MR. SEDDON AND RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11540, 27 November 1900, Page 7

MR. SEDDON AND RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

TO THE EDITOR. , Sir, — many people seem to have mistaderstood my letter which appeared in the Weekly News of October 5, • that in justice to myself I must ask you to give me space for an explanation. ■ In the first place, my letter had no reference whatever to the Public Works statement. It was written on September 25, before the statement, was made to the House, for the purpose of combating the pressure that was being brought on the Government to borrow a larger sum for public works than Mr. Seddon had shadowed forth in his Financial Statement, and also to show that our Auckland members were concentrating the wholo of their energies on the Welling-ton-Auckland railway, to the detriment of tho North Auckland line. < •

My letter had no reference at all to the allocation of public money. In fact, as soon as I heard the amount proposed for North Auckland railway, I wired to Mr. Seddon and Mr. Monk telling, them that after the promises made I considered the sum voted an insult, and asked that the matter bo reconsidered. Mr. Monk wired back that my letter in Herald had weakened his hand with Mr. Seddon, and Mr. Seddon wired back to say he considered £15,000 a good vote for a district railway. - I again wired Mr. Seddon re Mr. Monk's oomplaint. Mr. Seddon answered that he' thoroughly under stood my letter, and that Mr. Monk's position was in no way weakened. I also wired Mr. Monk advising combination amongst North Island members, and to stonewall Estimates until justice was done. To this I got an answer from Mr. Monk, stating the Auckland members were acting in conceit. If this were so I can only infer that he meant that the Auckland members had agreed to diffci, as proved by the manner in which they voted. The fact is, as far as the North Auckland railway is concerned, I have been forced to tho conclusion that none of our membors Want'it. W hat did Mr. Colbeck and myself find out when we went to Wellington ? That the preliminary steps to obtain this lino had never been taken; that is, the line has never been authorised, consequently it is amongst the district railways, a tew miles authorised as the money is voted. When out of the Ministers was interviewed (not Mr. Seddon), lie seemed to be under the impression that a few more miles would complete the North Auckland line, and was perfectly astounded when he war informed that the distance to complete the line was about 120 miles. At the present rate of construction, this means 60 years to finish the line. _ Can you imagine any Government undertaking a work 60 years in advance ? This is the real state of the case. But under the circumstances Mr. Seddon has the best of the argumentthe Helensville extension is only a district line. But this excuse should not exonerate Mr. Seddon, as he has been through the North, known its requirements, acknowledged to the deputation that we had been neglected in the past, that our claims were just, and laughed at the idea of the present generation not living to gee the completion of the railway. If therefore our members had neglected their dutv in getting this line authorised, it was clearly hi? duty as head of the Government to take th:j matter in hand himself, being possessed of the above knowledge. At all events. I trust the people will insist upon all 'the Auckland members taking the necessary steps to get this lino authorised to Mange nui, or Hokianga. I still hold, in spite of Mr. Glass' letter, that tho expenditure (£2,000.000 in round numbers) in one year on public works is quite as much as the resources of the colony will stand. Mr. Glass seems to have thoroughly misunderstood the spirit of my former letter. He is looking at matters from l local point of view : I am doing so from a •olonial standpoint. But I quite agreed with aim that the Trunk lino, Wellington- Auckland, North of Auckland, and the Gisborne-Tauranga-Paeroa, could be completed within a reasonable period without any disturbance in the labour market. But to use his own words, The keynote of the difficulty in getting this»work done, is that the South is united and tho North Island is not; consequently tho South gets the lion's share, and instead of having 500 men employed on the North Auckland railway, we have only, say, 100, the balance of 400 being employed in ! the South Island." I

In regard to the statement lie makes, "That the Government policy is to keep all the work for those in tho colony, as it would injure the labour vote by importing labourers, that part of his letter I cannot understand, and I take it the more labourers employed by the Government, the greater the > labour vote.. To put matters concisely, the fault is not in the amount voted, but .'n the allocation. The onus lies at the doors of the North Island members, as the South has only one more member than the IVorth, and no Government could carry on with a majority of one. It has been cast up in my teeth several times re my supporting Mr. Seddon after the manner in which we were treated over the North Auckland railway, but I still maintain that no public man has done more for the general good of the colony than tho same Mr. Seddon, although I totally disagree with many of his actions.. I may say, in conclusion, that I think we shall never have good and honest Government- in New Zealand until a Local Bodies Act is passed, taking it out of the power of our members to be bribed by grants for roads, bridges, etc. No local body should bo in the position of a beggar, but should nave a perfect right to demand from the Government so much every year out of the revenue, based upon population and area, tf this was done, instead of increasing the members, they could bo decreased, and there would then be a hope that our member* would become colonial statesmen, instead of parish politicians, as they most certainly are at present.—l am. etc., W. Heathcote Jackan.