THE RIVAL ROUTES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 227, 26 September 1898, Page 8

THE RIVAL ROUTES.

MEETING OF AUCKLAND

MEMBERS.

THE STKATFOKD ROUTE

ADOPTED.

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, this day,

A meeting of Auckland members of both branches of the Legislature was held this morning, Sir G. M. O'Eorke in the chair.

There were present: —The Hons. Harris, Jennings, McCullough, Morris, Swanson and Kelly, Messrs Bollard, Brown, McGuire, Crowther, Symes, Monk, Lang, Holland, Kaih.au, Herries, Massey and Lawry.

The Chairman read correspondence ] and minutes on the subject of the route of the North Island Main Trunk - Railway. Since the last meeting he | had ascertained that the . Stratford ■ j route was 112 miles in length, and the h estimated cost £ 1,077,000, against 144 I: miles and £1,400,000 for the Central !. route. It had been shown that the j< Stratford route was the shortest, most j, expeditious and cheapest. If the re- j, port had been presented to the Govern-;. ment they could either have concured i. in it or have pointed out difficulties j i as ascertained from official engineers j, and surveyors, but when the report '■ was presented to a full meeting of j: Auckland members, some advised that) they should abandon Auckland's in- J terests and throw themselves into the i arms of' Wellington in favour of the Central route, and sacrifice the West coast as well as the East Coast trade. There had been a great deal of misrepresentation going on in an Auckland newspaper which had denounced persons who had been working for Auckland's interests. He reminded members that this question was not a new one but had been agitated for the past 12/ years. It had been said that the Ministry favoured the Central line, but in contradiction of this he was glad to hear the statement made by the Minister of Railways, who had clearly explained why he could not attend the meeting to decide a question which must come before Cabinet. Mr Cadman wrote that his opinion on the routes had been known ever since he journeyed over the two routes in 1892, and his experience as Minister of Railways confirmed his opinion that the question of settlement which would make the Main Trunk Line.pay was of far more importance than that of shortening" the distance between Wellington and Auckland by a few hours. Until it could be clearly proved that the Central line would provide more settlement he would be in favour of the Stratford route. It was said, continued the Chairman, that the Ministry favoured the Central route, and that resolutions would be useless, but the Government had given no pledge either way, and attention would no doubt) be given to the wishes of the Auckland and Taranaki people. He had seen it stated in the papers that certain Taranaki members were in favour of the Central route and would be content with the dray road for bullocks that was proposed in Mr McCullough's amendment. It was urged that Auckland should abandon what it had set its heart upon for the past 15 years and join with Wellington in running the Central line through on inhospitable desert. He would take' a direct vote on the Central versus the Stratford route, and if Auckland members were disunited they had better disperse, leaving each member ♦to follow his own course. Auckland had been trifled with during the past 15 years. No real endeavour was made to secure unanimity in Auckland, but to keep it isolated. Mr McCullough should either give reasons to support his amendment or support the resolutions of the Committee. Mr McCullough said,presuming they were united on the Stratford route, Clause 2 of the Act of 1886, which provided that the main trunk line must connect Te Awamutu with Marton, must first be repealed.. The Chairman said the Committee had recommended that course. Mr McCullough advocated a demand . for restitution of that portion of the ear-marked loan which had been diverted, and that the amounts spent in ; the purchase of native land should be ', made available. The reason why the line had not been completed was" the I opposition of the Wellington meni- [ bers". Why not turn round and join i -with them in getting the Central route . pushed on? -Mr McGowan said the whole question was one of route. He was oppos- [ ed to the Central route as not being to the advantage of Auckland. He was ! not there as an advocate of Wellington's interests, but whatever route [ was adopted he would feel justified in > advocating other lines in. which his I district was interested. 3 Mr Herries followed Mr McGowan. ' He denounced the impertinence of the Auckland people in dictating to country members of the House. He supported the Central route because it . would run through his district. The Hon. Jennings in a capital [ speech quoted the opinions of the late > Mr Jno. Sheehan, Wahanui, Major Purl vis, Sir H. Atkinson, Sir Geo. Grey, Mr '. Northcrpft, and Mr Hursthouse in favour of the Stratford route, and also the report of Mr Wilson, civil engi- [ neer. He showed that along the whole of the Central route there was very little first class land, the route to , Stratford passed through splendid soil. i. If the Auckland members neglected their present opportunity they deserv- , ed to remain isolated from the rest of . the colony. , Mr' Lawry pronounced Mr McCullough's conduct as most extraordinary. ' The attitude of the Wellington mem- * bers on the Central route had been I brought about by the apathy of th& b Auckland representatives, and stupid ' resolutions passed by the Auckland , Chamber of Commerce. Auckland [ members, if united, were quite strongenough to induce the Government to ■ repeal the Act of 1886 and make restitution to Auckland. If any Wellington representative got up to advocate \ the Stratford route he would be bowl!ed out of the city or strung up on the nearest lamppost. He believed the Stratford route to be the most ad--5 vantageous to the colony, and the set--5 tlement of the Awarua block. Nobody would be mad enough to take up land on the Central route. » Mr Massey: Would you consent to P turn out the Ministry if they do not ) agree to the Stratford route. Mr Lawry: Yes. *■ Mr Massey: Very well, we will agree > to that. Mr Bollard believed the Central 3 route was the most advantageous, but iif a majority of the Auckland people .. were in favour of the Stratford route he would favour the opinion of Parliab ment being taken on the question as a - test. He had received several tele- . grams threatening- him that if he did

not support the Stratford route it : would be remembered:against him at ■the next elections. Though he was not to be turned aside from his duty by such influences he did not under value the opinions of the great majority of ' the business people of Auckland, nevertheless he would not be dictated to by a small section of the commuMr Holland said Mr McCullough's resolution caused intense surprise in Auckland. He had ascertained that the large majority of the Auckland people were in favour of the Stratford i route, which he had always advocated. If all united there would not be much difficulty in obtaining the Stratford route. Southern members were not opposed to the Stratford line, but would support the best line in the interests of the whole colony. Let the Auckland members unite, and if they failed, them they had done their best. Mr Lang protested against the action of the Auckland people. If Auck- ! land members were united on the ! Stratford route he would not set up ihis individual opinion against them, 'but two Auckland members came to !a former meeting declaring for the ! Stratford route or nothing, when they_ ! ought to have been prepared to accept 1 a compromise. Even if the Auckland i and Taranaki members combined they I were in a small minority of the House. 'The Government should be urged to i complete the line to the point of diver--1 gence and make a dray road to Strati ford. He maintained the Central line I was 40 miles shorter than. the Strat- ! ford line, with an easier grade. There | was a valuable totara forest, which Wellington would monopolise if the Central line was not made. Mr Brown (Taranaki) said if it were a matter for the decision of the Taranaki people they would support the Stratford route; but he asked, was there any hope of getting the latter unless the Acts of 1882 and 1886 were repealed, and money earmarked for that line, which would mean the raising of a loan of a million. Was there any possibility of passing such 'a measure? The representatives of other districts would demand similar votes for their lines. What was wanted was a coach road between Stratford and the point of divergence of the routes.. If the Auckland members were unanimously in favour of the Stratford route he would support them; if i they were not. unanimous he would support any proposal in favour of a coach road. Major Harris: There is no metal. Mr Brown: There would be no diihculty about that. Mr Massey said he would address a meeting on the subject when he returned to Auckland, but he would remind Mr Shera and other firebell demagogues who had endeavoured to coerce the country members that they were only responsible to their constituents. Why didn't the Government (if they favoured the Stratford line as alleged) bring down proposals in favour of it? He would support any proposal to make good the portion of the earmarked loan. Who was responsible for the isolation of Auckland? The Hon. Mr Jennings and others of the donothing party. He would support the cheapest, shortest route. The Waimarino forest would provide sufficient money to pay for the whole line. Wellington would tap the forest and would have a turnover during a few years of ten millions of money. • M r McGuire pointed out that there was a large area of excellent land on the Stratford route, for settlement, Avhile most of the Central line would run through barren country. Why should t|ie Hon. Mr McCulough want a line merely for a few tourists? What the advocates of the Central line were seeking1 to accomplish was to drain Auckland and aggrandise Wellington. He denied that the Southern members were opposed to the Stratford route. Mr Monk said the Waimarino block contained 150,000,000 superficial feet of totara. The question was not between the two routes, but what they could get. If there was to be a borrowin"- policy he would demand extension oAhe Kaipara line. Completion of the j Main Trunk line would involve a large | loan but if the Auckland members could show they were united and could show him that the Stratford line | was feasible he would vote with the . majority. Major Harris strongly favoured the . Stratford route, and said that the i more anxiety he saw on the part of I the Wellington people to secure the '■ Central line the more he felt coni vinced that the Stratford line was >, superior. Mr Mitchelson had surveyed the line by climbing a tree. Mr Symes (Egmont) scouted the • idea of adopting the East Road for > taking stock to Auckland. To metal ; that road was an impossibility. The - lowest tender for metalling'was £800 i a mile. He gave interesting facts as i to the extension off settlememt on ; land from Stratford. Instead of the railway tapping the totara forest he . thought the forest ought rather to be » conserved for the next forty or fifty - years. Enormous quantities of tim- • ber were being burnt in clearing land, b and the timber trade must go via Wangauui whatever railway route was I adopted. } Mr Henare Kaihau supported the - Central route as the best for his dis> c trict. He was cognisant Wellington t members merely studied their own > interests. Auckland members would - have had the line long ago if they had • ! been united.

Mr Crowther'thought the Waimarino timber trade would go to Wanganui. He thought an amendment of former acts would not be so difficult as was represented. As to the party in Auckland called 'agitators' they were gaining strength and included many leading commercial men. He strongly urged unity of action. He thought the Government would be amenable to reason if the Auckland members were unanimous. The Hon. Captain Morris suggested that the meeting should demand coni- | pletion of the line between the tunnel to the point of divergence. The Chairman said his main object was to unite the Auckland members in favour of the most advantageous line. If they went in for a borrowing policy he could not oppose the claims of other districts. He therefore thought, instead of a borrowing policy, they should demand restoration of the £400,000 diverted from the million loan. THE DIVISION LIST. A vote was then taken as follows:— For the -Stratford route, .Messrs Holland, Morris, Symes, Lawry, Harris, Jennings, McGuire, Crowther, O'ltorke, McGowan, W. Kelly. For the Central route: Messrs McCullough, Lang-, Herries, Scotland, Monk, Swanson. Messrs Brown, Bollard and Massey declined to vote.

A division was taken on the report of the committee in favour of the Stratford route as follows:—For the report: Messrs Holland, Swansan, Mc-

Gowan, W. Kelly, Morris, Symes, Lawry, Harris, Jennings, McGuire, Crowther, OEbrke. Against the Stratford route: Lang, Massey, Monk, Holland, Brown, McCullough, Herries. Mr McCullough moved a resolution 'That a deputation direct the attention of the Government to the necessity of completing twelve miles of railway to complete the line from the Auckland end with the point of divergence of the two routes. . The motion was negatived, ancl it panied by all in favour of the Stratwas resolved that the Speaker accomf ord route should wait on the Premier. During- the proceedings Mr McCullough protested against a direct vote on the respective routes, as not being the issue before the meeting. Mr Massey refused to vote and left the room. Messrs Bollard and Brown also refused to vote.