Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 76

Auckland, 10th December, 1901. Hon. Sir Joseph Wakd, Minister for Railways, Wellington:

page 13
Auckland, Hon. Sir

Joseph Wakd,

Minister for Railways, Wellington:

Sir,—I am indebted to a friend in Wellington for a copy of the report of the Railway Committee on my Petition dated 22nd June last, and also a copy of your General Manager's remarks on my evidence. I think I was entitled to have these papers sent to me officially, but neither the Railway Department, the Committee, nor the Government appear to have thought so.

I notice that Mr. Ronayne's letter to you, Sir, commenting on my statement is dated the 11th October, or exactly one month after the conclusion of the said statement. He therefore had ample time to consider his reply.

I have been so long accustomed to gross misrepresentation by the chief officers of the Railway Department that I cannot say his letter surprises me, but I may say that for want of knowledge of his subject, and of truth, it equals anything that has preceded it. His object, of course, has been to try and make out that the introduction of the new system would cause serious financial loss, and he compiles a ridiculous and false table to show that the loss in one year would reach £216,723.

In the first paragraph of his letter he says, speaking of the working of the Hungarian railways, "No reliable information is available with regard to the expenditure incurred in working the increased traffic:" and in his next paragraph he repeats this statement thus: "Although the Department has no figures available to show the increased expenditure in working the Hungarian system, etc., etc."

To procure this information from official sources cost me two pence and a postage stamp. The sources of information that were open to me were open to Mr. Ronayne also, and I ask you, Sir, if it is creditable to this country, that its chief railway officials should be in such a state of ignorance of the most interesting and important experiment in railway administration, that has ever taken place. Newspaper proprietors have thought it worth their while to send special commissioners to Hungary to investigate on the spot, but our general manager did not consider it worth the expenditure of threepence.

I may remind you, Sir, that on the 5th November last year, I sent you a letter which gave in detail the percentage of working expenses to revenue of the Hungarian railways for each year from 1881 to 1898 inclusive, and I added, "These figures page 14 are all taken from the reports of the British Consul-General at Buda-Pesth." As a matter of fact, they were prepared for the British Government by Mr. Gerard Lowther, and Mr. Acting-Consul-General Brull, and are therefore beyond dispute. I also pointed out that they proved absolutely that raising the fares in Hungary had decreased and not increased the ratio of profit.

From Hansard of October 28th, page 788, I see. Sir, that you laid this letter on the table of the House, and that it was ordered to be printed.* It is, therefore, evident, that when Mr. Ronayne wrote his report, the information which he says was not obtainable had actually been in the hands of the Department for more than a year. This is a very fair specimen of the untruthful manner in which the chief railway officials have always treated this important public question.

In paragraph 3 Mr. Ronayne says, "the maximum goods rates which are proposed to be charged are supplied in page 26 of Mr. Vaile's 'Social Problems," the goods rates being in many cases less than one-third of our existing rates. It is stated by Mr Vaile in his evidence that if three-fourths more passengers travelled at his proposed fares the same passenger revenue would be obtained as at present. The goods rates being on an average not more than half the existing rates, it would require at least double the volume of goods traffic to produce the same goods revenue."

All this is a very gross perversion of fact, I have never said anything of the kind. As regards goods traffic, everybody knows that the officers of the Department have tried every means in their power to entrap me into quoting goods rates, and that I have persistently refused to do so, or to fix any price for the transit of goods until I was placed in a position to do this without running the risk of loss to the community.

Mr. Ronayne professes to quote from my pamphlet, "Social Problems," but he had not the honesty to quote the footnote attached as follows:—Note.—The prices quoted for goods are merely given to show the system of charging. It is my opinion that very much lower rates can be fixed." To that opinion I adhere, but I repeat that I have never attempted to fix any "goods rates," nor will I do so until actual trial has shown what profit can be made out of passenger fares. The note quoted above has been invariably added in every paper I have published referring to goods rates.

As regards passenger rates, what I have said was that, assuming there was no increase in the average distance travelled, page 15 that then we should require a three-fourths addition, to secure the same amount of revenue, but I argued strongly (see Parliamentary Papers, I.—6B. 1901, pages 13 and 14) that the enormous reduction proposed in the long distance fares must so increase the distance travelled that the average fare would certainly reach 1/3d, and probably 1-8d, so that we should stand a very good chance, indeed, almost a certainty, of getting the same passenger revenue that we do now without carrying a single extra fare: This is very different from what Mr. Ronayne says I said; but possibly he may not be able to see the difference.

And now, Sir, a word as to the absurd table by which your chief officer seeks to establish the false position he has taken up. First, let me say that I have never given the slightest indication of the charges I propose to make for the various items of coaching with the exception of ordinary passengers and parcels, nor have I ever attempted to fix any goods rates. It, however, suits Mr. Ronayne to assume that I shall fix all these at half the present charges, and he further assumes that a reduction in the charge for passengers to an average of one-fifth, and the charges for goods to one-half the present charges, would have no effect whatever on the distance people and goods would travel. It is a disgrace to the controller of a railway system, to sign his name to such a statement. He has evidently followed in the steps of his predecessors, and not cared what he said, provided he could prevent the new system being tried.

I ask, Sir, if it is not intolerable that my work should be judged and condemned by a man who has shown such a thorough want of capacity to deal with it? But in justice to Mr. Ronayne I ought perhaps also to ask if he is to blame and give him the benefit of the doubt.. When we take a man whose sole training has been that of a mchanical engineer—and that, I am told, in a very small way—and ask him to pronounce judgment on the financial policy that should, govern a business institution employing eighteen and a-quarter (18¼) millions of capital, and nearly 8,000 men, what can we expect?

I think I have a right to complain that my work, which is purely commercial and financial, should be subject to the approval or condemnation of a man trained as Mr. Ronayne has been. It is not to be wondered at he declined to ask me any questions, or to answer any I might put to him; it would not have taken me half-an-hour to expose his complete ignorance of the whole subject.

The question naturally arises, Why are your chief officials so anxious to prevent the new system being tried? Parliamentary reports, the numerous petitions presented, the general wish of the people, and the result in other countries would more than justify them in taking the risk, if there is any, which I page 16 deny. I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that they are acting in their own self-interests.

I regret exceedingly that my last visit to Wellington, and the large amount of time, trouble and money I have spent in an earnest effort to improve our railway administration should have led to such a miserable result. However, I am convinced that before long the country will insist on this great question being more honestly dealt with.

In conclusion, let me say that this report of Mr. Ronayne's makes it very evident that if the new system is to be tried, I must have some controlling power during the experiment.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Yours faithfully,

Samuel Vaile.