RAILWAY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Brief Comments upon Important Points which were Raised and upon Evidence which we Consider to be Inconclusive.
IT is of interest to find that the chairman of the Royal Commission has accorded permission to the railway companies to put in their evidence at intervals. This evidence is, in fact, to come both before and after that of the road-transport organizations. Sir Josiah Stamp and Mr.' H. L. Thornhill have already been heard, but it has not so far been intimated who the later witnesses will be. The chairman of the Royal Commission will, we hope, should occasion arise, consent to extend 'similar consideration to representatives of road transport, i.e., to be heard further.
We. are somewhat disappointed in the railway evidence, in that it largely fails to be specific, and are very ankh inclined to agree with one member of the Royal Commission, Major Crawfurd, who, by way of comment upon the official memorandum lodged on behalf of the united railways of the country, remarked to Sir Josiah:—" I have read this memorandum, which I think I may say is largely a matter of opinion, it may be perfectly accurate opinion, but you have not, as a schoolboy, done the working. You say that the railways have suffered by reason of the road traffic, disabilities and so on. That may be admitted, but you have not shown us to what extent they have suffered, what parts of the railway, what parts of' the traffic, what sections of the line?" This challenge, we observe, did extract a conditional promise to endeavour to furnish the Commission with some data in support.
Where Rail TrafficHas Increased.
It is of great interest to. us, as it will be to our supporters, to find that, despite the anticipations and representations on the subject which were advanced before the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons last session, the admission was made by Sir Josiah Stamp that the companies' higher classifications of goods traffic during 1928 showed a definite increase. Sir Josiah Stamp's evidence here anent is an admission that the companies can account for morethan the whole decrease of goods traffic by the depression in three or four heavy industries, such as branches of the coal, iron and steel trades, and this, as he stated, has the result of " showing that in the other classes of goods we have increased our tonnage." He quite properly added the reservation—" How much more we should have increased it if there had been no road competition I do not know."
There are various big and fundamental issues before the Royal Commission, and the railway evidence to date and the examination of the two railway witnesses so far heard occupy some 47 pages of closely printed proceedings, hut it would be premature from any point of view for us to endeavour to anticipate the further proceedings of the Royal Commission. We shall in any event withhold lengthy comment of the evidence of the road-transport witnesses, until we havesome weeks hence had the opportunity to study the records, which will be available about the end of February. The Hon. Sir Arthur Stanley, as chairman of the central conference of motoring organizations, has already been heard, but he has only opened the submissions in a general way with heads of common agreement, thus leaving new matters of principle and detail concerning the various branches of both passenger and goods transport to be presented by perhaps as many as 12 separate witnesses. The whole of these cannot be heard before the end of February, and the necessary extent and scope of their evidence can be appreciated from the list of bodies whose names were recited by Sir Arthur as part of his statement. The gravamen of the railway companies' story is
very much the same as that which—as was fully reported by us at the time--was laid before the Joint Committee of both Houses in connection with their private Bills of last year, but insufficient allowance appears to have been made for the changed conditions actually effected by the Acts which they then see-tired, by the incidence of the new petrol tax of 40. per gallon and by the operation of de-rating. These important factors must -be weighed, yet the railway WitneSaes are still urging that more taxes should be_ put upon road transport, that many additional restrictions should similarly be piled up, and that there, should be as much as possible done to increase the costs, of working on the road in order that, come what may, the railways . themselves can be stabilized financially.
Effects of the Railway Powers.
No definite plan of co-ordination was submitted, and we are inclined ourselves to take the: vie* that a period of from five to seven years will be necessary before the inter-related effects of the new railway powers can be seen in this regard. Compulsion has not been applied to the mining industry, and it has recently been refused in regard to proposals that gas undertakings should be ordered by the Government to purchase coke-Oven gas to supplement their own production. Compulsion in respect of commercial organization generally has unexpected reactions. The railway witnesses appear -to be fully • alive to this risk, as we hope will be the forthcoming witnesses on behalf of road transport. It is clear that a very large measure of co-ordination Can be achieved by voluntary agreement, and time should be-allowed to test out, by voluntary co-operation, the recently created situation.
It is clear from the trend of the evidence that serious doubts are entertained by all concerned as to the possibility or expediency of applying to zones centred around great provincial cities a measure of control of traffic comparable to that in force in London. The Commissioners, however, have given indications of their desire fully to probe such means for ceutralized control, both from the traffic point of view and from that of co-ordinated finance and operation. The whole project remains at the moment a complex maze of tangled _possibilities. The outstanding matter of prime importance is for the Commissioners to have their attention directed to the fallacies which underlie the reiterated assertions by the railway witnesses that road transport is not bearing its true economic costs.
Inconclusive Railway Evidence.
On the whole, it appears to ,us that the railway evidence is inconclusive. There are numerous conditions which must apply to railway companies which, in our judgment, by reason of the fact that they are the only road operators who also own a railway, can in no circumstances be extended to the non-railway operator on the highway if the public interest is to be safeguarded. On the other hand, there is nothing in the evidence, an we read it, which is likely to add fuel to rekindle the bitter fighting feeling which did exist before Parliament decided to give road powers to the railway companies, and we reiterate our opinion that, these powers having been granted, no fresh legislation is advisable until an extended trial has been permitted of a progressive measure of co-ordination under them for a period of -years. The railway companies, if they handle matters discreetly, have "the ball at their feet" in many areas and senses. If they seek to drive their present advantages too far, by persisting in demands for additional burdens on road transport, they are likely to exacerbate public opinion.