page 32

What would a Trial of the Stage System Cost?

Say for one year, on the Auckland section—what would it amount to?

The number of passengers carried on this section during 1896-7 was 582,280, and they produced a revenue of £46,952. The same number at my average fare of one shilling (1s.) would yield £29,114. Thus, if through the enormous reductions in fares, we did not carry one extra passenger, or carry them one single mile further, the loss for a whole year, on the Department's own showing, would be only £17,838.

I ask if such a risk is not absolutely insignificant in view of the probable results.

It is now over 16 years since I designed this system. During that time many changes have taken place, and among them is the large increase in the population of our chief cities and their suburbs. If our railways are to be the chief agencies in dealing with the short-distance transit traffic of these centres, then it will be necessary to divide the two first stages from them into halves. Thus, between Auckland and Manurewa on the one hand, and Auckland and Henderson on the other, there would be four half-stages, and the passenger fare for each would be 3d. first class, and 2d. second-class. I do not recommend this plan—I doubt its wisdom. I feel certain that our railways can be fully, and far more profitably employed by developing long-distance traffic, leaving short-distance traffic to be dealt with by tramcars, omnibuses, and cabs. These are very important industries, employing large numbers of our people, and we ought not to use our railways for the purpose of crushing them.

Trams, omnibuses, and cabs can much more efficiently perform short-distance services than a railway can, because for one door a railway train can stop at, these could stop at a hundred. We ought to do everything we possibly can to develop this class of traffic. It is my opinion that all tramways ought to be owned by the municipalities, and that in connection with them a goods traffic ought to be developed. I can see no reason whatever why, at certain hours, goods-tramcars should not be run. It would probably be necessary to limit the weight of packages, but a goods service like this would be a great advantage to our cities, and more especially their suburbs, and would prove a large source of revenue.

It is scarcely possible to imagine the impulse that would be given to trade and commerce by the establishment of a really efficient system of railway working. I believe it would be fully equal to, and certainly much more lasting, than the impulse given by the introduction of railways. If we could make our railways pay five per cent., and I am certain we could make them pay more, it would not add to our burdens if we borrowed many more millions for their construction. What we have to do is so page 33 to administer our railways that they will be useable by the whole community, instead of as now, by a small portion, certainly not more than 25 per cent, of it. Then our railways would pay both directly and indirectly. Indeed, I am convinced that, by treating the public fairly and generously, they can be made to contribute large sums towards the reduction of general taxation, in addition to paying working expenses and interest.

What a surprising thing it is how little attention we pay-to developing internal trade. At the inquiry of 1886 the railway officials were always talking about the export trade, the export trade, the export trade! Never once did they mention internal trade. Their idea seemed to be that everything, people included, should be sent "to the ports to go away by sea." Yet very little consideration will show how vastly important internal trade is to every community.

Internal trade is far more valuable than export trade, for it means better prices and a larger margin of profit. For instance, take our farmers who are fortunate enough to have a local market in our gold field or saw milling towns—do they not get much better prices than they could if they sent their produce to the port towns for export? Produce sent for export must be sold for the lowest possible price, because it has to compete with the cheap labour of India, Russia, Germany, America, etc.

China and Japan for thousands of years existed as great nations without any import or export trade whatever. Will they exist for thousands of years more now that they have opened their ports, and are developing an import and export trade? I doubt it. Internal trade fosters self-reliance, export trade fosters reliance on others. I am not saying that an import and export trade is an evil—probably it is a modern necessity—but I do say that an internal trade is far more valuable to a community, and that we do not pay enough attention to it. To assist in its development is one of the main objects of the Stage System.