MR. T. PEACOCK, M.H.R., AND RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9219, 23 November 1888, Page 3

MR. T. PEACOCK, M.H.R., AND RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

TO THIS EDITOK.

Sir, —Not having been able to attend | Mr. Peacock's meeting last night I have to rely on your report of what he said on the railway question. Mr. Peacock is certainly ' one of our best representatives, and from ! his commercial knowledge is well able to i defl with this subject. His statements, therefore, surprise me ; but, perhaps, lam I hardly entitled to say this, seeing that the great bulk of his fellow members hold the same opinions. He said that "he gave his adhesion to the appointment of a non-political Board, because of the success which has attended thit scheme in Victoria; it was hopeless to expect the railways to pay until they were removed from political intluence." As to the first statement that the Victorian system has been a success. In what respect has it been a success? Certainly not socially, as witness the Commissioners' " Slaughter Bill," as witness the vast concentration of population in Melbourne. I venture to say that the crushing of its country interests will yet make Victoria stagger to its very foundations. It is, however, evident that it is to financial success that Mr. Peacock refers but I think a very littje digging below t.ie surface will show that in this respect also it is already showing itself to be a miserable failure. In j, roh last ' published a paper in which i„ was short'n from the Victorian Commissioner's own report for 1887, that in that year their lines earned £7 per mile less than they did in 1860, while their working expenses had increased by £22 per mile. In otlier words, as regards revenue, their railways had shown a falling off of £29 per mile, which is equal to £51,939 in one year, and that year the most prosperous one Victoria had ever had. There is another very important item which has been overlooked in this matter. The six per cent, railway debentures have been converted into 4 per cent, debentures. This means a gift to the commissioners of £158,292 per annum. If they had had to pay the same rate of interest that their predecessors had, where would their financial success have been ? Before talking about success it is necessary to look into these things a little. The Victorian Commissioners report for 1888 is not yet to hand, but I venture to j say before it comes that it will show a still further falling off. I say this because having carefully studied the question, I am satisfied that the system pursued must inevitably lead to failure. The fact is, Melbourne—not Victoria— is experiencing just the same kind of prosperity that Auckland city did during the Maori war. We all know how city and suburban properties ran up in value; how freely money circulated, and most of us have a painful recollection of what followed. Auckland's temporary prosperity was due to war, forcing the bulk of her country population into the city and suburbs. Melbourne's spurt is mainly due to her suicidal railway policy effecting the same thing. In the face of facts like those given above, which cannot be disputed, it seems to me a monstrous thing that this colony should be forced into the same position. I again say that if a Railway Commission is set up here, it will be the bitterest curse that has yet fallen on this colony. The property tax will be as a grain of sand compared with it. As to moving our railways from political influence, as Parliament retains the power to construct as many " political railways" as it thinks proper, this can only refer tc the selection of men employed on them, and the rates of payment they are to receive. To get rid of this trouble, it is proposed to hand our railways over bodily to three men, -who are to be appointed for five years. This appears to me to be very like a man chopping off his hand to get rid of a wart on it. If this is the object, why cannot we appoint the General Manager for five years, and give him the power to select the employes, and fix the remuneration they are to receive'! The more I study this great question the more determined advocate I am, not only of State ownership, but also of direct State control of all railways. As to my own system, I have 60 often replied to the want of population argument, that I will now only remark that if the little country town of Wliangarei can supply sufficient population to work the system successfully, it is a wonderful thing if a city like Auckland cannot do the same.—l am, etc., Samuel Vaile, Auckland, November 20, 1888.