RAILWAY CHARGES, LYTTELTONCHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9704, 17 April 1897, Page 9

RAILWAY CHARGES, LYTTELTONCHRISTCHURCH.

TO THS EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sra,—Some kind but unknown friend has sent trie a copy of your issue of the 20th inst. I have read carefully and with great interest the memo, of your Chamber of Commerce, re the railway charges between Lyttelton and Christchurch, and also your report of the debate thereon. I am very glad to see this discussion, because it again bring 3 into prominence the differential rating system. There is nothing in the whole range of commercial practice so vile, so utterly dishonest, so subservient of the best interests of the community, so destructive of its trade and commerce as this abominable system.

I admit that so lon_ as mileage rating lasts, so long must differentiil rate 3 exist, but'l say that neither ought to exist, and I further say that as a rule these rates are made for the sole purpose of plundering the users of the railway. The pretence that they are made in the interests of the public is mere untruthful humbug.

Let rue again draw attention to the fact that this system obtained- its greatest development ,in the United, States of America. The Government of that country decided to put the practice down, and with that 'object in view passed the Interstate Commerce JBill. The British Government made the same attempt by passing the Railways aud Canals Traffic Act. The French Ch raber of Deputies held a fifteen days' debate on differential rates and strongly condemn them, but. so far as I am aware, took no further action. The united Chambers of Commerce of Germany did the same thing. Thus we see that the four greatest nations of the world have striven to rid themselves of this fearful incubus.

It is chiefly in order to maintain this system and enable it to be worked secretly, that we have such a fearful complication of rates and charges. This complication is avowedly made for the-purpose of renderinoit impossible for the users of railways to find out what rate they ought to be charged. If anyone doubts the truth of my statement, I refer them-to our late Commissioner, Mr Maxwell's, own words.

When be was General Manager, in his report for 1884, he says—" The system of rating differentially in this colony is not carried far enough, and the difficulty that stands in the way is the impatience of the public in submitting to different treatment in different cases, and the reluctance to place* in the hands of the railway officers the power which would be necessary for carrying out the principle extensively. While retaining publicity by gazetting each rate, were such a principle more widely introduced, the public would not be able to do what it now, to some exient essays to do — read and. interpret the rates generally ; but the practice followed elscyskore would be necessary; the customer would appeal to the station each time he required a rate quoted." (The italics, are mine.) ' . ■. ' - Surely this is plain enough. Mr Maxwell's intention is quite evident. If it is intended to deal honestly by the public 'why wish to make the rating so that the public cannot understand it Z Why force

them to " appeal to the station each time" they require a rate quoted? M I say advisedly, and I claim to speak with knowledge of t_e subject, that thi3 multiplicity of differential rates ia enacted for the express purpose of confusing and plundering the public. My language may appear strong, but I think we have suffered long enough in the interests of some of the railway officials, tor it is only in the interest of a few of the chief of them, while the great bulk have in consequence to live on hard work and poor pay, and the interests of the public arc utterly ignored. As bringing the lesson home, perhaps my Christchurch friends will permit mc to remind them that when in 1885 I had the honour to lecture in their city I pointed out the gross injustice then being done to the North Island by the many differential rates given in favour of Canterbury and Otago. These ranged from 17 _ to 37_ per cent, against all the rest of New Zealand. The active agitation I was the means of stirri-tg up compelled the Department to remove the mjustice from Auckland and from most of the other centres. Now, it is Canterbury that is made to suffer by means of the Lyttelton-Christchurch line. . When they have exhausted Canterbury as much as they .can, then they will pounce upon some other district, and work it out and so keep up the see-saw. More and more I wonder why we put up with this treatment. Why do**we allow the best interests of the country to be sacrificed to the interest of a few officials ? The public does not sufficiently apprehend the fact that our railways are but our roads, and that the roads of any country control its social conditions, and limit its trade and commerce. The road is the very first essential of civilisation; without it, nothing can be done. No labour can be applied to land, and consequently no products can be obtained. How is it, then, that we allow any set of men to deal with matter of such vital interest to the whole community, not on any scientific basis, but just as their own sweet wills, or their own interest, or the interest of their friends, may dictate ?

Can we expect any real progress so long as this state of things lasts» Transit charges and regulations are a most important factor in trade development, and it is quite necessary that the cost and conditions should be easily ascertainable in every office and every train, instead of us being compelled to " apply at the station," and then not being able to get the information asked for. It is worth while asking the question, what kind of men are these to whom we have entrusted such important interests ? In reply I give a few facts. At the Parliamentary enquiry of 1886 one of the gentlemen now controlling our railways was asked if he thought the low fares I propose would encourage the settlement of the country. This was his reply—" The view I take of that is, that if a man goes to settle in the country he makes one journey to the place he proposes to live at, and then the railway has done with him—that is as far as long distances are concerned." Nice, very nice, Mr Railway Manager, slump your settler down i© a forest or swamp and leave him to flounder there as best he can. But seriously speaking, would it be possible for anyone to have shown a more complete want of knowledge of the requirements of our country settlers. The same gentleman gave it as his opinion that " the principal number of single .short distance fares issued are to people who travel to the ports in order to go away by sea." He gave much other extraordinary evidence, and throughout displayed the most profound want of knowledge of the right use of the great roads of the country, his sole idea then was, and apparently still is, that the only use for a railway is as a machine for extracting the utmost farthing from the pockets of its users. (See Parliamentary paper 1.—9, 1886, pages 32 to 41.) I agree with Mr Tanner and those other speakers who contended that this matter must be dealt with from a colonial, and not a Lyttelton-Christchurch, point of view. There can be no doubt, that quite irrespective of mileage, the charges ought to be exactly the same on the Port ChalmersDunedin, Lyttelton-Christchurch, and One-hunga-Auckland lines. They are all port lines, leading to large cities, and in all fairness they ought to be treated alike. On the. stage sya tern this is so provided for. Mr Jlleredith web quite-'jn-tified in saying that raifway charges had been reduced £43,600 in 1-96, as he found tins statement in the railway report. I may, however, tell him, that this is merely a bogus figure. No reduction whatever was made - iriS either fares or freight charges. This entry is as much a fraud as any of the cross entries recently exposed by Mr Cook. Space will not permit mc to go further into this matter now, but with your permission, sir, I will return to it.—Yours, &0., Samuel Va__e.