EAST v. WEST.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 94, 18 October 1909, Page 8

EAST v. WEST.

«, NORTH AUCKLAND BAIL WAY. Representatives of tho East Coast section of the North Auckland Railway League waited on the Prime Minister, and tho Minister for Public Works (Hon. R. M'Kenzie) to-day, to protest against diversion of the route trom the east to the west coast. The deputation was introduced by Mr. Mander, M.P. The deputation asked that a full enquiry should be held into the route to be followed from Kaiwhaka to the Maungakahia River. There had, it was pointed out, been a serious difference of opinion on the subject. Two Ministers of Public Works had decided in favour of the eastern route, supported by three eminent engineers, Messrs. Hales, Vickerman, -and Holmes, while the opinion of the present Minister was, as far as theyknow, unsupported by any testimony. They urged that in such a case the onus of proof of the advisability of such a change rested with those who made the change. They maintained that the eastern route was the most central, and that the western route would not only lengthen but increase the cost of the line. If the railway went to the west Whangarei as a county would be excluded from the benefits of tho line. One member of the deputation remarked that if the deviation was made some people might think that interests other than the interests of the Dominion as a whole had been considered. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie: Are you reflecting on me? Mr. Killen (the deputationist) : No. The Minister : This is the second time you have suggested such a things Mr. Killen: I am making no insinuation at all. Tho Minister : You keep your innuendoes to yourself. During the statements of the deputation the Minister for Public Works kept up a running comment, and characterised for instance, as pure guess work the statement that the western route would cost £93,000 more than the eastern route. The deputation estimated 102 chains of tunnelling ; the department estimated 44 chains. The Prime Minister, in replying, said the request for a 'commission of enquiry required to be carefully considered. A deputation was to wait on tho Government this week "to urge the claims of the western routs. He thought that members ought to see the country at the end of the session so as to arrive at a knowledge of tho subject. The route had been definitely decided as far as M Carroll's gap, but he did not understand that any previous decision had been come to as to the route north of that point. Tho Government -was not prepared to stop the construction of railways while people quarrelled about routes, but it was prepared to hear both sides of a question before deciding. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie albo replied briefly, stating that tho Government was only concerned in doing the best for the country as a whole. The pre-sent^enginecr-in-chief (Mr. Holmes) was not over the railway before he went over it with him, and ho could not have recommended the eastern route. He hud considered the railway from the construction, population and area point of view, aud on those Unas he favoured the western route.

Messrs. M'Lauchland and Co., Blenheim, in our advertising columns, point out the advantages of the Wnirnu district- for investment purpo^s A notjc- >o =Ludents of thf I.yrio Elocutign Cjlasg. is advertised in this I«stt9>