SPIRIT PRESS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 751, 23 July 1886, Page 22

SPIRIT PRESS.

(From, the New Zealand Times , July 16,

Although the long-promised Public Works debate has continually receded week by week until it began to seem the dim vision of a troubled dream, it is apparently within measurable distance at last. The G-overnment have proposed to take it next Monday on the second reading of the Loan Bill, and if no more unforeseen events intervene, it may be presumed that it will then begin. If anybody ever entertained seriously the idea that the amount of the proposed loan might be reduced, as was once talked of, by half-a-million or even a million, that idea must long ago have faded away. Mr Richardson, in his Public Works Statement, ruthlessly demonstrated its hoplessness, by showing that Major Atkinson’s contention about the £1,094,000 liabilities against the £BOO,OOO unexpended balance offormer loans was absolutely correct, unless indeed it be held that it was a little under the mark. For what follows P Clearly this : that if that £BOO,OOO is to be strictly devoted to two years’ expenditure on works other than railways, the new railway loan already stands virtually charged with liabilities of more than a million. Consequently, if we deduct those liabilities from the amount of the new loan* only some L 400,000 is left for new works other than the specially-provided-for North Island Trunk Line. Hence if the reduction of half a million, which Mr Bryce was understood to contemplate proposing, were carried, it would leave less than enough by some LIOO,OOO to meet existing liabilities ; while if the million reduction, which some talked of, were to be passed, the fund would be short by about £600,000. So these may be set down at once as impracticable. It is too late now to discuss the question whether or not we require a million and a half this year. The necessity has been made, and the money must be raised, “ and there’s an end on’t.” We do not forget the ingenious method suggested in the Public Works Statement, by which all sorts of things were to be charged against the North Island Trunk Loan, so as to free as much as possible of the general Railway Loan. These are mere matters of account-keeping, as the Treasurer would say, and do not affect the main point, which is that there are the admitted liabilities, and they haveto be provided for from one source or another. If so much is taken from the North Island loan to help out the general loan, it only means that more money will have to be borrowed later to complete the Northern Trunk Line, so we need not waste time over mere debating quibbles. The Government have shown plainly enough that there is no way out of borrowing the million and a half, and all the Colony can do is to see that such a necessity is not again incurred in the dark. But now comes the question —In what new railways is the available money to be invested? We use the term “ invested,” rather than “ expended,” advisedly. We have always contended that the Colony ought only to borrow for purposes of legitimate investment, and that it ought never to do so merely in order to have the money to spend. No matter what may be the dullness of trade or the scarcity of employment —sad and irksome as these ills may be —we have no right to borrow for the sake of -obtaining money to spend in the hope that the circulation of additional capital may make things brisker. That would be a ruinous and suicidal policy, which would bring a whole host of worse evils in its train. No ; we must only borrow with the object of remunerative investment. This stipulation is satisfied by judicious railway extension. That becomes a remunerative investment in several ways. It opens up the country for profitable settlement. It facilitates the introduction and prosecution of industries. And if these two ends are attained they necessarily lead to a third advantage—that the railways defray at least the full interest on their cost, and so their benefits are practically obtained at no expense to the community. But to yield these results they must satisfy the stipulation above indicated —they must be judicious railways, not mere political lines granted to clamourous adherents as a means of purchasing support. They must be works desirable on their own merits. We do not purpose on this occasion to analyse the schedule submitted, and to indicate the proposed lines, which, in our opinion, are the ones worthy of adoption. That is more a -question of detail, and our present

object is rather to direct pointed attention to a question which will assume special prominence when the time comes to float the new loan in London.

And that question is—What do we place before us as the specific object of our railway construction ? Is it the opening up of the country and the promotion of industries, or is it the realisation of a profit on the railways’ working? It seems to us urgently desirable that the Colony should give a distinct answer to this question. Hitherto we have been in danger of falling between the two stools. We have made railways for the sake of their practical benefits, and then we have talked about them as if our sole object was to make money out of their traffic receipts, w T hile we have worked them in an aimless vacillating sort of way, conducive to neither of these ends. Our railways are spoken of as if they were pure investments for the sake of the profit accruing from their running, yet we have deliberately sacrificed a huge slice out of the receipts professedly lor the sake of encouraging local industries. We do not say it was wrong to make this sacrifice for such an object, but we do say that our half - hearted mode of doing things has subjected us to serious risk of misconception abroad. What must outsiders think when we talk about the profits on our railway working, and when they see, on inspecting the returns, that the net profit available toward payment of interest on cost has decreased from very nearly 4 per cent, several years ago to 2f per cent, in the past year, notwithstanding the increased mileage and population and traffic ? Naturally they will say : —“ If the more your mileage and population and traffic increase, the less profit you make, surely you had better stop where you are.” The answer is, of course, that indicated by Mr Richardson in his Public Works Statement, and by Sir Julius Vogel in his Auckland speech. The former stated that, had not the charges been reduced “ in the direction of helping local productions,” the railways “ would have produced fully £50,000 more revenue without increasing the cost of working.” Sir Julius Vogel asserted that if the New Zealand railways were worked like private lines solely with a view to profit, they would bring in £200,000 per annum more than they do. This is the explanation, but few people understand it out here, and still fewer at Home. There they look on railways through London moneymarketspectacles, and a line either pays or it doesn’t; there is no indirect or collateral benefit to be taken into consideration as there is in a new country like New Zealand. We have often called attention to the large sacrifice of revenue made by the lavish reductions conceded on the Hurinui - Bluff line. It will be answered that the revenue so sacrificed was in reality granted as a bonus in aid of the local industries of Canterbury and Otago. Assuming that these concessions were prudently made, and were not mere sops in conciliation of political influences, they may have been justifiable enough. But this does not appear on the surface, and assuredly it is not made clear to persons outside the Colony. If it is understood that we are to use the railways simply as means of developing settlement that should be made plain, instead of stress being laid on the fact that the lines have yielded 2 or 3 or 4 per cent net profit, as the case may be. Otherwise outsiders are apt to take the latter as the basis on which to test the results of our investments in railways, and so to jump to unfavourable conclusions. The point should be made thoroughly clear that the railways are constructed not for the sake of their immediate direct profit in net revenue, but for the indirect advantages accruing from the development of settlement and industries. The mere revenue to be derived and applied to payment of interest on cost is received wholly from the colonial public, and the only question is whether it shall be obtained exclusively from those who use the railway (on the tollgate principle) or from the general public through ordinary taxation. But no doubt; should be allowed to remain as to the unquestionable fact that our railways are doing work which if paid for on its ordinary commercial value would not only yield the full interest on cost, in addition to expenses of working, maintenance, and renewals, but would, leave a balance to the good as well. We should like to see this point brought out much more prominently than usual when the new loan is floated.

Thb new Representation Bill was in-1 troduced by Sir Robert Stout in the House last Friday, and was circulated in the evening. It is intituled “An Act to provide for the periodical readjustment of the representation of the people of New Zealand in the House of Representatives thereof.” It enacts that the Governor in Council shall, not later than twenty-one days after the passing of the Act, appoint a permanent Commission of five members, of whom the Controller and Auditor-General and the Sur-veyor-General are to be the two official members, the remaining three to be such persons, not being members of the Civil Service, as the House of Representatives shall from time to time nominate, who are to be the unofficial members of the Commission, which is to be called “ The Representation

Commission,” and any three members thereof are to form a quorum. Any unofficial member of the Commission may resign his appointment, in which case, or in case of any such member refusing to act, or of his death, mental or physical incapacity, or absence from the Colony when his services are required, the Governor in Council may, if the House of Representatives is not in session at the time, appoint another person in his stead; and every appointment so made is to be notified to the House of Representatives as early as possible. No member of the Commission, within three years after he ceases to be such member, is to be capable of being appointed or elected a member of either House of the General Assembly. Within three months after the end of the present session of the General Assembly, and subsequently within three months after the results of any periodical census are ascertained and reported to the Commission (which the Registrar-General is required to do as early as possible), it will be the duty of the Commission to divide the Colony into electoral districts according to the following basis : —(1) The number of members is to be , exclusive of Maori members. (2) The total population of the Colony (other than Maoris) is to be divided by the number of members and the quotient thus obtained will be “ the quota.” (3) Only one member will be assigned to each district, and in no case is the population of any district to exceed or fall short of the quota, — (a) By one thousand , if a borough or city; or (b) by Jive hundred, in any other case. (4) The Commission is to amalgamate the several electoral districts for the cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, with their immediate vicinities, into one electoral district for each city which will be represented by a number of members equal to the total assigned to the several districts so amalgamated. The Commission will also, at any future time, amalgamate the several electoral districts which may hereafter be fixed for any city, town, or place which, together with its immediate vicinity, may become sufficiently populous as to comprise more than one electoral district within its limits, but not more than four separate electoral districts are in any case to be amalgamated. (5) The report of the RegistrarGeneral of the results of the census last taken before the Commission makes any division is to be evidence as to population, but the Commission may take into consideration —( a) The proportion which the number of male inhabitants of the district, other than Maoris, of or above the age of twentyone years, bear to the entire population, other than Maoris, of the district ; and (6) the locality of the district, and the facility or otherwise of access. The report of the Commission is to be proclaimed by the Governor, and thereupon to have force of law. The Commission will in every case report the names and boundaries of the electoral districts fixed by them to the Governor, who shall proclaim the same in the Gazette, and such report is to have the force of law from the. date of such Proclamation, but will not come into effect until the expiry of the then existing Parliament. A copy of every report is to be presented by the Governor to the House of Representatives within ten days of the receipt thereof, if in session, and, if not, within ten days after the commencement of its next meeting. The new electoral districts are to come into existence on the dissolution of the existing Parliament. Maps of districts are to be prepared by Colonial Secretary, and rolls are to be formed for new districts. Notice of formation is to be gazetted. No person is to be put on the roll after the issue of a writ. Existing districts ]

and rolls are to continue until a dissolution of Parliament. Nothing in the Act is to interfere with or in any way affect the special representation provided for by the Maori Representation Act, 1867, or any amendment of that Act. Such are the provisions of this important Bill. We approve the principle of rendering the work of readjustment virtually automatic by relegating it to a permanent commission bound to readjust on certain fixed rules ; but we regret that the Government had not the courage to fix the number of members at a reduced standard, and to adopt the suggested quota of 7500. The Bill, however, is a step in the right direction, and we hope that it will receive full consideration during the present session.