THE EAST COAST RAILWAY

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 147, 19 March 1934, Page 8

THE EAST COAST RAILWAY

When the Government withdrew, from active participation in railway policy and administration, it adopted a' principle for which public opinion had contended for many years. Unable on account of political, influence to make the railways pay, the Government handed over a losing concern to the Government Railways Board with a mandate to do what seemed best to save it from bankruptcy. The board through a policy of drastic economy, which included the closing of losing propositions either in being or in prospect, has done excellent work toward putting the railway system on a sound footing. For many of its acts it has been criticised by local interests affected and made the butt of politicians in Parliament. On balance, however, it must be admitted that it has ’amply justified its existence—and the Government’s policy. • . z The statutory position is that no new railway construction workmay be undertaken until a report by the board in respect thereof has been laid before Parlianient, and a resolution authorising the work has been passed by both Houses. Construction works that had been abandoned before the board took charge in 1931 cannot be resumed unless by like procedure; and works stopped by Parliament on the recommendation of the board cannot be resumed “save in accordance with the recommendation of thd board.” ' In September, 1931, the board reported to Parliament recommending the cessation of work on the Napier-Gisborne railway, and the recommendation was adopted. The Prime Minister, as a result of representations made to him last week, is going to ask the board to examine further data submitted by the energetic local committees, and if need be meet the committees. He cannot legally do more*. The Government in this matter of railway construction is now by law wholly in the hands of the Railways Board and of Parliament. To obtain their railway the people of the East Coast must either convince the board that it will be a paying proposition, or persuade Parliament to alter the law. And their chances of accomplishing the second without the evidence to accomplish the first are negligible. There is, however, no question of the enthusiasm which both the Poverty Bay and Upper Hawke’s Bay communities have brought to their survey of the business possibilities of this railway; and it is just possible they may be able to show the board that its adverse decision of 1931 is not justified by the facts in 1934. If so, they need have no fear that the country will oppose the resumption of construction work. What the board says will go; for the board’s work to date has won the complete confidence of the taxpayers