WEST COAST RAILWAY.

Inangahua Times, Volume X, Issue 1603, 21 September 1885, Page 2

WEST COAST RAILWAY.

[To the Editor of the Lyttelton Time*.] Sib, — There is one important new element in the agitation which, I trust, will now receive the serious consideration, hot only of the old but of the new members of tb« League. I refer to th« recent tacit adoption of ! the idea that the League shonld i specifically promote the construction

of tbe East and West Coast and " Nelson " Railway, whereas the i original object of the League was only to secure connection between Canterbury and tbe West Coast. From the first, as one of tlie •• guarantors," I strongly opposed the amalgamation ■ f the Nelson scu^me with the projected line that strictly, indeed solely, con cerns Canterbury and Westland. The arguments that induced the "guarantors " to unite with Nelson in promoting the disposal in London of a con tract einb "y ng the amalgamated scheme, I think, were insufficient. I do not desire to say that the Nelson section is either worse or better than ours. My contention simply is that the Canterbury sectiou should be constructed by Canterbury (as w*s originally proposed) and the Ntison sectiou by Nelson. I have come to the conclusion that, from every point of view, the lifficulties in the way of our s-ecuring the construction of our line are aggravated by amalgamation with Nelson. In the first place the difficulty is enhanced by the •• doubled" extent of the scheme. What might be deemed a reasonable " percentage" of margin to induce capitalists to enter upon 1 venture involving £1,500,000, won id doubtless hardly be. thought sufficient to warrant the undertaking of a scheme involving twice that sum without any diversity in the nature of the risks. Then from the political point of view. What is there to be gained !»y joining Nelson, or to lo*- by not doing so ? A politically iv NeUou.it seems to me, only serves to excite the wrath of a formidable enemy in Wellington, and to intensify the unpopularity of the whole business in other parts of the colony. The Government of the day may have special reasons of its own for promoting an alliance between Canterbury and Nelson. Governments naturally do desire to make things pleasant all round. The standpoint or the Government as regards alliance with Nelson is, therefore, I think, not necessarily the standpoint of Cantu*hnry, and this view, I think, has nut been sufficiently considered. It appears to me that if we are to have railway connection with the W^-st Const at all, within a reasonable time, it can only be attained by the Canterbury and WestiHiid people uniting (without Nelson) to promote the roak ing of a line, either by way of Arthurs Pass to Brunnerton, or by the Can ii n\ Gorge to Reefton ; and my suggestion is, that the reserves of land should bo, so to speak, •• hypothecated " to assist in the raising of money to finance the work. The principle t!.at Canterbury is entitled to have these lands dealt with for the pui^pose of faciliating the making of the West Coast railway, is of course, clearly affirmed by the •'East and West Coast RailwayAcr," which provides for concessions to the extent of fifty p.u* cent of the cost. Ith n , tin r -fore, what should be considered now is, whether these concessions, together with ihe capital of a Company that miyht' be I formed here would not affnd sufficient margin uyon which to borrow the necessary money in London. I think it is well worth considering whether we conld not now form a Company with a nominal capital of. say £500, 000, in LI shares, with 10s per share to be called up. By easy payments, a lari»e number of persons, of all classes, conld doubtless be interested as shareholders; and thus, the conceded land, the Company, and the line, when made, I believe, would form ample security to borrow upon. The chief merit or this method of making the line would be that the work would be completed without delay. And it would be desirable that as much as J possible of the work should be done by local contractors. As regards the alternative of having the railway mnde by the Colouy, it would seem, indeed, a very hopeless business to h*w to depend yearly on the justice orgeneiosity of the House for a trifling instal ment of money to procexl with the work. There are, indeed, strong reasons why any increase in the public ; debt of the Colony should fail as little ' as possible ou the taxpayers generally, • and it is, I think, much to be deplored that such works as the Auckland Trnnk or the Otago Central lines were ever authorised except upon the principle of local rating. The East and West Coast Railway Act gives no power to rate, but *he District Railways Act does ; and the provisions of this latter Act would make even a greater actual value of land available for concession. If local rating had to be adopted, and I fancy this would be inevitable, i seems to me that it would be fair that the local rate should Ik> only for such proportion as the average net revenue of the Canterbury (including West Coast) railways might, yearly, fall short of tbe avert re net revenue of all other New Zealand railways. If such a proposal were deemed acceptable, the amount of the local rate would be but trifling. The proceeds of tbe land concessions would in the first place, materially reduce the annual intetest on borrowed capital, and then the net return oi the existing Canterbury railways (beim; always considerably in excess of th« other lines, taken altogether) would afford a yearly surplus available to reduce the amount to be raised by the local rate. In any event, it would not he equitable that a local rate for the West Coast Railway should extend to anything beyond the difference of percentage between the net earnin of that line, and the average net earnings of the whole of the New Zealand railways. I have been informed that some desire is expressed that the date of the present provisional contract, for the proposed line from Springfield to Nelson, should be extended ; and I '

have collected some figures, in order to see how Canterbury won id fare under a system of rating for the whole Bcberae, treated as one in (he general interest of the several district* concerned The following figures are taken from a iWum plt,ce<l oti the table of the House, July 24. 1888, and are described as the '-capital values under 'The Rating Act, 1882' ":_ S North of Rangttata. Canterbury — Borough* and Counties i 2O, 331 066 Westland— Bon ught and Counties ... 1 002,540 Nelson — Borough* and Comities ... 4,416,213 T °t*» £26,349,843 The*- figures, I think, present » very significant commentary upon the policy of Canterbury bem*? united with Nelson under 'any system of rating. The estimated cost of the portion of tbe line, strictly in the interest of Nelson is £ 1,200,000, while the estimated cost from Springfield to Reefton is £1.800,000 in ronnd ngutes. It will thus I* see-i that while Nelson wonld receive 40 per cent of the rating. Canterbury, on the other hand, taking even the whole balance of £1, 800,000 its in her ! interest would receive only 60 per cent of expenditure, wl:ile she would be liable for about 80 per cent of the amount of the local tax. Indeed, it might Ik- fairly Pa id that half tbe £3,000 would be spent in the interest of NelsDu, while C* uteri ■•y would have to providr 8J per cent of the Ux, as stated. These fignws, lam aware, will not lie popular in some quarters, but candour and justice to Canterbury seem to require that they should be published. In view of the most unsatisfactory position in which the matter now stands.in the House, it would seem U> me to h^ preferable that it should not be made a Ministerial question. If the vote be made a Ministerial question a..d not adopted, tnen the Minis-* try will dooUless have to go oat of office ; and surely there is more hope ot devising successful measures for .uaking our railway with the present Government in powe- than with any other likely to succeed them. And, after all, I Relieve that our prospects- of obtaining early railway connection between Canterbury and the West Coast wonld be damaged rather than I improved by the carrying of the proposed vote of iioO.OOO. In view of the unpopularity of the present schem* through ,nt the Cj'o y, an •n.popoh.r.ty I wlucu I submit has l*nni intensified ami aggravated l.y the ciivoinstanct;* of our connection with Nelson, what reasonable hope conld w« entertaiu as to the voting of further sums of mou«y to proceed with the work? iv writing this letter, I disclaim the slightest desire to .-ay or imply anything antagonistic to Cite interest* of Nelson. But in view of tbe position that I liave. occupied ?n Ciiainnan of ; tiie iiailway League, which was formed for the sole object of suppressing the then proposed liast Coast lUilway, and of promoting a West Coast Railway, I feel that IcaniKK longer refrain from expressing views that I have I held strongly since the delegates wer* despatched to Londoo. I l>elieve, however that a majority of the Committe hold opinious different from my own with respect to connection with Velson, and I have therefore concluded that the proper course for me will be to resign the position of Chairman. I adopt this means of publishing my views so that it may be clearly seen they are mine individually, and thus not predudict) any action that tbe Coramitte, as suc\ may deem it pro per to take hereafter. I need hardly I add that I am ready as ever to assist, in every liegitimite way, to secure railway connection Iwtween Canterbury and tbe West Coa?t .— ! am & „ W. Chbthtall.