Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] WEDNESDAY MAY 1, 1912. THE PAHIATUA FALLACY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11339, 1 May 1912, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] WEDNESDAY MAY 1, 1912. THE PAHIATUA FALLACY.

Tin- merits of the case wo have been able to make out in favour of the Mastertou-Waipukurau railway project are causing our Pahiatua friends serious uneasiness, and on Monday the Herald returned to the charge in an attempt ro discount tho effect of an article published in this paper last Friday. But, unfortunately, onr contemporary fails to answer our argument. That argument we summed up in the following words:—"Let the facts be fully seized: the MastertonWaipuliurau line is a national and not a local project; it is a trunk and not a 'loop' line; it will open up hundreds of square miles of the richest country in New Zealand; it will equally serve every place of importanco throughout that territoiy. The Pahiatua-Pongaroa line, on the other naud, is a side line; it will only benefit one place; its cost per mile will be very high; it will make the time and cost of transit between all the places we have mentioned (Weber, Wanstoad, Pongaroa, Alfredton) and the ports long and and it will not open up for settlement a single square yard of country which is not already fully sottled." Why is it that the

Pahiatua Herald is absolutely silent respecting a contrast so very damaging to its pet project? Why, in replying to us, did not it deal, Vfith the whole of our case? Why did not it acquaint its readers with all the,facts? Was it chiefly concerned to satisfy the gorge of parochialism by making out a plausible case for the insensate scheme of constructing a railway from Pahiatua to Pougaroa? Wo asked, too, what other places would have to say to that project—places liko Weber, Wanstoad, Alfredton, and, indeed, Pongaroa itself? Wo pointed out that if our contemporary's project were agreed to, "the people of Pongaroa would have to travel to Wellington or to Napier via Paiiiatua, they would have to send all their produce to market by that devious and expensive route, and they would possess no better means of communication with, say, Weber and Alfredton than they have afc present. All the other places would simply be left out in the cold altogether. On tho other hand, tiie Mastoi'ton-Waipukurau lino would give Pongaroa, Weber, Waustead, Alfredton, and other places direct trunk - line communication with Wellington and .Napier, and incidentally open up for each and every one of them tho rich land to the north and south." Why lias our contemporary not one single word to say in reply to these contentions? So much for what the Pahiatua Herald docs not say; now for what it does say. It sots up an argument aiming at the definition of a railway policy which in form is identical with tiie pronouncements of some past Ministers of the Crown. It then contends that the Masterton-Waipukurau scheme is in conflict with that policy, as wrongly interpreted by itself. For our contemporary falls into the logical vice of arguing from incomplete premises, with the result that its conclusion issues in a fallacy. This we shall have no. difficulty in demonstrating, and in order not to misrepresent our contemporary, we shall quote its two premises in its own words: — (1) Tho people of the country will never consent to the construction of a line which must seriously enter into competition with the existing lino of railway. (2) Members of the Cabinet are now daily declaring themselves in favour of the laying down of branch lines which, instead of acting as competitors, will feed the main lines of railway. Both these propositions are true so far as thoy go, but our contemporary misapplies tiiem by omitting altogether to take into consideration a third, or major, promise, which is this: that the main object of railway construction is to open up tho country, and to give settlers tho cheapest and most direct outlet. Now, it is quite obvious that this main end, in so far as the whole of the west coast between Master ton and Waipukurau is concerned, will not be served by the Pah-iatua-Pongaroa line, whereas it will be completely attained by the straightening of the Napier-Wellington line, and, that being conceded, oui contemporary's minor premises cea.se to be pertinent to tiie question at issue. For tho line we advocate, by throwing open hundreds of square miles of rich country to closer settlement, would not. so much compete with tho existing line as supplement its earning powers by creating new traffic It would, in fact, be a feeder line at two points on the existing system—at Masfcertou and at Waipukurau. We fail to see how a lino from Pongaroa to Pahiatua would open any new country or increase the revenue of the Railway Department by a single penny. it would be a convenience to Pougaroa and Pahiatua —especially the latter, for the former would benefit more by tho other project—and that is all. But that is by no means a sufficient reason for constructing It when due consideration is given to the greater and more general interests which it would in no wise serve. As we remarked before, nobody, least of all the Railway Department, wants a repetition of the Woodside-Greytown experience.