RAILWAY REFORM: EFFECT OF REDUCING RATES.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2263, 11 January 1887, Page 3

RAILWAY REFORM: EFFECT OF REDUCING RATES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In asubleaderin the Herald of theoOti December, the following passage occurs | " A commission might make some improve merit in this respect, lint we do not thin!that they would materially alter the aspeu of the present unfavourable b dance-she-'' A commission culd not, without the solution of Parliament, change the wh"le system of our railway working. They conld no cast to the winds all considerations o whether or not the railways paid workiii; expenses and intere-t on the co.it of construction, and siuiplv lower fruijyhtH an fares, so as to promote and favour setili ment in the.districts through which the rail ways passed. We have never linen able t see that to ad>pt such a system wholly wapossible or advisable. It would result, I begin with at all events, in an enormoi. increase to the present deficit, and that tie country is simply unable to bear." A coomission, there is very little doubt, won] make our railways directly pay much bette interest than they don.>w ; but, if we do rnfifst settle the policy on which they are to b worked, to hand onr railways over to :t cow mission would simply mean riveting' o-. chains harder and faster still. The final cial result obtained in Victoria has bee: brought about by a most skilful manipulation of the differential rating system, system that is now almost universally de nouticed by all students of the "railway problem." - .For my own part I am convinced that, in the near future, Victoria will have to pay dearly, both commercially and socially, for her present apparent rail way prosperity. It is, however, to the last clause of the paragraph quoted that at this time I wish to draw particular attention. If'extensive reductions are to be made ii freights and fares, on the plan advocated b\ the superior officers of the department, you are unquestionably right: the loss would be something enormous. But whether reductions mean a loss or a profit depends entirely on the system on which re ductions are made. In the report of th« committee of last session, the following words occur:—"The returns furnished t< the committee by the Kailway Department, and including in the evidence—giving detailed particulars of the passenger traffic, and the revenue derived from it, from station to station, and for the various distances to some extent supported Mr. Vaile's contentions." This shows that a majority of the committee were of opinion that there was not likely to be any "serious loss by making the - enormous reductions I propose, provided they were made on the system I propose. . As this part of the question is purely a financial one, I do not think I shall be accused of showing any disrespect to other members of the committee if I say that the vote of the Hon. Major Atkinson should greatly outweigh the votes of men like Mr Hatch of Invercargill, Mr O'Connor of Buller, or the Hon Mr llichardson, who always voted in a block against ijie in the twelve divisions which took place beforei report containing nine paragraphs was passed. One of tljesedivisionstook place on the following motion by the Hon. Major Atkinson, "That the words 'and the fact that the effect of the propose,d scheme is so much a matter of conjecture' be struck out." The voting on this motion was even. For it voted Hon. Major: Atkinson,, Mr Gore, Mr Macandrew, Mr Walker; against it; Mr Hatch, Mr O'Conor, Hon. Mr Richardson, Mr Whyte. The chairman gave his casting vote with the "noes." _ Had Major Atkinson's motion been carried the committee would have asserted that I had proved the financial position I hYive taken up, lyhich is that there could not possibly be a loss made; indeed, I have jnvapjatjly atatee] thgre wovUd be a pet increase of railway revenue of at least £200,000 per annum, and that the increase would begin at once. This question of rating, and what I propose is still very imperfectly understood. Most people seom think that all I am aiming at is great reduction in fares and rates. Let me again say that it is not a question of price at all. It a quesSjon' of dy4sm.- tnittef h'nw ' low ' the pites are taken d»wn, if the same system is retttinMJ, we snail have' pree'sely the «-itne evils tf)_ contend with. •£;« ft t?J >n livvnpf ten miles from a market town ha< 20 tons of goods to s, nd to that town on which the trwisit charge is IM i>wr ton per mile, he would have t<> pay £5, but n man living 100 miles away, and having to send the same quantity and class of g M'ds wciild be compelled to pay £50, or £-15 more for the extra ninety miles. Now it w iyanifest that, if the rate) were taken down to Id' per ton per" incfe, ' the ' kiwe _ proportionate would remain to the distant man. This it is that bars settlement ind lies at the root of our commercial' drid social troubles. Our only H cfoftnffe $ rtjmsp' iinriihiirA*ce "spate" fegarqs the cost of $lijisit, atjd this I maintain can bo done, not 'only without loss to the railway revenue, but with very great advantage to it. In other words that the change would mean, not only an increase of railway revenue, but an enormous expansion of trade and commerce, and consequently a great increase in the general reveuue.—l am, &c. | Samuel Yailij. Auckland, December 81,* 1886.'