THE CHRISTCHURCH-LYTTELTON LINE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7267, 30 November 1901, Page 4

THE CHRISTCHURCH-LYTTEL-TON LINE.

The question of the charges on the Ohiiist<&urch.-Lyttelton railway line was revferreKj to by tlhe Chairman; of the Gamt'erJbury Chamber of Commerce' in has address to the quarterly meeting of that body, y>Eis>iterday. Mr Wood' once again called; upon 'the Government to reduce the rcutes. He ■ -based his requtest cot (on the fact .thalb Camterbury bedng the Railway Deparfcmienit's beat customer might reasonably be allowed the concession usually granted by the liberal welter to Ms r^miinerativie (patrons, bulb on equity and justice. "We do not demand." he said, " that we shall nave a lower rate than anybody else ... but we do •fck tlhat w« may tra put on ab least the same basis as our more fortunate neighbours and competitors." This is the whole questiioni in a rautsihell. In, the judgtmentof manyanbiassed critics the people of Canterbury maghsb be considered to possess bq absolute right to dlemanid! concessions in the charges on the Port line. They laid Ithe railway and budlt tlie tunnel with, their owou money, and if itihis does not. •dcxnstitu'te a very goodl reason Why they should be liberally treated by iihe colony we &x& ab a loss to know -what does. But they waive this right. They do not ask to be placed on a better fooling tham other parts of the colony; they simply plead 'that "they shall be placed! on ttlie same 'basis as their more fortumaite neighbours and. competatoTS." The Government cannot afford to ignore this prayer muchi longer. It. has lately redacted the railway rates over the Rbmrbaka Range, which, as Vise Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce painted cut yesterday, is probably the most expensive • section.- to work of the whole of tili-e colony's railways ; and it las made concessions elsewhere and promised many more. It c;>..nUiot, therefore, much longer delay redeeming tlhe promise which, it 'has given I'o the Canterbury members of Parliament to conaider the' matter. When, lie does look into the question we know whait S.:r Joseph Ward's answer will be. It will bs satisfactory to Canterbury. The reductions •wßrich are asked will bo grantee — at least UQtat is to Btty df tlhe Minister doe,« not altogether belie hia reputation as a iinguflariy just and far-seeing administrator.