PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 7 
former case in times past may be referred to, when from 
ignorance or parsimony it was actually proposed to extend 
the railway system after Penrith and Picton had been 
reached on the western and southern railways respectively, 
by means of a horse tramway at £4,000 per mile instead 
ofa railway, and a great fight ensued when my predecessor 
in office, backed up by the late Governor Young and some 
other far-seeing men, eventually gained the day and suc- 
ceeded in persuading Parliament that a horse tramway 
would not meet the case, but that a proper railway must 
be made even if it involved 1 in 30 grades, 8 chain curves 
and zigzags. Here the adoption of the tramway would 
have been very false economy. 
When the construction of a railway was finally decided 
upon, two estimates were submitted by the Engineer-in- 
Chief, one for £8,000 per mile with sharp curves and grades, 
the other I think £25,000 per mile. There is no doubt 
that in this case it was right to choose the cheaper line— 
circumstances did not warrant the higher expenditure. 
During the construction of the line over the Blue Moun- 
tains and beyond, the contractors had actually to be 
requested not to proceed too fast, as there might not be 
enough money in the Treasury to meet their claims. Here 
was a case where the British public were not ready to 
supply the money needed. 
If those extensions were only now under consideration 
we should lay them out in a different manner. They were 
not built as we should construct a main line to-day, yet, 
at that time, with the difficulty of getting money at all, it 
was true economy to spend as little as possible. From the 
point of view of the traffic to be carried, about 40 tons per 
day, cheapness was most desirable, but even that involved 
a very, large total expenditure, and we must give great 
credit to the people’s representatives when they voted the 
