THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS ON RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8148, 20 April 1887, Page 5

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS ON RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

TO THE EDITOB. Sib,— The Hon 'Edward Richardson is clearly not a disciple of Darwin. If the harbour of Eaiapoi is not the fittest in New Zealand, that is no reason, in Mr Richardson's eyes, why the New Zealand railways should not be subordinated to its survival. Alter reading Mr Richardson's encouraging words, the people of New Brighton will surely not hesitate to contract a loan and project a harbour, so that it may straightway become a factor in railway management. In the past, the question has been, “ Why don't the Christchurch merchants move back to Lyttelton ?" In the future, the question ought surely to be, “ Why don't these merchants move to Eaiapoi ?” When Mr Richardson said that the railways must be subordinated to the concerns of Eaiapoi harbour, it seemed uncommonly, like saying that they must be to political ends. Mr Richardson implied, also, that the commercial principle of management does not operate at present. But the truth will be found to be that, where the political element does not rule, the commercial element (and that the least intelligent) is almost the only other ruling factor. Tim management of our railways may be described as in the main political, and for the rest badly commercial. It is a commercial low rate that is alleged to be adopted on certain lines for the purpose of competing with water carriage. It is, on the other hand, a commeicial high rate that is exacted on the Lyttelton and Christchurch section; first, because there is no possible competition, and, secondly, because the people who pay it are too apathetic or too respectable to complain. It seems marvellous that these people should tolerate a railway management that continues to impose between Lyttelton and Christchurch, 5s per ton on goods from sailing vessels and 6s per ton on goods from steamers, for a distance of about 6£ miles. Mr Richardson produced figures to show what he had done to lower rates on farm produce, which figures, after all, showed no strong case for him. But why did he not also give, the same comparative relation of merchandise rates, and explain why we are still charged 25 percent per mile more than on other port lines ? So long as Mr Richardson has such sections as the Lyttelton and Christchurch to draw upon for the deficiency, he may think that he can afford to let the revenue elsewhere suffer, in order that Eaiapoi may be allowed to accomplish its high destiny, and become a haven for great ships.—l am, &0., W. CHEYSTALL.