Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 780, 11 February 1887, Page 22

From time to time the long-vexed question whether it be desirable to remove the management of the Government railways from the hands of the Government persists in coming to the front. Successive Ministries have arrived at the conclusion that this course is desirable, and have even taken ‘ some preliminary steps in the direction of carrying it into effect. But the movement hitherto has always perished stillborn. The Atkinson Ministry once favoured the plan, but never carried it out. When Mr Richardson took office, however, he uttered the most pronounced views on this subject. He condemned the management of the railways, and expressed his fear that no great change for the better could be expected until the whole system should be altered, declaring it to be a matter of the deepest regret to him that it was im-

possible in the session of 1884 to carry through a Bill creating Boards of Man--agement which would be responsible for the working of the railways, adding that, did he not feel convinced that the Government and the House were determined to take this course at the earliest date possible, he would not have couceDted to take office. In 1885 a measure to this effect was promised in the Bpeech from the 'Throne, and in the Public. Works Statement IMr Richardson still contended that the plan was the best, .and that a Bill had been prepared. But he went on to say that the Government did not think it right to ask the House to pass such an important measure until members and the country ■should have had an opportunity of fully studying it. Accordingly the Bill was merely printed and circulated that session. But last year, when according to previous promises the Bill should have been brought down and pushed through, not a word was said about it until some pointed inquiries had been made. These, however, elicited only a promise that information should bo given in the Public Works Statement. When the Statement was made, the information proved to be that the Government had abandoned the intention of bringing in the Bill because they found it would not meet with general support. And lastly, we come to the present year. Is the measure to be introduced in the coming session 1 That question was put to the Premier at his late meeting in Dunedin, and ■elicited a very emphatic declaration against the measure, on the ground that Boards, if appointed, could not do any good without having the entire control of the railways, which would take the matter at once out of the hands of the Government. Bat this is exactly what the Boards were to be •created for—to relieve the railways of the obstacle to good management •caused by the liability of the Government to political pressure and interference. We have never yet been able to see how the management of the State railways could be relegated to ra Board without relinquishing the control of Parliament over an important item of revenue, nor how the railways could be managed without the power being conveyed of controlling the railway revenue. We have waited and waited in the hope that successive Public Woiks Ministers would be inspired with some brilliant idea which might solve a problem hitherto insoluble. But it is evident that we shall have to wait longer yet. Unless a Board had the full power of raising or lowering rates of fares, freight, salaries, and wages, and of regulating the traffic in accordance with economic considerations, it would be practically useless—a “ man-of-war without guns,” to quote a hackneyed simile. Yet we cannot think that Parliament will readily abandon its control of an undertaking in which the Colony has invested some thirteen millions of borrowed money, and from which it derives a gross revenue of a million a year. There is another alternative which is steadily forcing itself to the front in the public mind, and that is the sale of the railways to private persons or companies. That is a plan which has its advantages and its disadvantages, which we shall consider on a future occasion. Meanwhile the Premier’s statement, that a saving of .£50,000 or .£60,000 would be effected in the railway expenses of the current year, shows that at any rate there has been rigid economy in the management, the mileage open being much larger than last year. But this economy has been far from popular, and on all Bides we hear clamours for additional facilities in the way of train services which can only he accorded at the cost of increased expenditure. Sir Robert Stout is quite right in saying that no Government can carry out retrenchment unless cordially backed up by the public in their endeavours. Unluckily, that is just what the public generally seems utterly disinclined to do.