RAILWAY REFORM-REPLY TO MR A. SWARBRICK.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1947, 30 December 1884, Page 3

RAILWAY REFORM-REPLY TO MR A. SWARBRICK.

JO Till: I.IMIOK. »— Mi-Swavbiick s.ij-. that he " lieaid ' Vaile'- idea-, studied hi> plans, and hart clearly that they would nut hold witer"and tli.it he cuiiMdei- it time to "\)iick the bublilo " Well, why doc he not " prick" it ? If it bu u bubble it stands a great deal of banging about. Why does he not fahow where 1 amwiong, instead of talking about my want ot expeiienceV What lias that to do with the niattei ? The question is, Am I light, or am I wrong ? Most people will admit that we ha\e arrived at something like a ensis in out railway affair*.. I am of opinion that we all have public as well a- pi 1 vale duties to perform, and surely at a tnuo like this the public have a right to c\pect advice and at.bibtance from piofessional gentlemen who claim that they aloue are able to give it. Instead of this Mr Swarbnck tells us that " at a proper time and place I shall bo prepared to prove all I btate." Suioly there can be no time like the piesent ; why let people waste time and money if he can prove my plan to be so worthless 1 As to the Theatle Royal experiment, if people choose to make idiots of themselves, that is not my business ; I was prepared to do my part. What then happened to me has also fallen to the lot of other mh, whose names are so far above mine that . do not daie to mention them. My preont position as regards technical men is his : Mr Swarbnck, says there is "no dfh'culty in destroying every item of Mi Vaile's plan," and that "to refute his schune ; we require only common sense and a knowledge of the focts." Mr Swarbiick no potftit has the connnon sense, and he clams to have the technical knowledge. Wbj then, I ask again, does he not refute me ? Most people will be inclined to say, Because Jhe cannot. As against Is.v Swai brick's Opinion. 1 have the opinion/ of five railway Bteritlemen, the least qualifed of whom is Certainly equal to Mr Swaurick, and some of them are undoubtedly lis superiors in professional position. Thbe five gentleirien, one and all, say trot I am right. Four of them have had repjated interviews ■with me, and have carefnly consideied all my proposals ; the fifth I hjve never seen, but he has corresponded with equal caie. J^jjaalso worth while to stap that none of these gentlemen are now inlany way connected with railways,, and nat they have nil had a very considerable financial and ftugKiercial experiences in addition t;q their

official training. This latter qualification is a very important one. To snow how unfairly Mr Swarbrick deals with this matter, I ask yonr readers to compare the statements made in his letter published in your issue of Thursday with the paper ho piofesses to quote from, copies of which I left for distubution with Mr LeQuesne, of Hamilton, Messrs Houghton and Morrick, of Cambridge, and Mr , Sloauo of Te Aw ainutu. Should these be exhausted I shall bo happy to post copies to any one who will send me their add'iess. A pei usal of tins paper w ill show, that all T have attempted to do is to indicate a new .system of levying the Kites, to "piopose" or "suggest" a scale of 1 charges, &c. In fact I have strictly con- ' fined myself to the hnancial portion of the question, and have caiefully avoided all details of traffic management. What I have attempted to deal with is purely board room work. In conclusion let me say lam still piepaied to meet Mr Swarbrick either in Auckland or Waikato, as may be arranged, and that I hope ho will then, if not before "prick the bubble" and introduce the " practical measure " I will have to give place to " — I am, &c. Samuki-, Vailk. Auckland, 27th December, 1884.