ROXBURGH RAILWAYS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13268, 27 April 1905, Page 7

ROXBURGH RAILWAYS.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sir,—Tour criticism of my letter ofith'a ' 14th is based entirely on tho assumption that tha figures I named as to tlio cost of ' the respectivo extensions were wrong, and those quoted by you are unassailable. Yout ease is supported by tho cxtract from the • Public Worts Statement of 1897 as fol-" lows:—"Tho total length of this line [Moa. Flat]; will bo 27£ miles, and the probable cost . . . about £190,000" (£7OOO per mile). You modestly deduct £30,000 for the - seven miles sine© completed (£4OOO per mile), reducing tho pricc to £160,000. This strainingl at figures exhibits a palpablo weakness, in your case. You quote Air J. A. Millar's estimate, " who may havo possessed later information," at £250,000; but—to your credit, let me say—you naively remark that "it is unnecessary lor us to assumo that tho work would cost fluoh a largo sum of money." You thus discredit an authority you quote in support of your case. Yet these grossly exaggerated figures, together with deception practised in regard to the comparison of the oort charges at Dimcdin and Bluff, wero the 6orfc of arguments fired off oil tho Roxbnrghites, and accepted by them in all good faith. To prove that tho Lawrenco extension is less costly per mile .than its rival you mako • another extract from the Public Works Statement of 1897-rviz.: " Tho constructinga lino to connect Roxburgh with Lawrence, 38 miles in length, was estimated by the district engineer in 1886 at £188,000 " (£SOOO per mile). To support your case you have to go back nearly 20 years, when you well know that: railway construction in that ancient period—the soup-kitchen period, when, according to tho Premier, married men got 3s 6d and single men is 6d .per day—was carried out under the eont'aefc system, and' at a cost of. some thousands less per mile than now. It is a sorry spectacle 'to witness -a respectable journal t\vidling figures in this manner. As a clincher • you .reproduce the evidence of Mr Blow in • 1901, who, iu reply to the question, ''Which is tho most perfect (?) route for the-railwny to 1)3 constructed—from Lawrence or from Horiot?" answered, "I think it ought to bo from Lawrence"—no doubt basing bis opinions on tlio figures of 19 years ago. How positively unfair, Sir, it is to trot out, this opinion T will show. Wo"'are nob dealing -tfith tho years 1886,.. J.E97, or 1901, but with tho actual position of the rival extensions in the year of grace 190 J. What do wo find? That since tho memorsb> delivoranco of Mr Blow'in 1901 the Heriot terminus lias given way to one seven • nearer the objective point, which sarily cause the authority to reerfmi-'hia ■ opinion. This is what the Minister of Public Works stated in 1900:—"A few years ago a survey was made of a route from Horiot to Roxburgh and ono from Lawrence' to Roxburgh. In view of tho configuration of tho country and tlio probablo traffio the Heriot route was considered preferable.'.' In 1901 ho added that " it would be advisable •to adhere.to the rohto originally surveyed." Iu endorsation of this commffmont tho - Edicvalo section was parried out; but, as is well known, tho Spylaw route would have ■ been chosen direct from Heriot wero it not •for tlio fact that this would mean' that the railway would traverse through the centre of Moa. Flat Station; so, to spite ah Oppo- . fiition landed proprietor, a deviation via Rao's Junction—now found to bo impracticable—was decided'on. Now that this pro-.' perly is being rapidly settled upon there is a strong argument in favour of the extension ■ proceeding via the Benger Burn. . In tho face of tho altered conditions would the Under-sccrctary or any officer of the Public Works Department risk any reputation he may possess by advocating tho : Lawrence extension ' .now? ' Publia opinion 'is well educated on the question,and I suppese, cs you know, when shorn of. the personal interest aspect, . wholly in' favour 'of the shorter, less costly, and mora expeditiously carried out seotion. Promi-: nent business men of your city, commercial. men; pliblio officials, familiar with the claims of both routes, absolutely, scoiifc thef id<?<vof tho' Lawrence extension. 'Every detail strengthens this view. Take t-hei. grade on the Waipahi section: a gradual; incline lo Edievalo of 230 ft ■in 27 miles;. and' ail easy gradient from thero on to Roxburgh. On tho Lawreucc-Miltcn section, thero nro two grades in a few miles of 300 ft, and ono very stilt grado.on tho Eeaumont'section. ' : -. Traffic oxperts class tlie Waipahi-Edievalo' section-a$ a 24-car one, and that of -Milton- . Lawrence as a four-car, one. Consider tho , advantages of the former route-over, tho latter under this heading alone.. Romember, ■ also, the relative wear and tear oii rolling stock, and on the permanent way on tho respectivo lines. Do, not forget, moreover, that the Waipahi lino to Roxburgh traverses ' soino of the finest country in tho colony. ■ Wo all know tho class of country from Roxburgh via Lawrence to Mount .-'Stuart.. For ; oyer'3o ye-ara tlio Teviot district has drawn-jU fodder supplies from tho Edievalo district, _ the etrongcst proof of where iho . that repays cost of railway construction. I did liot expect you to .mako so ibuch out of my reference tothb "Ecant consideration" our speakers received. It. was not so much on tho score of limitation in 'inches as on the score of material points unintentionally omitted that I took exception to. I did not-draw comparisons between your report and that of tho Invercargill: dailies..- They -had only ono pressman present at tho meeting; you lad two. Farther; comment is uiinecessary.—l am, etc., I. W. Rayuo.nd. Inveroargill, April 22. _ • ; - iWo havn dealt with' this letter -in our editorial l columns.—Ed. O.D.T.], ,•