Road v. Rail.

Southland Times, Issue 9163, 11 March 1886, Page 3

Road v. Rail.

TO THE EDITOB. Fir,— We regret to see that the Minister for Public Wolks should still try to hoodwink the people of Southland on the question of the railway rates between Bluff and Invercargill, and the position which we and others took up on account of them. The statements contained in the Minister's letter appearing in your columns of to-day are either . a very strong reflection upon the trustworthiness of the reports received from the local management, or a reckless misstatement of facts. We are told by one of the gentlemen en 'rusted with the government of this country that " there is no evidence to show that the alleged high charges were insirameotal in diverting any traffic to the road," when we ourselves have ou several occasions written letters to him on the unbject of the high charges on the Bluff line, pointing out that unless some redaction was made we could get our goods carried by road for le?s money, and as a mere matter of business should have to buy our requirements in the cheapest market- Before the Minister arid his advisers in railway matters would yield in any way to oar representations we bad to put waggons on the road which could only be done for some lengthy period, and lesulted as a consequence in a dead loss to the railway and colony of a very considerable sum. All this might have been Avoided by a little jadicioua management,' or businesslike conception of the position, which we had taken some trouble to elaborate and put clearly and mathematically before the Miaisftr, and General Manager of New Zealand railway?, The cause of this opposition on the part of the merchants of Invercaigill to the rates charged on the Bluff line arose from their not only being high, but so excessive as to have been assailable by opposition from a wheelbarrow almost. And a'B we have said al along, given a gjod road betwetn Bluff and Invercareill we will take a contract to carry anything and ever thing at the price at which we let the cartinz— viz., six shillings per ton j and th'tit wiJl pay we may again evidence our arrangemeit for the carting of timber from One Tree Point, a diitarice of sis mile*, at 2s per ton or 6 1 per ton for 1 8 miles, which is more thin tie distance between Bluff and Inrercar* gill. 7 hat the contractor is doing well is proved by the fact that the original owner of the coutract was able to make a sale of same to a substantial man at a price, including Uams and waggon?, very satisfactory 10 the seller. Three journeys have also to be made between One Tree Point and Invercargill to earn the same money on a ton of goods, as between Bloff and . Invercargill, which necessitates three loadings and anleadings as against one .between the Port and town. All these things go to Bhow that we are correct in our estimate that 6a per ton would pay well for cartage of goods between Bluff and Invercargill, if only we bad a workable roa'. Now, in the case of this timber contract we are bringing our timber into our yards or to any pan of the town at lew than one half what it would cost by rail, so that we rmy again fairly assume in this case < hat our opposition is caused by prohibitory— we don't cay high—rates. The letting and fu^cessf ul wowing of this limber contract of ours should, if the Minister is able to understand the position, be an unanswerable argument to any remarks be might have to make oi the subject of Bluff luvercargill carting. When calculating the money value for the work entailed in caiting goods from Bluff to Inreroargill, both parties to the contract which was entered into reckoned oa having a gojd road to travel over, which was a long way from being realised or the Railway Department would yet see the waggons in competition at the rate of 6s per ton j and nil "we would add in conclusion is our regret that the people of Southland should be so shortsighted as to allow themselves to be overcharged iv the extortionate manrertbey even rowar^, wh-.lßtthe remedy bso eBBy and effective—viz., by lep&iring the road, These little facts, so far a? we can see, are the mit-appre-hensions refeirsd to by Mr hichardson and cannot \ c too widely known . W« are not ihe only firm succtßs'uily working in opposition to tae ra'l ways at the present lime, and many more before long will be compelled to add themselves io the list — We are, Ac, Walter Guthbie and Co. 10th March, 1886.