The Railway Tariff.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18441, 23 July 1925, Page 8

The Railway Tariff.

The Railway Board has little reason to be discontented with the reception given in this province to tho new scale of freights. The Farmers' Union, it is true, condemned pretty vigorously yesterday the proposed increase in the freight on wheat, and some of its members grumbled that the Government was taking back with one hand what it had given with the other. But these complaints were made, apparently, on the principle (for which there is not a little to be said) that one ought never to allow to pass unchallenged any levy of any kind made by tho Government. The resolution which wa3 carried was not a general protest against higher freights, but a protest based on 'the particular circumstance that the agreement on the 1925-6 prices of wheat was made on the assumption that railway freights would be unchanged. This is an objection which the Railway Board ought to consider. The report of the Chamber of Commerce also criticises the new freight on wheat, as well as the higher charges on the carriage of meat, but otherwise it is friendiy. The Chamber's suggestion that" part of .the capital sunk in the railways should be regarded as hopelessly lost, and that the system ought not to be expected to pay 4$ per cent, on the whole sum, looks reasonable, but to adopt it would be equivalent, in effect, to returning to

the old and unsound idea of " a policy " rate "of earning. The Chamber docs not insist upon this point, but goes on to make some sensible comments upon the propriety of differential and flexible rates to suit extraordinary conditions. We note with sympathy its reference to the unrcformed Department's absurd contention that one sec- ! tion of the users of the railways cannot be granted a concession which is not general. We ourselves have grown weary condemning this and other oqually foolish and short-sighted principles insisted upon by the Department in the past. The Chamber is on the soundest of ground also in condemning the utilisation of the railways as an indirect implement of tariff protection. It ought not to matter to the railways -.vhcther any article it carries originated in New Zealand or in some foreign country. If there are good reasons for giving preference or subsidies to any particular local industry, the thing should be done before the articles concerned reach the railway station. Nor can we think of any reply to the Chamber's contention that the Railway Department should not have to bear the free carriage of certain goods and the nominal rates charged for others. The object of this special treatment may be sound and desirable, but the cost of it ought not to bo borne by the Railway Department. . The general conclusion of the Chamber is highly favourable, and since it may be assumed that this means that the business community is on the whole satisfied, the public will have some confidence in the reforms brought about by Mr Coates.