Mr. Flatman (Geraldine).

While I gratefully acknowledge that the Railways Committee listened to my statement with great attention, I must respectfully deny that "every opportunity was given me." I was not allowed to ask the officials any questions, nor did they question me. For instance, at the conclusion of my statement, I asked Mr. Ronayne if he would be good enough to inform the Committee how he expected the great loss he spoke of in trying the new system to arise. He was not allowed to reply. I was not informed that this was to be the position, and consequently was placed at a great disadvantage; for I had not come prepared with a full statement, and intended only making a short one, and trusting to question and answer for the rest. It was only the day before meeting the Committee that I accidentally found out the line of action the Department meant to adopt. Had I not made this discovery, I should have been completely thrown. As it was my only chance, I at once set to work and put as much information in my statement as possible, but I feel it was only a poor attempt (See Parliamentary Paper I.. 6B, 1901). I do not think this was giving me "every opportunity."

As to being struck dumb on the question of framing a goods tariff, I think I have given a sufficient reply to that matter. I ask Mr. Flatman, does he really think I am so silly as to seek to be entrusted with a task I am unable to perform?

Mr. Flatman says, "Was it possible on the same line to carry passengers under one system, and goods under another? It could not be done. There would have to be trains for goods and special trains for passengers." This is a wonderful statement for a member of a Railways Committee to make. Surely Mr. Flatman should know that the perfection of railway working is to separate the goods from the passenger traffic. The wear and tear on a railway is in proportion to the velocity at which weights are carried. Therefore, good traffic managers seek to keep their lines fully employed during the day with their light coaching traffic, which must be sent at the highest velocities, and to work their heavy goods traffic by night, which then may be sent at low velocities. Much of our loss arises from the fact that we run so many mixed trains.

Mr. Flatman twits other members on their want of knowledge, and talks about Hungary; but he does not appear to know that for some years they worked their passenger traffic on the Zone System and their goods traffic on the old system. Nor does be seem to be aware that each time the Hungarians raised their passenger fares, their profit decreased.

Mr. Flatman says: "Any reasonable man would agree to make good any loss that might occur at a trial of the scheme." Why should I do this? Would the trial be for my special benefit? It would be for the benefit of the country; therefore the country should take the risk, of which I again affirm there will be none. The country has repeatedly expressed its willingness to take the risk, but the Department has always sought to force me into a position where it could easily ruin both me and my work.