THE RAILWAY COMMITTEE OF 1896 AND THE STAGE SYSTEM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 11052, 2 September 1896, Page 6

THE RAILWAY COMMITTEE OF 1896 AND THE STAGE SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOB. Sib, —I learn from the newspapers—the Chairman has not had the courtesy to send any reply to me—that the Railways Committee on August. B'reported to the House that on my petition they had no recommendation to make. I am not aware what are the duties of a Parliamentary Committee, nor what are its powers, but in my ignorance I supposed it was set up to investigate and report on any subject remitted to it. Perhaps, sir, you or some of your readers can inform me if these committees have the right to bring up a report without having held an investigation. In this case it is quite certain no investigation was made, or I must have heard of it. The Railways Committee for this year "comprises the following gentlemen : —Hon Sir Mitchelsou, Hon Mr Cadman, and Messrs Massey, Lawry and Crowther, Auckland members, and Hon Mr Seddon, Hon Mr Larnach, and Messrs Duncan, Earnshaw, Platman, Graham, Morrison, G. W. Russell, Tanner and Wilson, from the south. When a majority of these gentlemen—for it must always be remembered that it was a majority only—came to the conclusion that the question of altering the system of administering our railways was not worth considering, and reported to the House that they had no recommendation to make, they had, or might have had, and certainly ought to have had, the following facts before them, with reference to what has actually taken place in Hungary and Russia as the result of the adoption of the zone system.As regards Hungary, we find—l. That the general passenger traffic in four years rose from 9,056,000 to .28,623,700, or over 216 per cent. 2. That during the same period, local traffic—that is to say short distance traffic—lncreased 730 per cent. 3. That the general passenger revenue has increased 40 per cent. 4. That local traffic revenue has increased 200 per cent. In Russia the results have been even more remarkable. In Hungary the zone system was applied to the whole of the lines ; in Russia, to the most thinly-populated districts only. For all distances under 200 miles the old system and old fares were retained, yet this was the truly surprising result, lu one year the passenger revenue rose from <£8,061,754 to £29,183,333, or an increase of 14 per cent from the poorest and most thinly-populated districts only. How completely this Russian experience disposes of the want of population theory. Their railway men calculated that they would make a loss of .£1,894,202 ; they made a gain of .£1,121,579. Wonderful as these results are, with the utmost confi

dence I again repeat my assertion that the adoption of the stage system here would give greatly better financial results, but if it gave only as good, this is how it woiild work out. If wo obtained the same increase on general passenger and luggage revenue that was secured in Hungary, then we should got an increase of revenue of -£177,588 per annum. Should our “ local traffic” increase to the same extent that it has done in Hungary, and I see no reason why it should not, then from that source alone we should get an increase of £'200,000 per annum, and have every penny of revenue paid by all who travel over ten (10) miles in addition. If ire only obtained as much as the poorest districts in Russia gave, then v;c should add to our revenue at least £62,000 per annum. These are the facts which this wonderful Committee had, or ought to have had, before them, and yet they reported to the House that in their opinion the subject was utterly unworthy of the slightest investigation or consideration. Is it any wonder that our parliamentary institutions grow in public contempt ? I regret very much that I have not before me the voting on the adoption of this report, in order that I might do those who voted against it the justice of placing their names and action on record. —I am, Ac.. SAMUEL VAILE. Auckland, August 21, 1893.