MIDWAY DUPLICATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12697, 27 October 1904, Page 5

MIDWAY DUPLICATION.

<m INTENTIONS OF THE'GOVERNMENT. AUCKLAND-PENROSE LINE. DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. .. fat TELEGRAPH".— PRESS association.] . _. . Wellington, Wednesday. • Tv the "House of Representatives to-day a giij to authorise the duplication ami other mprovemetits of certain railways was introduced by Governor's message. In reply to Mr. -M ass *y Sir ,J. Ward said the Bill would give the necessary authority for duplication of three lines of railways, Auckland-Peurose, at an estimated total cost'of £70,000. \ddiii»fon-Rollcßton, £50,000. Danedin-Mosgiel, £130,000. These works, ho -said, were necessary to enable the Railway Department to overtake ♦he. traffic on these Suburban lines, which could not be done on single lines of vails. The votes for the- Auckland and Addington sections would be sufficient to complete the duplications, but in the case of the Dunedin -M'osgicl section it would require more, than the £130.000 asked for in this Bill. It might cost another £130,000. The Bill provided that £92,500 could be spent yearly on the works, and that the total expenditure should be spread over four years. The duplications would be carried out by the Railway Department, which would be better able than tha Public Works Department to do it without interfering with the traffic. The tVncklaiui-Femvsc section was the most urgent work, and would be undertaken first. Mr. Massey asked why the Government brought down two loan Bills? Why could not this loan have been included in the other Bill? He also pointed out that the Bill made no mention of any rate of interest. Sir J- Ward replied that the reason was obvious. Under the main loan Bill they required to raise the money within a limited period, while the raising of this £250,000 would be- spread over four years. Ho would be willing to insert a clause limiting the rate of interest to 44 per cent. Mr. Hogg urged the necessity for carrying out the Rimutaka deviation. On the motion for the first reading of the Bill Mr. J. C. Thomson said he thought it was a pity that such a Bill should have been brought down at a time when there was great difficulty in borrowing money to carry out necessary public works. It looked as if ; the proposals were being made for political purposes. ' Mr. Duthio was satisfied that these du- : plications were- imperative, but the amount should have been included in the schedule of the loan Bill.

Mr. Harries considered the proper policy would be to put the railways where the settlers had been looking for them for years.

Sir W. Russell approved of the proposed duplications, but he contended that the figures published showed that our railways were now being run at a loss.

Mr. Jas. Allen suggested that ill-feeling in connection with the extension of certain railways could be avoided by the appointment of a committee empowered to inquire into and report on all railway extensions foi which authorisation was sought. Ho beliuTed the loan Bill and this Bill were brought in separately in order to save tho face of the Government.

Sir J. Ward:. Oh. nonsense!

Mr. >Tas. Allen: The Government has over and over again denied that it intended to take authority for a million loan this year, but tins Bill makes up the million. , . Sir J. Ward: Be fair. It is not a million ior on© year. Mr. Jas. Allen: What's .the differaaoe? You are seeking authority to raise one million in the year.

air. Wilford and Mr.. Hone Heke also spoke. Sir J. Ward, in the course of his reply, again referred to the necessity for these duplications, which arose from the opening up of the back country, and the work proposed to be carried out must, therefore, be to, the advantage of the settlers in the interior. He denied that the Government had asked for authority to raise one million this year, and it was not right or just to make such a suggestion. Of the appropriation contained in this Bill the Government could not spend. more than £92,500 in any one year. Mr. Jas. Allen's contention was that the Government meant to spend the £250,000 asked for in this Bill concurrently with the £750,000 in the Loan Bill, but the Government had no such intention. At the most, the total amount to be raised this year could omy be £840,000 between the two proposals, and it was very probable that the Government would not raise that sum.

Th& first reading of the Bill was agreed to on the voices. ,