RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6253, 1 December 1881, Page 4

RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

[BY TSLSGRIPH. OW>" CO3RESPOSDEST.] CiiF.iSTCHVRCji, Wednesday. In" an article on railway management in the Times, the following occurs:—"There are two evil principles in the system of the political management. The management wanU to get as much out of the railway, and it wants to get it out of particular districts. The first entirely ignores the severe competition to which the exporter of New Zealand produce is subjected by the action of other countries— iu Australia, in ludia, in the United States, where railway freights are cheaper than they are in Now Zealand, yet S evr Zealand does not get 3ny more in the London market for her produce than thoK countries. To meet those rivals on a more equal footing, it may not be necessary to descend to the lowest level of price 3 obtaining in any one of them. Exceptional circcmstances may enable them to make their railways profitable at low rates, and the excep tionally yield of our farms may enable us to support a larjer proportion of railway tariff. Be that, *s 'jj in.iy, we should never losj sight c ' the grand principle that the producers should not have to pay more for rail"3J accommodation than they can well afford, and that no community will afford to pay for that advantage more than the ordinarj charges the coat it has entailed to tic couutry. As a matter of fact few communities in New Zealand ran afford even so much at present, but as none can realty afford more, the H"rip.:cncies of those thi. cannot afford ar- ::.uch ought to be made good by those out r; .'-b.:^i.--r,rc •-'m r : .--z'.t&> Canterbury :■* >.:, !.-:■; ,*;-ti':- '•'■ i - i is .-- district -,■-.! -:;u?v/u:; '■■j*-' W.:~ .-.•-(}!.„•, MG s'jaoeM to ?■>■...;• I-:-.- . \->.\ ;'.<.•..Vii'.'S Of the northern portion of Cautf.rbury will probably return a profit of S per cent, this year. As a l 3 the utmost that ought to be taken from them, this represents a galling tax in nl °° e ?' That 3 per cent, reaches as high &3 £6G,OfIJThe railways of North Cnnterbmy havin; cost close on two millions, Canterbury to* no objection whatever to pay a share Oi tn! deficiencies occurring elsewhere, and we fee! sure, has no objection, but tfc» should Canterbury have to make good mos. of the deficiencies, Canterbury is not by any means content. If we are to be taxed, «• us be taxed in common with the rest of rje» Zealand according to some perfectly system of taxation, not alone under the ff"» pretence of paying for the advantages w railway construction. £60,000 a-ye»r from industrious pockets is a drain beyond a» reason."