Mr Vaile, in reply, stated that he quite sympathised with the seconder of the motion, and recognised the importance of a reduction in freights, which the farmers feel more directly than fares. The freights had been cut down in some cases, but the public had to suffer for it in other ways. For in stance, in 18«4 there were 3QOQ miles of railway in the oolony, and since then £2,080,000 has been spent in construction, but the train service last year was less than that of 1884 by 70,981 miles. This meant a reduction in the number of trains, and, as a consequence, a saving of, say, £10,000. Of this £10,000, £7000 was applied to the reduction of freights, and £3000 went as a surplus. He always said that they should begin with the passenger fares, and then get on to the goods rates, In Hungary they had to face the same problem, and they had come to the same opinion, and had not dealt with the goods freights up to the present but with what is called coach ing, i.e., fares and parcel rates. Somo one had said that his proposals were too ex treme, and that they should steer a mid way course. As business men they all knew ti}st a- reduction meant a loss unless the reduction is such as would >>p another strata ol trade. Nothing short of a reduction to one-fifth would pay. In Hungary the reduc tion Jiad been to one-fifth and had proved payable. As a coincidence in Hungary, a passenger is carried 435 miles for 12s, while in New Zealand the longest run is 430 miles for which he proposed a fare of 12s, almost the same as that in Hungary. It is thought by some that the fares he proposed could not be made to pay, but from evi dence given at the commission in 1887, it was shown that during 1885-0 it won id only have needed that the number travelling be two to one to make his system pay. But ho

felt sure that three would travel under his system for every-otie that travels now, thus giving about £200,000 extra revenue. 