See also Leroy Beaulieu, Science des Finances, vol. i.
[ [33] “A tax upon carriages in proportion to their weight, though a very equal tax when applied to the sole purpose of repairing the roads is a very unequal one when applied to any other purpose, or to supply the common exigencies of the State. When it is applied to the sole purpose above mentioned, each carriage is supposed to pay exactly for the wear and tear which that carriage occasions of the roads. But when it is applied to any other purpose, each carriage is supposed to pay for more than that wear and tear and contributes to the supply of some other exigency of the State. But as the turnpike toll raises the price of goods in proportion to their weight, and not to their value, it is chiefly paid by the consumers of coarse and bulky, not by those of precious and light, commodities. Whatever exigency of the State, therefore, this tax might be intended to supply, that exigency would be chiefly supplied at the expense of the poor, not of the rich; at the expense of those who are least able to supply it, not of those who are most able.”—(Wealth of Nations. Book 5 part 3.)
[ [34] In the same year a Statute (8 & 9 Vict. c. 28) was passed giving canal companies powers to vary tolls in the same manner as railway companies might. By 8 & 9 Vict. c. 42, which was passed the same session, canal companies were authorised to become carriers on their canals and “to make such reasonable charges for conveying, warehousing, collection and delivery as they might respectively from time to time determine upon, in addition to the several tolls or dues which any such company or undertakers were then authorised to take for the use of the said canals, navigations or railways.” Two years later canal companies were authorised to borrow money for the purpose of becoming carriers on their own waterways. (10 & 11 Vict. c. 94.)
[ [35] Earl of Selborne in Denaby Main Colliery Company v. Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company.—L.R. 11 A.C. p. 113.
Consumers may profitably bear in mind the report of the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), of 1881-2. Whilst stating “Your Committee cannot recommend any new legislative interference for the purpose of enforcing upon Railway Companies equality of charge.” They add: “Some of the inequalities of charges complained of are to the advantage rather than to the disadvantage of the public, where there is an undue preference the law now gives a remedy.” They also give the following illustration:—
“That Greenock sugar refiners should be in the same markets as the sugar refiners of London, while it may be a grievance to London refiners, must be an advantage to Greenock refiners, and cannot be a disadvantage to buyers of sugar.”
It is added that the effect of interference with the freedom to fix rates according to special circumstances would in this instance be “to give a practical monopoly to the London sugar refiners who would be the real gainers by the transaction. It does not appear to your Committee that such a result would be either just or reasonable.”
[ [36] “What is complained of by the traders is not so much the high scale of the rates as their inconsistency and want of classification, as well as the want of facilities given by the railway companies for the development of the trade in a particular locality. That before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, not a single witness, except in the shipping interest, was examined in reference to railway rates who did not complain of some act of injustice on the part of the railway companies, not so much in regard to the rates, although they were onerous and prohibitory in some cases, as to the inconsistency of such rates.”—Mr. L. Cohen, House of Commons Debate, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., pages 428-9.
[ [37] Note.—The New Zealand correspondent of the “Economist” (Oct. 23, 1886), writes from Wellington as follows: “The fact of the railways being in the hands of Government is by no means an unmixed good. A uniform system of rates is demanded everywhere. If a concession is made to one district, the rest of the colony naturally demand to be placed on the same footing, so that the Railway Department rarely meet the wishes of the public. A private Company, if it found that the freight could be got by lowering the tariff on some particular item, would do so at once, and if it paid, continue it. The cost probably would be merely a few tons of coals, and a small amount for wear and tear. Many trades, notably the timber trade, are very much hampered by the Government tariff which does not admit of differential rates.”
This is a sample of the inconveniences attending uniformity.