VICTORIAN RAILWAYS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10589, 8 February 1896, Page 6

VICTORIAN RAILWAYS.

6IR SPEIGHT PROPOSED AS MANAGES,

[ (lmOM Our Own Coebespokdekt.) ' I ' Meleouene, January 30, | ! Mr Hsncock'6 motion in the Assembly for the appointment of Mr Speight as the general mnaw;eL' of the railways under the new bill created more stir in the House than almost any other motion of the session. When the jSmsts in charge of thomen-oi-war in Sydney Harbour ate in a jovial mood and wish toaje diversion of a summer evening they tnrn the electric Btirohiight fall upon the Cfoverament Dozoaia. Tbt scurry and commotion amongstthelorißg couples and dead-beats are intense. Everybody Bie* for a friendly shade. Whether Mr Hancock desired diversion is not clear, bat he got it. ! His motion was like a tearchligirt in tbe ocia- j motion it created. The man most eirii&i I acd angry was the Premier. He cots j not often rave and storm, bat on tcis 1 occasion: he did—though why be ibcrald is a mystery. A motion had jast prsrioualy been mads that the cbeice of a manager should be limited to Victoria. Ti&i • was a direct; challenge to the Gorerameai, > had that morniDg in the press inticjtt<>a tb*'r J intsntion of seeking applicants in Eogl&BS tsd '| America. The naming of Mr Speight spiciS- j cslly for the post was a further Esftos. Mr 1 Turner, in his storming, dedared tExt ihe j Government would Dot accep* eitfcsr psosansL j They would not h&va Jlr Speight or aar Gifcs ; man thrust upon theni, and they iruulS srre j the world to choose from or notfciaf. in tb£ 1 end, however, they were forced to sa.b™r is & j limitation to Victoria, and m*y cossaaz fesnt- ' selves extremely kicky th« lh=y «er£ z»:4 j forced to submit to Mr Speight ie aadriaas. :!

Mr Hancock withdrew his motion, bet be obtained si very cdnsideiable sapport for it. A member of the Ministry fe>M m» tbij vsiJs have defeated the moti&n fa.v 12 if it i*d jroas to a diviHon ; and 12 is br- to "yt-n« k "ir.r majoritj in a house of 90, irife fO3s sertn. Eji,itters to be canuted ia. Ooe Jessdicg nEmusr declares that if a vo'-e could be grrss br itfe (and thus kept s*cret from fee Ag^) Mr Speight ironfd get Sre-siiths cf tta H£>usr. leaving Ministers eat cf the qoesaja, Ttseir^o most weighty snppcr<«rs cf Sir Sp;%at vs-r? Mr MaiT»y Smith aod 3ir Robert Esrpfr (brother cf the professor who S.ed KtKH Obnrch paipit for s moaiii;. Mr Hxrper msje a triomph&tit rsp^y to tbe accusation* of extravagant raUersy conftrae&'a sgi-ast Mr Speight. He proved most disCincriy from Hansard that rhe Housa of the day avSdtii 400 miles of railway to Mr Spsighfs proposjOs ; that two years &ft«s>«rds ilr Speight, reporiesi to the House thattj>e tenders for coastraction (owing to prices having sc^io up) were £16,000,C00 instead of £12.O^),0O-D si estimated, and asked for iustrucrioos ; and th.«t the House with *lniost oas voice said, " Go on." The Aj{t: has gone oa repeating fUe ch&rjri' that Mr Speight was respot-rihle until it has come. to be scceptsd as true. Mr Murray Smith made a most telling speech in Mr S;:eigktv.i f*Your. He was the Ageot-geueral whotolected Mr Speight, and in most weighiy and cacviction-c&rry-ing sentences justified his choice. Aiid be assured the House that be believed Mr Speight bad benefited by the experience he had pasted through, aad that in Europe, America, or Australia no man could be found who united i<j his own person so mni.y requisites of a goad railway manager as Mr Speight. His speech is so well worth'reading that I would refer those interested in the question to tbe reportof ifcintneAtjrusoFJ&uusry '•A. He concluded tlras :— " Personally, he would rather not hive been called upon to vnte on the subject, but be would feel hiiv.solf a coward if he did not stand up and s«y what he believed to be parfecfcly true 3s regarded that gent'pman and the future of the Victorian railways."

The importance of the debate to Mr Speight is that it affords a striking vindication of him against the libels of the Age. The feeling was that he is the victim of a terrible injustice—

!•. man ruined in reputation ai\d poekst by a powerful newspaper, whose motives may hsvo been the puWic wea), but whose -allegations were wrong as wrong could ba. Tho .Age was of course furious over the debate. The previous weak, when Mr Hancock aud Mr ADderson made the passing suggestion of'Mr Speight for the post the Ago ignored tho mention of his name in their report. But it could not ignore the nwtion and tho debate. Its comments, however, were very ill— hnroonred. It devoted an article of a couple of cominus to showing that Mr Speight was an applicant for the post origin&liy, instead of beiog sought after as had been staWd ; aud to establish this it qnoled the confidential correspondence between the Agent-general and (he Goterument of the day (which, nevertheless, in spite of a plentiful use of italics, est'nblishesooucVnsively the reverse). MrMurray Smith h?.s since in Parliament made a dignified protest against confidential State documents being handed over to a newspaper, and the Premier has promised to inquire how it c*me to bs dons. It was no secret that the Governmenb of the day allowed the Aga the free run of all railway document?, confidential and otherwise, for the purposes of the libal action ; but no obb knew or dreamed that the confidential correspondence with tha Agent-general had been handed over also.

The motion that the ohoice of a manager be limited to Victoria was carried against the Government by a majority of three. It w»s a hint to the Government that Mr Speight's appointment would be a gracious act, bat there in little chsuce of it. So heavy a slap in the face to Mr David Symo dare not be ventured.