RAILWAY REFORM : REPLY TO MR. JAKINS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7646, 25 May 1886, Page 3

RAILWAY REFORM : REPLY TO MR. JAKINS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — was glad to see Mr. Jakins' letter in your issue of this morning, as it helps to ventilate a subject that sadly requires look* ing into. It is not necessary for me to state that I am the determined opponent of differential rates, no matter in whose favour they may be given. Mr. Jakins starts out with the singular statement, "It is well to bear in mind that; class E embraces, I should say. SO per cent, of the railway tonnage." This is.a curious illustration of the fact that men are apt to think the little thing in which they are personally interested the greatest matter in the country. The tonnage carried on our railways last year was, exclusive of live stock, 1,749,856 tons. To this total class E contributed 414,590 tons, or less than 24 per cent, instead of 80. The " minor" classes, A, B, C, and D, contributed 365,623 tons, or only 48,967 tons less than class K. Aa Mr. Jakins admits that in these classes " discrepancies do exist," it is important to in mind that the rates charged on them range from 50 to bOO per cent, above the rata charged for class E. It is also important to bear in mind that we move a much larger proportion of these higher classes than Canterbury does—2s,ooo tons against 8000 of class E, as compared with 284,000 against 359.000 of class E, on the whole HurunniBluff system. So much for the "miuui " classes. As regards class E, it will be seen from tha above figures that Canterbury has little else to carry, and Mr. Jakins forgets to tell us that for the 107 miles from Timaru to Lyttelton their is a special charge for con« signments of not less than 100 tons of 13J 2d, including charges, while, as ha says, the rate for the 101 miles from Cambridge .to Auckland is 13s 6d; but he is wrong aa regards Te Awamutu, the rate for the 100 miles from there being 14s 6d. The tariff rate in Canterbury is 14b, not 14s lOd as Mr. Jakins says. It is useless to take up your valuable space discussing the Auckland-Onehunga and Lyttelton-Christchurch rates, for this reason, that, as they include port as well aa rail charges, and we cannot separate them, neither Mr. Jakins nor I can arrive at a just conclusion. If, however, there is anything in our favour, it is, no doubt, due to the ports, and not the rail; but I may as well say in passing, that of the LytteltonChristchurch rates Mr. Jakins has not quoted one correctly ; they are not nearly so high as he states, and I may also say that goods of classes A, B, C, and D, intended for stations beyond Christchurch, are charged at an average of 2s lid per ton from Lyttelton to Christchurch, while the average charga for the same distance in Auckland would be 5s s£d per ton. These port charges require very close looking into; at Invercargill and other places they cause intense dissatisfaction. I have very little doubt there is a real grievance; but I know too well the vast labour it would entail to undertake the task of investigating it. Mr. Jakins does not like my Te AwamutuHelensville, example. Here is another. I presume the Ngaruawabia mill is supplied from Waikato. For taking ten tons of wheat from Te Awamutu to this mill, twentynix miles, the charge would be £3 8* 9d. la Canterbury the charge would be £2 15s only. Mr. Jakins wishes to know why I quote the rate fc potatoes to Newmarket instead of to Auckland. For this reason, that for the whole of the ninety-eight miles mentioned the charge made is at the rate of 25 per cent, more than to the terminal point, or for the same distance in Canterbury. The charge to Newmarket being 3ls Sd, while the charge to Auckland (two miles further) is only 25s Bd. This is without terminal charge in either case.—l am, &3., Samuel Vaile. Auckland, May 18, ISS6.