THE HON. MR. E. MITCHELSON AND OUR RAILWAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9023, 31 October 1892, Page 3

THE HON. MR. E. MITCHELSON AND OUR RAILWAYS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—As the Hon. Mr. i£. Mitchelson was the Public Works Minister who forced the Government Railways Act of 1887 on an unwilling Parliament, it is quite natural that he should seek to defend the irresponsible Board he is responsible for creating. It goes far to explain the cause of New Zealand's troubles when we find an exCabinet Minister dealing with so important a subject in such a very careless manner. I never said that our Railway Commissioners were responsible for "construction." I expressly guarded that point. I stated that the object of my paper was to place before the public the "whole and present position of our railways," and that therefore I commenced with construction. I pointed out that the Act provided for empowering the Commissioners " to construct," and said "I am not aware of the extent, if any, to which this has been done." - I have always been opposed to these irresponsible boards, believing the system to be fraught with many and great dangers. I clearly foresaw, and foretold, its failure in Victoria, and strove my best to prevent this country falling into a similar mistake. I have very' carefully watched the working of. the system here, and three years having passed 1 felt it my duty to place the facts before the public, and I claim that my paper fully proves that not in one iota have we j

benefited by the creation of this Board, but that on the contrary it has been greatly to our disadvantage. Mr. Mitchelson says : —" Mr. Vaile entirely ignores the fact that a railway may have been under construction many years before being handed over to the working railways department." Ido not ignore it, and surely Mr. Mitchelson, as a Public Works Minister, must know that this also occurred during the previous three years when 164 miles of new railway were taken over. My comparison was more than , fair to the Commissioners. Mr. Mitchelson points out that £554,318 was expended on the Otago Central line, and says " Surely he does not blame the Commissioners for this. Then why make the assertions he does ?" I have never asserted nor implied that the Commissioners were responsible for the expenditure on the construction of this or of any other line. • Mr. Mitchelson may be "satisfied" that the rolling stock "is in a more efficient state than it evei was before," butjit is for him and his friends (•o give proof that this is the case. This they have not done. They only assert. No one will pretend to deny that the < • triages are now more comfortable than they were ten years ago, but the credit is in no way due to the Commissioners. The process of reconstruction commenced years ago, and was in a great measure completed before they were appointed. Mr. Mitchelson must know this. As to the engines, Mr. Mitchelson has simply been imposed upon. If he had taken the trouble to compare the returns he would have found that the improvements effected by the Commissioners have been of the most trivial character. The more _ powerful engines were introduced before their time. The Commissioners are very good at claiming all they deserve, and a great deal more, but as regards the engines, this is what they say in their last report: " The rebuilding of locomotives has during this year for the first time been carried on upon a large scale." It is quite evident that these re-constructed engines were not placed on the lines before the last report was issued. They also say that they have sold three engines, but do not say what has become of the other three. If our lines have been maintained in the perfect state Mr. Mitchelson would have us believe, will he explain the enormous increase in working expenses for the current year ? For the twenty-four weeks reported, the increase in expenditure has been at the rate of nearly £1000 per week (£23,260), and the Commissioners are seeking to keep this down by gradually shutting up the workshops. As to revenue, Mr. Mitchelson must surely know that the opening of the non-paying lines, as he calls them, cannot reduce the gross revenue, yet gross revenue has declined. They no doubt to some extent affect net revenue; but I say that, under a proper system of administration, we have not a mile of open railway that would not pay a fair rate of interest. Mr. Mitchelson makes the extraordinary statement that the reductions made in fares and rates "have resulted in a loss of revenue amounting to close on £60,000." Really I was not aware of this disastrous result. Will he kindly tell us in what year or years it took place ? I must have given the Commissioners credit for much more than they deserve. * As to the rate per mile for goods and passenger, I have, I claim, clearly proved that we now pay a larger amount for a less service rendered than we did four years ago. It is for the Commissioners to show how this state of things has arisen. When they make their statement I shall be quite prepared to meet them. Mr. Mitchelson makes no attempt to deal with my percentage table with the grain traffic, the comparison between Victoria and New Zealand, etc., etc.; but he asks how I propose to " divest the railways of political control?" I refer him to a paper I handed to him in his office, and a copy of which I have since posted to him. It appears he has not read it. Mr. Mitchelson closes his letter by referring to the labour troubles of 1890, and says — , "What would be the position of the colony in the event of a similar strike, if the railways were under the control of the present Government—chaos and disaster." Ido not know what right he has to assume that the present Government would have acted worse in this matter than the Government of which lie formed a part did; but of this I am quite sure, neither the present Government nor any other Government that ever has, or is ever likely, to exist in this country, would have dared to allow our railways to be closed at the dictation of any section of the community, for they would have known that the next session would have seen them ignominiously expelled from office, and that no constituency would ever again send them to Parliament. Every other section of the community, and a large portion of the one they pandered to, would combine against them. The Commissioners have received an amount of credit in this matter that they did not deserve. They did not dare do other than they did. Had they yielded. Parliament would have been called together to expel them, and this they knew.--I am, &c., Samuel Vaile. Auckland, October 28, 1892.