PROGRESS LEAGUE AND THE RAILWAY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 5 August 1931, Page 3

PROGRESS LEAGUE AND THE RAILWAY

(To the Editor) - Hie,—tYou,r coirespopidfeiit- “Disgusted il'fio' entered life strong protest against' Übe attitude of lassitude which has been sKowti by the Progress League,; in' its ilecent. annual report- and/ annual meeting, voiced the disappointment that is widely felt at the lack of vim and fighting spirit, shown by the league. ‘lnis disappointment is confirmed in to-night- s “Mail” by other correspondents in vigorous protests against tho league s attitude, which makes many wonder why the league does not die of sheer inertia. The pity of it is that it appears as if those we are wont to look up to as its leaders in most cases show the least fighting spirit, and doubtless this is mainly brought about by the wot blanket attitude of the member for Nelson shown towards the Nelson Railway during almost tbe whole of this year. He appears to have so frightened the league that the president and members have during the past year spent most of thentime in framing their efforts so as to ijtvoid risking giving annoyance or displeasure to .him, and so we get the result ip the form of a weak apologetic report of a most despairing kind from the president, and an annual meeting whose main effort was directed to deciding to do nothing till after the General Election expected next November. - What a lamentable exhibition —an utter absence of enthusiasm for the league’s chief work. The claim of the league to have done all that was possible to do in the direction of pressing on construction of tho line, and later to prevent the complete stoppage and abandonment of the miles of line under construction, and to prevent removal of plant and material., including all rails and sleepers, and to get construction work thereon renewed, is not borne out by facts, unless we are to accept the passing of a number of guarded and almost apologetic resolutions. Did not tho league let go opportunities for organising and holding great open air demonstrations, to give public articulation of indignation against the stoppage, of work on the railway, for fear such a course might annoy or embarrass the member for Nelson, who apparently bad not interest enough in Nelson’s railway construction nor in the vital need for this outlet, to attend the Cabinet meeting to plead Nelson’s case against its stoppage The league did express a desire to send a deputation to Wellington to interview tho Prime Minister, and lay Nelson’s case for the railway before him, in view of his colleagues having decided to proceed with the line down the east coast, through tho Prime Minister’s own district and constituency, but it only needed a wee cold douche of - discouragement from Mr Forbes, sent through the still colder douche member for Nelson, and the very idea of daring to send a deputation was at once dropped. Notoven the golden chance of placing Nelson’s case before this Government for the first time, and the value of such action in influence arid 'nation-wide propaganda in support- of Nelson’s emancipation from isolation, had any weight with tho league. lias the league made any vigorous or even pious protest against the repeated cutting down of the miserably inadequate _ railway service between Nelson 4ml Ivawatiri, or of the cutting out entirely of all traffic between Glcnhopo and Kawatiri? Has the league made any effort to stop the rot or. in effect, the boycott of the Nelson section, by the farmers, who have so largely deserted their own railway, to support private motor services, both passenger and goods, running on roads alongside the railway. Not even the prediction of the dire results in further cutting down and out of rail transport on our Nelson section laid before the league by tbe president of the Farmers’ Union could move our league. What is the reason for this lethargy and lack of using opportunities for the welfare of our city and province —the winning back to the railways of the lost and gaining new users for the good of the whole railway service.

Now we learn that the Railway Board is visiting our district to go over our railway route from the Port to Inangahua, bn 13th August—only 8 days hence —yet we hear no mention of any action, or effort on the part of our irtague to escort the members of the Board, or to place Nelson’s case for this railway and main trunk line between Nelson and Invercargill—as one of your bprrespondents aptly terms it—before the Board, and for a deputation to lhe Board in Wellington to press our claims home to the Board, as is being done in the other districts. Does tlie league’s decision to take no action till next November mean tlicv are to ignore the coming visit of the Railway Board? We could wish, and demand that the league would wake up and do sometiling worth while for the public welfare, by seizing arid making every possible .opportunity lo push the ease for our line completion, and to get the suggestions oi practical value put forward I».V .Your correspondents “Pertinax,” ‘Trying to Help,” and “Disgusted” adopted.—! am. etc., ANOTHER DISGUSTED. Nelson, 4th August.