THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1893.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9308, 18 September 1893, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1893.

The Bill which Mr. Seddon has introduced in the House of Representatives for restoring to the Ministry control 0; the railways, and the second reading of which was moved on Friday evening, is a measure which we believe the great bulk of the public have no sympathy with. With the exception of a section of the railway servants who are bitterly opposed to the present system of management by a Board of Commissioners, because they are unable through their trades unions to exercise the political influence which formerly they were able to exert, there is no considerable portion of the people who demand that the powers of the Commissioners shall be curtailed, and that the Government shall resume control in any form whatever of the railways. There has been no public agitation for any alteration of the existing system of management in the direction of placing greater powers in the hands of the Ministry of the day. So far, indeed, as public opinion has manifested itself on the subject through resolutions passed by the various Chambers of Commerce and other kindred bodies, it has been entirely opposed to any interference with the present method of working our railways. Mr. Seddon's Bill, which practically places the whole control and management of the railways in the hands of the Minister of Public Works, has, not been called for by the country, nor is it possible to justify it on the grounds of failure of the system now in vogue. The Bill we are afraid owes its existence to personal animus and ambition, and a desiro to control for party purposes the vast patronage which the railway service places at the disposal of those in power. The divorce of railway management from politics in this country was effected in 1887. A state of things had then grown up in connection with our railways which, although it had not reached the same extent as in some of the other colonies, was felt by all thoughtful men to be fraught with consequences of the most grave and mischievous character. A State railway managed by a Minister of the Crown may easily become a nursery of corruption. Wo had seen in the past political jobbery of the most unblushing description, and public money squandered in the most shameless manner. The greatest asset of the State was being worked in the interest not of the colony, but of parties, and for the purpose of gaining political support. All manner of improper influences were brought into play. Members were being constantly importuned to obtain concessions for their districts and situations for their friends, and Ministers were reduced to the necessity of purchasing votes by the exercise of favouritism regardless of every other consideration than the ignoble desire to keep in office at any cost. This condition of affairs constituted a real danger to the country, and was felt to be intolerable. If our railways were not to become a putrid mass of corruption, vitiating the whole political atmosphere, it was necessary that they should be lifted out of the region of politics altogether, and placed under the control of a non-partizan board of management. Accordingly that was done with tho sanction and approval of the great majority of the people. No fair-minded man can seriously contend that the change has not realised the expectations that were entertained at the time regarding it. Our railways are now better managed than at any previous period in their history. They have been thoroughly purged of all traces of political influence. Their administration is honest and pure. They are now worked in the interest of the colony as a whole, and not in the interests of individuals or classes, or "particular localities. We do not say that the present management is incapable of improvement. On the contrary, we believe that there are many alterations

which the Commissioners might make in regard to the tariff, both for goods and passenger traffic, that would not only tend to promote settlement, bub ultimately largely augment the profitsof the railways themselves. We believe also that they have shown at times a lack of tact and good judgment in insisting upon adhering with cast-iron rigidity to the strict letter of the Act under which they are appointed, and in showing an implacable disinclination to depart from the old-fashioned lines of railway management. But on the whole their administration has been a success. What, therefore, can be the object of the present Ministry in endeavouring to practically abolish the system if it be not to secure political power and patronage, which their hearts hanker after so much? And can anyone affect to believe that if they, or indeed any other set of politicians, were to be entrusted again with the control of the railways the result would be in any way different to that which was witnessed in the past? We would have as wo had then the railways used for political and party purposes, and the service manipulated in the interests of partisans. There is, we acknowledge, a good deal of force in the argument that Parliament ought to have a greater control over the Commissioners than it has at present; but surely means might be devised for attaining that end without the necessity for placing Mr. Seddon or any other Minister at the head of the whole railway management of the country.