THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1894.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9489, 19 April 1894, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1894.

A goodly number of persons in the colony have been in favour of selling the railways to a syndicate or private company, and either use the money in liquidation of the colonial debt, or in the further prosecution of public works. We are told that they manage these things much better in England, and that the management being relieved oilpolitical pressure, the railways would be run on strictly commercial lines, and made to pay. While there is no doubt much that is true in this, the state of things existing in England as regards its railway systemtempered though it be by the keen competition among the rival companies— not by any means the acme of perfection. Instead of contentment among traders and producers, what do we find? Organisations such as the Mansion House Association, the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, and other bodies moving for reduction'of rates and charges, protesting against the differential rating of some of the companies interested in certain ports and docks in favour of foreign produce ; and contending for a Court of Arbitration, which should have power to decide whether a rate was reasonable or otherwise. It is found that the railways control the canals, and also a number of the coastal ports, and have practically in their lianas the making or unmaking of the industries of certain districts. .Recently the NorthEastern Railway acquired the Hull docks, and the chairman of the company, at a meeting of shareholders, informed them the company were " the owners and proprietors now of almost all the ports, practically, on the northeast coast from the Tweed down to the Humber." A Newcastle firm, writing to the manager of the North-eastern, upon the subject of equal rates being given from and to the Tyne, to and from the large inland places of consumption and production, as to and from Hull, says :—"So far as the Tyne, Sunderland, and the Hartlepools are concerned, it is simply a question of whether they are to continue to exist as importing and exporting ports, and consequently the public has a right to know what the issue is." The firm in question in a published letter state that it is perfectly clear and proved that the North-eastern Railway Company's policy is to foster Hull at the expense of the Tyne and other northeastern ports, and they suggest the formation of a North of England Railway Rates and Charges Association, to obtain equal rates. Instead of the railways being simply public carrying companies, they are in many cases traders and merchants competing with the general public, and so describe, themselves. We give an illustrative case:—

At the meeting of the Hull and Barnsley proprietors the chairman mad/ a complaint against the Shipping Federation, He was extremely disappointed that the action of the Shipping Federation had not been as liberal towards them as it should have buen. They gave their docks practically over to the Free Labour men at the time of the dock strike, and went to great expense in housing them, and did everything they could as traders and merchants in the port to support the Shipping Federation. He hoped to be able to come to a satisfactory agreement with the Federation. .'.-..

The railway companies are no more satisfied than the public. They put their case thus in Transport, and it expresses the feelings of the Kail way Commissioners, of one colony, at all events: —

The whole history of the rates movement in recent years has shown that there is no such thing as finality. If the traders received everything they asked for to-morrow, they would create new demands the day after. Directly certain concessions are made others are asked for. There was no great sympathy for railway shareholders, they were another form of capitalists, and were an easy prey. Philanthropists were always ready to be kind at the expense of the railways, and that was why they were subject to continued attempts to secure increased facilities, and to raise rates and taxes. The Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider the revision of rates under the Acts of 1891 and 1892, has made a report, and railway proprietors are again threatened with adverse legislation, having the object of limiting the powers so recently conferred upon them by Parliament. On the other hand, the operation of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1893, tends towards additional outlay upon existing: lines, and increased working expenses. The recommendations of the Railway Rates Select Committee as the outcome of the agitation created by the traders and producers is regarded by the latter as "miserably inadequate." The Mansion House Association declared itself to be of a purely defensive character, and not intended to make an undue attack upon the railway companies, or to depreciate the property of the shareholders, but the members of the Association had combined, and would combine, to protect themselves against the imposition of ■ increased in 1893— in view of the enormous foreign competition which they had to contend against, pressed too heavily on the English trader and the farmer. 1

The platform of the -Association i 8 thus formulated :— "-».,, They wanted that; all rates within the maximum should be reasonable rates, and that any question whatever as to the reasonableness of a rate, even., if in existence during 1892, and. before, might be subject to appeal to the Railway Commission, which they hoped might be reconstituted or an arbitrator to be specially appointed by the Board of Trade. , They wanted every British trader and agriculturist to be placed on the same footing as foreign manufacturers and growers, and that the law in regard to that particular point should not be evaded as it was at the present time. They -wanted that the canals of the country should be free and not under the control of the railway companies, whose interest it was to permit them to become useless or so to regulate them that the traffio was diverted into their own hands. ' « •-

We wonder what the trading colonists of New Zealand would think of petitioning Parliament to be put on the same, footing as the foreign manufacturer and producer in respect to* the railway tariff, and to have the waterways of the country released from the control of a railway syndicate? It seems that this differential rating in favour of foreign produce arises from a desire to attract trade to the ports in which the railway companies are interested, through being conneoted with or owning the docks. The report of the House of Commons Select Committee vindicated the action of the Mansion House Association in regard to the increase of railway rates in 1893, but it failed to recommend effective measures for preventing their imposition in future. The Association have adopted resolutions to the effect that no legislation will meet the just requirements of the public .which does not provide for an appeal against any unreasonable or excessive charge whatsoever. They suggest that the Railway and Canal Commission be re-constituted, and that the Board of Trade be empowered to refer disputes which they are unable to settle by' conciliation either to that body or to an arbitrator, to be specially appointed for the purpose. The greatest grievance of the Association, however, was " the refusal of the Railway Companies to analyse rates, and the injustice which owners of private sidings suffered by the refusal of reasonable allowances for the outlay incurred and work performed by them, ! three-fourths of the total tonnage j being collected or delivered at private sidings," and they stated that it demanded the immediate attention of the Board of Trade." A public meeting pledged itself to support these views ; to influence members of Parliament to do so, and to carry on an agitation throughout the country with a view of still further "enlisting the sympathy of the public in regard to this most important national question." . In 1893, the President of the Board of Trade (Hon. Mr. Mundella) told a deputation that he would introduce a measure which would have the effect of " bringing the Railway Companies to their senses." He, however, appears to have somewhat modified his position, as he told a railway deputation the other day that he could not go beyond the recommendations of the "Railway Rates Committee ;" that the Board of Trade would not deal with the question of private sidings, or assign the respective values of the services rendered, in signalling, shunting, and storing, and could not set up an authority to decide what the railway rates should be, "as if they needed that, the State must take over the railways. He could not forget that the railway companies were trader*, and that one thousand millions were invested in them." With regard to the refusal of the railway companies to give an analysis of their rates, Mr Mundella states that the Board of Trade were of opinion that they ought to give : it, that the attitude of the companies in that matter was one which could not be maintained, and he advised the Traders' Association to endeavour to get the point tested in the law courts. Judging from the experiences of the English manufacturers and producers the private ownership of the national railways is not the unmixed blessing we have been taught to believe by those averse to the State ownership of the railways, although we believe that on the whole the balance of advantage iB on the side of private ownership.