigners, whose only interest in the colony would be 10 per cent, on their capital. Handing the land over to a public body, such as Sir Robert Stout proposes, would not mean alienating it. It would still remain public property, and when in the course of time the population increased, and the line began to pay, it would, of course, fall back into the hands of the Government, probably doubled in value. It is a pity that our railways were not constructed on this principle from the beginning; if they had, we should not have been in the miserable plight we find ourselves. We trust, therefore, that, if anything is to be done at all, Sir Robert Stout’s sensible and statesmanlike proposal will be adopted, and that, instead of rivetting our chains tighter by the addition of another blood-sucking foreign company, we shall retain control over both the land and the railway.