The history of the use of the telegraph in Belgium is instructive.
During 1851, the first recorded year of its existence, there passed between the offices of the whole of that kingdom, as shown by Mr. Washburne’s tables, twenty-one messages per day. If we may suppose, what seems scarcely credible, that only five of her chief cities were at that time connected by the wires,—Ghent, Antwerp, Brussels, Bruges, and Liege,—it exhibited the remarkable spectacle of a telegraph line opened by government “in the interest of the people,” used to the extent of about four messages per day at each of her five chief cities!
Even after four years more had been used in the extension of her lines, the daily transmission only increased to fifty-five messages per day for the whole kingdom, showing how slowly and jealously the lines were given to public employment, and how utterly futile is the assertion that the public interest, at that time at least, controlled the state in their management.
The tariff, which had averaged during the first year $1.26 per message, and had not, so far, been practically reduced, showed still more clearly that only the rich used it, and that it was, on account of its cost, practically beyond the employment of the people. The truth is, as Mr. Washburne states, that the Belgian government, fearing its use in private hands, and suspicious that by private energy the telegraph would be made to rival, if not ruin, the Belgian post, seized and held it from popular control. There is certainly nothing in the first five years of its existence in Belgium which proves that government, as is claimed, desired to give the fruits of a great invention to the Belgian people. During all of these years, however, and in marked contrast to the lines under government management everywhere, hundreds of thousands of messages were passing over the telegraph lines in the United States, at a tariff which made them available to all its citizens, and showing a daily record in some of the smaller of its inland towns greater than that of all the Belgian offices combined.
When in 1866 the Belgian government, by the radical reduction of the tariff to half a franc, endeavored to render the service more generally useful to the people, it did so at the expense of the public treasury; since on each of the 2,180 inland messages transmitted per day a loss of thirty-eight centimes, or more than two thirds the established rate, was sustained; and, as we have elsewhere stated, this loss would have been much greater, but for a profit derived from international and transit messages, which went to the credit of the whole service.
SINGULAR IDEA THAT A SMALL TELEGRAPH SYSTEM IS MORE DIFFICULT TO MANAGE THAN A LARGE ONE.
“It appears to be tolerably clear,” says Mr. Washburne, “that, in order to assert the superiority of a system on a small scale, it requires even more care and greater attention to cope with an increased traffic than an establishment whose ramifications embrace a larger sphere.”
This remark is made with reference to the necessity of great promptitude in the delivery of messages in Belgium, where the places connected are contiguous, and conveyance by railroad rapid and frequent. It is made also to show that it is more difficult under such circumstances to cope with an enlarged use of the telegraph than in the United States, where, by reason of distance and the comparative infrequency of transit by railroad, the necessity of promptitude is presumably less urgent.
At first the argument seems fair, but when examined, it has no foundation except in the general fact that distance and infrequent transit by rail may render the telegraph valuable and desirable, even without the promptness essential where transit is rapid and frequent.
The weakness of the argument is evident when it is seen that, as distances decrease, all the elements of cost and maintenance of lines and the difficulties arising from elemental disturbances, lessen in the same proportion. This admits of easy illustration. Look for a moment at Belgium, of which Mr. Washburne treats so copiously. Located centrally in that kingdom, in the form of a triangle, and separated from each other by about thirty miles each, are her three chief cities, Ghent, Brussels, and Antwerp. To connect either two of these a line of telegraph thirty miles long is required, which government builds upon its own property and protects by its own police. However thoroughly built, its cost is necessarily small. There is no trouble or uncertainty in working it. Its very shortness renders its perfection in the use of all the appliances which science and experience have shown desirable readily and cheaply attainable, and it is easily kept in order. When increased public use imperils promptness by the limited provision of wires, ten men, in a single week, can erect another. In all this the very proximity of the points to be connected facilitates and economizes every step required in meeting the enlarged necessities.