STATE-OWNED RAILWAYS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13586, 7 May 1906, Page 6

STATE-OWNED RAILWAYS.

Probably a large proportion of people never pause to consider whether or not we have reason to be gratified that the railways of the colony are under State control. Sip Joseph Ward is ahvays interesting when he discusses railway matters, and he dismisses them to some purpose in this month's number of the Red Funnel, That the Minister of Railways makes out a very good case for the State-owned railway few, wo venture to think, will deny. The policy pursued in regard to State-owned railways, he emphasises, is to give equal treatment to till users nf the lines irrespective of the volume of their business, to place the homo product in the best position for competing with the foreign article, and to grant such concessions as are best calculated to conduce to the prosperity of the community as a whole. The reductions have been spontaneously made in fares and freights on the New Zealand Government railways, particularly during the past eleven years, furnish, ho maintains, a complete answer to the charge that, under State management, railways do iiot keep abreast of the times. The valuo of the .concessions made in rates is set out as, at the lowest figure, approximating threequarters of if million pounds sterling. The policy adopted, we are told, is* to regard the New Zealand railways more as an adjunct to the settlement and development of the country than as a revenue-earping machine, and, ill pursuance of that policy, jt has been .for years

past the practice to return to tlio people by means of concessions in fares and freights an amount calculated to equal tho excess of the net earnings ovor 3 per cent., that being the return tlio railways are expected to yield 011 the capital oost of construction. "Impartiality is tho fundamental principle of State railWay management in New Zealand," says Sir Josoph, not, however, in any way implying that it is not equally a principle of State management in other countries, and impartiality is particularly emphasised because its antithesis has been so strongly held to bo the crying evil of the railway companies'system. Therefore, continues Sir Joseph, speaking still of our State management, "110 individual can under any circumstances obtain preferential treatment: all have to pay the same rates for the same service, pnd all are given the benefit of the lowest rate in all oases where alternative rotes exist." The Minister of Railways particularises a good deal in respect of those matters, which, 110 considers, specially indicate tho success of Stateowned railways in'this colony, and points with pride to the lowness of passenger ratos on tho New Zealand lines, instituting a comparison between our rates of ordinary travel and those oporating on leading English lines. The figures, as presented by him, certainly leave the advantage all with the New Zoalander so far as the fares go, evon if it will not bo contended that an advantage equally obtains in favour of Now Zealand in respect of economy of time spent in travelling. A typical instance given by Sir Joseph Ward records that the resident of London pays 33s second class for tlio journey to Glasgow, a distance of 402 miles, whereas 1 for the same fare the Neiv Zonland'er would ho carried 7lf> miles. So, if wo do not go very fast wo go far. If it has been frequently assorted by those who object to State ownership of railways that it invariably leads to the service being run on the lines of precedont and not upou commercial principles, that Stnto officers are devoid of initiative in tho matter of railway management, and that tho people of tho countries in which the railways aro largely owned by -Governments labour under many disadvantages in connection with the management of their lines as compared with the peoples living in those countries in which private ownership and management of railways aro predominant features, wo feel that such arguments and allegations liavo 11$ sound application in this colony. New Zealand has undoubtedly some cause for satisfaction in her railways and their ablo administration. As Sir Joseph Ward points out, the difficulties of mauagoment luve not been lessenod by the fact that the railways of the colony are divided into eleven sections separated from each other, while the wholo population of tho colony is under a million souls. Ho estimates that tho parliamentary and legal expenses incurred in promoting the legislation necessary to authorise tho construction of the various British railways amount to four and a-half times as much as tho whole capital cost of tho Now Zealand railways, this, of course, being a strong argument against the company fystem, The Minister contends, further, that State-ownership of railways means honest administration, as, he holds, the statistics °of all State-owned lines clearly show. In his own words: "The duty of tho State is to fostor the industries of the country, cheapen the cost of transport, and by so doing assist in finding remunerative employment for the people and remunerative markets for the fruits of their labour, and there i is no more efficient means to these ends than State-ownership of railways." Such an ideal of duty is surely higher than that which would necessarily aniihate private enterprise