The Globe. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 834, 24 February 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1877.

>3oimb kind of agitation is on foot in Otago with reference to the railway regulation, which renders a passenger ticket non-transforable. Several people w-we fined at Dunedin lately for a bn aeh of that regulation ; iu one case, the culprit had given his ticket to his brother. Not long ago, a charge of the same nature was made here by the railway oiHeials rgainst a person who had handed his ticket over to hia sou. The case broke down through some technicality, but the fact remains that had a conviction been recorded, a heavy penalty might have been the result. In the majority of the cases to which we have referred, the defendants stated that they were quite unaware of the existence of the prohibitionary clause iu the railway bye-laws, under which they were arraigned. Of course the con-transferability of a railway ticket is printed upon the face of it, yet, there is no doubt but that a large number of the public are not aware of toe law on the point. We are not at, all convinced that there is any equity or even fairness in this restriction, or that any public interests are served by its beiug enforced iu a way which must fail to counterbalance the amount of inconvenience and. sometimes mischief, which it certainly occasions. The reason for this regulation, we believe, is simply that the revenue of the railway department might increase by the shortcomings of the public. The authorities, for instance, would argue that the lines are defrauded whenever u person makes use of a ticket issued to and received by somebody else, as the I'D in every probability that that person would have been otherwise tom polled to purchase a ticket, and try so doing would have added to the i.a'jtiH! of the railway; but the same theory might be said to apply to every other case where a gift is made. Let a person purchase and pay for any article, and what would bo said of the vender who, after the completion of i the sale, would try and influence the

control of tlie purchaser over what ho bad fully acquired. With railways and steamers certainly the public, in a great measure, are net free agents in the disposal of their tickets. The latter only represent the one part of an agreement, whereby the passenger shows he has bought certain rights and privileges subject to certain conditions. But if it be conceded that private individuals or companies, the owners of steamers or coaches, can scarcely bo blamed for trying to squeeze as much as they can out *>f the public, does it follow that the Government, in the matter of that popular and far mojv' important mode of transit, the railways, should he actuated by the same feeling of getting its pound of flesh on the spot, without caring to what further annoyances or trouble the public may be submitted. Were railway tickets rendered transferable, the public revenue might perhaps suffer to the extent of one or two hundred pounds in the year. But, against that, would be pitted the fact that the great inconvenience following the present rule would bo done away with, and that the interests of the public would be served, in a matter of mil’ll greater importance than it may seem at the first blush. In the States of America the public have long recognised the necessity of deaflng with the rights of travelling on public railways, in (he same manner as would be done when purchasing the privilege of witnessing a concert or a theatrical performance. Wfat a man buys should be his indisputable property. And it certainly does seem preposterous, that a person pays a certain sum for a certain accommodation, and, because he himself may be debarred from making use thereof, the attempt to utilise what ho has paid for, brings him within the terrors and dread penalties of the the law, by absolutely branding him as a criminal of the deepest hue.