THE RAILWAY BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9308, 18 September 1893, Page 5

THE RAILWAY BILL.

THE PREMIER AND THE

COMMISSIONERS, ,

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—SPECIAL correspondent.] Wellington, Sunday. The sweeping charges of the Premier againsb the Railway Commissioners and the administration and. management of that great department, as made in his speech on moving the second reading of the Railway Bill on Friday nighb, have led me to ascertain the estimation in which these statements are held by some leaders on the Opposition side. As their views will be aired in Parliament, and as the whole subject is of great interest to the general public, I give the answers to the principal points of the attack of the Premier of Friday evening. During that speech ho asked whether .Parliament or three irresponsible persons should have the control of the railways, and stated that the change in 1887 in giving the Commissioners the railways was made without the sanction of the people. Well, as to tho alleged irresponsibility, ib is pointed out that Parliament has by statute distinctly made the Commissioners responsible, and that the whole situation as it now exists was created by a larger legislative majority than that which, in the case of women's franchise, the Premier has deferred to as the will of the people. The Minister has alleged that Mr. McKerrow was forced to take his present position. On tho other hand, lam assured that the statement is absolutely contrary to the facts, which were that Sir Harry Atkinson proffered the office of Chief Commissioner to Mr. McKerrow, who took time to deliberate and confer with the gentlemen who were to be his colleagues, and that his acceptance of the position was not influenced by any pressure, direct or indirect, of any kind whatsoever. To the contention of tho Premier that if ib had be \\ known that the present Commissioners would have taken office the Railway Bill would never have become law in 1887, the supporters of the Commissioners claim that they can prove to demonstration thab the results in the fullest possible manner justified the wisdom of the appointments. They were told, continued Mr. Seddon, that there must be no politics in connection with tho railways ; he maintained that there was at the present time politics and a policy in connection with the railways. The policy is admitted, bub it is contended that it is the highesb policy that can govern the greatest department of the State, a policy that projects and expends the settlement of the country to the utmost limit obtainable without diminution of fair profit to the undertaking. Said Mr. Seddon, the working men on the railways would welcome the change. The answer to my enquiries on this point is that in the "running ser--1 vice" the Commissioners have popularised the service by reducing the hours of labour without any diminution of wages, and that in the traffic, locomotive, and maintenance services there has been no reduction of pay or privileges. The Railway Commissioners, according to the Premier, did not deservecredit for saving tho colony during the labour struggle. Their action, on the contrary, according to him, tended to provoke disorder. To this the supporters of the Commissioners state that the fullest evidence will be adduced on the floor of the House conclusively to refute this statement, and at the same time prove that the Commissioners saved the country in largo part from what otherwise would have followed upon the unwisdom and recklessness of the labour leaders during the strike. The colony is familiar with the facts of the recent industrial disturbance, but ib will be again shown, I am told, that the Commissioners alone were the men who had the courage and the power to stand between the strike leaders and the paralysis of trade and the commerce of the country. Of the Railway Insurance scheme Mr. Seddon said ib was analogous to a scheme drafted by some public company, and one which had the effect of interfering with the liberties of the workers. As against this statement it will be advanced that the insurance project is optional with the existing staff, though binding upon future employees, and that the provisions of the Bill, which has been published, speak for themselves, and can amply be justified. Mr. Seddon quoted figures to show that the departmental expenditure of the railways had increased during the year, but his figures, I am told, can be fully refuted by the positive evidence of the annual raport, while his contention that the Commis sioners did not manage the railways on sound commercial principles, as the ordinary roads were allowed to compete with the railways, can, his opponents allege, be easily demolished. The- Premier maintained thab the railway expenditure was lavish, and that the salaries of the higher paid officers had increased despite the wish of Parliament that there should be economy in all branches of the Civil service. He denied thab the Ministry had power to revise the railway estimates. Sir Harry Atkinson had demanded a change in the form of the estimates, but had failed to secure what he wanted. To these things the opposing side say that the increase of salaries had been slight i and can be justified before any competent and unbiassed tribunal, that furthermore they have always been scheduled and submitted to Parliament, which had the power and could have rejected them. His statement with regard to Sir Harry Atkinson will, I understand, be challenged, and it will be shown that Sir Harry himself formulated the provision contained in section 6 of the Railway Act of 1887, which declares that the Estimates shall be framed as the Governor may direct. The Minister concluded his hostile criticism in moving the second reading of the Bill by saying that there was general discontent amongst the men in the service, that there had been unfair promotions, that young men had been raised above the heads of old and tried servants. All this is alleged by those who claim to know to be absolutely untrue, that promotion goes by seniority of service unless there be grave reason to the contrary, and in accordance with regulations. In these statements of the Premier and the denials that I have indicated of his opponents as to the railway management of New Zealand is certainly ample material for vigorous controversy and hob debate, and both of these may be confidently looked for upon the floor of the House during tho coming week.