The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, FEB. 4, 1882.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVII, Issue 6534, 4 February 1882, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, FEB. 4, 1882.

Fob years we have been advocating the introduction of a system of differential railway rates. The friends of the uniform system have solemnly stated in reply that the railways of the Colony, if managed by private companies, would be subject to a uniform system. A number of fancy reasons of exceedingly far-fetched character, calculated to convince none but the ignorant, form the staple of the Government speeches on this subject and of .the writings of their supporters in the Press of the Colony. We do not propose on the present occasion to point out the special advantage which short-sighted Treasurers see in a uniform system, viz.—that it enables them to squeeze the- most squeezible portions of the country. Nor have we any desire to refer to the local jealousies which come in this matter to the aid of short-sighted Treasurers. Still less is it our intention to deplore the confusion of mind which honest dull people experience when they mistake the combination of jealousy and short-sighted-ness for an alliance between native wisdom and vast experience. Our purpose is simply to draw attention to the fact that differential rates are not the exception in other countries. They are the rule. “ It is frequently complained.” says a writer in a recent number of the Contemporary on the subject of “ Bailway Revolutions,” whose article is, by the way, very well worth reading and remembering, “ that the rates charged by railway companies are not uniform —that there are ‘inequalities and contrarieties ’ of the grossest kind—and that all rates ought to be in the same proportion, according to distance from everywhere to everywhere.” Here we have the old parrot cry which was raised here at the outset of the agitation for a change from the nniform system, and which is still raised to defend the great bulk of the system as it stands after the concessions made by the management from time to time. How absurd the cry is, the writer whom we have quoted shows with considerable power and skill, His arguments are in a nutshell. “There are,” he says, "other elements which seriously affect the matter, besides the miles a load has to travel.” Between two places a railway is the only one method of communication. Between the others there is competition by water carriage. Though the disstances are the same in both cases the railway rates are of course different. One place enjoys facilities as a harbour which another does not. The railway authorities recognise that unless they make a reduction on the railway, the traffic to the more expensive or difficult port will cease. They at once act upon their knowledge. Examined before a Parliamentary Commission, a leading railway manager stated his opinion boldly that he considered it his duty, as a railway manager, to develop the resources of the districts which his railway served. He illustrated bis theory by an instance which is worth quoting. “A timber merchant at Gloucester will write to me and say, ‘ 1 could do a trade at Derby, but your rates are so high I cannot get into the market. If yon reduce your rates Is, 2s, 3s a ton I can put a trade upon your line which will be a benefit to you and me.’ My business then is to enquire whether the statement is correct, and if I fiud it is correct I give him a rate, and the result is that he brings traffic upon the line.” Complaint against differential rates is not the only method of expressing dissatisfaction which the critics of Great 1 Britain have employed. ' There have i been agitations for the establishment of ] a uniform which have received < Parliamentary recognition. More, prob- < ably, would have been beard of them ]

had the British railways been the propetty of the State. Possibly even, i„ that case, they might have been successful, As it is, their folly has simply been exposed by the most experienced and the best of the railway managers. Their testimony was emphatic, uniform rate all over the Kingdom,” said one, “is quite out of the question.’' “If we were compelled” declared another “to make uniform rates all over our line, I believe it would be the most fatal thing to the commerce of the country that could occur.” A supporter of the uniformiat agitation had to make most damaging admissions. He began by admitting that in the case of two railways, one between two populous towns like Liverpool and Manchester, and the other running through the Highlands of Scotland, there would be a great deal more traffic on the former than on the latter, and that “where the traffic is greater, and the trains fuller, it ig possible to carry passengers and goods at a cheaper rate,” He also had to admit that an equal mileage rate in these cases would be unjust. He had to go even further. Pursued by a remorseless questioner, Lord Stanley, this supporter of the agitation for uniform rates all over the United Kingdom, bad to admit frankly that he was “ not in favour of a uniform mileage rate throughout the Kingdom,” “in the way your lordship puts it before me.” These proceedings occurred years ago, when Lord Derby was Lord Stanley. They were conclusive. The Commission evidently did not report in favour of uniform rates, and railway companies have been allowed to carry on their business ever since in the way they have found most profitable to themselves and to the country. In the face of this fragment of Bn tisb railway history, it is absurd to reply to the public desire for differential rates in New Zealand, that a private company would, if the railways of the Colony were the property of a private company, establish a uniform mileage over the whole Colony. It is not an answer to say that the British railways are not in the hands of a single company, but of several companies, managers of single companies have testified that on their lines they found it absolutely necessary to establish differential rates. They found that cheap commodities meant increased business to themselves. In other words, that the advantage of the public meant their advantage, and that the mutual benefit necessitated the use of differential rates. Happily the practice of the Colonial railway authorities is against their theory and the theory of their blind supporters. Within certain limits they have accepted the differential principle. Long distances are in the tariff a reason for reduction of rates. Water competition at two places (the Bluff and Fort Chalmers) is also allowed to be a valid reason. These are the chief exceptions to the uniform rule. There is no logical reason why the differential principle, once admitted, should not be poshed to its complete conclusion. Even tenderness for a certain powerful steam shipping company need not stand in the way. That company cannot do all the work that is required to keep pace with the increasing trade of the Colony. The introduction of differential rates would very much relieve it from its traffic perplexities. The time is propitious. The iron is hot. It only remains for the Government to strike. We want a great principle recognised. It is that “ where the traffic is greater aud the trains fuller, it is possible to carry passengers and goods at a cheaper rate.” Not only possible, but, in the interest of the individual and the community, imperatively necessary.