THE LABOR PARTY AND THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.

Evening Star, Issue 8569, 16 July 1891, Page 4

THE LABOR PARTY AND THE RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON, July 15.

The feeling entertained by a large section of the Labor party towards the Railway Commissioners was evidenced in tho course of the discussion to-night on the second reading of Mr Jackson Palmer's Bill providing for the repeal of the measure appointing (■•hem.

Messrs Palmer and Rees made vigorous attacks on the existing system of control of our railways. Ii was urged by them that all the conditions under which the Railway Act w»3 passed in ISS7 had been deliberately broken ; that the purposes of the Act, had not been fulfilled ; that no expert had been brought from the Home Country, as was intended when the Act was passed ; that the Commissioners were altogether incompetent for the positions to which they were appointed, and that they should be relegated to the posts of general managers. They were further charged with endeavoring to run the lines on commercial principles, and with absolutely failing in their attempt. Mr Scobie Mackenzie warmly defended thes Commissioners from tho unjustifiable attacks en them by the two previous speakers, and pointed out that since their taking otiice they had reduced the railway tariff, and Ind made concessions to the travelling public in the way of eeason tickets, withcut impairing the returns. The opposition cf Messrs Reea and Palmer was due to the fact that Auckland was not so prosperous as the rest of the colony, and thoße hon. gentlemen thought that the root of tho evil was a change in the management of all existing institutions. Moreover, if the Commissioners were removed, they would be entitled to substantial compensation.

Mr E, M. Smith put in a good word for the Commissioners, and pleaded with the House not to constantly hamper them by unnecessary interference. He contended that if the present Bill were carried members of Parliament would be made a laughing stock of throughout the whole colony and the world. The Minister of Works said that on so important a matter it behoved the Government, in the interest of the colony, to speak with no uncertain sound.—(Cheers.) The failure of the system, if failure it be, must be set at tho door of the last Government, who had failed to carry out the wishes of Parliament in not getting a railway expert. The nonpolitical board was an experiment, and at present the Commissioners were ou their trial. He was willing to admit that, despite the depressed times, the railways under their control showed an improvement from a co aimercial point of view. The Cemmissiouers had made errors, but were doing really good work. The mistake had beon made in not having years ago appointed a non-political board to say what railways should be made. The question was too large a one to be dealt with by a Bill brought in by a private member. It was a question of policy, and the Government, recognising their responsibility, advised the House not to pas 3 Mr Palmer's Bill.

Mr Hogg, despite the Minister's chivalrous defence of the Commissioners, must tell the House that there was a feeling of indignation against those gentlemen in Woodville, owing to their lack of judgment. From Danevirke to Palmerston North nothing but discontent concerning the Commissioners was expressed. The Commissioners had shown such gross mismanagement that they ought to be in a position subordinate to Parliament and the Minister of Works.

Mr Mackintosh appealed to the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill to withdraw it, as it was evident that no true vote or expression of opinion would be given if the matter was pushed to a division. If only a small number voted for the second reading it would appear that the House had expressed satisfaction with the Commissioners, while two-thirds of the members were dissatisfied with the management. Mr Fish expressed amazement at the sudden change of front shown by the Minister of Works, who had that night come forward as the champion of the Railway Commissioners. It was his duty to have indicated to Mr Palmer the course ho should have taken ; but the Minister of Works had not treated him with that courtesy due to him as a Government supporter. Mr Fish then proceeded: "I want to tell the Minister this : No man in the House is a firmer supporter of the Government than I am ; no man will stick to them longer than I will. At the same time, I warn tho hon. gentleman ho must not play fast and looss with his supporters, otherwise he will tiud those aupporters diminish rapidly." He (Mr Fish) proceeded to speak hia mind by letting the Alinißter know that if ho continued to throw * wet blanket over hia supporters, iustuud nf acting as a guide to thoni, tho Governmout would find themselves in a hole. As to the Commissioners, no language of his (Mr Fish's) was sufficiently strong to condemn them for their mismanagement of the railways. He intended to divide the House on the question, and to vote on it simply as a protest against the action of the Minister of Works. Those who were loyally, truly, and honestly supporting the Government should join in entering their protest against the injudicious speech made by the Minister. Mr G. Fisher expressed tho opinion that Mr Seddon would have been utterly wanting in the proper conception of his duties as a Minister of the Crown had he taken any other stand than he had that evening.— (Cheers.) Mr T. Thompson also appealed to Mr Palmer to withdraw the Bill, but the member for Waitemata replied that he had I no such intention.

Mr Buckland defended the Railway Commissioners, and thought it a great pity that Mr Palmer aspired to such a great height as to introduce a Bill of this kind, which should have been brought in by the Government. He knew of his own knowledge that the Railway Commissioners had greatly reduced the passenger fares. He liked to have his goods carted cheaply as well as other men, but he did not desire to do so at the expense of the colony. The people who cried out most against the railways were those who never used them.

The Minister of Education thought Mr fish was to a, cortuin extent under a misapprehension as to the remarks of the Minister for Public Works. The latter was political head cf the department to which

the Railway Commissioners were attaohed, and it was his duty to work amioably with the Commissioners if possible. The Government could not support the Bill, as it was a measure which ahonld be brought down by the Government, and this being the case, his colleague was bound to take up the attitude he had ou this question. Was it to be inferred (from that that he or other members of the Government endorsed all the acta of the Commissioners ? Most certainly not. He (Mr Reeves) occupied the position 6f a Minister of the Crown, and the Railway Commissioners were officers of the Government. It was not fitting, therefore, that he should review their action at present. It must not be Understood because the Government could not support the Bill that they were bound by it in regard to any future action they might consider necessary. Mr Kelly said after what had passed Mr Palmer should withdraw the Bill and not allow it to go to a division. Mr Moore commended Mr Buckland for the remarks he made in defence of the Railway Commissioners, notwithstanding the attack made on him by the Minister of Education. Mr Reeves should show more dignity as a Minister than to refer to the Railway Commissioners and the Union Steam Ship Company as his enemies. He (Mr Moore) desired to acknowledge the great services rendered by the Commissioners during the time of the late strike, and defended their general administration. On Mr Pinkerton's motion the debate was adjourned.