Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5611, 18 February 1879, Page 4

The report furnished by Mr Blair to the Minister of; Public Works respecting the projected 1 Canterbury main central line of railway, was published in our issue of yesterday. The publication of this well considered exhaustive document, ■ ■ entitles the Minister to a reputation; for fairness in dividing his attention throughout the : numerous 'districts of the Colony. At one time ,he. was*.chayged with blindness to every? thing outside of Otago. Soon the critics graciously admitted that he had opened,his eyes, to the merits wants of Auckland. -Now they will have to allow that he can, see Canterbury as Well.; -To „ the ? deputations that waited upon him • last ! .week; * Mr Macandrew showed that he had an intelligent appreciation of the interests of Canterbury, and the report of Mr Blair io Substantial evidence ' of the care bestowed at all events upon one important section of these interests. The reporfr confirms what has frequently been urged to show the special benefits which may be looked for from a railway running between Oxford and Temuka. ; Most men who know the country will readily agree with Mr Blair that . the strip of land stretching along the base of the foothills is good enough to guarantee a prosperous future to this railway, that accommodates it, and also that the railway by connecting the mouths of the numerous valleys debouching on. the great Canterbury plain, supplies the best means for developing the resources of the valleys. The route recommended has been selected for its cheapness as well as other advantages, and cheapness is at the present time an argument little short of irresistible: especially as cheapness implies rapidity Of construction, another very powerful factor in working out the problem of reproductiveness. As there is no hope that the whole line—some eighty-five miles in length—can be taken in hand at once, the burning question with the districts interested i§ which section should be begun at once. Upon this question Mr Blair has not undertaken to pronounce definitely, but he has narrowed it down within certain limits. Four of the six sections into which the line is divided, are recommended, two of them for their direct and two for their indirect advantages. The sections. No. 3, “White Cliffs to Rakaia,” and No. 6, “ Rangitata to Temuka,” being populated, a profitable revenue can be expected from them at once. On the other hand, sections No. 1, “ Oxford to Malvern,” and No. 4, “Rakaia to Ashburton,” are not populated. There is no hope of immediate revenue from them, but as the land is good in both cases, increase of settlement must followrail way construction, at intervals of time, however, more or less long. There is much to be said in favour of each couple of recommendations. Yery strong arguments are on the side of population. An immediate revenue is an imperative necessity, not only for its own sake, but because at this time the profits of the railway system of the Colony should he as high as possible, for the credit of the Colony is largely bound up with the credit of the system of constructed railways. Moreover, the proportion of railway expenditure to cost of working cannot afford, when a choice has to be made, to permit a selection which will make the present high proportion still higher. Lastly, the claims of population are paramount, because population having been heavily taxed for the railway system, is entitled to the first benefits of railway extension. On the other hand, the advocates of one of the sections to which Mr Blair assigns indirect advantages, have urged a claim to consideration on the basis of population also—not the population on the proposed railway line, but the population of the Oxford and Oust districts. The plea is that when, as not unfrequently happens, their railway communication with the capital is cut off by the damages done to the railway line by floods, there ought to be an alternative route by which traffic can still be carried on. Another plea for the Oxford section is that the development of the Oxford timber trade is one of the objects of the whole line.

Amongst!these conflicting elements a comprpiaiße is the only possible result. ’Mr Macandrew said that it would be not advisable to begin this line in the middle, and consideration of all the circumstances shows that he was right. The best compromise would be clearly to begin the line at each end. The selection of the Temuka section would satisfy, the claims put forward for justice to population and Justice to the railways’ working department; and the selection of the Oxford section would hot only he a benefit to a population that is entitled to be heard, but the construction of that section ought to precede the construction of the middle ones, for without it the development of the middle districts cannot go forward at the same speed. Those middle districts are a treeless country, the settlers of which will have to look to Oxfox*d • principally ;'lor’.the !timber used in the .various’ operations of settlement, With-

out railway communication with Oxford those settlers would undoubtedly be at a disadvantage. And the arrangement does not suit the Oxford timber interest merely. It gives an outlet to the Malvern miners for the product of their mines, and a considerable one. Each of the other sections, no doubt, has friends who are reftdy to urge the great advantage to be derived from the earlier commencement of one or other of them, but we think for the reasons. given that the arrangement for beginning the line at each end will benefit the greatest number of people, and be immediately the best for the railway balance-sheet. In our opinion it is the only compromise possible, in the interests of even-handed justice.