HOW THE CENTRAL LINE WAS ADOPTED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8930, 20 December 1887, Page 3

HOW THE CENTRAL LINE WAS ADOPTED.

TO THK EDITOR,

Sib,— The announcement made by the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson in his Public Works Statement re the Main Trunk Line (North Island), and the entire untraatworthinesa of the surreys for the central route, should, me* thinks, somewhat prepare the general public for the announcement that the adoption of that route was the result of a moat unscrupulous intrigue. A few words of explanation will show how the members of the Parlial mentary Committee were misled ; that they should have allowed themselves to be so misled on such scanty evidence may seem surprising, but, with your permission, aa one to some extent behind the scenes at the time, I will explain the modus operandi. Now, on turning to the minutes of evidence taken, the following are above all worth noting, aa they form the pivot on which the whole plot revolves. Mr. Morgan Oarkeek, a licensed surveyor, is under examition :— , (4fi6) The committee baa been given to understand that you have been employed in surveying one of the proposed line* ?—'Yes ; the line from Stratford to To Awamutu. through the Upper Mokan. (467) In conjunction with Mr. Holmes?— No; originally 1 went by myself. It was only over the upper part of the tine that I, went with Mr. holmes. (468) Between Mokau and Awamutu ? —Yes ; Mr. Holmes was with me over that, but not between Stratford and Tangarakau. (549) How long were you over your sur« vey and exploration :— was twelve months over it altogether. (550) Then you had » very good look at the country ?—Yes. It will be seen that the report on the line known as the Holmes-Carkeek survey report, has the sanction of Mr. Holmes's name only from the t'angarakau to Te Awamutu, i.e., from the 50th to the*l23rd mile (the junotion with the central); while from Stratford to Tangarakau the committee had to depend on the sole evidence of Mr. Carkeek, from the Public Works Department point of view. All the other officials merely quoted this gentle* man. Now, what does Mr Carkeek say as to this lajid ? From Stratford to a distance of eighteen or twenty miles, the land is good. From thence to the 60th mile, "a goat would not live on the land; it is fit for nothing." From the 60-mile point to the 70th the valleys only are fit for settlement. From 70 to 75 miles, very little is good for the plough ;it is too ateep. In another place he says that from 25 miles from Stratford to the 60th mile is absolutely worthless conn* try with the exception of the gullies, and these are only little patches of aoil » few chains wide.

Such are the assertions made by Mr. Morgan Carkeek, in giving his evidence on oath before the Committee. It may perhaps be interesting to note that this evidence iB absolutely at variance with written reports sent in to the Survey Department by Mr. Morgan Carkeek, presumably before he wai made acquainted with the wishes of the Pub lie Works Department in respect of the lint which the Wellington officials wished to b« adopted. In fact, Mr. Morgan Carkaek furnished the Chief Surveyor at New Plymouth with reports highly commending the bulk of the lands between Stratford and Tangarakau, and these favourable reportß were tully en* dorsad by other and independent authorities, as well as by officials not located in or directly connected with Wellington. The reports wore forwarded in due course [ to the head office in Wellington, and 1 have reason to know that, when it was discovered that Mr. Carkeek was reporting on exaotly the same premises in a diametrically opposite direction to the conclusions arrived at in his Survey Department reports, an urgent request was forwarded, that his original reports might be laid before the Parliamentary Committee then about to be appointed to con* aider the question of the rival routes. No attention was paid to the request, and Mr, Carkeeks original reports were suppressed. Ac the end oi July, 1884, the Chief surveyor of Taranaki telegraphed to Mr. Carkeek for a copy of his report re the Stratlord-Tanga-rakau land, and what I have reason to believe to be a truncated version was supplied.

Turning now to the evidence of Mr. Thos. Humphries, the chief surveyor of Taranaki, we find him stating (1662): "1 have with me a report on the nature of the country traversed by the Stratford line, to myself, whioh was made July last"— Mr. Carkeek's report in reply to the telegram. Mr. Humphries was, however, not told to produce this report—evidently there was no desire to see it—and it was only on the 15th Ootober, 1884, when the committee had completed its labours, and the report could not influence its decision, the report having been adopted and laid before the House, that, on the motion of Mr, Samuel, member for New Plymouth, it was ordered that the report of Mr. Carkeek, referred to in Mr. Humphries' evidenoe (min. 1662) should be laid before the House.

Now, the evidence of all persona who had actually traversed this country fully bears out not Mr. Carkeek's sworn testimony before the committee, but his previous report to Mr. Humphries. The Surveyor-General, Mr. S. Percy Smith, Mr. John Sheehan,Major Robert Parris, Wahanui, and the surveyors Messrs. Skeet and Rawaon, all showed that from Stratford up to 50 miles is a very fine country for settlement, bush with patches of open land ; the aoil good, the land very little broken, and the timber of good quality. Captain Northcroft, who had traversed the wftole country, confirms this. From the 50th to the 57th mile is broken land, but Mr. Holmes in his evidence states that this portion of the line might be varied to avoid the broken Tungarakau section. From this point (57th mile) up to Te Awamutu is agreed 1 by all witnesses to be splendid land. In the face of all this evidence, will it be beiieved that having attained to a distance of some fifty miles of Stratford, Mr. Mitchelson was informed by a surveyor that it would be impossible to get through under some weeks, so rough was the land to be gone over !

Mr. Carkeek, according to bia own evi« dence, was twelve month* altogether surveying the line between Stratford and Te Awamutu—especially in the portion extending northward to Tangarakau. The deliberate opinion in Joly, 1884, was favourable to the land, and this deliberate opinion was recorded in a report to the Chief Surveyor. How cornea it shat this opinion, which it had taken twelve months to formulate, was reversed in the following mouth; that the report recording it Was suppressed; that the Public Works Department virtually refused to lay it before the committee, and that it was only by a direct motion in the Uoitbe that what 1 have reason to believe was only a truncated edition of it, ever camt to light ? These are matters whioh, to my mind, fully warrant our members ic insisting that a further inquiry should be held. Some of the so-called evidence on whish the Central line was finally adopted merits a few remarks on another occasion.—l am, &c„ Bkhin® thb Scenes, Auckland, December 19, 1887.