The Oamaru Mail MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1903.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8291, 21 September 1903, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1903.

Thb .consideration of the Estimates for the Railway Department in the House was once more made the occasion. By the Opposition for raising the question as the .charging of the cost of additions to open railways to capital. A ■ great deal' has been said upon that subject in 6eason and out of season by several of the Opposition leaders, and what has been saiu has invariably been a compound of nonsense and misstatement, with just a sufficient seasoning of truth to free it from utter condemnation. In the abstract the contention that renewals should be made a charge upon the earnings of the railways is correct, but the strict application of the principle would be manifestly improper. As Sir Joseph Ward pointed out during the discussion, the enforcement of the principle would crush the life out of the users of the railways. It would-mean that they would have to pay for the complete equipment of the lines and bear the cost of the provision necessary to meet the requirements of a -growing business. In other words, they would have to pay such fares and freight charges as would not only pay the interest upon the original capital cost, but add a considerable sum each year to the capital account. It is all very well as a matter of theory to say that the maintenance of the railways in a state of efficiency should be a charge upon the earnings, but, like a great many other theories that are alluring, the principle sought to be laid down will not bear rigid application. There .must be some discrimination, or there will be injustice. With just as much propriety might the users of the railways -be called upon to pay for an extension of an existing line as to be compelled, to bear the cost of the additional rolling stock required, to carry on a business that is growing at an enormous rate. There is a wide distinction between renewals properly so called and an extension of plant or premises. Sir William Russell, and (Mr• James Allen, who again raised the question, do' not appear to ap<preciate the distinction. If by any chance they should .become entrusted with the direction of railway affairs they would leam that there is a difference, and act on tne discovery. If they did not, they would be assailed with such well-founded protests from country settlers as would brimsr them to a sense of their shortcomings. Sir W. Russell's reference to paying dividends out of capital is so absurd that it is charitable to set it down to an incapacity to either comprehend the meaning of a simple commercial term or to draw the clear distinction between returning something to shareholders and adding something to capital. But if Sir William does not know any better he ought to refrain, from criticism of the kind, and turn his lamentations in the direction of his own lack of commercial knowledge and business acumen.