EAST AND WEST COAST RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1270, 13 July 1883, Page 2

EAST AND WEST COAST RAILWAY COMMISSION.

♦ (Prom the Tiuaaru Herald.) The report of the West Coast Railway Commission naturally erough gives great satisfaction to the out-and-out opponents of that project, both because it is unmistakeably adverse to it and also because it summarises in a striking and handy form pretty nearly all there is to be said against it. In future, anybody with this Report in ■his hand, can prove, at least to his .own satisfaction, that the West Coast Railway scheme is a myth, and that its promoters are a set of mendacious visionaries. The recommendation of the Commission of the Arthur's Pass lonte as the most suitable, will also gratify many who do not waDt to see any route adopted, for the reason that the Arthur's Pass route is not only hopelessly difficult, but would also fail to answer the purpose for which a railway to the West Coast is, required. It would not supply a practicable means of communication between the ports and settlements on the East Coast and that part of the West Coast where the more permanent and productive md us ties lie. To recommend the Arthur's Pass ' route as the most suitable, therefore, is equivalent to saying that there is no suitable route ; and that, we imagine, is really wha<; the Commissioners meant to say. They are dead against the scheme, and we have very little doubt that they were dead against it from the beginning. In their Report they do not even make a good show of impartiality, but betray by numerous indications, a desire to make the most of the objections and the least of the advantages. It is curious, indeed, to notice how while they magnify any evidence that tells against the scheme, they overlook ov throw suspicion on any that tells in its favor.- Where the facts adduced by the witnesses arc -too directly stated and too well substantiated to be wholy ignored, the Commissioners take refuge in generalities and say that they had great difficulty in arriving at conclusions whore so many factors had to be taken into consideration. They also is some notable instances, mention these statements of facts, — which are of the utmost significance in relation J to the subject of the enquiry — in dubious language, as if they gave them for what they are worth, but did not attach much weight to them themselves. And they hold this tone with reference to leading points of evidence, the truth of Ayliich is* as well arcertained as anything can be. On the other hand, they cheerfully accept and give prominence to mere loose statements of opinion reported to them by persons who had every reason to be adverse to the scheme Above all they evidently surrender their judgment unreservedly to the views of the Government official who, — most improperly, as we think — was appointed to accompany them. Mr O'Connor may be an excellent engineer. We believe he is a man of considerable ability and energy, and we have not a word to say against him iri'his professional capacity. But Government Engineers are well known j to be among the most obstinate of men, where their prejudices are engaged. And their prejudices always are engaged on one side or the other of every question that comes under thoir notice. Our own belief is that there is no instance on record of a Government

engineer being convinced of anything against bis own preconceived ideas, or altering his mmd after it had once been made up. Engineers in private practice or employ are different. They cannot afford to be so stiff in the neck. Cut a Government engineer is the very embodiment of fixed opinion. Now Mr O'Connor, as it happens, has spent many years on the West Coasts and had many differences with the people there; and knowing his idea about railway communication, he is just about the last man we should have chosen to accompany three unsophisticated Commissioners on a tour of enquiry into that question. His presence with the Commissioners was quite enough to divest their proceedings of any character of impartiality ; and as a fact, the influence of his prejudices may be traced in every page of their lieport. Cut the Commissioners, themselves, we fear, where by no means free from prejudice. We might almost apply a harsher nan^ to the motives which must have inspired them in writing some passages of their Eeport. What is to be thought for example, of such conclusions as those set forth in th« following paragraph? — "It wou^b^, manifestly -unfair to- prt^jg||s^ii^ munity settled round Christchurch with" cheap coal and timber at the cost of the taxpayer living elsewhere, and unsound policy to interfere with industries already in full operation by bringing others into existence through the aid J of carriage unremunerative to the State." A more narrow-minded piece of false reasoning could hardly be conceived. It is obviously the outcome of that blind jealousy of Canterbury which seems to have possessed the Wellington people of late, and which Mr Wilson, one of the Commissioners, had the indecency to express very plainly when referring to the Commission in the course of his address to his constituents. If the argument used by the Commission as to " the community settled round Christchurch,' had been applied to the public works policy at the beginning, not a single railway could have been justified. Coming to particular instances, we should like to ask Mr Wilson how he would like his principle to be applied to the railway from Wellington to the Wairarapa, over the Birnutaka. That line cost £750,000 and it is not of the smallest direct benefit to anybody except the Wellington and Wairarapa people. Yet " the taxpayer living elsewhere " has to pay the interest on its cost, not to mention the loss incurred in working so terribly expensive and unremunerative a line. The Member for a Wellington suburban district can scarcely afford in an official Beport I to sneer at "the community settled round Christchurch " for their desire to open a great trade with the West Coast. The community settled round Christcburch have hitherto furnished a great part of the profits of the Amberley and Bluff line, but for which the colony could not have borne the burden of the North Island railways. Yet North Island Commissioners have the assurance, not to speak of the bad taste, to condemn the West Coast railway on the express ground that it will benefit Ohtistchurch more than it will the colony at large. As for the notion that it is impolitic to cheapen commo-' dities by railway communication, lest we interfere with the profits of existing industries, that is simply to contend against all progress whatever, and to justify the most exaggerated form of protection and monopoly. We could have understood such reasoning coming from the thick-headed mayor of some Bussian town, protesting against any disturbance of the established order of things. But coming from public men of intelligence in a young country, it certainly seems to us totally inexplicable except on the ground which we have already touched on, namely, the strong local jealousy and prejudice, which blinded and dulled the mind of the Commissioners. Notwithstanding all this, there is much in the Eeport which is veJ'y interesting ; and, much moreover, which, in spite of the evident bias of the writer, affords good hope to the promoters of the railway project The Commissioners, in fact, have been obliged, whether they liked it or not, to go a long way towards proving the soundness of the scheme. We must reserve our remarks on that feature of the Eeport, however, for another occasion.