Old news from Armidale and New England

Local news from newspaper archives

Guyra to Inverell Railway

leave a comment »

Saturday 18 June 1892, The Sydney Morning Herald

GUYRA TO INVERELL RAILWAY.      

Yesterday morning Mr. James Inglis, M.L.A.,
introduced to the Minister for Works a representa-
tive deputation of residents from the districts of
Armidale, Hillgrove, Guyra, Tingha, Wandsworth,
Inverell, and Bundarra.

Mr. Inglis and others present urged the necessity
for the Minister to authorise a re-survey of a rail-
way route from Guyra to Inverell. A numerously
signed petition was presented to the Minister in
favour of this project.

Mr. LYNE, after listening to arguments, said the
proposed railway had been a vexed question, and one
not at all pleasant for him to deal with, particularly
because it had been strongly advocated by his col-
league the Minister for Lands, who, in evidence
given before the Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Public Works, had given it his support. In his
belief Mr. Copeland was mistaken concerning one or
two minor matters. Personally the route of the line
did not concern him, and he had no interest to serve
except that of the public. He had been over the
route from Glen Innes to Inverell, and though it
would be a difficult line to construct it would pass
through country none of which was bad. He had
not been over the proposed Guyra route, but officers
of his department reported that the land was of in-
ferior quality. In his opinion railway communication
between Guyra and Inverell would not be effected
for many years to come. The most likely point of
communication would be Tenterfield. The Glen
Innes to Inverell proposal had been rejected by the
Public Works Committee by one vote. He did not
regard that fact, however, in the light of any de-
cision as to the best route. Personally he favoured
the Glen Innes route, but he saw that he had been
taken to task by the public press, which said
he referred the proposal to the committee in only a
half-hearted way. He regretted that the Public
Works Act did not empower him to submit more
than one proposal for the same work to the Parlia-
mentary Committee, as probably alternative pro-
posals for any given works would prevent deadlocks.  

He thought confining the Minister to the submission  
of one proposal was a flaw in the Act, which should
be amended. Probably deputations from other
districts would approach him on the subject, and he
would say at once he did not believe he could take
action. The granting a re-survey might be construed
into a change of opinion on his part regarding the
route, but in his mind no change had taken place.
He was in a rather unpleasant, position, for he did
not like to deny anything in reason his colleague
Mr. Copeland asked him to do. He could not see
his way clear to take any further action, but he in-
tended to visit Glen Innes in the near future, and
when in that district he would inspect the route
brought under his notice by the deputation.

Advertisements

Written by macalba

March 24, 2010 at 8:07 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s