RAILWAY POOLING.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 214, 3 June 1908, Page 7

RAILWAY POOLING.

ANOTHER EFFORT.

TO BE MADE THROUCH PARLIAMENT. BOARD OF TRADE'S ATTITUDE. by TELEGRAPJI —PRESS ASSOCIATION—COrVMBHt London, June 1. Tiio " British Railway News " announces that the Great • Central; Groat Northern, an'cl Great Eastern Railway Companies, with a .capital of one hundred and sixty millions, and owning ij4oß miles of railways, propose to introduce in Parliament a Bill providing for the joint working of their' railway systems. It is reports that the Board of Trade does not object to the scheme. "WASTEFUL COMPETITION."

OLD LAW AND ALTERED PRACTICE. In ordor to avoid-excessive competition, the Groat Northern and the Great Central Railway Companies agreed Upon a pooling arrangement, but in March last the Court of Appeal refused to sanction it on the ground that the companies had not the requisite, statutory power. Tho arrangement, which was to be for a period of 999 y&ars, was to the effect that the management of tho two railways should be unuer- ■ taken-by a Joint Committee of thirteen directors of' the Great Northern and twelve directors ,of the Great Central; the committee being free, to Collect all tolls and rates, the receipts woro to bo pooled; and after, making provision for. a first charge of •SI per ccnt. on tho present or future capital of the two companies thoy .wero to divide the. balanco of net : profits in the proportion - of 57. per .cont. I 'to tho Great Northern. and 43 to the Great Central. Obviously the matter affected niany/interests, aud it especially concerned othercompanies having agreements with the two which' asked the approval- of .the Court. The Board. of Trade objected to the scliemo. Now, it would appear from the cablegram, these two companies, and the Great Eastern have satisfied, the'i Board of Trade, and propose,.to proceed . through the ; ajjency of Parliament to make'good a' working arrangement arrived at among them., "The Times points out .that the provious pooling, scheme, though it failed in Court, has been useful as drawing att6ntian to the need for legislative change. Itailway conditions in England have altered ' since the Railway Acts of the 'forties, fifties, and 'sixties. "When these statutes were passed thero was ;'a general ..belief, not merely in the benefits of coinpefitioh, but in the possibility of maintaining it indefinitely and' without) impairment.' Parliament was afraid of giving the semblance of a monopoly, if it could bo. averted, i It encouraged rival lines. It was conceived to -bo always a gain if-a'large town-were served by two or three companies. It was' assumed that the public would., profit bv every contest for traffic. Companies would, of,',course, enter into working, agreements, it was anticipated. But' those alliances- were to bo-scrutinised'.closely. Care was 'to be taken that under cover of such agreements the public would not lose the ailvantago of two .or more distinct corporations seeking to serve it. "The situation .was, we now see,' only imperfectly ' - understood. -In some '' instances, though , thero was-no avowed -amalgamation or fusion of. interests, the. substance of com r petition, soon disappeared, j or was mucfr 'at'-, tonnated. Fares and rates, were, equalised, not always to tho benofit of tlio public. No'r was it so well' understood' as it 'is'.now;that competition ,is' often very wasteful;' that companies may seek at great cost, to detach traffic.from natural channels; and that in tho end not merely the shareholders, but'customers of; the, companies, may have to suffer." ' It is ' the elimination of "wasteful competition" that the companies profess to bo aiming at. ' Their first'.effort failed on technical legal grounds. The. second, will have to run the gauntlet of which,. in thc' :maitcrs of terms and .conditions, may-'be expected to act as the representative of public 1 interests. ,