The Press. Friday, June 4, 1920. The Midland Railway.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16852, 4 June 1920, Page 6

The Press. Friday, June 4, 1920. The Midland Railway.

ft is far more important to work for the completion of the Midland railway than to lament over tho delay in carrying out tllis work and to upbraid those who were primarily responsible for the delay. But when our morning contemporary sets itself to deny that anybody but Mr Massey is to be blamed, it becomes necessary to remind the public of some facts. On August 28tli, 1905, a very large and representative deputation waited on Mr Seddon in "Wellington, to urge the early completion of the East-and-West connexion. This was very far from being the beginning of tie agitation. As our morning contemporary itself remarked, in an article on the following day, "the great deputa- '• tion merely emphasised what Canter - " bury and Westland have been saying "during the past decade" —i.e., since the early nineties. As "everyone in Canterbury knows, this was a perfectly accurate statement. Throughout the long Liberal regime under Mr Seddon, Canterbury had been begging for the completion of this work, but the Liberals paid little heed to the pleading, being more concerned with the task of utilising developmental 'policy for party ends. In 1905 Canterbury had been agitating for a decade at least, and by no stretch, of imagination can Mr Massey be held accountable in 1920 for the neglect of the Liberals in that now far distant time. The completion of the line was a burning question then, as it is to,dav. It was a burning question for nearly twenty years under the Liberal regime. The line could have been completed, had the Liberals really had honest intentions, fifteen years ago. That would Have given the Liberals for the completion of the work the whole decade which, on our cantemporary's own showing, had been spent in continuous neglect and complete indifference to the country's needs. The upshot, of that deputation was an undertaking that the work would be pushed ahead without any further delay, and would be completed in six years. Those who were present will remember very clearly the wild enthusiasm with which the deputation greeted this premise, forgetting, in its excitement, that it was election year. In our own comments upon the Premier's statement, we were unable to take an optimistic view, for reasons which we gave, as follows: —

"We are the less inclined to be optimistic in this matter when wo observe how tenaciously tho Premier clings to the unhappy delusion that it would be wrong to proceed with a railway that is really wanted, unless at the same time you frittered away a corresponding amount of money on a line that has 110 urgency about it at all. Opinions differ as to whether the railway between Canterbury and Westland ought ever to have been begun, but everyone will 'agree that if it is to be gone on with, it ought to be proceeded with energetically; if only to lessen the huge annual loss of interest on the unfinished portions of the line. No one will protend that the cross connexion with Nelson is equally important. Yet Mr Seddon hinted plainly enough that it would be necessary for political reasons to go on pottering away at both .tlio unfinished ends of the Nelson connexion, spending money which had vojj much better be devoted to the main line of construction. The system 'fair allocation' in regard to public works, of •which Mr Seddon is so enfamoured, is, in out opinion, the most effective device for wasting jpublic money and delaying the execution of much-needed public works, that was over foisted by politicians on a lonrfsufferi'ng country. If it is to be persisted in, it needs no prophet to foresee that the Midland Railway will not bo finished in six years or in twelve—that probably even twenty years hence we fchall still find a gap in the middle."

That was fifteen years ago, and the accuracy of our prediction will bo as apparent as tho Teason why we have so persistently urged that reform of public works policy which, after many years, contenuxuraxifis -itiH the politicians

have at last joined us in urging. When our contemporary in 1905 implied that the Liberals had for ten years been obstructing the completion of this great work, the question of responsibility may be considered fixed, even without the additional fact that after seven'years more of Liberalism the line was still uncompleted. There is no possibility, of course > of the Liberals ever seeing office again, and little need, therefore, for flogging a dead horse, but it' is desirable in the interests of historical truth that the facts we have mentioned should be recalled to the public mind.