THE NATIONALISATION OF RAILWAYS.•
IN one of his letters published in Dr. Duncan's Life Mr. _ Herbert Spencer pessimistically remarks that he does not see . from _what section of the _public effective reaction against Socialism is to come. "The drift of things is overwhelmingly in the other direction, and the stream will, I believe, continue to increase in volume and velocity, simply because political power is now in the hands of those whose apparent interest is to get as much as possible done by public agency, and whose desires will be inevitably pandered to by all who seek public functions." This was written in 1890, and the present situation is a striking illustration of the truth of the philosopher's remark. We have a Government returned to power mainly because the late Government showed a dis- position to revert to Protection,—the Socialism of the land- owner and of the manufacturing capitalist; but no sooner is it established in office than it also begins to inaugurate Socialism of a different type by proclaiming the responsi- bility of the State for the maintenance of old age, and by encouraging an agitation for the State ownership and management of railways.
Where, it may be asked, is the reaction to come from which will be able to resist this proposal? This is a question which the future only can answer. The little book before us sets out the arguments for nationalisation. No human institution (certainly no institution so tightly tied up and controlled by Government regulation as is a railway company) is perfect. The imperfections of our railways are accordingly set out with a running comment of prejudice. The merits of foreign State-owned railways (and there is no institution so altogether miserable that it has no redeeming features) are magnified and supported by an array of figures which the lay reader cannot check or appreciate. This side of the argument, however, convinces and influences no one. The driving-power behind this agitation is the Socialist propa- ganda. There are other elements, of course,—ambitious politicians, who are not Socialists, meet and say : " We must do something, and this scheme will give us votes and power and patronage." The greater part of modern statecraft consists in this gauging of the popular craze of the moment, and in subserviency to it. We see on the political horizon no leader able or willing to resist this policy of drift, and when and where the inevitable reaction against this sinister alliance will arise it is impossible to say. There is another element which makes for the success of this agitation,—a disposition, largely entertained by directors and shareholders of railways, that the sooner they get out of a persecuted industry the better. " I am strongly in favour of it, for I want them to buy me out of it before we are ruined," was the remark made within the last few days by a chairman of one important company to the present writer. It is common knowledge that railway construction is come to an end. The appearance of a Railway Bill has been the signal for raising extortionate demands in every quarter of the House. Already railway authorities will tell us that the Board of Trade has practically usurped the labour management of their business, and on reason- able terms of purchase and compensation railway directors and shareholders will be glad to exchange a precarious dividend for an annuity secured by the credit of the nation. The politicians who rise to the top in this sinister concurrence of a policy of sauve qui peut with the enthusiasm of the would-be Robin Hoods of Socialism will without doubt go down to posterity as great constructive statesmen who have reconciled the interests of the robber and the robbed, till some day a philosophical historian may arise to call in question the merit of this somewhat dishonest brokerage transaction.
The reflective Socialist who has not yet learned to regard the ownership of property as a crime may ask, has asked indeed : "How shall we be bettered by making up from the taxes of the country the dwindling dividends now earned by the companies ? " The answer, in the first place, is that the State means to make a profit out of its railways. Unless the terms of acquisition are confiscatory, it is difficult to see how this is likely to happen. The telegraph purchase and the London water purchase are both precedents against the
• The Nationalization of Railways. By A. Emil Davies. London : A. and C. Black. [Ia net.]
assumption that the State can make profit where private enterprise finds it difficult to do so. The real enthusiasm felt for this and similar proposals by the wirepullers of the Socialist movement is that the industry of the country, being gradually taken over by the State with full and handsome compensation and much applause, the capital representing it will then lie, inscribed in the account-books of the State, so to speak, in the hollow of the hand of the Socialist administrator, who can then impose taxation to the extent of twenty shillings in the pound, and consummate the extinction of the private ownership of capital.
Mr. Davies argues " that whether it is Socialism or not, it has been, and is being, done by nearly every civilised com- munity, and that the expediency of a measure should be judged on its merits and not by appealing to prejudices quite foreign to the question" (p. 112). The reply of the country we hope will be that "in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." We do not suppose that the world would come to an end if the Government took over the railway companies. The Government has by its interference sterilised our use of the electric light and the telephone, and it may destroy the manifold advantages of having a vast industry (like the railway industry) based on the equitable principle of free exchange. It will be a mischievous, not an utterly ruinous, act. Those who, like ourselves, favour free industrial enterprise fear that the longer the inevitable reaction is delayed the more violent and painful will be its effect. We hope, therefore, that this project will be successfully resisted, and that State railways will not be added to the burden from which the reaction will have to shake itself loose. Mr. Davies's arguments will not convince any who regard this proposal as one of principle. It may reassure some that, if this country took the retrograde step of imitating certain other countries of a less advanced industrial type, it would not be completely ruined. Further additions to the, in the end, impracticable policy of decreasing the responsibility of the individual and increasing that of the State will be needed, as it at present appears, before we reach the inevitable collapse.
Previous page
