ROADS AND RAILWAYS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume VII, Issue 1310, 18 May 1886, Page 2

ROADS AND RAILWAYS.

Mr. Fergus, member for Wakatipu, who ia an undoubted authority on the practical side of these questions, gave some interesting figures on the subject in an address to his constituents just before Parliament met. In the course of his speech he named the following sums as being necessary to complete the already existing lines ;—; — Helensville to Kawakawa ... £900,000 Napier to Wellington with New Plymouth line ... 500,000 Picton to Invercargill to complete 1,000,000 Nelson to Greymouth ... 1,000,C30 Christchurch to Greymouth... 2,000,000 Otago Central 1,000,000 Waikato to Thames 250,000 Sheffield to Temuka 350,000 Lincoln to Little River ... 20,000 Upper Ashburton to Mount Somers 15,000 Little Biver to Akaroa ... 350,000 Allmry Creek to Bnrke's Pass 50,000 Livingstone Branch to 12-mile 20,000 Catlin's River Eranch ... 90,000 Waipahi to Heriotburn ... 20,000 Edendale to Toi-Tois, as tar as Waimaki Valley ... 60,000 Lumsden to Maraora (Centre Hill) 30,000 Waimea to Switzers 75,000 Seaward Branch (25 miles) ... Go, ooo Greymouth to Hokitika ... 170,000 To put present lines in repair 2,000,000 £10,065,000 These amounts, Mr. Fergus contends, are really, in many instances, far too small, and the total must be still further increased by the addition of the main trunk line, which he estimates at .£1,500,000. Clearly tbe day is yet far distant when the colony will be able to point to a complete railway system.

As to the subject of roads, of which so much is heard both inside and outside the House, Mr. Fergus maintains that the colony is quite as much justified in expending borrowed money upon them as it is upon railways. He asks whether it is probable that districts which have not, and never can have, railways running through them, will be content to bear the burden of increased taxation that will be the inevitable result, without participating in a share of the public expenditure? No one cau believe that districts' in «uch a position will tamely submit to what they must feel a great injustice, and whether the House likes it or not it may reckon upon hearing a good deal about roads for many long years to come. To show where all the money borrowed has really gone, Mr. Fergus gave the following figures: — Railways £12,114,279 Roads ... 2,487,252 Coal exploration and mine development 10,835 Water supply on goldfields ... 499,597 Aiding works — Thames goldfields 50,000 Telegraphs 490,017 ' Public buildings 1,431,338 Lighthouses and harbor works 581,839 Departmental 228,374 Total public works ... £17,898,536 Roads and Bridges Construction Act 422,709 Immigi-ation 2,101,942 Land .., } .., 1,165,463 Defence „. ... .-., 392,218 Charges and expenses in raising loans 808,933 Interest and sinking fund ... 218,500

Grand total •...- ... i'23,003,304 It will thus be seen that out of the 23 millions borrowed, less than tbree millions, has been spent upon roads and bridges ; and although some of this was no doubt wasted, yet in th.c main, excellent use has been niade of the money. There is, however, a very large margin between the 15 millions spent oh roads 1 and railways and 'the 23 millions' actually borrowed; and i$ is hard, to resist; the -conviction that for a large ; portion of the balance of eight millions the colony has received but a poor/ return. 1 !Che experience of the colony in that respect is probably,

however, only the experience of everyindividual in it, but we must join with Mr. Fergus in dissenting from the-view of Sir J. Vogel that road expenditure out o£ the Colonial Treasury Bhould cease. It is merely a matter of detail where the money is to come from, but that the General Government will either have to do such work itself or subsidise local bodies to do it, is beyond doubt. The expensive works often required are quite . beyond the power of road boards and county councils to undertake out of their 1 own resources, and unless the Government desire further settlement of the Crown lands to come to a standstill they will shortly have to face the question in real earnest. Up to the present they have only fenced with it, but our own opinion is that within a very short time they will have to replace upon the Statute book the Eoads and Bridges Construction Act which they were in such a hurry to repeal. They may give it another name, may alter some of the details, and may cut down the subsidy to £ for £, but that the general principle will be re-enacted we think very probable, for the reason that the principle of that measure was a very fair one and well suited to the requirements of settlement. In fact Sir Julius Vogel has already admitted tbat it was a mistake to repeal the Roads and Bridges Construction Act, and Major Atkinson has predicted its replacement on the Statute book.