The Globe. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1875.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 332, 6 July 1875, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1875.

In a former article, we stated shortly the many and obvious reasons in favour of the removal of the Christchurch Railway Station to the Colombo street crossing, and it is not necessary to repeat them here again at length. We would only remark that in the opinion of those best capable of judging, we mean the engineers, the site selected by the Government can only be a temporary one, and that if a station is erected there, it will at no distant date have to be removed again. The Executive, we presume, think differently. They, no doubt, are of opinion that the goods and passeoger traffic can very easily be mixed up, and that the confusion and delay which the profession point oat as a

necessary consequence of such an arrangement, is all pure imagination. It is true that the engineer is of quite an opposite opinion. He is simpleminded enough to fear the consequences of a large increase of traffic at the Christchurch Station, resulting from the general extension of our lines north and south, and as he is held responsible for the marinev in which 'the traffic is conducted, he would like to see the usual precautions taken to secure safety and efficiency. Some vulgar-minded people have been mean enough to insinuate that possible benefit to the property of a political opponent, is having something to do with influencing the Executive mind in this matter. The mere mention of such a paltry motive is enough to convince our readers of its utter impossibility. Since the present Executive have come into power, they have taken so many opportunities of proclaiming the purity of their motives, that we must take them at their word, and decline to believe them guilty of such a discreditable transaction. And yet when this explanation of their conduct is removed, what have we left ? It is most difficult to arrive at any satisfactory reason why the present station should be removed at all, only to be erected a few yards further along the line. Of course vve know that the Executive must have a very good reason, only the public arein the ignorance of it. We should have thought that if the passenger and goods traffic could be mixed up in wild confusion without any harm resulting, it would have been the best thing to let matters remain as they are. At any rate we would urge delay. As the Executive are satisfied that the present railway station area is ample in extent, we hope their regard to the public interest will induce them not to spend £IO,OOO on a plan which, on the face of it, is not 'necessary. But should they show signs of proceeding with their plans, we would urge on the public of the province, who are all interested in the question of the railway station, to request his Honor to refuse his consent to the Executive proposals, till the Council again meets. In such a case, at any rate, his Honor would be acting constitutionally. This railway station site is a provincial question, and of too great importance to be left to the decision of an Executive, who, in spite of their protestations, are liable after all to be influenced by motives which may not be for the general good. We do not see that they can raise any valid objection to a little delay. The reason why it was proposed to remove the present station was that space was wanted. But if the Executive is of opinion that there is space enough already, the question can easily rest till the Council meets again. There is another reason why we urge delay. In all probability before another year is over provincialism will have ceased to exist and the railways would in such circumstances fall into the hands of the General Government. Why, therefore should we throw away money on what is a very doubtful benefit after all, especially when arrangements might be reversed once more in another year.