THE NEW RAILWAY DISPUTE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SHL,—I have always read the Spectator with satisfaction until your last week's issue on the above subject, which has given me something of a shock, because it seems, like the Govern- ment, you have forgotten the poor railway shareholder, of which unfortunate contingent I am one. During the last six years we have had to put up with our limited interest, but at the same time see our investment crumble to half its pre- war price, the work of and to the great satisfaction of the Nationalization Party. May I ask you a question? It is notorious that all our railways need more money for urgent renewals and repairs. Do you think the public would again subscribe in face of the facts that railways are now considered a quasi-public service at the mercy of the paid agitator, and that shareholders will have a board of directors dictated for
[We believe it to be in the interests of the shareholders that Labour should educate itself by having all the financial facts placed before it. This is a principle in which Lord Cromer, one of the greatest and most economical of administrators, strongly believed. There is, of course, no question of a Labour director being in a position to outvote his co-directors. The railways have always been " quasi-public" services. Hence the " Parliamentary " fare.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
