SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1870.

Marlborough Express, Volume V, Issue 249, 17 September 1870, Page 3

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1870.

In another column we have given a brief extract from a debate in the Assembly wherein our proposed Railway is concerned, when Mr. Stafford raised a point which has formed a frequent topic of conversation in various circles of late, and is one of considerable importance, since it gives the key to the whole question of Railway expenditure. Mr. Stafford pointed out that £4400 per mile was set down for the line from the Selwyn totheßakaia, on a dead level passing over a shingle deposit available for ballast, and with no river or watercourse to be crossed, whilst £3,000 per mile only was put down for the line from Picton to Blenheim over a very rough country, and requiring several bridges. Mr. Vogel in his reply stated that “ the figures were supplied on the estimates of the Engineer of the Province, and that it must be recollected that the broad ga&ge was in vogue in the Canterbury province which added to the cost." We presume from the latter part of the quotation that the whole reply applies to the estimate for the Canterbury Railway, and that the reason of the low rate for the Picton line was not given, or ; else, not reported, . As regards the latter line, the original estimate which passed the Assembly in 1861, amounted to £60,000 it is true, but it was for 16 miles only, being to the Perry, at an average rate of £4,000 per mile, as adopted by Mr. Eyes’ amendment. A reduced estimate wasmade some years after by altering the ruling gradient between Picton Wharf and the Elevation, on the ground that it would be better' to have an inferior gradient than no Railway at all. This was

done by adopting a different line,, so as to save a viaduct over the Waitohi- Stream, and also by diminishing the depth of cutting very considerably at the Elevation. This line could not however be recommend* ed as part ot a Colonial system of Railways, nor could the gradients be materially improved on the route then adopted. Taking New Zealand generally, there is something very unsatisfactory in speaking of these lines at a, rate of so much a mile. As for example on the line originally laid out from Picton to the Wairau Perry, the |cost of the earthwork alone varied from f£4,000 to £BO per mile, and this variation I must exist to a great extent on any line passing through a mountainous country. There are but two items which may be taken at a rate per mile, Permanent Way and Rolling Stock; this on a light narrow guage may be set down at from £I6OO to £2200 per mile. What is called the substructure, the cuttings, embankments, viaducts, bridges, and also the stations, must depend upon the nature of the country traversed. It is possible that Mr. Vogel’s scheme applies to the original project, that is, to terminate at the Ferry, which of course would be a great mistake, but as it could easily be rectified next session—which course would be imperative—it will not matter much at present.

We had purposed dealing with a more substantial subject this week, but our Picton contemporary, while again attempting a defence of Mr Seymour without any basis to work upon, has flung his mud upon us, and we feel bound to make a brief reply. He complains of our speaking of Mr, Seymour’s intimate connection with that journal. Without pretending to any knowledge of the inner or private arrangements of the Press, or who writes for it, we cannot close our eyes to the advertisement which appeared only a week or two since, headed “ Marlborough Press C 0.,” and signed by Messrs Seymour and Western, since that is enough for our purpose. Our contemporary admits he is of the same opinion as ourselves in reference to the election of Superintendent by the people, but refused to sigh the petition because he thought it “.onesided,” When he went in for a similar provision a year previously, it was not so ; simply because Mr Seymour was out, and Mr Eyes was in. Thus it must ever be one-sided according to this style of argument. He asks why “such a fuss should be marie now ?” We reply that if it was once a grievance, so it will always be, and mo “political considerations” should interfere: to prevent obtaining an immediate remedy, no matter from what hands it came. n It is asked why Mr Eyes did not bring the question forward last session, when he knew a general election was at hand,; and consequently of a Superintendent also ? We do not know what reply Mr Eyes would make, but we are well aware that he was then, as now, in favor of the election by the people, since he frequently referred to the subject; but surely, if there was one time less fitting than another to agitate the matter, it must bo then, on the eve of his retirement from the office. Then our. contemporary might have said, with some show of reason, that it was scarcely decent; but now that he simply tries to, get a measure passed providing that the next election, when it may come, shall be by the people, and does this with the sanction arid support, to a certain stage, of the present holder of the office, it requires a warped mind to call it “one-sided,” or done for “political purposes only.” When the Picton petition for the same object was got up, the movement was confined to ihat district, and it was not till all was over that we heard of it at all, or we should have pushed it just as vigorously as this one. Was that “one-sided?” The petition which we Interested ourselves in was sent to all parts of the Province, Picton included, and this writer refused to sign it, he tells us, “forth e simple reason that it was evidently got up for a certain political purpose,” We leave our readers to judge between us. He still admits that Mr Seymour’s conduct with regard to the Bill was extraordinary, and more than he is at present able to explain, but he does not publish as we do, and as he might have done, that gentleman’s own account of the matter as reported in Hansard, a perusal of which will show the reason ; for it does not mend the case one bit, and with that additional knowledge before us, wo cannot withdraw a line of what wo wrote in our last issue. We now pass this subject by, and shall only notice some remarks which are applied to ourselves. Ho tells us we were very lenient with Mr Eyes last session, when he placed before the House of Representatives a petition for the abolition Of the present form of Government. Were we ? Let Mr Eyes say whether we were or not. Why, from the time he voted with Stafford against the capitation proposals of Fox until the day we found him supporting the Pox Government in respect of this very subject —in favor of which we had written during the last five years, which the Press never did—we opposed him in respect of his position as our representative in the General Assembly. Why, it was alone in this capacity we ever did oppose him, and never in Provincial matters, believing him the best. Superintendent we ever had, and do so still, although that does not pronounce him perfect. This is alleged as a proof of our inconsistency, and never was there so unfortunate a charge, j As for changing suddenly on any subject, we plainly deny that this can truly be alleged against the Express— now or ever. There is a phrase , in one sentence, in itself vague, which would take more space than we can willingly spare. It speaks of Mr Eyes presenting a petition and speaking against it, “ in direct opposition to the people the Council represents .” We are glad to see this phrase put in this qualified: and conscientious manner, because we object to a fraction of the people having the sole representation and power to

itself. We are in favor of the whole of the? people having the power and representation} but while Awatere with 22, Wairan "Valley 43, Upper Wairau 53, and the Sound 63 electors, has the same number pf members as Blenheim with 178 electors, and Picton with even a less number has a third more than Blenheim, it can never be said that the people’s rights and wishes are equally represented in the Provincial Coun* oil. In other words, A-watere, Wairau Valley, Upper WairaU, and Queen Charlotte Sound, with 181 electors, return eight members, while Blenheim with 178 electors returns but two members.