19

L—9

consignment, and in many other respects require different treatment. It would not be reasonable or equitable to make like charges for the two services. For example—to charge one man ss. for a freight-service costing Is., and another man Is. for a service costing 55., would not be consistent. This is what Mr. Vaile has practically proposed to do, by including all merchandise as one class. The second proposal is " To abolish all differential rating." As regards differential rating, it would be unwise to ignore the experience of fifty years of rail- o way-working in other parts of the world. The subject has for years engaged the close attention of the most able railway managers and legislators. Evidence on that point may be obtained from the English Parliamentary Committee's report of 1881. Nearer home, it may be seen in the report of a Commission of New South Wales of 1881, which is before the Committee-,- and which contains the - New South Wales Commissioners' views, and those of Mr. Swarbrick, a railway manager of some eminence. It is alluded to in the annual report of the Eailway Board of Victoria for 1885. The report of the Commission on Eailways (New Zealand), 1880, page 5, also touches on the subject. On all sides there is the strongest evidence in its favour, from men best qualified to give an opinion. Following on the inquiry made by the English Committee, the President'of the Board of Trade 4 has brought down a Bill to deal with railway traffic, in which the principles of differential rating are preserved, and equality of treatment according to the interpretation of Cardwell's Act of 1854 is maintained. - „ This equality of treatment is considered generally to be attainable only under the same con- § ditions, that is to say, with like quantities and classes of goods from and to the same stations. All persons are entitled to like treatment under like conditions. A scheme which ignored the cost of the service would not give equality of treatment. Mr. Vaile allows differentiation for quantity, but he limits the allowance to the extra cost of 6 handling only. Probably if he more fully considered this point he would not make this restriction, and he would allow for the extra relative cost of dealing with small consignments in the numerous other items of working expenses. Goods carried in full truckloads of 5 tons give a greater ratio of paying to non-paying load than goods which occupy a greater space. If a 4-ton truck has to be moved to carry a consignment of 5 ewt. it is obvious that the expenditure must be greater per ton than if 5 tons are carried, and this expenditure will extend to many other items of expense than the mere handling alluded to by Mr. Vaile. A constant traffic of, say, 200 tons a day may be done cheaper between two points than a small occasional traffic in single truckloads to odd stations— such a trade, for instance, is the coal-traffic between Huntly and Auckland, or Kaitangata and Dunedin. _ Differentiation for distance Mr. Vaile objects to, except to suit the purpose he aims at — ' the development of towns. It is not clear on what grounds he claims that this purpose is the sole one which makes the practice right. There does not seem to be any substantial reason given to show why Mr. Vaile's view should be right; and that of the whole railway world wrong. Differentiation for direction on different parts of the line Mr. Vaile allows for the purposes of 8 his scheme. If it be right with a ticket-stage, there can be no valid reason why it should not be right with a mileage-unit of measurement. Differentiation for direction on the same part of the line he does not allow, but the reason for this is not stated. Mr. Vaile does not agree that lower charges should be made for a longer distance than for the " A shorter in the same direction; but he charges the same for a short distance as a longer one within his stages, which is a difference only in degree and not in principle. The various forms of differentiation are necessary to accommodate the trade and traffic of the 9 country to assist local manufactures and products, and to meet competition, not in carriage merely but in the markets. The practice is rational, because it recognizes the natural condition and wants of the trade and population of the country. It has for its object the satisfaction of the various demands which arise as new trade springs up and new conditions come about, and not the development of such a theory as that of town-making in waste places, such as Mr. Vaile has propounded. The third proposal is " To reckon all fares and rates by stages." Taking the ticket-stage proposals, Mr. Vaile has given three proposals, which are set forth in 10 the papers before the Committee. The first scheme (from Mr. Vaile's circular, April, 1883) : Ticket-stations to be placed—the 11 first, 15 miles from any capital of 6,000 people ; the second, 30 miles; and then every 100 miles, or less if necessary. 1 _, The second scheme (from Mr. Vaile's lecture of the 12th November, 1883) : Ticket-stations— *-" first four from a capital of 6,000 at 7-mile intervals, and also one about 7 miles on each side of towns of 2,000 people; and beyond, one about 50-mile distances.* The third scheme is stated in Mr. Vaile's address to the Committee: Ticket-stations—first 13 four from a capital of 6,000 people at 7-mile intervals ; and also two about 7 miles each side of a 4,000 town ; and also one about 7 miles each side of a 2,000 town; and beyond, about 50-mile distances. The rates and fares in the first and second schemes were different. In the third scheme the 14 fares only are stated and the rates are left out. In the third scheme, also, the new proposal of booking beyond the ticket-station in certain cases is made. In evidence, Mr. Vaile explains also that he would not limit .his first stages to 7 miles. 1 „ In considering the third, it should be remembered that, although, in evidence, Mr. Vaile has ■*■" said he might retain the system of return-tickets, he did not, in the paper presented to the Com-

* Mr. Vaile afterwards explained in evidence that this was a newspaper error, and that he never made such a proposal.—J. B. M.