MR WHYTE : ON RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2299, 5 April 1887, Page 2

MR WHYTE : ON RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln my letter to you last week I endeavoured, without unduly depreciating the importance of reform in railway matters, to show, that after all its effects upon the welfare of this community was comparatively trifling compared with other influences which we were allowing to go untouched, and tha 1 : rjally it was'grasping at pence, when the pounds were flying in other ways. I think I might almost have gone further and said that if we and our produce were carried for nothing our position would be but little improved if other stops were not taken to secure to us the real value of our products, and to prevent all we earned from being swallowed up in maintaining swarms who don't and never intended to pay their debts, as well as many others who were tempted by this pernicious " credit system" to buy many things which they could not pay for, and which they could well have done without. Of course within the limits of one readable letter I could only treat the subject in a general way and give only one or two illustrations. Therefore I meant to pursuo that view of our position and its remedies further, but I think it better before doing so, to deal with this question of Railway Rates first, and 1 do so for the following reasons :— Ist. Because there is a danger that I may be thought to be underrating its real importance as affecting the settlement of the country while ray desire is mainly to show how much more important other influences are.—2nd. Because it is occupying public attention very much at present.—3rd. Because many of my oldest friends and supporters have taken it up very warmly. In fact every member of the Railway Reform League, so far as I am able to judge by their actions, have for years been, and are now, my political friends and supporters ; and 4th because it is essential that my views upon the subject should be laid clearly before my constituents so that they may be. enabled t» judge whether they coincide with theirs— more especially as my views appear to some extent to be misunderstood.

I have also to request that iny readers will be good enough to keep my last letter, this one, and any succeeding ones together, so that they may be able to refer to each, if necessary.

Perhaps I had better first state in what respects I agree with the lines ot policy laid down by Mr Vaile, and, apparently, endorsed by the Railway Reform League.

I entirely agree with the general principle —that production and settlement, and not revenue, should be the main object aimed at in dealing with national railways.

I entirely agree that the longer distances should be favoured, as otherwise there can be no settlement inland.

I entirely agree that rates should be as low as possible, and that fares should not be an effectual bar to the great bulk of the people travelling. I also think that the greatest room for improvement exists in the rate-s now charged for small consignments. This country is fitted only for small settlers doing nearly all their own work, and if we do not help them all we can, the country will become depopulated, instead of peopled. The small consignments I allude to are small quantities of anything, but more particularly butter, eggs, fruit, fowls, pigs, &c. and parcels. Indeed I fancy it is owing to overcharges upon these things that nine tenths of the present discontent exists, and I am distinctly of opinion that there is plenty of margin for reduction in the present rates without loss to the revenue—aye, I think with great ultimate gain to it.

I also think that in greater quantities, wherever there is a prospect of establishing an export, the rates should be made especially low.

Theoretically it might perhaps be contended that National railways ought to be run even at on apparent loss if the general welfare of the community were advanced thereby. To do this, however, without injustice to many, it would be necessary first to distribute railway facilities much more evenly throughout the colony than they are at present. lam therefore of opinion that no scale of charges can succeed or be reasonable which is not based generally upon the cost »f the service rendered. In other words, a man that travels 50 miles must pay more than one that travels five.

Any other basis means favouring the few at the expense of the many.

All have to contribute to the payment of the interest on our Railway Loans, and all do not use the railways.

It is however quite sound in principle that you can carry passengers and goods more cheaply in proportion 100 miles than 10. I would therefore have a

sliding scale of charges decreasing rapidly, proportionately, the further you go. Nor do I see any practical difficulty in doing this. For instance, merely as an illustration—(the following proportions need not necessarily be those fixed upon)— suppose we charged the present fare, (which is a trifle under 2d per mile) for the first ten miles ; then, say, lkl per mile for the next twenty miles ; then, say, Id per mile for the next fifty miles, and, say, id per mile for the next hundred miles. This would give a total of about 12s (id for 180 miles. The same scnle of rates would be charged from any place to any place, and in any direction, all that would be required being that the goods or passenger should travel the longer distance to reap the benefit of the decreasing rates. This could be applied both to goods and passengers, and no anomalies would occur, as under the system of stages of varying length and in varying numbers according to locality and the direction travelled.

Under a sliding scale of charges,. such as I mention, very considerable reductions could be made without material loss to the revenue in the present, and with a certain increase in the future.

I would, however, as regards fares, only make my reductions in the second-class, or even introduce a third. I hardly think the latter would be required, but all experience in Europe goes to show that it is the 3d or lowest class that yields the revenue. I would therefore make the second-class carriages more comfortable, lower the fares, and let those who want to be select pay for it, at least as much as at present..

These, speaking generally, are the lines which I should endeavour to follow in railway management, and I don't dispair of being able to do so if we only persevere and keep on pointing out this evil and that other evil, until things as nearly approach perfection as is possible in any human undertaking.

I should like to say, however, that this is no new line for me, as I have taken it with every Minister of Public Works with whom I have come in contact for years past. I also wish to say that individuals in the community should assist their member in his efforts in this direction.

In justice to myself I must also remind my readers that once, long before Mr Vaile appeared on the scene, and again since I publicly through the newspapers, invited people having grievances to state them specifically to me in writing, so that I might be enabled to get them remedied. To these I received absolutely not one single response. In 7riy next letter I intend to deal as shortly as I can with the points upon which I regret to say I cannot agree with Mr Vaile's proposals.—l am, yours faithfully, ' J. B. Whyte.