NORTH AUCKLAND RAILWAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 41, 17 February 1910, Page 6

NORTH AUCKLAND RAILWAY.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I read with some amusement Mr Jackinan's letter on the above subject in your issue of the 14th inst. lie says: ' ? When the line began to approach the Ot.ama.tca County, some years ago, there was a general understanding amongst the different districts in the county that the decision of the route should be left to the (jovernment after a thorough survey of the county had been made, and full information obtained." 1 would remind Mr Jackinan that it was understood at the same time that the engineers were to have a free hand in the matter, and not be interfered with; but immediately after this understanding was arrived at Mr Jaclcnran and his friends started pulling the strings in a clandestine way, which was unknown to the public tril the appearance of the Public Works Statement of 1907, ivhieh stated :hat in consequence of an agitation that had been going on for some time, asking for a westerly deviation, Mr Holmes, the Engineer-in-Chief had been sent up to further investigate the matter, and after full -tnd careful investigation had supported Mr Hales in favour of the eastern route, and the Government decided accordingly to adopt that route, which Jiad been authorised in 1904, and to prove the Hon. Hall-Jones' intention of adhering to that decision, a branch line, one mile long, was authorised, connecting the main line via Pukekaroro with the ballast pit. In 1908 the Kaiwaka railway station was fixed, and a proclamation issued, fixing the line to within five miles of Maungaturoto. But Mr Jaefcman, and his friends kept on pulling the strings in a most unselfish and public-spirited manner, and succeeded in getting the Hon. R. MeKenzie to visit the district, who spent at the most two days on this particular deviation, some of the time in the dark, and he announced his intention of diverting the lino, although, to use his own words, he had insufficient data to go upon; but judging from his own observation, he «in(e to the conclusion that the western route was the cheapest and the best, or words to that effect. Xow, Sir, the public know the attitude I have taken up in regard to this question. I have insisted on the Hon. R. McKenzie giving some reasons for altering the route of this line, and doing it in a constitutional w»iy by satisfying the House that it is the right thing to do, and bringing down :in Authorisation BiH and getting the sanction of die House, as it is clearly his duty to do before any money is spent on a deviation tie House, when consulted, may not approve of. But what has the hon. gentleman done? He bus ignored the authority of Parliament. He has proceeded in a most unconstitutional way to carry out his intentions by issuing a proclamation fixing the line to Young's Point, and is now spending a lot of money in that direction with the evident intention of trying to compel the House, when an Authorisation Bill is brought down, to do what he wishes or waste a large sum of money; and all th is is being done without a particle of evidence to support his position. Mr James Stewart, civil engineer, of Auckland, stat- i ed before the Petitions Committee that this deviation would cost £93,000 more i than the one adopted by the engineers, plus the cost of bad country, which he could not ftstiraa.te. The Engineer-in-Ohief (Mr Holmes) stated that Mr Stewart had not exaggerated the bad country, but thought he had over-estimated the extra cost at £93,000. Hα also stated that by going away from the Pukekaxoro ballast pit it would coet about 2/6 per yard more for ballast, which would mean a great deal in the construction of the line; in short, he stated emphatically that his opinion, as expressed in the Public Works Statement of 1007, was still unaltered. The Hon. R. McKenzie tried to prove that the population and stock to the west was very much greater, but I satisfied him that his figures were inaccurate. To sum up, the committee, although composed of eight Government supporters and two Oppositionists, reported in favour of further inquiry, and I may say here that I called five witnesses, but the Him. R. McKenzie blocked all hut one, and on he goes spending public money in a most reckless way. Is it any wonder railways do not pay, and more money has to be extracted from the pockets of the settler? And what does Mr Jaekman care, as long as he gets the line a few miles nearer his own home. I have always concluded that this line should go through the country as nearly the centre as possible, and the Far North, where the largest population is going to be in the future, should not be handi- | capped by diverting the line or making : it more costly, to benefit the few who are 1 much nearer the markets. And I told j the Hon. R. McKenzie that if he could I bring evidence before the House to prove I that the route he was adopting was the cheapest, the shortest and the best, he would hear no more from mc. I applied I to him for a correct plan, and. lie could

not supply one, only trial surveys. I asked him for other information, and could get nothing. I wonder how long the public will allow their business to be conducted in such, a manner. —I am, etc, ¥. MAXDER.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Two recent letters in your paper require an answer. The first is by Air H. Hook, of Paparoa. He quotes from a leading article in the "Herald" oa the route question, wherein it stated at the commencement that squabbling ■ over routes ia private interests was to be deprecated. But he stops there, and says, perforce, let us hurry on with the western deviation. He does not quote from the remainder of the article, which was on the lines of the article in the ""Star" about the same time. It went on to strongly urge that the Royal Commission should cover this proposed deviation, because tie expert evidence of the Chief Engineer was against it, and the Petitions Committee of the House recommended further inquiry on the route. The reasons for Air Hook's neglect to quote the remainder of the article are only to be conjectured, but he evidently does not study deeply. If he had read, the whole of the article his letter was a deviation from fair fight. Mr Heathcote Jaclcman's letter in to-night's issue is in his own terms a red herring, but of unusual length. It is refuted in all its salient points by the letter of the same issue from Messrs Carruth and Purdie. But some of its points may here be dealt with. It mentions that the Railways Petitions Committee heard the evidence in 1908 of the western route supporters, I and recommended that further survey de- j tails be procured. It does not mention that in 1909 the Petitions Committee heard for the first time the evidence of the engineers on the route, and recommended that the matter should have further inquiry by the Government, as the evidence in favour of the central route was overwhelming. The acreage statistics of Mr Blow were admitted as inaccurate by himself, as he had eliminated the most fertile part of the central route, and, further, he stated that he could not vouch for them, as he had not prepared them himself. Mr Jackman's statistics may be estimated at their true value when placed alongside his statement that the western land is twice as valuable as the eastern land. The engineers stated that there was no difference. Mr Jaekman is on his best ground when he states that the two gentlemen (holding credentials from all the counties on the centra] route) -were self-interested. Possibly Mr Jackman's interest in the western deviation is purely in the public interest; even at the cost of suffering on his part, for the western deviation would bisect his property. Still, apart from personal aspects, which ought to be put askte, the central people only asked for a Royal Commission, and the evidence they obtained from the engineers, even in the presence of the Hon. R. McKenzie, was practically unanswered. They did I not sum up after the manner of Mr .Jaekman. The statement that stone was lately delivered from Hukatere (by boat, of course) to Matiakohe, at 4/ per yard, of course, may be correct. It might be delivered tor 4d for deviation advertisement purposes, but Mr Holmes was speaking of the probable real cost when he said 11. In regard to the feeling of the County Councils, the following quotation from the "Northern Mail," June ; 21, 1909, in its report of the Norti Auckland Railway League meeting, is interesting: '"Mr T. Lamb (a member of the Hobson County Council) strongly protested against the western route, and said many of the settlers on the Wairoa were ia nccoTd with him on the deviation. It was a great waste of public money." In regard to Mr Jaekman's criticism of Mr J Holmes' knowledge of railway construeI tion in its commercial aspects, the statement that the rivers are the great feeders of railways is a ludicroue one, for water carriage is always cheaper where direct connection is obtainable. The Auckland merchants who signed the memorial asking for the Royal Commission over the ■whole route did so after reading the official statements it contained. The delay in spending £SO,OOO is nothing compared to a hasty waste of £90,000 on a bridge deemed useless by the Chief Engineer. Lastly, Otamatea people never subscribed to the Railway League, even before the route discussion was started.—l am, etc., CIYIS.