Correspondence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 703, 3 August 1859, Page 5

Correspondence.

ARTERIAL RAILWAYS for CANTERBURY. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sir,—l observe that you deal with the railway question as one which it will not do to argue the public into accepting, but as one which, once set fairly before thinking people, is likely by force of its intrinsic merit to secure their cordial support. For my own part as one of the public I think no assertion of 6thers' opinions would have led 'me to acquiesce blindly in a proposal of such novelty : but on careful consideration of the case as it stands, with the help of the facts stated temperately, I may say, on both. sides in your columns, the railway undertaking stands out in so favourable a light as to ensure its reception by many who would refuse even to enquire into it, if the government'tried to enforce a-ceptance of its views. The affirmative side of the question gains no little .support from the line-taken ' by'the opposition. I 'may say'that I was first led to search into the subject by observing that the fundamental axiom — that the construction of railways through the length and breadth of the country will conduce immensely *o Irs prosperity—has not been 'denied, though evidently not fully appreciated, by the other side. They found their objections solely upon the assertion that the r expense of construction and working •will be intolerable in so small a community. This assertion is arrived at by an apparently logical process —by instituting a comparison with other countries where railways have been tried, the statistics 'of which are obtainable. The comparison is instituted generally with America, as presenting a closer analogy to this country than England. Reduced to logical form the manner of proof used to support the view that railways will not answer in Canterbury is as follows:— 1. In any country, railways are profitable in proportion to the amount of population. The United States contain a larger population than Canterbury:—Therefore,—railways will be less profitable here than they are in the States. 2. The American lines;pass through timbered districts and have other facilities which cheapen the cost of construction. The Canterbury lines will be without these facilities':— Therefore, —our railways must cost more in construction than those of the States.

3. It is notorious that immense sums of money_ have been lost on railways in America, as well as in other countries. Our railways will cfest more and produce less than those of any other country : — Therefore, —Incalculable loss must be sustained here, in any undertaking,of the kind. I think the cleverest objection brought against the railway proposal is here very fairly stated. The breeches pocket is the soft point in the British system, and the argument is therefore very properly brought up to this point, and no further. The pile of syllogism proving a ruinous loss of money looks very convincing, and would be so in reality if it were not for the presence of such in* sidious errors as question-begging and its kindred fallacies. I think it will be easily seen that there must he a fallacy somewhere in the reasoning, by noticing the fact that the argument, if sound, would utterly subvert all American railways in their turn., The States stand to England as Canterbury does to the States. America is less thickly populated and has fewer facilities for railroad construction than England, where heaps of money have been lost in these undertakings If it were now a question whether railways would succeed in the States, the arguments used 'in Canterbury would be put forward there, "with equal or greater show of reason, to prove that incalculable sums of money must'be lost on any undertaking of the kind—and yet, ml spite of this apparently pound logic, American railways continue to pay a dividend. , In fact', out of the very argument in opposition, I some ground is gained on the affirmative side. It I is a well known law of tentative science that'if .a proposition be applicable with truth to each of a number of subjects wholly disconnected with one another and taken from the mass at random, it is true absolutely and may be considered as a general rule. Now, we know that the introduction of' railways has been t successful in England; that it has been the same in America, which is quite another sort of country; that it has undoubtedly been the same in a hundred other different places— the barnyard of a busy farm, for instance—and we therefore conc'u'le with perfect truth that the introduction of railways will be generally successful in any country; amongst others, in Canterbury. * The fallacy of the reasoning can be indicated in other ways. An argument of a like kind will apply to newspapers. If an excellent calculator, who will deal only with facts and fi ;ures, were to look up, the question' of establishing a newspaper in a new colony, he would take for comparison an • English provincial newspaper published weekly; he would show that / in a new colony the expenses would be quadrupled, and that the subscribers' list would number but a tenih of the names; he would estimate the enormous increise in the outlay and the enormous falling off'in the receipts; he would assert that immense sums had been sunk by proprietors of journals in England ; and he would sum up by declaring the existence of a newspaper , in a new colony utterly impossible. And yet by some means colonial journals nourish and do their ( part in civilisation just like those in England. There i* a buoyancy arid energy of life in these populations, small as they are, amply compensating for the absence of advantages which are found in an older country. - . > If you have gone w'th mo so far you will say that, it did not lieed this argument ho, prove what we all knew^nbefbre. I quite agree with you —but .some, people arVsuch determined doubters. .., , . Now that it is pvoved thit our opponent's' argument must be fallacious, let me find where the error in the reasoning occurs ; for perhaps, though the adaptability of railroads to all countries is a genenl rule, our country may chance to be the exception. Ltt us stick to our logic. - The'use of an ambiguous term in an argument is a common fallacy. The term ' Amount of population ' is ambiguous, because it may refer either to the density or to the gross number of inhabitants in a country. Now, a railway of 8 miles between Lyttelton and Chmtchmrh in Canterbury nviv accommodate as dense a population as one of 100 miles bntwpen SHckville and the city of Bunkum i,i the St-atps, whoBP united inhabitants are 50,000 in , number. If it is a fact that the population per

mila ofv railway in the '< States; is .on th c ajcvnge, con-'..? siderable, ..if.fqllpwsthat,; as-s.ome'jlihes' must pass! through thickly itilialiifced '.districts, pthors: put up with a proportion of customers'to^ieir'njilia.;''' nge very much below the average; 'Ifc; is iiofc suffi. bient as an objection to show that our'population is below the average for lines in the States ;' it'ivinst be shown to be below the minimum .number which lises any paying line, or the objection does not1 shlnd. Again, though it may be fair to-suppose that a certain line would secure double''receipts if "the - population it passes through were' "doribled, it' by no means follows that another line, constructed; for the accommodation of one half thenumber of. persons in another place,, will only pay one-half as'well. The English and American comparison asa whole negatives that supposition';'1 \' - ''■■■' ■ Then the assertion that great sums of money have been lost on railways may.be both true and to the point; but in the sense which is true it'is not to the point, and in the sense, which .is to1 thie point it js not true; it is ambiguous. ;It is true that money lias been lost,; —but how?. :By recklessness in projectors, who hoped 'the; company would pay for all;' by want of skill in so-called engineers, dragged up in the dearth of professional men ';" by obstinate narrow-minded selfishness in 'directors, locally interested ; and, above all, by the'mania of speculation in shareholders.. Can a line be. named-—. '.got up bona fide, set out without gross blunders, managed in a careful and sensible way,, and where ■shareholders directly applied their money to its legitimate.use, without first playing pitoh and .toss ■with it~regarding which there are! complaints of loss? If we can even imagine such a line,'a'con-' viction that it must pay will ;f6rce.itself on the;;un-; ;derstanding. Of all the odium which railways have to bear for money lost upon them, it is not too much to say that fiye^sixths r is. due to ':'th|e;';Stock and almost' aUthe'rest to 'selfish^ bung•lmg, pig-headed niariagemeVit.''!'.That money;has ;been lost to any extent in legitimate railway eriterjprise is not true. Tliat "mohey ; 'lias^ beeri' lost in jany other way is no rational ground bf objection ito a new undertaking. '. .' '■'/. :) v 5 ;; i But, to return'tb:my'logik; Beggmg'the quesjtion is a. convenient.form of fallacy'Svliich. saves* a jquantity of trouble. If it be denied thdii Canter;bury has too little population trade to' make Iraftways useful, the whole eciificf of 'the adversary^ jargument falls to the ground.I'''We^cari'see a little ;way into the middle of next week, flibpe • : ; maliirig jcertain that as two and tvyo haye ftmade7'foa'r in 'times gone by, they will continue ;to rdo so for the future. If the antagonist of railways hadnb^pasiSage down his throat, his mode "of .reasbmng from ;' facts and figures ' would" lead him to oppose' the ; construction of an opening, on the ground that not ; snfficient traffic already existed' between his mpuih ; and his stomach to warrant the "expense.of forming 'and maintaining, a ; throat;,and lie.would continue j the practice of "spooning the in'qvsels of food from jhis teath to the hole in his side, as formerlyr Just iso with Canterbury railways. Because there is I little moving population' how,: will-ii never be ■ large? We are fetching in population from Eng;land, and our object is., of, course, fe fill up.this .splendid land with our countrymen; hot in a."spot jhereand there, but ultimately'all overits; habitable ; surface. We are paying highly for introducing population, and we ought to doit well; but without means of internal communication we shall not ibe able to. settle any but the few spots nearest at hand.... By and. by,e we shall be 'in the melancholy position of older colonies; where there, is work to be done and no men to do" it; arid men a few miles : away'crying out for work but unable to get it. We can't stand the stream of immigration long-—it will, cease to bring. fertility—unless we allow it to flow freely over the land and be, absorbed into, all the' waste places.' Nor' will the country'be really developed'in any other way.' The terminus of the' railways, of Canterbury will not be in Lyttelton, but 'in all the;countries of the earth. -Train after, trair will pass,along to the interior, bringing population with them. The people will cause,the country to .thrive; :and ; both 'together will support the railway. Commence boldly. There need be no fear for the future ; >Ge ri'est que'le premier 'pas qiii ;6o?fi{e. ; If. a: country fully occupied by a population^fully:employed, may largely use a railway and insure it success, it is the empty land which makes Ml .use of this gigantic power. If we had the Province pf .Canterbury full of people bustling with industry at.every corner* we should not need a rail wayVas-\ve do. now. Ifcis- to create such a. splendid condition of. things that railways are required. Fortunate^Government of: Canterburyi! iwith such. a field tp,labqur .in, such, a:harvest,to be ; reaped ! .;•■••

Let'me return to my logic. The..next, begged question lias been exposed already by one of your correspondents, with facts which I need neither add to nor repeat. Why, indeed, should the co-t of constructing lailways be greater liere than elsewhere ? > The material required, as has been shown in your columns, is cheaper for purposes of construction off the ground than on it; while in our case, what is -wanted for railways is at least as easily obtained as what ought to be had for common,roads. Then, on enquiry what is the essential difference between a railroad and a common road, do we not find the fact that it lies in' the accuiate levelness of the former, so that friction may be diminished to its minimum without encountering •the force of gravity ? It is the arduous part of railway foimation to overcome the natural unevenness of: the earth's surface sn as to obtain the required level. ■ I fancy that those who gasp at the mention of railways here have not overcome their first astonishment at seeing the huge vidduct high in air straddling across their native town, or the fearfql chasm breaching the common of their boyhood. But in this country nature ofFers no opening for engineers; the country is for the most part a plane superficies within the strict definition of the term. Nero wished that all his subjects had but one neck that he might sever their heads at a single blow. Providence has made our country for us in that fashion. What would some of the countries whose railway works are examples of engineering skill give that all their hills should be rolled into one, that, when this hal been piprced, there might be nothing more to do! _ Preparing , the Canterbury line* for sleepers and rails will be a mere joke—say, half the trouble of mating an unmetalleJ dray track. Practical men will tell me that here I might throw in a volume of sound c ilculations all in favor ! of railway enterpri-o; but I am not a practical 'man, and have no disposition for quoting facts and figures, which a.o well enough in their way but not, to be n«ed'successfully'by everybody. • What I have desired to bring before the notice of my fellow 'colonists is r that tho history of railways in other countries'does not by any wans prove that the enterprise will be a failure in Canterbury. Quite the contrary. That our railways are not sure to cost more than even the cheipestof other countries: but rather the contrary. That the present smallness of <our population is not a reason against providing the bovl means of communication throughout the country, but on ,tho contrary one of the reasons why we require - railways.. I would go further and say that it would .be better for, those interested in a new colony, supposing them to be perfectly satisfied of irs capability; for supporting the human race—that is, of it" powers of development, —if they were to provide ample means of infernal communication even piior to regular colon- i iz'if inn. rJV ln-w of a short time and the presence of a "mall population a'-e needed miner 'or the i S'tke of pioving the r/ipabilitfes of the country than of adding to tho succes- of tho entorpi im\ Tt seems | to me Ih.it o-ir 'puid'iiit' men r'nn'f, nirV<*f,md that j if a young colony is> to have a future —if. it remains j

above water a \;.»\\r- that, future wmt be one of (Ihyelopmentj ; and1 tliat who liwe'the direction of attairs would be without sense if they did'not actaccordingly;l ■ • . , ; - : , •■, .„» [ %™-:te- H/ i y'PS9 of .tV ese evil prophets attetided to, eveii m old co\intries with fewer prospects for the future, no railway enterprise would be undertaken ; if they, ,'we.re, listened to in .a new country; there would b'e'nb' advancement whatever. -But I I have ever observed, that; your; cautious, slow-going, dispirited man, in a colony, is in'effect the most im--1 prndijn'ti ■'•■'•■ ;■■'":' •=•.■•;- J::v/ v ■.:■.■■••;■'■/;■• \. . ,■: ] } '/" s • ; It will riot: do, however^o prove only that an opponents wrong;inj order.to prove oneself right;, so now, leaving comparisons, let us se.e,s,hortly,how we stand,with respect' rp our own absolute condition. i .Antler charge Gpvei'nment,: which! is^thV public at large,,we shall not run the risk of a, sharenianiit j railwhys, will/, not "be made the ■means'of private gambling. For the same reason our calcu-' latidiis may stop short of "making money out of the enterprise^ What.is,the.State in the; habit of dding in the case of opnn roads, bridges, jetties, publfc buildings, and all its other undertakings ?'Simply, public funds "are freely spent for the advantage pf the- public 'without any- arrangement for" a percentage. For the advantage of having roads to all quarters, the. State,•by any means which can. be adopted, will .have to pay; iintrieVise sums of money. Why not''get a 'first-rate article, as a railway is, for a price, as we hnve seen, not so exhorbitantly great *,s js' represented?; ■» Cheap !and- nasty"-'is' bad policy. Besides, the>State has, great, advantages— ;cbeMplHnd,ch,eapJ;vw, command of skill, no jobbery of directors,{and no hungry ; shnrehplders damaging !the enterprise by claiming fic-titibus dividends. 0 ; a:^.' l!!.agl '? e<i,^Jo: t! ie immense benefit tp be derived from railways once .completed. As to the practical part, we shall all, no doubt, be ready jto trust the duties'.of execution to ■ competent prbifessional men..'; What then- do-auy difieri about;?; I'lt-.is.how^ to find the,means—the money! - ; ■ ..;;■; v . > vßut this question,;of money, is riotpn'e on which;:differing.opinions need,be. advanced/ ; or arguments iraised. It is merely a question of .fact or no fact;: ;And let all prudent calculating men (np.tv.being :mere prophets ofevil) find ■their-consolatipui'here. i lf-the provincejcansaffprdjtp-do the;; work;.^or;^part ;of it itself, well and gocd.iian pbj'ect so beneficial as ;we have agreedsupon .will,.:be. ; a good'investment [for spare cash. -If we cannpt.afford, itj butcartfind ;some man or men whpeanhelp usa,nd serv# theiiijselves at the same time, in the, : name.bf,all;reason Met us give them eyeryetjeouragement. ■ And if we jhave no money ourselves and cannot find:any,' one ito help us—why then, we must do withoutit.. ; I am,tSir, yours obediently,■■'•: '-■ • } FORTIWATUS iGUICO-LA.