[ [101] The reporters append the following note to the case.
“It appears that competition between two railways, or by sea or canal, is sufficient justification for a railway company reducing its fares to the public, who are affected by such competitions, and can take advantage; but that a railway company cannot, merely for the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour of individuals unless there is a sufficient consideration for such reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the company of conveyance or other services rendered to them by such individuals,” vol. 2, p. 121. Probably this represented the general opinion of the legal profession in 1875.
In the report for 1883 the Commissioners refer to “the fair pecuniary interests generally of the company carrying” (p. 1.) as if they might be taken into account.
[ [102] “The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament; care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”
[ [103] See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.
[ [104] The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway, within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway, provided that improvements of the communications between the points and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered with.”
[ [105] Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.
[ [106] Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.
[ [107] The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the maintenance of canals is as follows:—
Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay.