Chapter 12

[61]The number of passengers, or tons of goods are not reliable for the purpose of comparison, inasmuch as a passenger or a ton of goods carried over two railways appears as two passengers or two tons, and therefore after various lines are amalgamated, the returns may show an apparent decrease when in fact there may have been an actual increase in traffic.[62]It is assumed that some receipts for cattle traffic are included in this item.[63]In calculating these per centages, the “Miscellaneous” receipts have been included in the gross receipts.[64]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.[65]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.[66]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.[67]The passenger fares, excluding and including the charges for luggage, are:—Scale per Mile of Passenger Fares,Excluding charge for luggage.Distances.France.Belgium.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd10 Miles1·911·431·051·501·100·801·170·950·6550 Miles1·911·431·051·481·090·731·160·880·59100 Miles1·911·431·051·471·090·731·160·870·58Excluding charge for luggage.Distances.Holland.Germany.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th10 Miles1·601·300·801·761·290·911·531·170·820·1750 Miles1·601·300·801·691·270·891·501·130·750·38100 Miles1·601·300·801·691·270·891·501·130·750·38Including charge for luggage.Distances.France.Belgium.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd10 Miles2·251·771·051·971·571·271·651·421·1250 Miles2·161·601·051·761·290·831·451·070·69100 Miles2·151·591·01·751·290·781·4510·70·63Including charge for luggage.Distances.Holland.Germany.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th10 Miles2·201·801·102·041·480·941·811·360·820·4750 Miles2·021·651·011·971·460·891·791·320·750·38100 Miles2·021·651·011·971·460·891·781·320·750·38[68]Germany.—The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows the expenses for salaries and wages paid by the German railways (exclusive of 38,166,114 marks under the heading of shunting expenses, as it is not known whether this item includes anything for wages) to be 48·46 per cent. of the gross working expenses, but as this information differs from that otherwise obtained, and it is not known whether the latter includes any staff expenses in respect of new works, it is not considered desirable to base any conclusions on either set of figures until they are verified.[69]These figures may not be absolutely accurate, but every effort has been made to make a fair comparison. To obtain them, each of the twelve largest companies, owning in the aggregate 11,538 miles, have supplied the information.[70]The six great companies.[71]The State railways, from the published report.[72]The State, Holland and Dutch Rhenish railways, from information kindly supplied by them.[73]See Note on page 136.[74]Note.—There is a difference between the statements of revenue receipts and working expenses given in the “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” and those otherwise obtained, but not of a material character for the present purpose.[75]Shunting Masters 20/0 to 26/0.[76]Includes Foremen.[77]Note.—England—On some railways the 1st Class drivers are allowed a premium of £10 a year for good conduct, and both drivers and firemen are allowed lodging money, and also Sunday labour at the rate of 8 hours per day. Signalmen are allowed bonuses for good conduct from £1 to £5 per annum, and guards are allowed travelling expenses from 1/6 to 2/6 per day and night.France—Premiums to drivers and firemen are allowed for economy of fuel, regularity of service, and lodging expenses. Guards receive lodging money when they have to sleep out and a percentage on the excess fares collected, amounting together to about £4 15s. a year. Sums varying from £2 to £10 per annum are allowed to the inferior grades of staff who have to reside in Paris and other large towns where living is dear.Germany—The staff are classified into 5 divisions, all of which (except Class 1, which includes Ministers, Presidents, &c., who do not receive allowances), in addition to their fixed wages, receive allowances for house rent, which vary according to the town in which they reside. The towns are also classified into six divisions as under:—A12345Staff in Class££    s. d.£   s.£   s.£  s.£Do.  26045  0 036  030  027  027Do.  34533  0  027  024  021  018Do.  42721 12 018  015  010 169Do.  5129  0 07  45  83 123Head guards are in the 4th Class, under guards 5th, 1st Class Signalmen 4th, and Porters and shunters 5th. Engine drivers, firemen and guards are allowed expenses when away from home. Porters are not paid by the railway companies, but are allowed to charge the passengers fixed fees.Belgium—Engine Drivers and firemen are allowed premiums for economy of fuel and regularity of working, amounting to as much as £20 a year for drivers and £10 for firemen. Guards are also allowed bonuses for regularity of working.Holland—Enginemen and firemen are allowed premiums for economy in fuel, varying from 3d. to 2/-per day; and a mileage allowance in addition. Guards also receive an allowance over a certain number of miles travelled. Porters are not employed by the companies; but in return for the privilege of being allowed on the stations, they clean windows, sweep offices, &c., and perform other services for the companies.[78]The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows an average of £39 6s. 5d. per person on the German railways, whereas the other information, referred to at foot of page 133, gives the following average per person:—Traffic and General Services.£s.d.Superintendence, Clerks, &c.76180Workmen3440Workshops.Superintendence, Clerks, &c.;9500Workmen45120An average of £53 8s. 0d. per person.Note.—In Great Britain the costly systems of interlocking and signalling, and the block working, so as to interpose between trains an interval of space instead of time, are in operation to a very much greater extent than on the Continent, thus involving a larger staff of trained men.[79]See “Aucoc, Cours d’Administration,” vol. 3, p. 345.[80]The taxes in France consist of:—1.A duty of frs. 23·20 per cent. on passenger fares andgrande vitessetraffic, added to the railway charges, amounting to £3,436,164.2.A stamp duty of 35 cents. on “recépissés” and 70 cents. on consignment notes, also charged in addition to the rates, amounting to £1,116,588.3.A stamp duty of 10 cents, for every receipt of 10 frs. and above, amounting to £60,328.4.A charge of 15 cents. for postage of advice note of arrival of goods, amounting to £70,857.5.A tax of 10 frs. per kilometre for double lines and 5 frs. per kilometre for single lines, plus 5 per cent. on the value of the premises occupied by Agents, and 2 per cent. on warehouses, workshops, &c.6.License, excise, stamp, customs, and bond duties.7.A tax of 120 to 150 frs. per kilometre worked, for the expense of auditing and superintendence.8.A stamp duty on shares and bonds of 1 per cent. of the nominal capital.9.An income tax of 3 per cent. on interest and dividends.[81]Mr. L. Cohen—Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886.—Hansard, vol. cccv., 428.[82]See Second Report, Minutes of Evidence, Mr. Muller, page 38, Q. 1889.[83]Compare Sir Lowthian Bell’s statement. “The results of my enquiry on the continent of Europe, and in the United States, justify the assertion that foreign iron manufacturers as a rule possess no advantage over ourselves in these respects ... That railway accommodation for the transport of fuel, ore, and limestone is afforded on terms somewhat cheaper in Great Britain than those charged on the Continent for like distances.” (Appendix to part 1 of Second Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, pages 345-361.)[84]For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.[85]For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.[86]Note.The truck load rates are for open trucks. Extra is charged for tarpaulins if the goods are required to be covered.[87]The inflated prices charged in 1873-4 led to the establishment of new collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which raise about 6,000,000 tons per annum; this, with the increased output of the then existing collieries, is equal to an increase of about 50 per cent. of the previous tonnage raised in these counties which, with about 30 per cent. increase in other parts of the country, has prevented colliery proprietors obtaining a reasonable profit since 1875, and probably will do so until the demand overtakes the supply.[88]See Appendix I., page vii.[89]Appendix 31 to Report from Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. II.[90]Note.—The following remarks, contained in the report of the Joint Committee of 1872, on the subject of periodical revision of rates, are worth reading—“The difficulty has been felt by many of the witnesses, and they have accordingly suggested that there should be a periodical revision of rates and fares.“Here, again, we are met in the first instance by the same difficulty as before. The companies will, if experience is any guide, constantly, for their own sakes, charge less than their legal maxima. Is this revision to take effect on their legal maxima, or on the actual rates as they voluntarily reduce them? If the former, its results will be small; if the latter, it will be difficult to effect, and may bear hardly upon the companies in stereotyping a temporary or experimental reduction. In fact, the proposals for revision of rates, if they are to be effectual, really presuppose some such determination of rates according to a fixed standard as we have considered above. If there are no special rates, it is a comparatively simple thing to make a general reduction. If there are special rates it becomes a very difficult task. But a still more serious question with respect to periodical revision is the question—On what principle is it to be performed, and by whom? If it is to be purely arbitrary, if no rule is to be laid down to guide the revisers, the power of revision will amount to a power to confiscate the property of the companies. It is not likely that Parliament would attempt to exercise any such power itself, still less that it would confer such a power on any subordinate authority. Accordingly the witnesses have suggested that the revision should take effect under conditions which would reserve to the companies a reasonable amount of profit, and to some revision founded on this principle, it appears from the evidence that some, at least, of the principal railway companies would not object.“This leads to the further consideration of the important question, whether it is possible or desirable to fix by law a maximum of profit, or dividend. If it is not possible or desirable to do so, any periodical or systematic revision of charges by any authority subordinate to Parliament, may be pronounced impracticable.”[91]See the language of Lord Penzance inPrycev.Monmouthshire Canal and Railway Company, L. R. 4 A. C., p. 206.[92]In the case of the application of the North Wales Colliery proprietors to the Railway Commissioners against the Great Western Railway Company, on the ground that they charged coal from South Wales to Birkenhead, 159 miles, at the rate of ·454d. per ton per mile, as against ·893d. per ton per mile for their coal for 28 miles, the expense incurred by the Great Western Company, exclusive of the time occupied by their own staff, was £1,433; and the time which was taken up in preparing for, and in attending, the hearing was very serious.[93]The rates for “interstate” traffic in the United States are not at present subject to any Government control, but are made at the discretion of the companies to meet the requirements of trade, competition by rail and water, and of cities. Two Bills for the regulation of the interstate traffic of railways have recently been before Congress; one, the “Reagan” Bill, which proposes to fix the charges, to prohibit any discrimination, and to make it illegal for railway companies “to combine or to pool” their receipts without stringent provisions and penalties. The other Bill, entitled the “Cullom” Bill, proposed the appointment of an Interstate Commission consisting of five members, but did not provide for any specific or maximum rates for the transportation of passengers or merchandise, except that they should be reasonable and that there should be no unfair discrimination; while laying down the principle that the rates should be in proportion to the distance carried, it proposed to give to the Commissioners power, in their discretion, to allow lower rates to be charged for long, as compared with short distance traffic. The former Bill passed the House of Representatives and was rejected by the Senate; the “Cullom” Bill passed the Senate, and was rejected by the House of Representatives.[94]Report of the Committee of Commerce, House of Representatives of the United States, March 8th, 1886.“The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bills (H. R. 309) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and for other purposes; (H. R. 770) to regulate interstate commerce through a national court of arbitration (H. R. 1,572) to create an interstate commerce commission, and to regulate its powers and duties; (H. R. 1,669) to establish a bureau of transportation in the Department of the Interior; (H. R. 2,412) to regulate interstate commerce and to prevent unjust discriminations by common carriers; and (H. R. 3,929) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and to regulate such commerce, beg leave to report said bills back to the House, and ask that they be laid on the table, and to report the accompanying bill as a substitute for H. R. 2,412, and recommend its passage.“The subject matter of these bills has been so fully and elaborately discussed for several years past, that it is not deemed necessary in this report to enter into an elaborate explanation of the provisions of the bill reported to the House. Your committee may state, however, that the several bills referred to them rest upon three different theories.“House bills 309, 1,572, 1,669 and 3,929 are framed upon the idea of providing a governmental commission, and of making detailed regulations of freight rates. The theory of these bills did not need the approval of the committee.“House bill 770, ‘To Regulate Interstate Commerce through a National Court of ‘Arbitration,’ looks to the establishment of a court with power extending in some measure to the regulation of commerce between States, with provisions extending to the regulation of subjects not believed to be within the jurisdiction of Congress, and not embracing in its provisions matters of regulation believed to be necessary in a bill of this kind; and a single court to be held at Washington City, as provided in this bill, would not be sufficiently convenient to the people.“The bill which we report to the House, and which is an amendment of House bill 2,412, is based upon the theory of furnishing civil remedies in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction to parties for the most conspicuous grievances complained of in railroad management, prohibiting what should not be done, and commanding what should be done; proposing remedies for the violation of its provisions, and avoiding any attempt at detailed regulation of freight rates. This was deemed best as the first effort at legislation upon this subject. The interests involved are so large, and their successful management so important to the country, that it was not deemed advisable to run any risk of embarrassing the management of the railroads of the country, and at the same time it was deemed necessary for the protection of the interests of the people to control and circumscribe the exercise of the monopoly powers of these corporations, to prevent them from making extortionate charges and unlawful exactions upon the people.“The examination of this subject will show that the attempt to establish a system of legislative rates is impracticable, for the reason that what would be a reasonable rate for one road would be ruinous, perhaps, to others, as the charges for the transportation of freights are largely controlled by the amount of business done by the several roads.“For instance, what would be a reasonable rate of charges on the Pennsylvania Railroad would not be a reasonable rate upon a road in the new States and in a sparsely settled portion of the country.“The same difficulty lies in the way of attempting to protect the people by the adoption of maximum rates. What would be a reasonable maximum upon one road would not be reasonable upon others. A maximum high enough to protect the railroads against harm would be too high to benefit the people on most of the roads, and a maximum low enough to protect the people on some roads would be ruinous to the interests of many other roads, so that it is not believed best to attempt to protect the interests of the public by the legislative rates or by the maximum rates.“The bill which we report to the House, instead of adopting either of these plans, provides that the charges of the railroads shall be reasonable; that persons engaged in the transportation of interstate commerce by railroads shall furnish without discrimination the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, storage and handling of property of a like character, and shall perform with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with contemporaneous transportation.“These constitute a portion of the leading features of the bill which we report to the House. It is believed that the enactment and enforcement of such a law will provide for the just and necessary abridgment of the monopoly powers of these corporations, and protect the people against unreasonable charges and extortionate exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embarrass the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is reasonable and just they should do. And the Committee believe it wiser and better to provide for the enforcement of the provisions of such a law through the instrumentality of the ordinary courts of justice, and by the judges and juries of the country than by the orders of a commission. The machinery of the courts is already in existence, and will require no additional expense, and is within convenient reach of the people everywhere, and is fully able to adjudicate all cases which may arise under this bill and by methods with which the people are familiar, while no plan of a commission which has been proposed could be conveniently accessible to all the people, and if a plan should be presented which would provide a jurisdiction convenient to all the people it would necessarily be cumbrous and very expensive. In this view a commission is unnecessary, unless it is the purpose of Congress to enter upon the detailed regulation of freight rates.”[95]Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1885 (page xv.) gives a list of Railroads of the United States sold under foreclosure. The following is a brief summary:—Mileagem.Capital Stock.$Funded Debt.$Floating Debt$188266820,751,45723,999,06510,073,76918831,19024,587,70438,197,9262,481,608188471412,894,00013,061,000422,533[96]The railways in this country are governed by directors who have shares in the respective undertakings, and represent the shareholders (assumed to be about 500,000), but generally their interest in the railways is relatively small compared with that which they possess in land, manufactories, collieries, ironworks, and commerce &c., besides which from their local connections, and as public men, they are keenly alive to the requirements of agriculture, trade and commerce, and in reality represent those interests to a much greater extent than is sometimes assumed to be the case.[97]In a case of the kind referred to, which was brought before the Board of Trade when the Bill was before Parliament, as a skilled officer of the company was occupied 150 hours, in preparing the information alone to reply to the Board of Trade, irrespective of the time occupied by others in analysing the information, and in corresponding with the Board of Trade on the subject, all of which had no practical result.[98]In Leesv.Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1 N. & M. 352, the Commissioners relied to some extent upon a principle which they do not appear to have since put in force. The question was whether the company gave an undue and unreasonable preference to the Corporation. The Commissioners said that undoubtedly a preference had been given, but they declined to say it was unreasonable (1) because the Corporation did not compete with the complainants; (2) becausethe preference was for the public benefit and convenience(p. 367); (3) because of the nature and magnitude of the coal traffic of the Corporation.[99]2 N. & M. 39.[100]See the head note on the case, and the language of Williams, J.; also the observations of Cockburn, C. J. in Harrisv.Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, I. N. and M., p. 703. The latter judge, referring to “fair and sufficient reasons” for differences in rates, says, “As, for instance, in respect of terminal traffic, there might be competition with another railway.”[101]The reporters append the following note to the case.“It appears that competition between two railways, or by sea or canal, is sufficient justification for a railway company reducing its fares to the public, who are affected by such competitions, and can take advantage; but that a railway company cannot, merely for the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour of individuals unless there is a sufficient consideration for such reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the company of conveyance or other services rendered to them by such individuals,” vol. 2, p. 121. Probably this represented the general opinion of the legal profession in 1875.In the report for 1883 the Commissioners refer to “the fair pecuniary interests generally of the company carrying” (p. 1.) as if they might be taken into account.[102]“The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament; care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”[103]See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.[104]The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway, within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway, provided that improvements of the communications between the points and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered with.”[105]Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.[106]Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.[107]The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the maintenance of canals is as follows:—Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay.[108]Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Canals, page 214, “These lengths are exclusive of the River Thames, Severn, Wye, Humber, Wear, and Tyne in England; the Rivers Clyde, Forth, Tay, and the Caledonian Ship Canal in Scotland; the Shannon and other navigations in Ireland.” According to Mr. Taunton’s Report, the canals and navigable rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland under control of railways are 1,447 miles as against 2,335, which are independent of railway companies (Appendix 228.)[109]See evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, in 1883.[110]M. de Foville says (1880) “Sur les canaux de l’Etat, la suppression totale des droits de navigation sera peut être bientôt un fait accompli” p 134.[111]There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are.[112]“Monopoly” is at present the favourite word of the adversaries of railways; everything is permissible because railway companies have a “monopoly.” This word has at least three senses. Monopoly in the strict legal sense in which the Bank of England is guaranteed by statute, the exclusive right of issuing notes within a certain area; monopoly in the sense of being able to exclude other competitors, because in a commercial point of view there is no room for competition, or because the work could not be done more cheaply or better by others. Messrs. W. H. Smith may be said to possess a monopoly in this sense; monopoly is equivalent to property. No railway company possesses a monopoly in the first sense. No company is guaranteed against competition within any area, as many of them know to their cost. Most attacks against railways are justified by using the word, true in the second or third sense, as if true in the first; and persons in eminent positions occasionally condescend to sanction the use of this fallacy.[113]Some difficulty has been experienced in checking the rates contained in Sir B. Samuelson’s report owing to the distances not being given, and from the name of the district being used instead of the names of the places between which the rates are shewn. For instance, although the South Wales Coalfields extend over a very large area, a rate of 7s. 3d. per ton for coke is referred to as from “South Wales to Darlaston,” on page 24 of the report; and in like manner on pages 27 and 28 the rates for pig iron are given as from “Cleveland and Northamptonshire.”[114]Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[61]The number of passengers, or tons of goods are not reliable for the purpose of comparison, inasmuch as a passenger or a ton of goods carried over two railways appears as two passengers or two tons, and therefore after various lines are amalgamated, the returns may show an apparent decrease when in fact there may have been an actual increase in traffic.

[61]The number of passengers, or tons of goods are not reliable for the purpose of comparison, inasmuch as a passenger or a ton of goods carried over two railways appears as two passengers or two tons, and therefore after various lines are amalgamated, the returns may show an apparent decrease when in fact there may have been an actual increase in traffic.

[62]It is assumed that some receipts for cattle traffic are included in this item.

[62]It is assumed that some receipts for cattle traffic are included in this item.

[63]In calculating these per centages, the “Miscellaneous” receipts have been included in the gross receipts.

[63]In calculating these per centages, the “Miscellaneous” receipts have been included in the gross receipts.

[64]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[64]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[65]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[65]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[66]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[66]Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[67]The passenger fares, excluding and including the charges for luggage, are:—Scale per Mile of Passenger Fares,Excluding charge for luggage.Distances.France.Belgium.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd10 Miles1·911·431·051·501·100·801·170·950·6550 Miles1·911·431·051·481·090·731·160·880·59100 Miles1·911·431·051·471·090·731·160·870·58Excluding charge for luggage.Distances.Holland.Germany.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th10 Miles1·601·300·801·761·290·911·531·170·820·1750 Miles1·601·300·801·691·270·891·501·130·750·38100 Miles1·601·300·801·691·270·891·501·130·750·38Including charge for luggage.Distances.France.Belgium.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd10 Miles2·251·771·051·971·571·271·651·421·1250 Miles2·161·601·051·761·290·831·451·070·69100 Miles2·151·591·01·751·290·781·4510·70·63Including charge for luggage.Distances.Holland.Germany.Express.Ordinary.1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th10 Miles2·201·801·102·041·480·941·811·360·820·4750 Miles2·021·651·011·971·460·891·791·320·750·38100 Miles2·021·651·011·971·460·891·781·320·750·38

[67]The passenger fares, excluding and including the charges for luggage, are:—

Scale per Mile of Passenger Fares,Excluding charge for luggage.

Excluding charge for luggage.

Including charge for luggage.

Including charge for luggage.

[68]Germany.—The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows the expenses for salaries and wages paid by the German railways (exclusive of 38,166,114 marks under the heading of shunting expenses, as it is not known whether this item includes anything for wages) to be 48·46 per cent. of the gross working expenses, but as this information differs from that otherwise obtained, and it is not known whether the latter includes any staff expenses in respect of new works, it is not considered desirable to base any conclusions on either set of figures until they are verified.

[68]Germany.—The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows the expenses for salaries and wages paid by the German railways (exclusive of 38,166,114 marks under the heading of shunting expenses, as it is not known whether this item includes anything for wages) to be 48·46 per cent. of the gross working expenses, but as this information differs from that otherwise obtained, and it is not known whether the latter includes any staff expenses in respect of new works, it is not considered desirable to base any conclusions on either set of figures until they are verified.

[69]These figures may not be absolutely accurate, but every effort has been made to make a fair comparison. To obtain them, each of the twelve largest companies, owning in the aggregate 11,538 miles, have supplied the information.

[69]These figures may not be absolutely accurate, but every effort has been made to make a fair comparison. To obtain them, each of the twelve largest companies, owning in the aggregate 11,538 miles, have supplied the information.

[70]The six great companies.

[70]The six great companies.

[71]The State railways, from the published report.

[71]The State railways, from the published report.

[72]The State, Holland and Dutch Rhenish railways, from information kindly supplied by them.

[72]The State, Holland and Dutch Rhenish railways, from information kindly supplied by them.

[73]See Note on page 136.

[73]See Note on page 136.

[74]Note.—There is a difference between the statements of revenue receipts and working expenses given in the “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” and those otherwise obtained, but not of a material character for the present purpose.

[74]Note.—There is a difference between the statements of revenue receipts and working expenses given in the “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” and those otherwise obtained, but not of a material character for the present purpose.

[75]Shunting Masters 20/0 to 26/0.

[75]Shunting Masters 20/0 to 26/0.

[76]Includes Foremen.

[76]Includes Foremen.

[77]Note.—England—On some railways the 1st Class drivers are allowed a premium of £10 a year for good conduct, and both drivers and firemen are allowed lodging money, and also Sunday labour at the rate of 8 hours per day. Signalmen are allowed bonuses for good conduct from £1 to £5 per annum, and guards are allowed travelling expenses from 1/6 to 2/6 per day and night.France—Premiums to drivers and firemen are allowed for economy of fuel, regularity of service, and lodging expenses. Guards receive lodging money when they have to sleep out and a percentage on the excess fares collected, amounting together to about £4 15s. a year. Sums varying from £2 to £10 per annum are allowed to the inferior grades of staff who have to reside in Paris and other large towns where living is dear.Germany—The staff are classified into 5 divisions, all of which (except Class 1, which includes Ministers, Presidents, &c., who do not receive allowances), in addition to their fixed wages, receive allowances for house rent, which vary according to the town in which they reside. The towns are also classified into six divisions as under:—A12345Staff in Class££    s. d.£   s.£   s.£  s.£Do.  26045  0 036  030  027  027Do.  34533  0  027  024  021  018Do.  42721 12 018  015  010 169Do.  5129  0 07  45  83 123Head guards are in the 4th Class, under guards 5th, 1st Class Signalmen 4th, and Porters and shunters 5th. Engine drivers, firemen and guards are allowed expenses when away from home. Porters are not paid by the railway companies, but are allowed to charge the passengers fixed fees.Belgium—Engine Drivers and firemen are allowed premiums for economy of fuel and regularity of working, amounting to as much as £20 a year for drivers and £10 for firemen. Guards are also allowed bonuses for regularity of working.Holland—Enginemen and firemen are allowed premiums for economy in fuel, varying from 3d. to 2/-per day; and a mileage allowance in addition. Guards also receive an allowance over a certain number of miles travelled. Porters are not employed by the companies; but in return for the privilege of being allowed on the stations, they clean windows, sweep offices, &c., and perform other services for the companies.

[77]Note.—England—On some railways the 1st Class drivers are allowed a premium of £10 a year for good conduct, and both drivers and firemen are allowed lodging money, and also Sunday labour at the rate of 8 hours per day. Signalmen are allowed bonuses for good conduct from £1 to £5 per annum, and guards are allowed travelling expenses from 1/6 to 2/6 per day and night.

France—Premiums to drivers and firemen are allowed for economy of fuel, regularity of service, and lodging expenses. Guards receive lodging money when they have to sleep out and a percentage on the excess fares collected, amounting together to about £4 15s. a year. Sums varying from £2 to £10 per annum are allowed to the inferior grades of staff who have to reside in Paris and other large towns where living is dear.

Germany—The staff are classified into 5 divisions, all of which (except Class 1, which includes Ministers, Presidents, &c., who do not receive allowances), in addition to their fixed wages, receive allowances for house rent, which vary according to the town in which they reside. The towns are also classified into six divisions as under:—

Head guards are in the 4th Class, under guards 5th, 1st Class Signalmen 4th, and Porters and shunters 5th. Engine drivers, firemen and guards are allowed expenses when away from home. Porters are not paid by the railway companies, but are allowed to charge the passengers fixed fees.

Belgium—Engine Drivers and firemen are allowed premiums for economy of fuel and regularity of working, amounting to as much as £20 a year for drivers and £10 for firemen. Guards are also allowed bonuses for regularity of working.

Holland—Enginemen and firemen are allowed premiums for economy in fuel, varying from 3d. to 2/-per day; and a mileage allowance in addition. Guards also receive an allowance over a certain number of miles travelled. Porters are not employed by the companies; but in return for the privilege of being allowed on the stations, they clean windows, sweep offices, &c., and perform other services for the companies.

[78]The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows an average of £39 6s. 5d. per person on the German railways, whereas the other information, referred to at foot of page 133, gives the following average per person:—Traffic and General Services.£s.d.Superintendence, Clerks, &c.76180Workmen3440Workshops.Superintendence, Clerks, &c.;9500Workmen45120An average of £53 8s. 0d. per person.Note.—In Great Britain the costly systems of interlocking and signalling, and the block working, so as to interpose between trains an interval of space instead of time, are in operation to a very much greater extent than on the Continent, thus involving a larger staff of trained men.

[78]The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows an average of £39 6s. 5d. per person on the German railways, whereas the other information, referred to at foot of page 133, gives the following average per person:—

Note.—In Great Britain the costly systems of interlocking and signalling, and the block working, so as to interpose between trains an interval of space instead of time, are in operation to a very much greater extent than on the Continent, thus involving a larger staff of trained men.

[79]See “Aucoc, Cours d’Administration,” vol. 3, p. 345.

[79]See “Aucoc, Cours d’Administration,” vol. 3, p. 345.

[80]The taxes in France consist of:—1.A duty of frs. 23·20 per cent. on passenger fares andgrande vitessetraffic, added to the railway charges, amounting to £3,436,164.2.A stamp duty of 35 cents. on “recépissés” and 70 cents. on consignment notes, also charged in addition to the rates, amounting to £1,116,588.3.A stamp duty of 10 cents, for every receipt of 10 frs. and above, amounting to £60,328.4.A charge of 15 cents. for postage of advice note of arrival of goods, amounting to £70,857.5.A tax of 10 frs. per kilometre for double lines and 5 frs. per kilometre for single lines, plus 5 per cent. on the value of the premises occupied by Agents, and 2 per cent. on warehouses, workshops, &c.6.License, excise, stamp, customs, and bond duties.7.A tax of 120 to 150 frs. per kilometre worked, for the expense of auditing and superintendence.8.A stamp duty on shares and bonds of 1 per cent. of the nominal capital.9.An income tax of 3 per cent. on interest and dividends.

[80]The taxes in France consist of:—

[81]Mr. L. Cohen—Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886.—Hansard, vol. cccv., 428.

[81]Mr. L. Cohen—Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886.—Hansard, vol. cccv., 428.

[82]See Second Report, Minutes of Evidence, Mr. Muller, page 38, Q. 1889.

[82]See Second Report, Minutes of Evidence, Mr. Muller, page 38, Q. 1889.

[83]Compare Sir Lowthian Bell’s statement. “The results of my enquiry on the continent of Europe, and in the United States, justify the assertion that foreign iron manufacturers as a rule possess no advantage over ourselves in these respects ... That railway accommodation for the transport of fuel, ore, and limestone is afforded on terms somewhat cheaper in Great Britain than those charged on the Continent for like distances.” (Appendix to part 1 of Second Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, pages 345-361.)

[83]Compare Sir Lowthian Bell’s statement. “The results of my enquiry on the continent of Europe, and in the United States, justify the assertion that foreign iron manufacturers as a rule possess no advantage over ourselves in these respects ... That railway accommodation for the transport of fuel, ore, and limestone is afforded on terms somewhat cheaper in Great Britain than those charged on the Continent for like distances.” (Appendix to part 1 of Second Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, pages 345-361.)

[84]For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[84]For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[85]For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[85]For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[86]Note.The truck load rates are for open trucks. Extra is charged for tarpaulins if the goods are required to be covered.

[86]Note.The truck load rates are for open trucks. Extra is charged for tarpaulins if the goods are required to be covered.

[87]The inflated prices charged in 1873-4 led to the establishment of new collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which raise about 6,000,000 tons per annum; this, with the increased output of the then existing collieries, is equal to an increase of about 50 per cent. of the previous tonnage raised in these counties which, with about 30 per cent. increase in other parts of the country, has prevented colliery proprietors obtaining a reasonable profit since 1875, and probably will do so until the demand overtakes the supply.

[87]The inflated prices charged in 1873-4 led to the establishment of new collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which raise about 6,000,000 tons per annum; this, with the increased output of the then existing collieries, is equal to an increase of about 50 per cent. of the previous tonnage raised in these counties which, with about 30 per cent. increase in other parts of the country, has prevented colliery proprietors obtaining a reasonable profit since 1875, and probably will do so until the demand overtakes the supply.

[88]See Appendix I., page vii.

[88]See Appendix I., page vii.

[89]Appendix 31 to Report from Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. II.

[89]Appendix 31 to Report from Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. II.

[90]Note.—The following remarks, contained in the report of the Joint Committee of 1872, on the subject of periodical revision of rates, are worth reading—“The difficulty has been felt by many of the witnesses, and they have accordingly suggested that there should be a periodical revision of rates and fares.“Here, again, we are met in the first instance by the same difficulty as before. The companies will, if experience is any guide, constantly, for their own sakes, charge less than their legal maxima. Is this revision to take effect on their legal maxima, or on the actual rates as they voluntarily reduce them? If the former, its results will be small; if the latter, it will be difficult to effect, and may bear hardly upon the companies in stereotyping a temporary or experimental reduction. In fact, the proposals for revision of rates, if they are to be effectual, really presuppose some such determination of rates according to a fixed standard as we have considered above. If there are no special rates, it is a comparatively simple thing to make a general reduction. If there are special rates it becomes a very difficult task. But a still more serious question with respect to periodical revision is the question—On what principle is it to be performed, and by whom? If it is to be purely arbitrary, if no rule is to be laid down to guide the revisers, the power of revision will amount to a power to confiscate the property of the companies. It is not likely that Parliament would attempt to exercise any such power itself, still less that it would confer such a power on any subordinate authority. Accordingly the witnesses have suggested that the revision should take effect under conditions which would reserve to the companies a reasonable amount of profit, and to some revision founded on this principle, it appears from the evidence that some, at least, of the principal railway companies would not object.“This leads to the further consideration of the important question, whether it is possible or desirable to fix by law a maximum of profit, or dividend. If it is not possible or desirable to do so, any periodical or systematic revision of charges by any authority subordinate to Parliament, may be pronounced impracticable.”

[90]Note.—The following remarks, contained in the report of the Joint Committee of 1872, on the subject of periodical revision of rates, are worth reading—

“The difficulty has been felt by many of the witnesses, and they have accordingly suggested that there should be a periodical revision of rates and fares.

“Here, again, we are met in the first instance by the same difficulty as before. The companies will, if experience is any guide, constantly, for their own sakes, charge less than their legal maxima. Is this revision to take effect on their legal maxima, or on the actual rates as they voluntarily reduce them? If the former, its results will be small; if the latter, it will be difficult to effect, and may bear hardly upon the companies in stereotyping a temporary or experimental reduction. In fact, the proposals for revision of rates, if they are to be effectual, really presuppose some such determination of rates according to a fixed standard as we have considered above. If there are no special rates, it is a comparatively simple thing to make a general reduction. If there are special rates it becomes a very difficult task. But a still more serious question with respect to periodical revision is the question—On what principle is it to be performed, and by whom? If it is to be purely arbitrary, if no rule is to be laid down to guide the revisers, the power of revision will amount to a power to confiscate the property of the companies. It is not likely that Parliament would attempt to exercise any such power itself, still less that it would confer such a power on any subordinate authority. Accordingly the witnesses have suggested that the revision should take effect under conditions which would reserve to the companies a reasonable amount of profit, and to some revision founded on this principle, it appears from the evidence that some, at least, of the principal railway companies would not object.

“This leads to the further consideration of the important question, whether it is possible or desirable to fix by law a maximum of profit, or dividend. If it is not possible or desirable to do so, any periodical or systematic revision of charges by any authority subordinate to Parliament, may be pronounced impracticable.”

[91]See the language of Lord Penzance inPrycev.Monmouthshire Canal and Railway Company, L. R. 4 A. C., p. 206.

[91]See the language of Lord Penzance inPrycev.Monmouthshire Canal and Railway Company, L. R. 4 A. C., p. 206.

[92]In the case of the application of the North Wales Colliery proprietors to the Railway Commissioners against the Great Western Railway Company, on the ground that they charged coal from South Wales to Birkenhead, 159 miles, at the rate of ·454d. per ton per mile, as against ·893d. per ton per mile for their coal for 28 miles, the expense incurred by the Great Western Company, exclusive of the time occupied by their own staff, was £1,433; and the time which was taken up in preparing for, and in attending, the hearing was very serious.

[92]In the case of the application of the North Wales Colliery proprietors to the Railway Commissioners against the Great Western Railway Company, on the ground that they charged coal from South Wales to Birkenhead, 159 miles, at the rate of ·454d. per ton per mile, as against ·893d. per ton per mile for their coal for 28 miles, the expense incurred by the Great Western Company, exclusive of the time occupied by their own staff, was £1,433; and the time which was taken up in preparing for, and in attending, the hearing was very serious.

[93]The rates for “interstate” traffic in the United States are not at present subject to any Government control, but are made at the discretion of the companies to meet the requirements of trade, competition by rail and water, and of cities. Two Bills for the regulation of the interstate traffic of railways have recently been before Congress; one, the “Reagan” Bill, which proposes to fix the charges, to prohibit any discrimination, and to make it illegal for railway companies “to combine or to pool” their receipts without stringent provisions and penalties. The other Bill, entitled the “Cullom” Bill, proposed the appointment of an Interstate Commission consisting of five members, but did not provide for any specific or maximum rates for the transportation of passengers or merchandise, except that they should be reasonable and that there should be no unfair discrimination; while laying down the principle that the rates should be in proportion to the distance carried, it proposed to give to the Commissioners power, in their discretion, to allow lower rates to be charged for long, as compared with short distance traffic. The former Bill passed the House of Representatives and was rejected by the Senate; the “Cullom” Bill passed the Senate, and was rejected by the House of Representatives.

[93]The rates for “interstate” traffic in the United States are not at present subject to any Government control, but are made at the discretion of the companies to meet the requirements of trade, competition by rail and water, and of cities. Two Bills for the regulation of the interstate traffic of railways have recently been before Congress; one, the “Reagan” Bill, which proposes to fix the charges, to prohibit any discrimination, and to make it illegal for railway companies “to combine or to pool” their receipts without stringent provisions and penalties. The other Bill, entitled the “Cullom” Bill, proposed the appointment of an Interstate Commission consisting of five members, but did not provide for any specific or maximum rates for the transportation of passengers or merchandise, except that they should be reasonable and that there should be no unfair discrimination; while laying down the principle that the rates should be in proportion to the distance carried, it proposed to give to the Commissioners power, in their discretion, to allow lower rates to be charged for long, as compared with short distance traffic. The former Bill passed the House of Representatives and was rejected by the Senate; the “Cullom” Bill passed the Senate, and was rejected by the House of Representatives.

[94]Report of the Committee of Commerce, House of Representatives of the United States, March 8th, 1886.“The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bills (H. R. 309) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and for other purposes; (H. R. 770) to regulate interstate commerce through a national court of arbitration (H. R. 1,572) to create an interstate commerce commission, and to regulate its powers and duties; (H. R. 1,669) to establish a bureau of transportation in the Department of the Interior; (H. R. 2,412) to regulate interstate commerce and to prevent unjust discriminations by common carriers; and (H. R. 3,929) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and to regulate such commerce, beg leave to report said bills back to the House, and ask that they be laid on the table, and to report the accompanying bill as a substitute for H. R. 2,412, and recommend its passage.“The subject matter of these bills has been so fully and elaborately discussed for several years past, that it is not deemed necessary in this report to enter into an elaborate explanation of the provisions of the bill reported to the House. Your committee may state, however, that the several bills referred to them rest upon three different theories.“House bills 309, 1,572, 1,669 and 3,929 are framed upon the idea of providing a governmental commission, and of making detailed regulations of freight rates. The theory of these bills did not need the approval of the committee.“House bill 770, ‘To Regulate Interstate Commerce through a National Court of ‘Arbitration,’ looks to the establishment of a court with power extending in some measure to the regulation of commerce between States, with provisions extending to the regulation of subjects not believed to be within the jurisdiction of Congress, and not embracing in its provisions matters of regulation believed to be necessary in a bill of this kind; and a single court to be held at Washington City, as provided in this bill, would not be sufficiently convenient to the people.“The bill which we report to the House, and which is an amendment of House bill 2,412, is based upon the theory of furnishing civil remedies in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction to parties for the most conspicuous grievances complained of in railroad management, prohibiting what should not be done, and commanding what should be done; proposing remedies for the violation of its provisions, and avoiding any attempt at detailed regulation of freight rates. This was deemed best as the first effort at legislation upon this subject. The interests involved are so large, and their successful management so important to the country, that it was not deemed advisable to run any risk of embarrassing the management of the railroads of the country, and at the same time it was deemed necessary for the protection of the interests of the people to control and circumscribe the exercise of the monopoly powers of these corporations, to prevent them from making extortionate charges and unlawful exactions upon the people.“The examination of this subject will show that the attempt to establish a system of legislative rates is impracticable, for the reason that what would be a reasonable rate for one road would be ruinous, perhaps, to others, as the charges for the transportation of freights are largely controlled by the amount of business done by the several roads.“For instance, what would be a reasonable rate of charges on the Pennsylvania Railroad would not be a reasonable rate upon a road in the new States and in a sparsely settled portion of the country.“The same difficulty lies in the way of attempting to protect the people by the adoption of maximum rates. What would be a reasonable maximum upon one road would not be reasonable upon others. A maximum high enough to protect the railroads against harm would be too high to benefit the people on most of the roads, and a maximum low enough to protect the people on some roads would be ruinous to the interests of many other roads, so that it is not believed best to attempt to protect the interests of the public by the legislative rates or by the maximum rates.“The bill which we report to the House, instead of adopting either of these plans, provides that the charges of the railroads shall be reasonable; that persons engaged in the transportation of interstate commerce by railroads shall furnish without discrimination the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, storage and handling of property of a like character, and shall perform with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with contemporaneous transportation.“These constitute a portion of the leading features of the bill which we report to the House. It is believed that the enactment and enforcement of such a law will provide for the just and necessary abridgment of the monopoly powers of these corporations, and protect the people against unreasonable charges and extortionate exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embarrass the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is reasonable and just they should do. And the Committee believe it wiser and better to provide for the enforcement of the provisions of such a law through the instrumentality of the ordinary courts of justice, and by the judges and juries of the country than by the orders of a commission. The machinery of the courts is already in existence, and will require no additional expense, and is within convenient reach of the people everywhere, and is fully able to adjudicate all cases which may arise under this bill and by methods with which the people are familiar, while no plan of a commission which has been proposed could be conveniently accessible to all the people, and if a plan should be presented which would provide a jurisdiction convenient to all the people it would necessarily be cumbrous and very expensive. In this view a commission is unnecessary, unless it is the purpose of Congress to enter upon the detailed regulation of freight rates.”

[94]Report of the Committee of Commerce, House of Representatives of the United States, March 8th, 1886.

“The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bills (H. R. 309) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and for other purposes; (H. R. 770) to regulate interstate commerce through a national court of arbitration (H. R. 1,572) to create an interstate commerce commission, and to regulate its powers and duties; (H. R. 1,669) to establish a bureau of transportation in the Department of the Interior; (H. R. 2,412) to regulate interstate commerce and to prevent unjust discriminations by common carriers; and (H. R. 3,929) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and to regulate such commerce, beg leave to report said bills back to the House, and ask that they be laid on the table, and to report the accompanying bill as a substitute for H. R. 2,412, and recommend its passage.

“The subject matter of these bills has been so fully and elaborately discussed for several years past, that it is not deemed necessary in this report to enter into an elaborate explanation of the provisions of the bill reported to the House. Your committee may state, however, that the several bills referred to them rest upon three different theories.

“House bills 309, 1,572, 1,669 and 3,929 are framed upon the idea of providing a governmental commission, and of making detailed regulations of freight rates. The theory of these bills did not need the approval of the committee.

“House bill 770, ‘To Regulate Interstate Commerce through a National Court of ‘Arbitration,’ looks to the establishment of a court with power extending in some measure to the regulation of commerce between States, with provisions extending to the regulation of subjects not believed to be within the jurisdiction of Congress, and not embracing in its provisions matters of regulation believed to be necessary in a bill of this kind; and a single court to be held at Washington City, as provided in this bill, would not be sufficiently convenient to the people.

“The bill which we report to the House, and which is an amendment of House bill 2,412, is based upon the theory of furnishing civil remedies in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction to parties for the most conspicuous grievances complained of in railroad management, prohibiting what should not be done, and commanding what should be done; proposing remedies for the violation of its provisions, and avoiding any attempt at detailed regulation of freight rates. This was deemed best as the first effort at legislation upon this subject. The interests involved are so large, and their successful management so important to the country, that it was not deemed advisable to run any risk of embarrassing the management of the railroads of the country, and at the same time it was deemed necessary for the protection of the interests of the people to control and circumscribe the exercise of the monopoly powers of these corporations, to prevent them from making extortionate charges and unlawful exactions upon the people.

“The examination of this subject will show that the attempt to establish a system of legislative rates is impracticable, for the reason that what would be a reasonable rate for one road would be ruinous, perhaps, to others, as the charges for the transportation of freights are largely controlled by the amount of business done by the several roads.

“For instance, what would be a reasonable rate of charges on the Pennsylvania Railroad would not be a reasonable rate upon a road in the new States and in a sparsely settled portion of the country.

“The same difficulty lies in the way of attempting to protect the people by the adoption of maximum rates. What would be a reasonable maximum upon one road would not be reasonable upon others. A maximum high enough to protect the railroads against harm would be too high to benefit the people on most of the roads, and a maximum low enough to protect the people on some roads would be ruinous to the interests of many other roads, so that it is not believed best to attempt to protect the interests of the public by the legislative rates or by the maximum rates.

“The bill which we report to the House, instead of adopting either of these plans, provides that the charges of the railroads shall be reasonable; that persons engaged in the transportation of interstate commerce by railroads shall furnish without discrimination the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, storage and handling of property of a like character, and shall perform with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with contemporaneous transportation.

“These constitute a portion of the leading features of the bill which we report to the House. It is believed that the enactment and enforcement of such a law will provide for the just and necessary abridgment of the monopoly powers of these corporations, and protect the people against unreasonable charges and extortionate exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embarrass the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is reasonable and just they should do. And the Committee believe it wiser and better to provide for the enforcement of the provisions of such a law through the instrumentality of the ordinary courts of justice, and by the judges and juries of the country than by the orders of a commission. The machinery of the courts is already in existence, and will require no additional expense, and is within convenient reach of the people everywhere, and is fully able to adjudicate all cases which may arise under this bill and by methods with which the people are familiar, while no plan of a commission which has been proposed could be conveniently accessible to all the people, and if a plan should be presented which would provide a jurisdiction convenient to all the people it would necessarily be cumbrous and very expensive. In this view a commission is unnecessary, unless it is the purpose of Congress to enter upon the detailed regulation of freight rates.”

[95]Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1885 (page xv.) gives a list of Railroads of the United States sold under foreclosure. The following is a brief summary:—Mileagem.Capital Stock.$Funded Debt.$Floating Debt$188266820,751,45723,999,06510,073,76918831,19024,587,70438,197,9262,481,608188471412,894,00013,061,000422,533

[95]Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1885 (page xv.) gives a list of Railroads of the United States sold under foreclosure. The following is a brief summary:—

[96]The railways in this country are governed by directors who have shares in the respective undertakings, and represent the shareholders (assumed to be about 500,000), but generally their interest in the railways is relatively small compared with that which they possess in land, manufactories, collieries, ironworks, and commerce &c., besides which from their local connections, and as public men, they are keenly alive to the requirements of agriculture, trade and commerce, and in reality represent those interests to a much greater extent than is sometimes assumed to be the case.

[96]The railways in this country are governed by directors who have shares in the respective undertakings, and represent the shareholders (assumed to be about 500,000), but generally their interest in the railways is relatively small compared with that which they possess in land, manufactories, collieries, ironworks, and commerce &c., besides which from their local connections, and as public men, they are keenly alive to the requirements of agriculture, trade and commerce, and in reality represent those interests to a much greater extent than is sometimes assumed to be the case.

[97]In a case of the kind referred to, which was brought before the Board of Trade when the Bill was before Parliament, as a skilled officer of the company was occupied 150 hours, in preparing the information alone to reply to the Board of Trade, irrespective of the time occupied by others in analysing the information, and in corresponding with the Board of Trade on the subject, all of which had no practical result.

[97]In a case of the kind referred to, which was brought before the Board of Trade when the Bill was before Parliament, as a skilled officer of the company was occupied 150 hours, in preparing the information alone to reply to the Board of Trade, irrespective of the time occupied by others in analysing the information, and in corresponding with the Board of Trade on the subject, all of which had no practical result.

[98]In Leesv.Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1 N. & M. 352, the Commissioners relied to some extent upon a principle which they do not appear to have since put in force. The question was whether the company gave an undue and unreasonable preference to the Corporation. The Commissioners said that undoubtedly a preference had been given, but they declined to say it was unreasonable (1) because the Corporation did not compete with the complainants; (2) becausethe preference was for the public benefit and convenience(p. 367); (3) because of the nature and magnitude of the coal traffic of the Corporation.

[98]In Leesv.Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1 N. & M. 352, the Commissioners relied to some extent upon a principle which they do not appear to have since put in force. The question was whether the company gave an undue and unreasonable preference to the Corporation. The Commissioners said that undoubtedly a preference had been given, but they declined to say it was unreasonable (1) because the Corporation did not compete with the complainants; (2) becausethe preference was for the public benefit and convenience(p. 367); (3) because of the nature and magnitude of the coal traffic of the Corporation.

[99]2 N. & M. 39.

[99]2 N. & M. 39.

[100]See the head note on the case, and the language of Williams, J.; also the observations of Cockburn, C. J. in Harrisv.Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, I. N. and M., p. 703. The latter judge, referring to “fair and sufficient reasons” for differences in rates, says, “As, for instance, in respect of terminal traffic, there might be competition with another railway.”

[100]See the head note on the case, and the language of Williams, J.; also the observations of Cockburn, C. J. in Harrisv.Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, I. N. and M., p. 703. The latter judge, referring to “fair and sufficient reasons” for differences in rates, says, “As, for instance, in respect of terminal traffic, there might be competition with another railway.”

[101]The reporters append the following note to the case.“It appears that competition between two railways, or by sea or canal, is sufficient justification for a railway company reducing its fares to the public, who are affected by such competitions, and can take advantage; but that a railway company cannot, merely for the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour of individuals unless there is a sufficient consideration for such reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the company of conveyance or other services rendered to them by such individuals,” vol. 2, p. 121. Probably this represented the general opinion of the legal profession in 1875.In the report for 1883 the Commissioners refer to “the fair pecuniary interests generally of the company carrying” (p. 1.) as if they might be taken into account.

[101]The reporters append the following note to the case.

“It appears that competition between two railways, or by sea or canal, is sufficient justification for a railway company reducing its fares to the public, who are affected by such competitions, and can take advantage; but that a railway company cannot, merely for the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour of individuals unless there is a sufficient consideration for such reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the company of conveyance or other services rendered to them by such individuals,” vol. 2, p. 121. Probably this represented the general opinion of the legal profession in 1875.

In the report for 1883 the Commissioners refer to “the fair pecuniary interests generally of the company carrying” (p. 1.) as if they might be taken into account.

[102]“The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament; care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”

[102]“The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament; care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”

[103]See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.

[103]See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.

[104]The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway, within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway, provided that improvements of the communications between the points and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered with.”

[104]The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway, within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway, provided that improvements of the communications between the points and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered with.”

[105]Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.

[105]Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.

[106]Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.

[106]Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.

[107]The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the maintenance of canals is as follows:—Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay.

[107]The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the maintenance of canals is as follows:—

Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay.

[108]Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Canals, page 214, “These lengths are exclusive of the River Thames, Severn, Wye, Humber, Wear, and Tyne in England; the Rivers Clyde, Forth, Tay, and the Caledonian Ship Canal in Scotland; the Shannon and other navigations in Ireland.” According to Mr. Taunton’s Report, the canals and navigable rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland under control of railways are 1,447 miles as against 2,335, which are independent of railway companies (Appendix 228.)

[108]Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Canals, page 214, “These lengths are exclusive of the River Thames, Severn, Wye, Humber, Wear, and Tyne in England; the Rivers Clyde, Forth, Tay, and the Caledonian Ship Canal in Scotland; the Shannon and other navigations in Ireland.” According to Mr. Taunton’s Report, the canals and navigable rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland under control of railways are 1,447 miles as against 2,335, which are independent of railway companies (Appendix 228.)

[109]See evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, in 1883.

[109]See evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, in 1883.

[110]M. de Foville says (1880) “Sur les canaux de l’Etat, la suppression totale des droits de navigation sera peut être bientôt un fait accompli” p 134.

[110]M. de Foville says (1880) “Sur les canaux de l’Etat, la suppression totale des droits de navigation sera peut être bientôt un fait accompli” p 134.

[111]There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are.

[111]There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are.

[112]“Monopoly” is at present the favourite word of the adversaries of railways; everything is permissible because railway companies have a “monopoly.” This word has at least three senses. Monopoly in the strict legal sense in which the Bank of England is guaranteed by statute, the exclusive right of issuing notes within a certain area; monopoly in the sense of being able to exclude other competitors, because in a commercial point of view there is no room for competition, or because the work could not be done more cheaply or better by others. Messrs. W. H. Smith may be said to possess a monopoly in this sense; monopoly is equivalent to property. No railway company possesses a monopoly in the first sense. No company is guaranteed against competition within any area, as many of them know to their cost. Most attacks against railways are justified by using the word, true in the second or third sense, as if true in the first; and persons in eminent positions occasionally condescend to sanction the use of this fallacy.

[112]“Monopoly” is at present the favourite word of the adversaries of railways; everything is permissible because railway companies have a “monopoly.” This word has at least three senses. Monopoly in the strict legal sense in which the Bank of England is guaranteed by statute, the exclusive right of issuing notes within a certain area; monopoly in the sense of being able to exclude other competitors, because in a commercial point of view there is no room for competition, or because the work could not be done more cheaply or better by others. Messrs. W. H. Smith may be said to possess a monopoly in this sense; monopoly is equivalent to property. No railway company possesses a monopoly in the first sense. No company is guaranteed against competition within any area, as many of them know to their cost. Most attacks against railways are justified by using the word, true in the second or third sense, as if true in the first; and persons in eminent positions occasionally condescend to sanction the use of this fallacy.

[113]Some difficulty has been experienced in checking the rates contained in Sir B. Samuelson’s report owing to the distances not being given, and from the name of the district being used instead of the names of the places between which the rates are shewn. For instance, although the South Wales Coalfields extend over a very large area, a rate of 7s. 3d. per ton for coke is referred to as from “South Wales to Darlaston,” on page 24 of the report; and in like manner on pages 27 and 28 the rates for pig iron are given as from “Cleveland and Northamptonshire.”

[113]Some difficulty has been experienced in checking the rates contained in Sir B. Samuelson’s report owing to the distances not being given, and from the name of the district being used instead of the names of the places between which the rates are shewn. For instance, although the South Wales Coalfields extend over a very large area, a rate of 7s. 3d. per ton for coke is referred to as from “South Wales to Darlaston,” on page 24 of the report; and in like manner on pages 27 and 28 the rates for pig iron are given as from “Cleveland and Northamptonshire.”

[114]Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[114]Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

Back to IndexNext