The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, APRIL 18. 1887.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8146, 18 April 1887, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, APRIL 18. 1887.

The Minister a£ Public Works was right to make his defence of his three years’ railway management as thorough-going and exhaustive as possible. There has been a growing tendency lately to select his record as one of the weak spots in the Ministerial armour. It lias been picked out as a point for attack, not merely because the railway receipts have fallen off, but because Mr Richardson made a specific promise three years ago, a promise which has never been fulfilled. To enquire how far this non-fulfilment has been the fault of the Minister, and how far that of Parliament would be outside the scope of this article. What is certain is that the Minister in first taking up the scheme of Boards of Management, and then dropping it at the first check, was but a reflex of public opinion. We heard a great deal of these Boards in many quarters three years ago and have heard very little since. Had the

public been in earnest in pressing for them the matter would have been threshed out in theAssemblyinsteadof being stifled. But a reform of this kind is distinctly one requiring continued pressure and persistent and earnest agitation to carry it. Reading between the lines of Mr Richardson's speech, we appear to see that he does not feel himself justified in tackling the difficulties in its way until there are clearer signs and a better chance of general support for him. It is true that he says that experience has shown him that the Victorian system is unsuited to New Zealand. But a careful reading of his speech will fail to show any commercial reasons why Boards of Management should not be adopted hero. The reasons are all political. The interests of country towns, small seaports, and private carriers both on sea and land, are allowed to drive traffic away from our railways. It is all very well to say that a Minister should rise superior to such opposing interests. But no Minister’s colleagues will allow him to wreck their ship in a vain endeavour to make departmental reforms not generally demanded by the constituencies. Ministers can only walk as fast as their strength allows. Mr Richardson, therefore, has come forward with a compromise. To begin with, he vindicates the Government management of the late past. But he goes on to admit that it is desirable that the public and the railway management should henceforth bo brought face to face. In defending the past he lays stress on reduced traffic rates, heavy working expenses in the shape of high wages and costly fuel, and the blood-suck-ing powers of the new lines constantly , being opened through sparsely peopled districts. Figures are quoted in his speech which go to show how infinitely better off is the wage-earn-ing mechanic of Now Zealand than his brother in England or his cousin on the Continent—figures which might be given as a pill to cure some of those stump orators who try to persuade our working men that they are no better off at this end of the world than the other. While, however, we are inclined to give due weight to all Mr Richardson’s facta and figures, and to his complaint of the impossibility of satisfying conflicting classes, trades and interests, we are not inclined to think that the present system of management is so good that it might not be better. That, to our mind, is the weak part of his excellent defence. As an extenuation it is skillful and truthful; but it does not satisfy, it is only an extenuation. It is all very well to show that railway management is a very complicated thing, and that much of the common criticism on it is based on mere ignorance. It is all very well to show that the difficulties in the way of an attempt to get our railways managed on commercial principles are many, that the opposing interests are powerful. But these arguments do not satisfy those who think that, obstacles and interests notwithstanding, commercial principles are the only principles which should govern railway management. The one exception to this, and the only one, is that the profit sought to be made out of the lines should be limited to that which fair Colonial finance requires. Mr Richardson, unable to remove the cause of general complaint, comes forward with a safety-valve to prevent future explosions of public wrath. Instead of Boards of Management we are to have Boards of Advice, or shall we suggest that they be called Boards of Complaint. Three of these, sitting in three different districts, are to meet three times a year, and—in the case of the Southern and Central Boards—in three different places. Thus the new system will set to work “ with a three times three.” The business of each Board, we understand, will be to consider generally the conduct of the passenger and goods traffic in their district, and to make suggestions on the same to the Minister of Public Works. Some responsible railway official is to be present at each meeting to answer questions and give information, but not as a member of the Board. Any railway official may be summoned and examined, and must obey such a summons. The Boards are to be elective, and their proceedings public. The Minister of Public Works is not to act on. any recommendation of a Board calculated to reduce the net revenue from the railways as the same has been estimated and appropriated. This last provision is of course suffi* ciently wide and elastic to give shelter to the Minister against very many awkward demands. At the same time the Board of Advice is a step in the right direction. When the proposal for Boards of Advice was made two years ago, the advocates of Boards of Management (ourselves amongst the number) insisted upon “ all or nothing.” But, as it seems certain that we cannot get all, we must remember that half a loaf is better than no bread. The Board of Advice is the half loaf perforce welcome after so many years passed without a crumb of concession. No Minister is likely to continue to neglect repeated demands and suggestions coming from a Board. Information on the intricacies of railway management will be less difficult to get. Interest will be stimulated. Members of Parliament will be armed with facts and figures which they now lack, and will have a power at their backs to urge them on. We should not be surprised if, after a year or two of Boards of Advice, the cry for Boards of Management were not raised and raised in earnest. The more the taxpayers learn of railway management the more likely they are to make up their minds finally that second-rate totvna and monopolist Companies are no longer to prevent our fine system of railways from showing a good- balance-sheet. Until the taxpayers do make up their minds on this they have no right to blame any Minister or any Ministry for refusing to put their head into the lion’s mouth.