TWO SIDES OF THE RAILWAY PROBLEM
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I write to call attention to a wrong inference which might easily be drawn from the paragraph in "A Spectator's Note Book," of December 9th, in which 43s. is given as the poverty line below which the railwaymen with their 38s. a week may be depressed ; and the same comment appears in your own article on "The New Housing Problem." If you refer to the review in the same issue, "Diminution of Poverty," by R. C. K. Ensor, you will find in paragraph 3 that in fact the poverty line at 48s. is not comparable to the poverty line taken originally by Mr. Rowntree, for it is clearly stated in paragraph 3 of the review that the new poverty line is taken at a higher standard of living. I think that in any comparison of the situation to-day with that when the original poverty line was drawn this should be made clear.
The situation with regard to the railwaymen is a very difficult one, and any statements should be meticulously accu- rate. I write as a solicitor who knows the great difficulties of many poor gentlefolk whose incomes from Railway investments
have shrivelled, and their capital so shrunk that to sink capital in an annuity would help them but little. In my experience the people who have suffered most in the shrinkage of Railway securities are ladies and others of no business capacity, who have never troubled to have their investments revised by brokers from time to time, and who have looked upon British
Railways, even in their ordinary shares, as a sound investment made for them by relatives in the past. There are also small Trusts in which Railway investments figure largely. Here, too, there has been no periodic revision of investments by
brokers, 'with the result that the trust funds have in some cases shrunk almost to nothing.
There is, I can assure you, a side to this question of shrunken Railway dividends which is really pathetic, the sufferers being people often in advanced life and quite incapable of supple- menting their small incomes. I feel sure that the Spectator will appreciate this side.—I am, Sir, &e.,
A SOLICITOR.
[The Spectator dces appreciate this side and is glad to have it so well put. " Janus' " remark was obviously no more than a casual comment on one aspect of the railway problem, but it does not seem to be open to A Solicitor's criticism. The 43s. " poverty-line " was definitely compared with Mr. R,owntree's 43s. 8d. for "life with some amenities," as distin- guished from his 31s. 6d. for bare maintenance.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
