NATIONALISATION OF RAILWAYS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2092, 29 May 1907, Page 4

NATIONALISATION OF RAILWAYS.

At the Leeds Liberal Club, Professor Claphani, of the Leeds University, delivered an address on the ‘‘Nationalisation of ltaihvays.”

Professor Cliiplmm, alter declaring that national ownership of railways would bo just and practicable, said lie did not intend to speak eitlior on ono side or other of the question, tut deal with it on a business basis rt.-’ solect tho most important poini round which the controversy raged. It was urged that -English railway rules woro so unjustifiably high that tho application of tho surgeon’s knifo in tho form of Stato ownership was necessary to cut them down. Woro tlieso rates very high, compared with tho rates of State railways in other countries? In England ho estimated that tho averago passenger paid less than a ponny and more than tlirco farthings por mile. Selecting tho Gorman Stato railways for comparison, ho said that tho averago cost of travel thereon was a halfpenny per milo. But, on tho other hand, third-class travelling on English main lines was vastly bottor than in any other country. Besides tho average was lowered in Gormany because there was a fourth class. This reduced the dis crepancy somewhat. With regard to tho averago cost of carrying goods bo said that in England it worked out at rather over a ponny per ton por milo, and in Germany to threefarthings—a great discrepancy. But most English railway rates covered tho cost of collecting aiid delivering the goods. No Continental rates did. Bosidos,English rates appeared higher than they were owing to the fact that goods in England travolled exceedingly short distances. On tho NortliEastorn Railway, the averago goods consignment only travelled thirtyfive miles; in Germany tho average goods consignment travolled sixtyfour miles. Again, no railways in tlio world cost so much to build as English railways. A milo of land for railways in England had cost about twice as much as a mile of land in Germany. This was duo to tile fact that much money was wasted in fighting opponents in Parliament; and to the fact that tho Board of Trade from tho first imposed stringent regulations. When they considered the immense capital outlay on which English railways had to pay revenue they woro led to abato their criticisms somewhat.

Dealing with the charge that English railways were partial in their treatment of foreign goods imported into tho country, Professor Clapham said this was really clue to a considerable extent to tlio competition of waterways. To increase tlie rates for imported goods would jirobably only divert the traffic. It was said that a national system of railways would bring about uniformity of rates. Rates in Germany were more uniform, but oven in that country the exigencies of traffic and competition forced the Government to adopt preferential rates. For instance, to attract tho fruit traffic from England to Vienna along the German lines, tho Government quoted very low rafes for German part of the jourd-y—rate? which it would not give to tlio local trader. Then again, tc encourage export trade goods for shipment at Hamburg. would bo charged greatly reduced rates as compared with goods for consumption in Hamburg. He bclioved that 60 per cent, of German traffic was carried on at preferential rates., He was certain that the Stato in this country could not reduce ratos to tho ideal stato of simplicity that critics of the existing system longed for. Under national ownership there would be a greater saving of competitive waste. Not much could bo saved by amalgamation of management, ho thought, nor by abolishing the Clearing-house. If the railways under tlio State were - worked in sections, as ho thought they must bo, there must still be an institution corresponding in some degree to the Clearing-houso. There was too much water in Jlio capital of our railways. Tho companies had split stock too often. There was too much nominal capital that did not represent money transformed into plant. The most important defect of our existing system was that our railway companies did not pay off a section of the railway debt every year. With regard to the workers’ point of .view, he said that if rail way men were the employes of the nation they would meet with very little sympathy if they adopted a strike policy. Moreover, a State system would have to adopt a very rigid discipline. In Germany the discipline was almost military. He did not think that the State would be a sufficiently elastic and business-like body to manage the railways. He did not think it would respond rapidly enough fo pressure to many went to provo that it was. hard to move the State to adopt improvements, lie admitted, in closing, that he “sat on the fence” in regard to the question, because the case was so evenly balanced. Ho noticed that in the London County Council election one of the most respectable companies liad been discovered contributing to the campaign fund of one particular party. If that went much further he should become a nationaliser very readily.