The Railway Bill.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XIX, Issue 6047, 12 September 1894, Page 4

The Railway Bill.

(BT TELEGRAPH.) (from ocr ovrcr correspoxdex r.) Wellington, September 11. The adjourned debate on the second reading of this measure was resumed yesterday afternoon by Mr Mitchelson, who spoke for a full half hour in opposition to the Bill. He said that if the colony reverted to political control of the railway there would be a repetition of the widespread dissatisfaction -with the management which formerly prevailed. He said that it was a fallacy to suppose that the people of the colony had demanded a change in the direction of railway control. As a matter of fact, neither the commercial community nor a majority of the people who use the railways had asked for a change. He supported control by Commissioners because the management of the Commissioners had been a complete success. He approved of a Minister having a seat on the Railway Board, but he ouaht not to have the power proposed to be conferred apon him by the Bill. He objected to the clause which proposed to empower either branch of the Legislature to abolish the Commissioners and substitute Ministerial control. Mr Buick also opposed the Bill, which he described as a measure to hand over the control of the New Zealand railways to the Premier. Those people who supposed that this was synonymous with control by the people had a very slight knowledge of the proclivities of the Premier. He considered that the management of the railways during the past few years had been attended with infinitecredit to the Commissioners and profit to the colony. He had no faith in the proposals of this Bill, which would produce a hybrid complication of authority, and neither Parliament nor the country would be able to tell who was responsible for the mismanagement that he thought must ensue. Parliament was, in his opinion, totally unfit to manage the railways, and the past history of Parliamentary control supported this view. There was only one good clause in this Bill, and it was that which proposed to set up a board of appeal where railway employees could have their grievances fairly considered. He objected to increasing the power of the Premier, who was already the great Pooh-Bah of New Zealand, and who wished to annex Samoa in order that he might be King of the Cannibal Islands. The proposal that the Minister should have a seat on the Railway Board would have his support, but he objected to a Minister having the power proposed in this Bill—a power that would enable him to do a great amount of mischief without any direct responsibility. Mr Willis said that he could not agree with many of the latter speaker's arguments, and he thought the Commissioners had lost sight of the original indentions for which the railways were constructed. He pointed out that in the Wanganui district the Commissioners had refused to assist in the export of white pine by reducing the rates, and he considered that this was only a sample of what was being dene all over the colony. Mr Morrison, though not supporting the Bill, thought that the control of the railways should be resumed by Parliament. He referred to the management in regard to the bridges in the south, and said that he knew of one bridge the bolts of which could be pulled in and out. Mr Carncross said that there was no doubt as to how the debate would end, as the general opinion seemed to be that the Government should resume control. Referring to the report on the state of the railway bridges, in the south, he said that it was most unsatisfactory, as it was of toogeneral a character, and compared with the report presented last year on the same subject it was useless. He said it would take L 20,000 to put the bridges on the Dunedin section in a state consistent with tho public safety. Mr Flatman said that the railways were now being made into a taxing machine. He pointed out that in carrying manure at a cheaper rate than wheat a sop to farmers was intended, but as to every ton of manure four or five tons was expected, this equalised matters. Referring to the Oamaru stone, he pointed out that the railways could earn USO by the carriage of the stone at a net expense of L 25 or so, but the Commissioners had overlooked this fact, and had refused to reduce the rates. Mr Meredith spoke in favor of the retention of the Commissioners, but he agreed with several clauses in the Bill. Mr T. Mackenzie said that the Bill did not meet his approval. He thought that the Bill should provide either for Ministerial control or that the Commissioners should continue their managemont. He considered that there was room for more efficient management. Mr E. M. Smith spoke in favor of the Bill, but said that he would also favor complete Ministeral control of the railways. Speaking of the railway bridges he said that instead of being made of wood they should have been constructed of iron.

Mr Montgomery said he was not in favor of political control of the railways, and considered that the control by Com missioners was the best form. He was aware that the Commissioners did not give satisfaction to everybody, but it would be impossible, under any form of management, for everybody to be satisfied.

Mr Bell spoke in opposition to the Bill. It was evident that members had forgotten the reason why the railways had been handed over to the control of Commissioners. He would remind them of the corruption that took place in regard to the Canterbury railways prior to their being taken from political control, when Ministers, in order to ensure support, had reduced the railway rates on wheat. Mr Pirani said that the last speaker's memory respecting the grain rates was at fault, as the Ministry which was thrown out on account of the wheat rates was two Ministries prior to the handing over of political control to the Commissioners. He intended supporting the Bill, as he believed in full Ministerial control. At no time were the permanent way and rolling stock in a worse condition than at present. Mr Pinkerton said that if the arguments adduced by several members were true, to the effect that the railways could only be properly managed when removed from political control, then other Government departments must be reeking with corruption. He was eutirely in favor of Ministerial control. Messrs Collins, J. W. Kelly, Mills, and O'Regan spoke in favor of the Bill. In replying, Mr Seddon referred to Mr Mitcbelson's speech as an abject apology for that member's action in having the control handed over to Commissioners. Speaking of the remarks made on the state of the bridges in the south the Premier said that a full investigation would be made into the matter. He considered that railway employees should be placed in the same postion as other civil servants. This Bill was " A Restoration of Rights Bill." There were three parties on the railway question—those in favor of control by Commissioners, those who favored Ministerial control, and those who were in favor of a partly Ministerial and pirtly Commissioner control. He believed that the well-being of the country would be attained by the State resuming control of the public railways. A division on the question that the Bill be read a second time resulted : 4 5; against, 13. A number of amendments are to be moved in Committee on the Bill by Mr G. J. Smith. They are designed to provide that the Minister of Railways shall have a

salary, tbat he shall have a, deliberative vote only, and shall have two, instead of three. Commissioners associated with him. He also proposes that a Committee of both Houses of Parliament shall be necessary to authorise the resumption of complete Ministerial control, or a petition for the reinstatement of a Commissioner who may have been suspended. He will also move to strike out the proviso that the decisions of the Board of Appeal shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Railways.