Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 15478, 28 April 1914, Page 4

Thbhk is some complaint among those interested regarding the

Railway conditions under which it Bookstalls. is proposed to lease the

bookstalls at certain specified stations on the railway system. The complainants appear to have at least a prima facie) case against the department. The first of their averments is that tenders, accompanied with a marked cheque, were called for early in.February; that} these were duly sent in by tenderers; that subsequently the original date (March 29) on which tho names of the successful applicants were assumed to be decided was postponed for three months, and therefore that the tenderers have not only not had their deposits returned, but are left in doubt as to the reason for this change in policy. Protest is also made against the conditions governing the tenders. The custom is to invite tenders; (1) For each railway bookstall separately; or (2) for the stalls in globe; or (3) for all the stalls on each section. It is argued that the department, in claiming tho right to accept a tender for all the bookstalls from one firm (provided that firm ’ offer sufficient rental and can undertake to run the stalls in a satisfactory manner), is not acting justly by the many lessees who have hitherto carried on this work nor in the best interests of the country. We are advised that there are 41 individuals, each of whom is independent of the other, at present making a more or less precarious livelihood by means of the railway bookstalls. It is possible, however, that the whole of these may be swept out of existence, as far as the dispensing of newspapers and light literature on the railways is concerned, and com"' 1 ’- J to turn their attention to some other kind of work for which they may not be so well fitted in order to gain a living. Possibly, also, the department will nob lose by the change. A single firm, with its staff of assistants and the advantages it , has in buying, may well be able to submit a higher tender than that of all the 40 odd present lessees put together. But would such a result be—we will not say satisfactory to the 40 dispossessed ones—in conformity with the policy of a Government which, we believe, is sincere in its opposition to anything in the shape of a monopoly? We are aware that arguments can bo adduced on behalf of the one large firm. It has resources at its command that tho individual buyer has not. Nor should it bo forgotten that it has, as tho passengers on the London and other English railway services recently discovered, the power td say what books it will or will not sell. The traveller who will trust to the bookstall for his light literature is more likely under a single firm regime to find his choice restricted, and to meet the same titles at every stall, than he is under the separate and independent system. What bearing the postponement of tho date on which tenders are to be received has upon the possi bility of one firm securing a five years’ lease of the railway bookstalls we do not know. It has possibly none at all. It is, however, said that there is a reason for the amendment of the date, and that it would not be either wholly impossible or unprecedented for the price' tendered by tho successful tenderer to be based upon knowledge that directs him as to the amount at which he must place his own estimate. It is not conducive to good government that there' should be even a suspicion abroad of this nature, and the best way to dispel it, failing strong reasons to the contrary, would bo to eliminate from the specifications and conditions of tender the provision permitting tenderers to apply “for all Che stalls together.”