RAILWAYS AND THE STATE.

63

interest, but of sentiment. We shall have a brigade of alarmists who will warn us that "communism" is the goal to which all this sort of legis. lation must tend; that "we are turning the nation into a great co-operative society for the management of its locomotion." The simple answer to these suggestions is, that as the nation is already a co operative society for the purpose of managing not only its mails and messages, but its army, navy, and police, the extension of the same principle to our locomotion and our traffic cannot be, at all events, more than a development of the same revolutionary principles on which we are already acting so successfully. Nobody proposes that the State should work on railways or any other industrial monopoly for profit. The question is simply whether the profits, which in the hands of companies have to be squeezed out of all such enterprises, should, pro publico bono, be foregone together, and applied to the development and improvement of our internal communications.

But it is asked by those who cannot conceal from themselves the final results towards which we are gravitating, "Does not the bill now before Parliament arm the Government with adequate powers to abate the evils with which we are threatened, and to coerce insubordinate railway companies into obedience?" "Try, at all events," they say, "what the commissioners to be appointed under this bill can do for you, before you attempt an operation so gigantic, and in the opinion of some critics so visionary, as the absorption of railways by the State." This dilatory plea would doubtless possess some force if the measure under consideration really armed the executive with such powers as could be exercised, both equitably and efficiently, in the public interests. But unfortunately the bill, as it now stands, does not hold out the slightest prospect of such a result. Its leading principle (if it may be said to have one) is, that all railways throughout the kingdom should be open, without let or hindrance, to the transit of travel and traffic, irrespective of and beyond the lines of existing companies. In other words, railways are to be treated as if they were one interest. Now, if the State were prepared to buy the railways and pay for them, this principle would not only be a perfectly sound one, but its adoption would realize one of the most important objects aimed at by State purchase. But the new tribunal about to be created is, by the bill as it now stands, empowered to make regulations binding on all railways still presumed to retain their rights as independent corporations. In other words, a court, from which there may be no appeal, is to be invested with the power of overriding and partially repealing all the acts of Parliament, on the faith of which shareholders have expended their capital. It is difficult to criticise a measure which has not yet assumed its

final form, but it is not surprising that a scheme which, while it arbitrarily takes away the powers conferred by the legislature, attempts to force reluctant partners into a compulsory combination, without providing for any equitable adjustment of their separate interests, should have encountered, in the first instance, a choral protest from the railway world.

But if the equity of Mr. Chichester Fortesque's bill is doubtful, still more questionable is its efficiency for the only end such a measure can be intended to promote. The railway companies which, whether rightly or wrongly, consider themselves to be aggrieved by it will, of course, if it passes, set themselves to work to defeat any provisions which they may consider adverse to their interests. Nor will their task be a very difficult one. Compulsory through rates and mail arrangements will afford fruitful topics of dispute, and if the railway companies can only start with a real grievance, they will be sure in the end to have the best of it in any quarrel with the Board of Trade and their Commissioners. Mr. Martin predicts that, if such a tribunal as that proposed by the railway traffic bill were really armed with the authority it would require, it would prac tically be a "Board of Control," similar to that famous board which only existed as the precursor of imperial power. We fully indorse this prediction, and believing, as we do, that sooner or later this organic change must be made, we should greatly prefer to see it accomplished at once, or as speedily as may be, without a preliminary process of irritation which can only render all its stages the more difficult by the sense of unfairness which all meddlesome and onesided legislation invariably engenders.

We have endeavored to set forth fairly the difficulties attending any effort to carry out the only railway reform which we consider worth attempt. ing; and we believe that those difficulties are less formidable than they may at first sight appear to be. The advantages to be gained from a successful solution of this problem are unquestionable. Sir Rowland Hill, in his report appended to that of the royal commission of 1866, thus enumerates them:

1. A pecuniary gain to the State.

2.

A gain to railway proprietors in steadiness and security of income. 3. Security against Parliamentary contests, now so costly.

4. A reduction, eventually large, in fares, freights, etc.

5. Greater efficiency of management.

6. Increased postal facilities, and a cheap parcels delivery. To these may be added a considerable saving in the working expenses of railways, involving a reduction, according to Mr. Graves, of not less than 25 per cent. on their present amount. But, be it remembered, the question we have to consider is not simply whether the immediate advan

tages to be derived by the assumption of railways by the Government are worth the difficulties and controversies such a change may involve. It is not whether the accommodation the community now enjoys is sufficiently good, or the inconveniences suffered are sufficiently endurable, to induce us to accept our present lot, rather than exchange it for another of the conditions of which we are ignorant. It would not be difficult to point to evils inherent in our present system for which State management promises an effectual remedy; but it is, as we have already stated, rather in anticipation of the dangers which threaten the best interests of the community, when railway amalgamation shall have run its full course, that we invite a calm and careful consideration of the only alternative available for their protection.

It is too late to inquire what might have been the result had we followed the example of our continental neighbors, by mapping out the country, granting concessions for long periods, and retaining the reversion in the hands of the State. The contrast presented between that system and our own has been truly described by the late Mr. Joseph Locke* as one "between method and confusion in a matter of supreme national inter est; there led and guided by the sovereign power, here ungoverned and undefended, abandoned to every kind of attack, and only conscious of authority in the shape of exactions."

The utter disregard of all law and system under which our internal communications have been constructed, will render the railways of England a permanent monument of the ridiculous and disastrous achievements of "healthy competition" and "independent enterprise," embarked in hopeless and unequal race with gigantic industrial monopolies. But the experience of the past, no less than the manifest tendencies of the present, may afford us a timely warning for the future; and it is to be hoped that we have, at all events, learned the futility of all attempts to manage our railway companies by arming a subordinate department of the Govern ment with powers to scold and irritate, where it cannot command, and to issue orders where it cannot impose penalties on disobedience. We have tried the "laissez faire" policy, and it has failed; we have tried a meddlesome policy, and it has failed also. We have now, in the language of Captain Tyler, to meet the coming day when all the railways, having completed their several systems, may, and probably in their own interests will, combine together to take advantage of the public." In the face of this contingency we have simply to make our choice between two alternatives-either "to let the State manage the railways, or to let the the railways manage the State."

66

* Presidential Address at the Institution of Civil Engineers.

THE PRESERVATION OF WOOD.

When a country is first cleared, and timber is plenty, the only desire. of the settler in regard to it seems to be to destroy as much as possible with the least amount of labor. Afterwards, however, the opposite course is taken, and endeavors are made to preserve it, and prevent waste and decay.

Many methods have been proposed for preserving timber, varying somewhat according to the use to which it is to be put, and the situation in which it is to be placed. These may all, however, be divided into two great classes; namely, those which preserve the wood from external influences by forming an impervious coating on the outside, and those which consist in impregnating the wood with some substance which will enable it better to resist the action of fermentation and decay.

The first of these classes includes all paints and similar substances. In order to render paints effective, it is necessary that the wood shall be well dried before their application, as paint applied to the surface of wood which is filled with sap will tend to hasten, rather than retard, its decay. This it does by confining the juices of the timber and preventing the drying of the wood that would otherwise take place. The first paint that was used was most likely the native bitumen and asphalt that oozes from the ground in many parts of the world, and to this day we have not found any more effective substitute. But this is objectionable from its odor, the long time it occupies in drying, and its dark color; so that in the course of time other substances were substituted for it. Prominent among these are the so-called drying oils. Certain oils, such as linseed poppy, have the property of drying when exposed to air, and forming a gummy mass. This protects the wood from the action of air and rain. But oil alone has but little covering power, and a substance painted with it retains almost its natural color, or at most is only darkened. In order to vary the color and more thoroughly cover up any defects in the work, and at the same time hasten the drying of the paint, it is customary to mix certain earthy substances with the oil. Chief among these is ceruse, or white lead. This gradually combines with oil, and forms a hard mass. In order to hasten the drying of the oil, it is frequently boiled before being mixed with the lead. The lead paint made by mixing proper proportions of carbonate of lead with boiled and raw oil is undoubtedly one

of the best and most permanent substances that can be applied to the surface of wood; but, unfortunately, it is expensive, and the use of the lead is objectionable on sanitary grounds, the workmen employed in putting it on being subject to severe colic and paralysis from the poisonous effects of the lead. On the ground of cheapness, sulphate of baryta is frequently substituted for part of the lead, aud, in fact, in some cases for almost the whole. This, while it is not poisonous to use, possesses an inferior covering power; that is, it takes more coats to produce the same effect, and as it does not combine with the oil, it is liable after a time to chalk off.

Another substitute for lead is oxide of zinc. This is also not poisonous to the workmen, when free from arsenic, but it possesses little more covering power than baryta.

Quite frequently a mixture of lead, baryta and zinc is employed. Its chief recommendation is its cheapness. For painting in localities that are exposed to sulphureted hydrogen, such as houses on the docks of large cities, a zinc or baryta paint is superior to one containing lead, as it dces not blacken. Many attempts have been made to utilize various chemicals for painting purposes, and there is an endless variety of so-called chemical paints in the market. Prominent among these is the "Averill " paint, in which water-glass, or silicate of soda, is a leading ingredient ; but the general fault of all these paints is, that when made thin enough to work with ease, they do not possess sufficient body, so that what is saved in the original cost of the paints is expended in the labor necessary to put them on.

Paints of different colors generally depend upon white lead for their body, and derive their color from mixtures of various earths and oxides. For almost all the shades of red and brown, oxide of iron is used, under the various names of Venetian red, umber, terra di Sienna, brown ochre, yellow ochre, red ochre, etc., the various colors being due to the way in which it is prepared.

Oxide of chromium furnishes chrome green; oxide of copper, combined with various acids and with arsenic, gives various greens; lead combined with chromic acid forms the chrome yellows, the different shades being due to the manner in which they are prepared. For blue we have Prussian blue, which is not very permanent, and of late years ultramarine, which is the best and most permanent of all colors.

But lead, or oxide of lead, and sulphide of mercury give the most brilliant red, while for black, nothing is superior to carbon in the form of lamp-black. For special purposes, such as painting the bottoms of ships or piles exposed to the action of the water, coarser kinds of paints are