Sir J. G. Ward, Minister for Railways.

Sir Joseph's speech being one of the utmost importance, I will endeavour to deal with it carefully, and it gives me great pleasure to say that in all the personal intercourse I have had with him, which dates from 1885, he has always met me in the most friendly spirit, and, up to the time of his entering the Ministry, I think I am right in saying that he gave the Stage System his support. I quite believe he is anxious to see the new system tried. The difficulty is not with him, but with his officials.

The Minister's speech is remarkable for three things. (1st) He does not make the slightest attempt to refute or deny the accuracy of the very serious charges contained in my petition, as regards the manipulation of the Railway Accounts, and the very serious financial loss now being made. (2nd) Sir Joseph frankly admits that the increase of traffic under the Stage System would be so enormous that the Department would not be able to find rolling stock sufficient to deal with it. (3rd) He says that everyone in the country wants a trial of the new system.

Sir Joseph says that when the railway officials have differed from me, I took it as a personal matter, and abused the officials and the administration. I hardly think this is correct, unless telling the plain straight truth is abuse. Then I certainly am guilty. The fact is that it is easy to prove that from first to last these officials, being unable to meet my arguments, and thinking their privileges were being invaded, have most grossly misrepresented me, and have unblushingly said that I made statements and propositions which I never made, and when I have exposed this wrong-doing, then I have been accused of being abusive.

Take the latest instance. In September, 1901, the Railways Committee intimated to me that they would hear what I had to say if I chose to attend at Wellington at my own expense. I went and paid my own expenses—the Department seems to think I ought to do everything in this matter at my own expense. Mr. Ronayne reluctantly attended, and was supposed to listen to what I had to say. His report on the statement I then made appears on page 22 of Parliamentary Paper I., 6B, 1901.

page 6

In it he deliberately states that I propose to reduce the charges on all items of coaching traffic other than "ordinary passengers," and also on all goods traffic, to one-half the present rates. I have never proposed, to do this, either in the work he professes to quoit from, or in any publication, or from any platform, nor have I ever quoted any prices for the transit of goods. Mr. Ronayne's object in making this false statement is to make it appear that the introduction of the Stage System would entail a severe loss. I ask if this is conduct worthy of a Government official in charge of the largest department in the country. Have I not a right to resent it? My reply to Mr. Ronayne's report will be found bound with the paper I read before the Congress of Chambers of Commerce held in Wellington on the 4th of February, 1902.

This paper of mine, although it was accepted by the Congress, which thanked me for it and ordered it to be printed, was cut out of the report of the proceedings of the Conference, presumably by order of the Government, while it was passing through the Government printing office. Again I ask, was this fair treatment? The statements therein made are very serious, and if untrue surely it was the duty of the Department to refute them. So far, not the least attempt has been made to do this, although they have been reproduced and commented on in some of the London papers. All I have ever asked for is truthful and fair treatment, and this the Department has never given me, but has striven to put me down by the grossest and most untruthful misrepresentation. Let me here say that my quarrel has been with the General Managers and sub-managers only. I have no complaint whatever against any of the other officials.

In the Press telegrams sent round the Colony reporting this debate, Sir Joseph is reported as saying, "The difficulty was to face the enormously increased expenditure that would be necessitated to provide fresh railway stock to cope with the enormously increased traffic that Must Take Place Under Mr. Vaile's Stage System." In Hansard this is toned down by the addition of the words "for a time." Why for a time? In other countries—in Siberia, for instance, which had a far sparser population than New Zealand, and in every other country where it has been introduced—the increase of traffic has been great and continuous. Why, then, should it not be the same here? I say that it will—there will be neither loss of revenue nor decrease of traffic. At any rate, we have the Minister's distinct statement that the introduction of the Stage System would lead to an "enormously increased traffic." Seeing, then, that under the present system we are now not only losing every penny of interest 011 the capital expended in our railways (£19,496,553), but also in addition over a quarter of a million in working expenses, would it not be wise to try the new system, and see what it will do? It could not possibly be a worse financial and social failure than the page 7 present one, and we should at any rate have its undisputed social advantages to the good.

As regards increase of rolling stock required, we have Mr. W. M. Hannay's evidence that in 1886 on the most crowded line in the Colony, they only carried an average of seven (7) passengers to a carriage, the said carriages being capable of carrying forty (40). We have also the express declaration of the Hungarian Minister that the alteration in system led to a very small increase in expenditure.

In 1890, the proprietors of the Glasgow Evening Citizen sent a "Special Commissioner" to Hungary to investigate this system on the spot; he also reports, "Very little additional expenditure has been incurred in connection with the rolling stock, and the entire staff of workmen and officials has been maintained as before, on account of the increased traffic."

During five months in 1889 and the whole of 1890, the Hungarians worked their Zone tariff on 4,415 miles of railway, dealing with 16,000,000 people. During this period of seventeen months, they carried an extra 16,577,200 fares, and to accommodate this enormous increase we have the emphatic statement of their Minister that they only had to expend another £7,267 on new rolling stock. Knowing as we do that for several previous years the Hungarian lines had been in a most deplorable state, it is not in the least likely that their rolling stock was in a more efficient state than ours. I ask, then, why this enormous increase in rolling stock should be required to deal with the 378 miles and 176,000 people of the Auckland Province? It is because Mr. Ronayne knew that I would ask plenty of awkward questions like this one, that I was not allowed to question him, and not because he "knew all about it." As to whether more or less of rolling stock is required, depends on the skill with which it is employed. Our officials seem to think that to carry double the number of passengers, you must of course have double the quantity of rolling stock; but this is by no means the case. The larger your passenger traffic, the easier to arrange for cutting off carriages at the different stations as the train passes along, these cut-off carriages being again immediately used for the short distance traffic. The Stage System simply means hauling full, instead of empty carriages. It is these empty carriages that swell the working expenses. I repeat that it will be entirely the fault of the Department if the introduction of the new system causes any loss whatever.