LAND FOR RAILWAYS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 40, 28 October 1871, Page 10

LAND FOR RAILWAYS.

The bill now before Parliament to empower the Board of Works to take land for railway purposes, and for constituting a court to fix the amount of compensation to be paid for such land, is one of the first importance. It opens up a question which could not be properly discussed within the limits of a single article, and which is still less likely to be fully ventilated by the House at the fag end of the session. The bill embodies a principle which deserves much more consideration by the Press and public than they have yet; given to it. That principle is one which early secured our earnest advocacy ; and, consequently, it was with no ordinary satisfaction we find that it had received the sanction of the Government. Nobody has a right to take land for purposes of public utility without giving compensation. But as soon as the acceptance of an equivalent becomes obligatory, the individual right of ownership ceases to be absolute, and the State is recognised as the real owner of the soil. This is the case in England. No one legally and strictly has an individual right of ownership ; the State alone is the absolute proproprietor of the soil, and can on payment of an indemnity appropriate it to such purposes as it may deem expedient. By a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, the English law, on this subject, is declared to be in force in New Zealand. But however prudent and commendable it may be to follow, on ordinary occasions, in the footsteps of our fathers; however natural andrea.

sonable it may be to adopt as our rule of conduct in this colony, the example set us by the parent state, it would manifestly not be wise and proper for us to do this on all occasions, and when the circumstances of the case were widely different. The same principles may possibly be most efficiently recognised under very different forms and conditions. In England, land has become, according to the “ Times,” a fancy thing, an article of luxury. In New Zealand, in numerous instances, it has scarcely any market value. There immigration and public works would scarcely have any effect in enhancing the value of land; but here they would have a prodigious effect in this direc tion. There, in the majority of instances, railways have not to any great extent increased the value of the land in the localities through which they run, while the particular farms which have been cut up by their construction may, instead of having been appreciated in value, have been rendered comparatively worthless. Here, in the majority of instances, the whole of the property of a district through which a railway is constructed will be enormously enhanced in value. -‘There, the benefit conferred may bear no proportion to the amount of the injury inflicted. To construct a line of railway through a well-cultivated estate, or a densely populated country, may be advantageous to the public, but highly injurious to individual landowners. To construct a line of railway through uncultivated lands, and a thinly peopled country, will prove more advantageous to the landowners than to the people. It is manifest that in a country where excellent natural or artificial means of transport already exist, railways will not have that effect in enhancing the value of property as they will in countries where navigable rivers, canals, and even good macadamized roads are almost if not altogetherunknown. While in England, therefore, as a rule, property is rather injured than benefited by being cut up by railways, in New Zealand, as a rule, it would be the reverse ; while there, property in the vicinity of a railway is not appreciated to anything like that extent it would be in new and sparsely peopled districts, which possessed previously but few natural or artificial means of transport. These may be deemed self-evident propositions, but they do not require to be less insisted upon on that account, particularly when there is danger that the truths they involved may be wholly ignored. In England railways confer no benefits upon landowners compared with those conferred upon the peojile by possessing cheap and rapid means of transport. In New Zealand railways will confer greater advantages on property than on the people. In England, therefore, it is only just that ample compensation should be given for land required for railway purposes. But the case, as we have already seen, is very different in New Zealand. Here, as a rule, a railway will enhance the value of the land through which it runs to a much greater extent than would be sufficient to compensate the proprietor for having to surrender a portion of it for railway purposes. But even here, except where the property is in the vicinity of a railway station, it admits of a doubt whether the railway, by passing through it, confers any more advantages upon its owner, than upon the owners of adjoining properties which have not been'interfered with by the construction of the line ; and there can be no doubt whatever that in the case of small proprietors the injury done to their properties by a railway running through them will be much greater than will be the benefits they will derive from its construction. While therefore the proprietors of large, and even of moderate estates would be greatly benefited by having a line of railway running through them, the proprietors of market-gardens and of smalt highly cultivated farms would be seriously injured by any such proceeding, unless they received compensation. ]n the case of the former it is only fair and just to make the court, to be constituted under the bill, competent to refuse to give compensation, if it be made to appear that the railway will add to the value of a property to an amount more than sufficient to cowr the loss consequent upon the taking of a portion of it for the construction of the line $ and

for the court to require the claimant to j pay the costs, if it appear that he has been unwilling, without reference to the court, to accept reasonable compensar tion when such had been offered by the 1 Board of Works. But it will be seen that these wise and just provisions will not meet the case of those proprietors whose property will be enormously benefited by its proximity to the proposed railway ; and who will not be re - quired to sacrifice any portion of their property by reason of the other portipn of it having been enhanced in value, as will be the case with the proprietors of land through which the railway actually passes. It may be therefore reasonably asked why A should be required to surrender a portion of his land for railway purposes, without any compensation, because the portion left is more valuable than the whole was before; and B, whose land is adjoining, and who has been benefited to an equal extent to his neighbor, be required to give nothing whatever for a beuefit which the State has thus conferred upon him? If in the one case the landowner is required to sacrifice a portion of his property on account of the enhanced value conferred on the remainder, why should not the landowner whose property will be equally benefited, but who will not he required to give up any portion of it for public purposes, be made in some other way to contribute to the cost of an undertaking which will confer such signal advantages upon him ? To insure this being done, it only requires that the same provisions should be made with regard to main trunk lines as are proposed with regard to branch lines. That is to say, the whole of the property in the district through which a railway runs, should be liable to an annual rate sufficient with the net receipts to cover the interest on the cost of its construction, to be assessed according to its proximity to the line, and to the additional value the railway has conferred upon it. The Wellington Provincial Council passed a resolution which was moved by the present Superintendent, that it was just and expedient that land contiguous to the main trunk roads should be rated for the purpose of defraying the cost of their maintenance; and why should not land similarly situated, and particularly that contiguous to railway stations, he made to contribute rates towards the cost of works which will so vastly enhance its value? Why should the State confer such enormous benefits on the owners of property contiguous to railway stations without compelling them to contribute in some measure proportionate to the advantages received ? Why should it secure to them so great a benefit without laying upon them any correspondent obligation ? What the Government thinks may be very properly done at some future time, we think could be most properly done at once.