The Pahiatua Herald. with which is incorporated THE PAHIATUA STAR. Published Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1894. RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 194, 27 August 1894, Page 2

The Pahiatua Herald. with which is incorporated THE PAHIATUA STAR. Published Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1894. RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The management of our railways by Commissioners has not proved the success anticipated for it. In the first place the appointment of Messrs McKerrow, Maxwell and Hannay was a distinot violation of the intentions of Parliament, and those who j remember the trend of the debate in | 1887 will admit that the supporters of j the measure understood that an expert j from without the colony was to be given the supreme control, The feelj ing against Mr Maxwell’s style of management was shown m the plainest possible manner during the debate, and it was thought that the Government Railways Act would furnish the opportunity of dispensing with his services. For five years the oolony has endured the system of management inaugurated by irresponsible Commissioners, but the fate of these Commissioners was ofiectually sealed at the general election of last year. We doubt, however, whether the amending bill proposed by the Government will satisfy the party for the reason that the measure nearly re- | stores Ministerial control. The whole | principle of the Bill is focussed in the first amendment, which provide s that a member of the Executive Council is to be appointed Minister of Railways, and by virtue of such oftico becomes, without salary, Commissioner of Railways, tog tlior with the three Commissioners appointed under the principal Act, and is to president their meetings and to have an original and casting vote. Wh it only two Commissioners are present and they differ the question at issue is to be deferred for another meeting. The position of the Minister is not a stable one, and the voting rights place him in the minority. Unless one of the Commissioners sides with him, he is a minority. If any friction arises, and this will be inevitable under the conditions, the Commissioners hold a position that cannot bo assailed by the Minist. r. The Bill is faulty in that the status of the I Minister is a subordinate ono. It would bo better to take away from the I Commissioners of all power of control I and vest it in the Minister. As a I compromise between political control and management by Commissioners, the measure introduced by the Government does not meet the requirements of the country. Ministerial responsibility is a pleasant fiction dearly cherished by tho Britisher. Direct responsibility to Parliament for the management of our railways was the verdict of tho electors, and this is what tho country expects to have. No responsibility attaches under the Bill, for the Minister can always be outvoted by the Commissioners, and any errors will be the fault of the Commissioners and not of tho Minister. Direct Ministerial control would bo superior to this. Experts are indis pensable to the efficient management of our railways, but let tho experts be thoroughly trained men, not ex surveyors like the present Chief Commissioner, Mr McKerrow. With full control backed up by efficient experts l our railways can bo managed by a Minister of tho Crown more thoroughly j than is the case now. The milk and j water proposal of the amending Bill ( will scarcely he sufficient for tho ! country. But what a disappointment the measure must bo to the rabid op- J pononts of Mr Seddon. He was ’ painted by political carpus as coveting the Chief Commissionership, while as j a matter of fact the whole energy of ! the Premier has been devoted to clip i ping the wings of the irresponsible railway trinity, and bringing th“ management of the colony's principal asset under the direct- supervision of , the people s repre -entatives. This, I according to some critics, is n, crime, but the intelligent elector will look ! upon it as a commendable principle in j n politician.