The Hawke's Bay Herald WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1879. THE WAIKATO RAILWAY.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5459, 13 August 1879, Page 2

The Hawke's Bay Herald WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1879. THE WAIKATO RAILWAY.

"We have not yet received the report of the evidence given before the Thamos"Waikato Kail way Inquiry Committee, but the JS'crv Zealand Times has published lengthy extracts from the report. The Times is in violent antagonism to the Ministry, and in similar cases has shown itself not over-scrupulous in quoting extracts, selecting those portions of any document which most fully tend to bear out its contentions. But, making every allowance for this, and taking it for granted that the extracts published are partial, sufficient is shown to fully warrant the report of the Committee. This report is virtually the Scotch verdict of "not proven," which discharges the prisoner with a stigma attached to his name. The question submitted to the Committee was whether the map was altered after being laid upon the table of the House, in reply to a question asked by Mr Richardson. The evidence goes to show that the map was not so altered, although there is no positive proof of this ; but it was indisputably proved that, even if the map were not altered after being laid upon the table, it was altered in the interval between the Public Works Statement and the production of the map. This the report of the Committee distinctly states, and their decision may be read to mean that though the line was authorised by the House, that authorisation was obtained by a piece of trickery. As little is known of the real question at issue, we may explain that the map as laid on the table shows a proposed line of railway branching from the Auckland line at Hamilton, Waikato, running across the island as far as the base of the Te Aroha mountain, and so tapping Mr Vesey Stewart's special settlement of Kati Kati, and thence proceeding northward, through Ohinemuri and the Thames goldfields, to Grrahamstown. After leaving Kati Kati, the line practically follows the course of the Thames Kiver, merely avoiding the sinuosities 'of the river. The Public Works statement in several places speaks in ambiguous terms of the line as " the Waikato to Thames Railway." We fully acquit Mr Macandrew of any intention of ambiguity, as the line had been so spoken of for years. However, the Statement refers the House for details to the reports of the Engineers on the different proposed railways, and the report of Mr Blackett on the Thames- Waikato line removes any ground for doubt, as he distinctly says that the line surveyed is from Hamilton to Te Aroha. If additional evidence of this be needed, it is found in the fact that the cost is estimated at £168,000 for the 32 miles. From Hamilton to Grahamstown the line is something like GO miles, and the cost is roughly estimated at about £300,000. Thus far we have documentary evidence, and the verbal statements made before the Committee completely bear out this view of

the proposals of the Government. On the 4th of September Mr Richardson moved for a map " showing the lines of railway proposed to be constructed tinder the Public Works Statement." The map was duly prepared, but it then showed the. line to be from Graliamstown to Hamilton, as we have previously described. The real question to bo decided is what Mr Macandrew meant when ho referred to " tho Waikato to Thames railway." No human power can tell what was in his mind at the time, but we can form a conclusion from the collateral evidence supplied by the Public Works Statement and the testimony given before the Committee. It is perfectly clear from the evidence of the departmental officials that, whatever Mr Macandrew meant by " the Waikato to Thames railway," the officers of the Public Works Department uuderstood it to be a line from Hamilton to Te Aroha. When Mr Richardson's question was put the map was taken before the Minister for Public Works for confirmation, when he pointed out that the line in questian should have been shown as extending to Grahamtown, and directed it to be so shown. This indicates that Mr Macandrew thought that the full sixty miles was contemplated. • In the intervcal between the Public "Works Statement and the preparation of the map the precise route had been prominently brought before his notice by a telegram dated August 27th, from Mr Ehrenfried, actingMayor of Grahamstown, in which he said : — " You are not clearly reported last night. Do you mean railway from Grahamstown to Waikato?. Public anxious to known, therefore excuse troubling." On the following day Mr Macandrew telegraphed back : "The extended railway is to Grahamstown." A few days afterwards Mr Ehrenfried telegraphed again, conveying resolutions passed at a public meeting, thanking the Ministry for having clearly indicated the route, and urging : — " That in the presence of the depression now existing in many upon this field, and the great want of employment amongst the wages-earning population, and the distress consequent thereupon, tlie Government be most earnestly prayed to at once commence the railway works from Grahamstown to Waikato." If this were all the evidence we might acquit the Minister for Public Works of any intention to mislead the House, and merely blame him for having insufficiently inquired into the subject. It is quite possible that he miglit have meant a certain thing, and that Mr Blackott misunderstood his instructions, and prepared estimates for 32 miles of line instead of for 60, as intended by the Minister. Mr Macandrew might have failed to notice the mistake made in carrying out bis instructions, and so have acted in perfectly good faith, in which case the utmost blame that could have been imputed to him would have been an insufficient attention to details, excusable in the pressure of business during the Parliamentary session. We should be well pleased to accept this view, but it appears to us quite inconsistent -with the evidence of Mr Blackett, the Engineer-in-Chief of the North Island. Mr Blackett stated, ag a proof that he could not well have mistaken his instructions, that the lino had been surveyed only from Hamilton to Te Aroha, and the estimate of cost was prepared in accordance with that survey. From Te Aroha to Grahamstown absolutely nothing was known of the route. After the prorogation of Parliament instructions were received to survey that portion of the line and to prepare estimates, so that contracts' could be called for. The surveyors had proceeded nine miles, when the natives interfered and turned them oiT theland. The Public AVorks Act of last year contained a clause to the effect that before any railway was commenced the Engineer-in-Chief should certify that the best route had been taken. Mr Blackett, however, refused to certify for more than one mile and thirteen chains, but contracts for this section were immediately let. Now the amount appropriated for expenditure on the Thames- Waikato line within the last financial year was £30,000, but the contracts actually let amounted to £16,000, railway sleepers £13,000, and rolling-stock £27,000, or a total of nearly double the amount voted. Mr Knowles, the TJnder-Secretary, in his examination naively said "We shall have to charge the £27,000 for rollingstock to some vote." Mr Macandrew's evidence given before the Committee .was eminently unsatisfactory, his answers being evasive and inconclusive. He does not, however, appear to wish to shield himself, but the conclusion to which an unprejudiced mind is .irresistibly led is that Mr M'Lean was riglit, and that Sir George Grey is the one really responsible for this piece of political trickery and jobbery, but that Mr Macandrew, out of a feeling of loyalty to his chief, was content to take the blame on his own ukoulders.