2. All chances of monopoly and trade restriction by private interests, would be avoided.
3. Government security would ensure capital being raised at a minimum interest—say 2¾ or 3 per cent., and so keep the costs down at a low figure.
4. By adopting a ‘sinking fund,’ these navigations might ultimately become free from toll, except a very small charge for maintenance and management.
5. Would facilitate uniformity of classification, toll, and through-rate arrangements.
6. The question of railway-owned canals would thus be settled.
7. Also the difficulty of floods would be removed as far as practicable, and storage of water, for town and other public uses, encouraged by the abolition of vested interests in water rights, fishery obstructions, &c.
8. The above advantages, whilst affording unbounded relief to commerce and the public, would result in increased employment for the labouring classes, and add to the wealth of the nation by creating a revival and permanent expansion of trade—thus relieving our present burdens without imposing new ones.”
The same writer thus expresses the disadvantages and difficulties in the way of State management of canals:—
1. Public opinion is not yet ripened to enable such a proposal to be carried.
2. To successfully compete with railways (who have now such a firm grip of the heavy traffic), it is essential that a strong carrying company should be established, on a broad basis, to work the navigations and interchange traffic for towns on the seaboard with the coasting steamers at through rates.