THE PROPOSED KAIPARA CANAL.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2677, 14 February 1866, Page 6

THE PROPOSED KAIPARA CANAL.

To the Editor of the Daily Southern Cross. Sir, — Simultaneouoly with the appearance of my former letter, your contemporary devoted a leader ostensibly to the subject of political economy, more particularly with reference to the duty of Government in respect of the disposal of the waste lands of the province He says, and very truly, " The Government has to dispose of these lands in order that the country may become populated ;" but he ought to have added — in the most expeditious manner. Instead of doing so, however, he proceeds to say, " Now the simplest principles of political economy would seem to dictate that the business of the Government, under such circumstauces, is oiraply to sell or lease these lands for the highest ptice that they will fetch. It would not appear to be auy way the duty of Government to constitute itself the arbiter of the manner in which such Jand ought to be distributed "' This, he adds, "might well be left to th« ordinary laws of supply and demand, and to the keenness with which purchasers and speculator* will be sure to look after their own interests, which, on the whole, and in the long run, coincide with that of the country. According to this view, then, the Government would simply have to dispose of the lands in its hands to the best advantage." Nobody will dispute this conclusion ; but it strikes me, Mr. Editor, that the passage I have quoted does not exactly coincide with the opinion of the country. , Your contemporary then lugs in a description of the Wakeßeld scheme of colonisation, "simply because it affords a good illustration of the grounds upon which exceptions* may sometimes be made to the operation of the laisser faire (!) principle as applied to Government »geucy." Then, in order to prove that such an exception to that "generally useful principle" cannot be made in the case of the Kaipara canal scheme, lie talks about feeling the difference between Mr. Wakefield. the hon. member for Newton, aud Mr. Mill. Mr. Creicrhtou's project, he says, "is a flagrant infringement of the wholesome rule relating to Qoveruraent agency in such matters, which rests upon no intelligible piiaoiple " In an equally logical strain be continues, "The raakiug of the proposed canal is likely to be either a good investment for property, or a bad one. If the former, there is uo need to bribe speculators to undertake it ; if the latter, it is yet to be shown why the public property is to he given away to bolster up rotten speculations." Now, air, it does appear to me that this argument rests upon no intelligible piinciple If New Zealand were au old, densely populated, and highly-cultivated country like England, ie might be applicable ; but. as it is a new, sparsely peoplod, and mostly uncultivated country, the argument is absurdly misapplied. Now, the main objects of -'this precious project," as our friend calls it, are to increase the population aud augment the wealth of the district, by providing facilities for enabling settlers to get upon and onltivate the land, and for conveying the agricultural produce and mineral treasures of the district to a market ; but it would olearly be absurd to expect §uch a work to turn out a paying commercial speculation as soon as oompleted ; and it would be still more absurd to postpone the erection of such a work until it could be expected to do so. Next, the journal in question goe3 on to say, "In searching for a category under which to place Mr. Creighton's scheme, we can find none under which it more appropriately falls than that which includes attempts by Government to cheapen commodities. Mr. (Jreighton wishes to make the Government cheapen the carriage of goods in a particular district, and he might just as well ask it to cheapen the price of laud." Now, Mr. Editor, I ask, what are we to. think of this writer who blows hot and cold in a bteath ? The sentenpe I have just quoted is clearly tantamount to saying that the Government has no business whatever to contribute in any way to the coustruotian of any road, canal, or railway ; because all such works necessarily tend to cheapen commodities, while' at the s^me time their tendency is not to cheapen, but to increase the value of land. In the same paper of this day (January 30) we find him in a leading article advocating the construction of a railway from Auckland to Waikato, and so utterly demolishing his own argument against the granting of Government assistance in the case of the proposed Kaipara canal, that I cannot do heater than quote the passage entire. He says,, ' * Ifc is useless to place men on land for tfja produce of which they have no ava^l^bie market, ami such maiket can only be afforded them by the cheap and speedy means provided by railway transit. We have again and again pointed out the desirability of leaving such works to private enterprise, in preference to their being undertaken by Government. In this ca«e, however, the construction of a railway from Au.ck.fand to Waikfito by a 'private com,pan.y woqld so inoreaae the value of th.c puhlio estate, that we do not hesitate to say that suoh a work would come within the category of private enterprises which might legitimately be assisted by Government subsidy. Ie could scarcely be expected for some years that the profits of the line would give anything hke a fair return for the -capital expended, and therefore, in order to induce a company to undertake the speculation, it might be advisable that the Provincial Council should puarantee so much per cent, per annum on the capital expended by the company." Clearly, sir, your contemporary d.o,es not believe that " sauce |or Use googe. ia sauce for the gander ;" Wu,t let ug' substitute kaipara for "Waikato" and canal for " railway" in the above passage, and I ask, will not the argument remain as sound as before ? But the grand feature of the Kaipara scheme is, that its projectors do not ask either for a subsidy or a guaranteed rate of iuterest. The execution of the work would really cost the Government nothing, for, if I am rightly informed, it is proposed to re-pay to the Government the purchase money of the btock ; therefore, as the Gavevum^t would be relieved from the necessity of the land for settlement, its actual gonlribiition would be nil! But even if the &os"fc of the blx-fc, viz., fivo gftillinga per acre, be not re paid, the Government would be more than compensated by the increased value that would be imparted to all the Crown laads in the district served by the canal, and the additional Customs revenue that would be derived from the" trade which the canal would call into existence. When the canal shall have become un fait accompli, the now solitary waters of the Kaipaia will be studded with boats and steamers ; new settlements will be speedily formed on its shores ; towns and, villages will spring up like mushrooms j roada !>$ made into the interior ; rivers wiU b'a improved j quarries and mines V(\U be evened, and the oommerce aqd prosperity oi Auckland will be vastly increased, while the oost of provisions in the city will be largely decreased. This is no visionary picture, but a state of things which must result, as naturally and surely as day follows night, from the execution of the proposed canal. Ysur contemporary, in his leader of yesterday, says: — " The work of immigration into and settle-, ment in this district (the country north of Ai\cl^u<}> has been steadily, though too slowly progressing, for there is room in the J'jory^ for thousands upon thousands of thriving homesteads where now is nothing but the forest and fern." Now this is perfectly true; but if the course advocated by that paper, of subsidising a railway to Waikato, and leaving the North to make shift with its present modes of access until " private enterprise " alone supplies its wants, be adopted by Government, it will be long ere the traveller in the North will fp^sV his eyes upon the " thousands upon, of thriving homesteads, where n.p.vj is nothing but forest and fern," Ona word m,Gra as co the value to the Government of the Tauhoa blook. II put into the market as general country land, most likely the greater part of it would be taken up by holders of land orders. This would yield nothing in the shape of hard cash to the Government ; the remainder would .certainly not realize an average price of more than ten shillings per acre, as some portions of it would not sell at that rate. It is therefore extremely doubtful whether the sale of the block, would repay the cost of survey?, &c. But even if there should be a profit on, \ the sale, the Government would be no gainer* in, the end, as it is more than probable ftftt a large proportiqn of the blpck woujd share %ht> fate of by far the greater portion of the lands which have already been so sold by Government ; that is to say, it would either fall to the lot of persons unable to settle upon it, or into the hands of mere speculators, for re-sale at some distant day. Now, one of the conditions upon \vhicb, it is proposed that theTauhqa bjock shaU be handed oyer to the Cana} Company }s,' tbat it shall be fenced and cultivated, swanips and forest reserves excepted, within five years (or any reasonable period) from the commencement of the works. It, therefore, appears to me dear that if the General Government can getj

an effective ca'ial constructed, in exchange for the Tauhoa block, it will have discharged its du.jy "by disposing of the land to the best advantage." Of course, the question of the practicability of executing the work at "anything like a reasonable cost can only he decided after the necessary engineering surveys shall have been made. The question of cost necessarily depends veiy much upon the supply of water available for the higher level ; as, if thai is sufficient in quautity, no locks (properly ro called) would probably be necessary, except at each terminus, but ouly what are called in England. '• stanches," which are works of the most primitive and inexpensive construction. Much has been said of the superiority of a railway over a canal ; but, except that the transit weuld occupy rather less time, I am unable ti> see any. But even this would only apply to passengers, for in the case of heavy goods, such as coals, timber, stone, &c, the time consumed in shifting from boat to railway truck, and then again from truck to boat, would neutralise the apparent advantage. But, in regard to cost of carriage of goods, the advantage would be very much iti favour of the canal. — I am, &c., A Civil. Engineer. Auckland, January 30, 1866.