RAILWAY REFORM: REPLY TO MR J. B. WHYTE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2305, 19 April 1887, Page 2

RAILWAY REFORM: REPLY TO MR J. B. WHYTE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Resuming my reply to Mr Whyte, I quote the following remarkable passage from his letter of the 7th inst: — "It is true it might bring in the same re venue, but if the increase in traffic be not distributed over the various distances in certain proportions, it will not do so." I confess my sheer inability to wrestle with this, and must resign the task to some brighter intellect. I cannot understand what Mr Whyte means when he says, "The increase must be in the right place or the loss will be serious." If this means anything, it means that it is a matter of vital importance whether a shilling is taken at Penrose, Pukekohe, or Te A wamutu. For my part, 1 care nothing where we get them, so that we do get them. Mr Whyte appears to be labouring under the delusion that each part of our railway sustains its own burden. He is vastly mistaken ; many portions do not nearly pay working expenses. Our railways now simply exist on the average, which he thinks is so very delusive. As to the increased cost of carrying two or three passengers instead of one, I have thrashed that subject out till I am tired of it Mr Clias. Waring states that the English trains daily run with only 100 tons when they might as well carry 300 tons, " and at the same cost." I presume he is a sufficiently good authority. As we are all agreed that the universal fare cannot lie attained at present there if no use in discussing it. There are, however, many now alive who will see it brought into use ; and those who have studied the subject know that it is not so hard to accomplish as mui-t people believe. Passing un now to Mr Whyte's letter in your issue of the 9th, he says "that in arriving at the present average fare return tickets are counted as two fares, and thereby the average is lowered. This, of course, makes a comparison more favourable to Mr Yaile than it ought to be. Then Mr Vaile says he will apply return and season tickets to the scheme." Will Mr Whyte be good enough to show how the return fares make the comparison more favourable to me? And will he say when and where I said I would apply return fares? And does he really imagine that season tickets influence the calculation in the slightest degree? If so he can never have studied the tables of the Department. None of these things can influence my "shilling average." Season ticket journeys are never reckoned in with the ordinary fares. Mr Whyte evidently thinks they are.

As to differential rating I wrote to Mr Chas. Waiiug, and submitted to hitn the following question—"Seeing that undei the system I propose all the rates would be fixed, and that the officials would have no power to alter or vary them, can such a system be called a ditt'erental system?" This is Mr Waring's answer—" In answer to the specific question you put to me I hardly see how any system in which rates and fares are established on a fixed basis can be properly called a differential rating system. That is not what we mean when we speak of differential system in England, and describes indeed the exact

reverse." I think I may safely leave this portion of the subject here. Here is another choice paragraph. Speaking of the addition oF a .stage on each side of a town, Mr Whyte says. "That is to say that he will at once increase the cost to everyone wishing to cross these stages by from 33 per cent, to 300 per cent, according to the distance travelled. If, however, tin town increases to 4000 inhabitants, lil again claps on two more stages. This "f course raises the above increase to from Glj to 000 per cent. I find it very difficult to believe that this statement is put forward honestly. The proposed fare from Hamilton to Auckland is Is Bd. The addition of one stage would raise this to 2s, and the addition of two stages to 2s 4d. If Mr Whyte really believes that this advance in price means an increased charge of from 300 to (>OO percent., it is about time he went to school again, and took a oaclc seat in the lowest form.

With reference to these stages, it is the intention to readjust them after each censuis taken, and it is manifest that if any grea( ■ increases in their number takes piace, t corresponding decrease in the stage to stagt rate could be made, and thus instead of an increase there would in all probability be s decrease in the through rate. Mr Whyte says : " We all know that in the past railway facilities have damaged the small towns. Surely if we increase these facilities that tendsncy must increase." Would Mr Whyte then have us decrease our railway facilities? Again, " Mv Vaile seems to think, cheaf: fares will only tend to bring people out ol the large towns." Mr Yaile understands his subject too well well to think anything of the kind, and has repeatedly stated that the lower fares and rates are, so long as they are reckoned on a mileage basis, the worse it will be for the country towns and districts ; but if you reckon by stages, and give the longest stages in the country districts, all this must be reversed, and the country towns and districts helped. Mr Whyte says my scheme is impracticable. It seems to me supremely ridiculous to speak of my system as "impracticable," because I reckon by stages. What is a mile but a stage? Is it more difficult to reckon live of them between here and Te Awamutu, than it is to reckon the 100 at present used. In this point the opinions of Messrs W. Gonyers, R. W. Moody, T. 13. Edmonds, Jas. Stoddart and other railway men are of vastly more value than the opinion of Mr J. B. Whyte. Even the officers of the department have never ventured to bring this charge against it. The gentlemen whose names I have mentioned are all warm supporters of my plan. They have all had large practical experience in railway working, and are hardly likely to have given in their adhesion to a system that could not bo worked. In his letter of the 12th Mr Whyte brings afresh charge against me. He says " Mr V aile's quoting from a " private "letter, and without giving the context, is also an old habit with him, which therefore can excite no surprise." I again defy Mr Whyte to bring forward a single proof in support of the truth of his asssertion. He knows lie cannot. In carrying on my work I have had neither occasion or temptation to resort to such unworthy methods. Mr Whyte being unable to meet me in argument, shelters himself under his "dignity.'' Am I. not entitled to repeat with scorn the words "his dignity ! ! " In concluding my reply to Mr Whyte's letters I think I have a right to say this. The right to criticise any plan brought forward for the administration of our railways is free to all. and ought to be fully exercised ; but no man lias a right to propound a plan for adoption by the country, without having lirst most carefully studied the whole question, and also having an intelligent idea of what the adoption of his plans would lead up to. Mr Whyte's letters give abundant evidence that he has not dono this. The f.ict is his whole heart is with the present system. This has been evident to me from the firsc, and I had not been in the committee room half and hour before I was aware that he was posted nil with all the »i[ v,in . v.o| !.i » U.lvl .Vivo Ulil.Ul'- i nmiod to t<lu'uw mo it he possibly could, j

However I did not regret this, indeed I was pleased, as it gave me an opportunity of replying to the worst that could be said. I regret exceedingly that he should have thought proper to make a personal matter of a great public question, which he should have been able to discuss calrniy. Notwithstanding what has passed, I again say that if he will point out where I have exceeded the bounds of fair criticism in referring to his action, that I will make every explanation and amends in my power.—Faithfully yours, Samuel Vaile. Auckland, lGth April, 1887. P.S. —If Mr Whyte refers to Mr Wiring's letter, I have published those portions of it which refer to work which he has himself made public in England, and also his answer to the opinions I asked him for. Jf lie refers to his own letter I shall be happy to publish the whole of it if he wishes me to' do so. Anyone calling at rny office any day after 4.30 p.m. is welcome to read both of them. S. Y. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The supporters of Mr Vaile, in advocating a trial of his scheme lay great stress upon the alleged fact that the loss to the revenue could not be great. As this implies that the only objection is on financial grounds, permit me to point out that the main objection to that scheme is that it is unsound in principle, and whatever financial results a trial might give that objection would still remain. I will try and show briefly what are the principles involved. To the majority of your readers the scheme doubtlessly represents merely a system of very low rates and fares between the Waikato and Auckland. But these have really nothing to do with the principle of the system, and the same charges could be made under the present system, or that of diminishing mileage rates as explained by Mr Whyte. Again, we are all agreed that the primary object in managing a State Railway should be the development of the resources and industries of the country. This, again, is no new idea. I have heard it discussed by the leading railway men of England 20 years ago, and it was advocated in New Zealand before Mr Vaile ever wrote on railways. What is really peculiar to Mr Vaile's scheme is the way in which he proposes to use the railways to foster certain districts at the expense of others. His scheme is simply Differental Rating, carried to an extreme in favour of the thinly populated districts. In order to explain what this involves I will apply it to our own section of the railway, but by changing the names my remarks will apply to the whole colony. It is proposed to have what is practically one set of rates in the Waikato, and another, much higher, in the Auckland district. Thus, a man going a journey of 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 miles from Hamilton would pay 4d ; but if he started from Otahuhu he would have to pay Bd, Is, and Is 4d, respectively. Now, as Mr Yaile has himself pointed out, the actual costof carrying the Hamilton man is greater than the Otahuhu man, ana as the total charges on the railway are to equal the costof working and interest on capital, it is manifest that in the Waikato the charges are to be less than the actual cost. This amounts practically to offering an enormous bonus to people to come and live in the Waikato. To make up the loss thus incurred, he makes up his "average" fare by charging the

Auckland man in excess. That is to say, in order that one man may pay too little, another is to pay too much. Tims, a man starting from Otahuhu has not only to pay the fair cost of his journey, but also an additional sum to make up the loss in the Waikato. Is not this a direct- tax on 100 motion? The reduction in fares in no wise affects this injustice, for if it pays to carry a man for 4d in the Waikato, it would pay much better at Otahuhu. Why then charge Is 4d. It is useless to deny the fact that the higher fare is charged to make up the loss 011 the lower one, and this system is devised to prevent the growth of population near Auckland, and force the people further afield. On the other hand, it must be remembered that it is the urban and suburban population, who on account of their greater numbers and wealth, have mainly found the funds for our railway.

Mr Vailo's scheme therefore involves, Ist. That the progress of certain districts shall be artificially stimulated by what is practically an immense bonus out of the public revenue.

2nd. That certain other districts shall be checked in their natural growth by excessive rail charges, in facta tax on locomo-

3rd. That the man that it costs most to carry shall pay the least.

Such a scheme may be popular in the \Y-iikato, in whose favour it is framed. But cau any serious man believe that the colony as a whole will ever accept such principles ?

With regard to the first, we can all understand a reasonable concession to the more remote districts, but this is quite a different thing' to the wholesale and artificial system of fostering proposed. Once accept such a system and where will it end? Why limit it to railway rates ? It is just as

reasonable to remit the property or any .ither tax. But the unsoundness of these principles is bust seen in their practical application. For instance, we are to ask the people in Auckland to pay Is 8d to travel 50 miles in order that we in the Waikato may travel the same distance for -Id, or we are to ask a man at Otahuhu to pay excessive rates 011 his own railway in order that population may settle in the Waikato instead of in his district, or, to put it plainer, that his land may not increase in value and that of the Patetere Land Company may bo doubted in value. Can anyone doubt what would be the answer ?

The fact is the Reform League persists in looking at the matter from a purely local standpoint, and so they remain a mere local i society. From all parts of the colony there * is a demand for an improvement in our railway system, and yet they have not been i able to expand one mile beyond their local habitation. No scheme can succeed that is not acceptable to all parts of the colony, and sound in principle. Year after year our league cries "Vaile or nothing," and they get—nothing ! In your next issue I will, with your per mission, explain what I deem sound principles on which to base "a system of management " for our railways.—Yours truly, A. Swarhrick. !