RAILWAY FENCES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22718, 2 November 1935, Page 25

RAILWAY FENCES

TO the editor.

Sir, —As a member of the deputation which interviewed the Railways Board regarding the erection and maintenance of railway fencea I wish to make some comment for which there was little time or opportunity during the interview. Our representations made little impression on the board, whose decision seemed already decided upon. We found the members of the board most courteous, but blind as bate to the risks of their policy of fence maintenance. Their practical wisdom in adopting, at this time, a policy bound to lead to considerable friction with their best customer may be questioned. They do not intend to be harsh. A nicely graduated course, beginning with reminder, remonstrance, and expostulation beiore bringing the lax and delinquent farmer before the court to teach him his new responsibilities was indicated. This i 6 better, surely, than the blunt demand of the rate collector and tax gatherer: "I demand within 14 days," etc. Mr Mackley, the general manager of railways, said, as is reported in your paper: "The board's policy in regard to railway fences had been considerably liberalised, and in no way curtailed. There were two types of fences—proclaimed, where the department accepted full responsibility, and unproclaimed, where it was under no responsibility. It was probable that some misunderstanding had arisen through the fact thai certain gangers, after working in a proclaimed area and attending to all fences, had been transferred to a district where the fences were unproclaimed, and, in ignorance of the regulations, had carried on as before." This is rather extraordinary, as there are, as was later admitted, no proclaimed areas in Otago. All the gangers for 40 years must have been trained in other provincial areas. I know of men who for 20 years were solely employed on the maintenance of railway fences in unproclaimed areas —apparently in ignorance of the regulations.! A further statement by Mr Mackley was: •' There were over 6000 miles of fencing adjoining the railways, and obviously :f the department has to assume full responsibility, it would be saddled with a huge financial burden." Six thousand miles make quite a mouthful, but it has not to be taken at one dose. The present fences are in existence. All that is required is a certain amount of labour. Tb» board offers to supply the material to tinfarmers to do the repairs. It claims that the material constitutes 75 per cent, of the expense. The position is curious. The Unemployment Board at its wits' end to find really useful employment that would not entail too great an expenditure on material, and the Railways Department willing to supply material, but the labour —which it estimates as 25 per cent.—coat of repairs would saddle it with a huge financial burden! Can no one introduce those several gentlemen? Sir James Gunson said to the deputation: " We think your attitude most unreasonable and we maintain that we are in the position of adjoining owners." For 40 or 50 years it appeared wise and prudent to the railway authorities, for the safety of their traffic, that they themselves should maintain the fences. In fact, the farmers were forbidden to touch them. There is danger in the policy now adopted by the board. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry who happens to occupy land adjoining the railway is to be depended upo'i for the proper maintenance of the fences. sooner or later, but inevitably, there will be a railway disaster caused by straying stock. Fences that adjoin a railway require to be good fences. The board ia adopting a penuy wise, pound foolish policy. Legally, of course, it is quite at liberty and within its rights in taking its present stand on the question.—-I am, etc., William Sutherland. Clinton, October 31.

"FARMING THE FARMERS"

TO THE EDITOR. Slit, —As a careful reader of them I agree with the admirable letters written to your columns by Mr J. B. Birtles, who obviously has dearly bought practica l experience of the working farmers' handicap when brought into competition with the credit system of the stock and station agencies. These agencies " farm " the farmer on the security of inflated land values, which inflation is caused by their financial staffs of more or less reckless speculators in land and lamb and other stock buying. It is thi s system and it* competition with the home-making genuine working farmer that haa tempted some and forced others to sell out their homeg and farms to speculators on a small deposit and become the mortgagees of speculators instead of trying to fin 1 interest on high land values themselves. A few lucky ones have profited in the gamble. The majority would have been better off with low prices and their homes. To anyone "in the know," as Mr J. B. Birtles is, there is no difficulty in seeing that it is for the stock and station agents that the un-British legislation is being placed upon the Statute Book. With the facts as pointed out by Mr Birtles, I, as a retired farmer and, perhaps, a fortunate one, agree. Lady mortgagees, as well as men, are having a bad time at present. For this our Government is mainly to blame. To provide a remedy for this state of affairs we have the constitutional right, grudgingly submitted to by the Government, of electing a new Government. One would think

that tho Government would like to have its work audited by a new one and would not have violated the constitution to secure one more year in office; but that was not so, which fact is in itself ominous. I see that Mr Birtles favours a State Bank and social credit. I am trying to find out at present what "social credit" is. Will Mr Birtles help me to see the difference between social credit and the stock and station agents' credit, about which we know more than enouch already? Credit, like that blessed word Mesopotamia, has a great attraction for the faithful. —I am, etc., Measure of Value. November 1.