The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1891

Timaru Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 5196, 17 July 1891, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1891-

The debate on the motion for the second reading of the Government Railways Act, 1887, Repeal Bill, was adjourned at Wednesday evening's aitting of tbe House. The Bill now goes to the bottom of the Order Paper and may never como up for discussion again. In any case, however, its fate is decided. The Minister of Public Works announced that the Government intended to oppose it, and m spite of Mr Fish's rather violent speech tho Government followers will for the most part support their leaders. In fact both sides of the j House are opposed to the Bill, but at ' the same time tho debato showed clearly that tho way m which the Railway Commissioners have managed the lines is not regarded "as satisfactory. Tbe most pronounced attacks upon them I were made by the introducer of the Bill andbyMrßees. But those gentlemen had nothing new to tell the House, and m their anxiety to damage the Commissioners, failed to give the latter credit for having accomplished nny good whatever, and failed also to recognise tho strength of the reasons which bad induced the State to surrender control of the lines. Mr T. Mackenzie did these much abused public servants more justice when he pointed out that the financial results from the railways wero now greater by three-quavters per cent, than when tho Commissioners first took office, although the rates for goods traffic had since been reduced. The management has certainly not been altogether mischievous, and those who like to see a wholesale reduction of rates, or perhaps even a practically free use of the railways by the public, should remember that the Commissioners, though nominally they have o free hand, are substantially con trolled by the consideration that revenue must bo produced, for that no Colonial Treasurer could afford to do without that portion of the interest on cost of construction whioh the income of tho lines now contributes after paying working expenses. The announcement of tho Minister of Public Works that the Government would oppose the Bill apponrs at first to have been taken as an indication of satisfaction with the management, or at nil events of the intention of the Government not to attempt interference with the present system. But his remarks will not bear such a construction. He i 3 certainly not satisfied with tho management, and it would uot ut all ournrisc w if, m the

evot of the Government continuing m oft. next year, they were to initiate leglation very similar to that which the now object to as coming from a prate member. Mr Reeves judged it pi-3ent to speak m tho direction of exlanation of the remarks which had faen from the Minister of Public Wrks. He said : — " Mi- Fish was to a cetaiu extent, under a misapprehension as to the remarks of the Minister for Public Works. That hon. gentleman vat the political head of tbe Department b which the Railway Commissioners rere attached, and it was his duty 3 wort amicably with those Com.issioners if possible. The Governlent could not support the Bill nought forward by Mv Palmer. ?laat waa a measure which should le brought down by the Governnent itself, and this being so bisl lonourable colleague was bound to take up Ihe attitude he had ' taken on this qustion. Was it to be inferred from tha', that he or the other members of tbe Government endorsed all tbe acts of the Commissioners ? Most certainly not. He (Mr Reeves) occupied the position just now of Minister of tbe Crown, and the Railway Commissioners not" _-.fi?g? *lU h l._ .7 e t' n & e -fe I- w " review tbeir action at present. It must not be understood, because the Govern • menfc could not support the present Bill, that it would bind them as regarded any future action tbey might consider necessary." Tbe laßt sentence looks very much like a hint that before long tbe Government may take it into tbeir heads to cut short tbe existence of the Commissioners or reduce them to n position altogether dependent on the Ministry. It was evident that, especially on the Government side of the House, there was a strong feeling against the Commissioners, and Mr Fish spoke as though the announcement of tbe Minister of Public Works waa bitterly resented by the party. He even cautioned the Government that they mush uot play fast and loose with their Buppovters,as he felt sure that they would not submit to such treatment. There is, m short, some ground for supposing that if tbe Government had received the Bill favourably their party would have stood by them. Whilst we admit that the management of tbe Commissioners has been m many respects unsatisfactory we should regret it exceed ingly if the system under which they exercise tbeir functions were to bo swept away. Tbe railways are on the whole better managed than they were when under Government control, und there is an entire absence of political influence nud of that jobbery m a vast multitude of small matters which prevailed under the old regime. It would be clearly surrendering an advantage to allow the control to pass again into the hands of the Government. The Commissioners should be allowed to complete their term of five years, and at its expiration, or shortly before that time, it may become a question whether the personnel should be changed, and especially whether the office of Chief Commissioner should he filled by an expert from Great Britain.