The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1874.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 115, 13 October 1874, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1874.

The celebrated fable of King Log and King Stork is just now receiving practical illustration in the matter of the conduct of the affairs of the province by the present Government, In numberless instances we hear of their thorough and complete success in the art of “ how not to do it” which has been immortalised by Dickens in tys description of the Circumlocution office. Whatever faults the Kenua-way-cwm-Beswick Government had, their worst enemies could not accuse

them of the procrastination and state of muddle which now seems to reign supreme at the Gfovernment Buildings. So far from there being every assistance and co-operation given to push on public works, it appears that the Government are only too prone to place every obstacle in the way. We have been led to make these remarks from certain facts which have come under our notice in connection with the branch railway from Racecourse to Southbridge. No one will, we think, deny that it will be of vast importance to the province to tap the immense area of agricultural land in the Ellesmere district as early as possible, and bring it into communication with the centres of population by means of the railway. But our sapient rulers think otherwise, and by a bit of muddling on their part they have initiated what at the outset appears likely to be a lengthy and troublesome dispute, involving the province in costly and tedious litigation. The facts of the case, as stated to us, are briefly these. Some short time since the Government, finding that the proprietor of some land in close proximity to the line had on his section a shingle bed, entered into negotiations with him for its utilisation as ballast for the line. The proprietor was willing to allow the Government the use of the shingle, provided a small portion of land on the other side of the line was conveyed to him as compensation. So far so good, and any business man would say that this was a clear aud intelligible basis on which to found negotiations. But the sequel will show that our red-tape-loying Government thought otherwise. An arrangement was entered into upon this basis, but week after week passed, and the owner of the land was unable to get the business terminated. Each time he applied at the office to know when the small strip of land agreed to be given as compensation would be conveyed, the usual circumlocutory answers were given. In the meantime th e Government had run a siding into the section, and commenced to take out the gravel for ballasting. At length the patience of the owner of the section became exhausted, and then the Government turned coolly round, and ignoring the bargain already made, said —“ Oh, w T ell “ then, we’ll pay you for the gravel we “ have taken out.” Disgusted at the vexatious delay which had taken place over this trifling bit of business, the owner consented to this arrangement, imagining that at last he saw the beginning of the end. But he was mistaken, as the Government only offered to pay for the actual gravel removed, what is called technically “ practical” ballast— i.e., that which is fit to put on the line, amounting in all to a very paltry sum, without in any way considering the disturbance of the soil and the cutting up of the section. This, of course, the owner refused to accede to, particularly after the bargain had been concluded on different terms, and the result is that he has taken up the rails laid down on the siding every night, which rails are as persistently laid down each morning by order of the Government. But this is not all. When remonstrated with, what course does the Government take? Having been in fault, one would naturally expect that they would be prepared to treat the matter in a fair and amicable spirit. But no, the owner is immediately told, “ Here’s “ a notice that the gravel is required “ for public purposes.” Is that a dignified position for a Government to take, particularly after having violated the original agreement? We think not; and, more than this, it exhibits a spirit of opposition to progress, which is fatal to the best interests of the province, because not only has, so far as we can learn, a private wrong been done, but the extension of tbe line in question with anything like rapidity is seriously impeded ; and, therefore, the public suffers We commend this, only one out of numerous instances, to the consideration of the public.