The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1864.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1230, 3 May 1864, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1864.

The spread of faith in railways among the public of this province is an interesting part of our history. In the first an imaginative auctioneer stood almost alone. At a later period, Mr. FitzGrerald, for a plan which he proposed when Superintendent, but soon suffered to drop, was supported by a poor minority. The second Superintendent carried his design through against strong opposition, and in spite ot doubts and sneei s. But the doubters and sneerers of those days have been convinced by the logic of facts. The state of doubt was no sooner passed than they attributed to the project every merit but that of boldness. The facts had always been obvious; the Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway was a matter of necessity; there was no credit due to any one for proposing it. At the present day the faith has spread so far, that the disbelievers of 186*0 are the apostles of 1864 ; and the converts bring with them a warmer zeal and a more active spirit. Not for them is it to rest in the Lyttelton Tunnel. Those who designed that work might indeed have been satisfied with it, and there stayed their hands. But no honour comes out of the Port hills to the new Administration ; they prefer to bury the past under the present and the future; they desire to —

" Climb on stepping stones • Of their dead selves to higher things;" and they willingly lead the province in the way which they know to be right. For our own part, as we supported the railway project of 1860 upon grounds of reason and calculation, so even in these days of confidence we desire to try the most flattering proposals by the same rule. Some valuable assistance in calculating railway prospects is lent by the neighbouring province of Otago, where has lately been published the report of a Commission of gentlemen appointed many months ago to examine the question of roads and their construction in that province. The Commission examined a number of experienced engineers and practical men, among whom were Messrs. Doyne, Holmes, and Dobson, gentlemen well known in this Province.

The Commission has dealt with the subject comprehensively. They report as to the comparative values of railways and macadamized roads in a new country; then as to the relative merits of the different sorts of railways ; and, lastly, as to the particular routes which railways ought to follow in Otago.

Comparing railways and common roads, the Commission report strongly in favor of the former, on the ground that good roads are expensive to make and maiutain ; and that, even should they be constructed, it

would still be necessary to seek greater facilities for traffic. Really efficient roads have cost £3000 a mile, and require £300 or £400 a year to keep them up. Inferior roads have cost £1200 to £1600 a mile, and an annual sum of nearly an equal amount has to be spent upon them by way of maintenance. It is therefore suggested that light roads following the natural surface should be pushed on as temporary expedients, to be followed by railways as fast as possible. The fact is stated incidentally that the roads of Otago have cost to this date £435,000; and yet the gold fields cannot receive many of the common necessaries of life.

Of the different varieties of railways, that adapted for horse traffic or for very light locomotive work, commonly called a tramway, is wholly rejected by the Commission. The experience of Queensland is quoted, where a 3ft. Gin. gauge has been adopted, with sharp curves and steep gradients, and an iron rail of 35lbs. to the yard; the cost of the whole averaging £7049 a mile. Mr.Doyne in his evidence describes such a road as suitable only for traffic of a simple character and in one direction only, as in the case of the Dun Mountain line at Nelson. Mr. Fitzgibbon, the Queensland engineer, who constructed the Dun Mountain line, calculates the traffic on the Queensland lines at only 200 tons per diem for ten years to come. On these grounds the very light locomotive as well as the horse power principle is rejected as unsuitable. On the other hand Victorian railways have been constructed in a style and with a finish unsurpassed iu any part of the world. This is pointed out as au error to be avoided, because the capital sum expended in construction is so enormous as to consume in interest nearly the whole of the returns from traffic. The double lines in Victoria cost about £45,000 a mile on the average. This is the evidence of Mr. Holmes, who states that all the works were executed in the most elaborate and expensive style, without reference to cost, and that at least a million of money might have been saved in the construction of one hundred and fifty miles of rail if the designs had been simplified.

We have thenevideuceasto the Canterbury rail on the level, which cost £12,000 a mile ; and of Tasmanian railways which are contracted for complete at £8500 a mile. On these and other grounds the Commission estimated the expense of railways in Otago per mile at from £12,000, in easy to £16,000 in difficult country.

The gauge of 5 ft. 3 in. adopted in this province is recommended ; aud a request is made that the Southland system of 4 ft. Sg-in. gauge should not be extended. To effect the great object recommended by the Commission —the keeping down of the capital cost—it is suggested that, a single line only should be constructed at first; but Mr. Holmes urges that over-bridges and certain other works should be built to accommodate a double line if required.

It is not intended, however, to stint the works unnecessarily. On the question of "wooden or iron rails, a preference is-strongly expressed for the latter, in spite of the evidence of Mr. Davies, the Southland engineer.

This gentleman estimate) patent ra £W0 a mile, comparing with £2187 same length of iron rail. But the compan son seems based upon the cost of the vit torian lines, on which 120 ton. ot nub, 33 tons chairs, and 18 tons of fish plates, bolts, and spikes, have been consumed on a mile of permanent way. Other evidence goes to prove that a more modest outlay, perhaps not exceeding one-fourth of that set down, would provide a very satisfactory iron railway. On this point we refer to Mr. Dovne's report on the proposed liakaia line, published in our paper of the 19th instant, where he proposes to use rails weighing only 61 lbs. to the yard, attached direct to the sleepers, without chairs or keys. Considering that the evidence before the Otaeo Commission has been chiefly that ol engineers whom we in Canterbury are able to consult directly, no very new light is grven us upon the subject of railways. Yet it is satisfactory that even this evidence has been taken down and compared together, and the results published by authority, since engineering opinion must form the foundation of all our calculations. It is therefore a matter ol congratulation to us that opinions are pretty unanimous as to the sort of railway which ought to be constructed; and that we can expect to supply our wants at an expense oi about £10,000 a mile, exclusive of the main bridges. Given this basiß of calculation, we can compare an ordinary road with a railway. The road costs £3000 a mile, produces not a farthing of revenue, requires the expenditure of private capital to a seriously large amount in the means of conveyance, and after all leaves the interior of the country almost inaccessible. Railways will cost £10,000 a mile, will pay part at least of their own cost, will relieve the producer of a heavy tax on his means, and will bring the most distant district of the province practically close to the port and market.

The Auditor's report, furnished to the Council almost at the last moment of the late session, though apparently of a formal character, has in fact a deep significance. Periodical reports like this may in course of time come to possess no more intrinsic value than any one of the numerous forms which attend upon the English House of Commons. But like most of those forms it will always remain a sign of the constitutional power over the Executive which belongs to the Legislature. The provincial Auditor is the servant, not of the Superintendent, but of the Council. Practically he holds his appointment from and is removable by the Legislature alone. J His position towards the other officers of the state, from the Superintendent downwards, is not that of a subordinate, but that of an inspector. He is the eye of the Council to watch the conduct of all who receive and spend public money, to see whether the financial laws and resolutions passed in the chamber during session are observed in the inner offices, and all the year round. The accounts, even without him, might be all in order, promptly furnished, rightly classified, and fully explained by the Executive, if conscientious. In times of good Government he may be useless if not troublesome. But with him, the Council—that is, the people —have power over a careless Government or a dishonest officer. Through him they can actually prosecute any officer, from the Superintendent down to a pay clerk, for any fault, from an error of judgment up to embezzlement. The power may never be used. We trust its use may never be required. But it is something to feel that the power exists, and may be exercised in a simple way if it should happen to be needed. The very existence of the power has no doubt already had tendency to make Superintendents more careful, and Councils more gentle than they were before the passing of the Act.

To show the effect of the Provincial Audit Act we may suppose a case. Let us imagine that at the close of the career of one Administration the Superintendent and his advisers had become tired of their duty, and indifferent about the future; that a lavish expenditure on foolish objects had been incurred without legal appropriation and without reasonable excuse; that these gentlemen had gone out of office and a new administration had come in; and that then the Council were to meet. Of course, the constitutional responsibility of those who spent the money is unavailable. The Ministry is out, and caunot therefore be turned out. But the Audit Act imposes on the men themselves & personal responsibility. It is competent for the Council on the Auditor's report to prosecute summarily every one concerned in the supposed case separately, for each act of over-expenditure, and to recover penalties by the ordinary process of law. Honorable gentlemen in such a case may not divest themselves of responsibility for their acts by any such plea as that they were holding office temporarily. A personal liability hangs over every officer who has to deal with public money, and he does not get rid of that liability until the Auditor has reported, and the Council considered the circumstances.

It is not the duty of the Auditor to prevent illegal expenditure, but" only to note and report it. The Executive are responsible still, and may assume any amount of discretion that after warning, they are bold enough to take. The public service cannot, therefore, be imperilled in case of emergency, so long as the Executive can trust to the good sense of the Legislature. There might be, as there is in England, an officer appointed whose duty it would be absolutely to prevent all unauthorized expenditure. But the inconveniences ot the plau are great, and lequire many contrivances to obviate them such as are found in the English system but could hardly be imitated here. The question will bear discussion during the two years betore the present Act shall lapse. In the report before us the Provincial Auditor is evidently afraid that his work may be degraded to a level cold formality. He reserves a right of advice and admonition. Probably the Council will think the advice in itself good but a little out of place ; and some members may even resent it as encroaching on the duties of the Legislature itself. For instance, it may be perfectly irue that the system of day labour is inferior to that of contracts in the performance of Government works; but the decision of that question is not a duty of the Auditor. The former system, he says " cannot be approved ofperhaps some honourable member may be provoked by the words into proving their untruth in his own person. We recommend the Auditor to puree his compositions of all imaginative matter an !! f to that he is not professor of political economy to the Provincial Council We have no quarrel with the suggestion made as to obtaining the Appropriation

Ordinance as early as possible in each financial period. But it is for the Council to consider first, whether they will vote money for the current year without knowing the expenditure of the past period ; and secondly how many demands they have to make upon the Executive before granting supplies at all. The Auditor does well, nevertheless, to remind the Legislature of the loss to the public service consequent on delay. The fact is now before the Council, and it is for that body to judge of the exigency on this aide and on the other.

One remark of the Auditor seen™ to require explanation. It is stated in the report that the expenditure on public works constructed by the unskilled day labor of newly-arrived immigrants is fairly chargeable in the proportion of only one-third to the work done, and the remainder equally to immigration and charitable aid. It is further stated that the value of the West Coast road constructed by the labor in question, bore only the proportion above mentioned to its cost. Can this really be true ? Have we brought Lancashireimmigrantshere as a relief and then have we to pay them three times what they really earn in order to keep them alive ? This is surely too great an allowance to make for mere want of practice with the spade and pick. "We want to know, after the requisite practice is gained, how much inferior the labourer from Lancashire will be to others. It is most painful to suppose that having brought these families out we have done good neither to themselves nor to the colony.

As to the division of expense, we protest against any portion of it going down to the immigration account. We will not accept in any shape the principle that money may be spent on bringing out labour that is not wanted. If we have sent home £10,000 to bring out distressed Lancashire weavers, it was an act quite distinct from the ordinary process ; it was a grant by way of relief to a special case. And if more money has to be spent in supporting these poor people, it ought to go down to the same account. The immigration that we pay for is conducted on a system the chief basis of which is reproductiveness. And we object to taking from the fund applicable to the maintenance of this system any money for the support of a special class of our population. The charity of the country may be drawn upon in all cases of individual hardship ; but it will not do to mix up a plan for relieving distress with a system of immigration.