Evening Post. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1894. THE RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

Evening Post, Volume XLVIII, Issue 64, 13 September 1894, Page 2

Evening Post. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1894. THE RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

The House dealt with the Railways Bill last night as it was expected to do. It deoided to restore the Railways to political control, but insisted that the control should be direot and responsible. Tho ingenious provision for tho constitution of buffers in the shape of dummy Commissioners has been swept away. The Bill is undoubtedly muoh improvod by the alteration made. We do not like it even in its present shape, because we are strongly opposed to any element of political control in the management of the Railways, and hold that the management by independent Commissioners is decidedly preferable, but as the House thinke otherwise (although in doing so we are oonvinoed it does not represent the feeling of the country) there is nothing to do now but to endeavour to make the boat of the new conditions. The best will not be made of them unless a new Minister, as well as a new portfolio, is created— a Minister who will give his entire attention to the management of the Railways. It is satisfactory to find that the Premier does not intend to add the Railway Portfolio to his othor pluralities. We were afraid he might consider himself able to manage the Railways in the intervals of leisure permitted by his duties as Premier, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Native Affairs, Minister of Defence, &c, &c. It ia more than questionable whether any of his present colleagues would be able to give more attention to the Railways than he could. A competent Minister of Railways, devoting himself entirely to the Department, is absolutely necessary, to prevent the new system resulting in unmitigated disaster, financial and material. As to Sir Robert Stout's contention that the Portfolio of Pnblio Works could be combined with that of Railways, we entirely disagree with it. Even if circumstances had not changed gready since 1887, tho precedent quoted by Sir Robert Stout of the Hon. E. Richardson's administration of the two departments would not apply. Mr. Richardson was a professional man, and in some dogree an expert. He had also what the Minister of Railways in the future will not have— the advantage of the services as Goneral Manager of one of the most competent Railway experts in the world, Mr. Maxwell. And yet it is no reflection on either gentleman to say that the Railway management even under Mr. Richardson, 1 aided by Mr. Maxwell, was far from being entirely satisfactory. Complaints were louder and more general than they have ever been since. If the management had been satisfactory the change to Commissioners would not have been demanded or made. An immediate improvement beoame apparent when Mr. Maxwell, ceasing to be General Manager, beoame a Commissioner without Ministerial control. So far from the experience prior to 1887 forming a precedent in favour of a member giving only a portion of his time and attention to the Railways, it should aot as a warning against a repetition of such a mistake. The Railway Bill affords ample occupation for one Minister. We admit that our conception of an ideal Minister of Railways iB not that of a will-o'-the-wisp, flying round the country to interfere personally, which is the Premier's idea. The Minister of Railways, whoever he may be, will find himself subjected to quite sufficiently severe political pressure every day, even if ho remains in his office, without running round the country to seek or invite it. Something was said last night about a General Manager for each island. We trust no such wild scheme will receive any sanction or encouragement from the House. It would only lead to an enormous and useless expenditure by duplication of offices and work. The system was tried years ago. when the facilities for communioation between the two islands were far from as good as they are now. It failed utterly then. It would be worse now. The I >ilway Service has been brought to a high state of efficiency. It can only maintain this hy remaining undivided. There mast be no conflict of authority in it, no diversity of system* or administration. Rival managements woni<3 be destructive of departmental efficiency, and the division of the staff: into two distinct bodies would be most unjust to the officers and most disastrous to the interests of the public TV« trust that no experiment in such an undesirable direction will be made. As to the classification of offioers, which some members desire, it would be impossible under dual insular management. In any oaße it would be very diffioult to classify the Railway Service. With regard to the amendment made last night to grant a week's leave to every employe 1 , no doubt the House has duly counted the cost.

As the holidiy is to bo granted without break of wages- all hands being paid while away as if they were woiking- the cost to the colony will be very considerable. If the men were struck off wages while abßent from work, we doubt whether they would be very thankful for Ihe holiday.