PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 9 
line to be eonsidered, one of which includes extensions in 
the interior where the country is flat or at most rolling 
in character, and the other branch railways in the coast 
districts, where the spurs run up towards the dividing 
range with a steep slope, and where the adoption of easy 
grades and very flat curves would make the cost of the 
line almost prohibitive. 
The first case is one about which there should be no 
difficulty in arriving at a decision. If it isa Government 
railway, I have no hesitation in saying that the standard 
gauge should be retained. If a private line and a works or 
mere mining or firewood line, a narrow gauge with lighter 
rails and rolling stock may have the advantage, especially if 
the prospects of traffic developing is small. If, however, 
it is intended to carry passengers and goods in connection 
with the existing system, and there is a probability of a 
considerable development of traffic, one ought to be very 
careful about advocating a narrow gauge line when one con- 
siders how hear to the other in cost a standard line comes. 
Here it is nota question of curves; I admit that in some 
cases narrow gauge lends itself more readily to sharp 
curves, but the country here is level or nearly so. Let us 
compare the cost of the two gauges in their various 
component items of expenditure. We will assume that 
traffic is somewhat limited and loads are at present small, 
but shall we, be benefited in this class of country by the 
adoption of a narrow gauge? Light rails can be used on 
the standard gauge as well as on anarrow gauge, and light 
rolling stock can be used in either case. The narrow 
gauge trucks are it is true smaller, but there must be more 
of them to provide the same total capacity. Similar station 
accommodation and shelter sheds are required for the same 
class of traffic for either gauge. If cheapness and scanti- 
ness of accommodation is good enough in one case, it is in 
the other. If the sidings are a little cheaper per yard to 
