Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 76

The Postal System, or Universal Fare

page 22

The Postal System, or Universal Fare.

Of the proposed systems of railway administration, probably the Postal System commends itself to more people than any other. It is so natural to say: See what an immense amount of good: has been done by making universal rates for letters, papers, and parcels—why not do the same with passenger fares and goods I rates? For many reasons. The Post and the Railway are so dissimilar that they never can be worked on the same plan. What people require in the shape of mail service can be, and to a large extent is, carried out by men on foot. Railway service can only be carried on by means of the iron road, and ponderous rolling stock. The man on foot with his letter can penetrate anywhere. The steam engine can only go where the rail is constructed. A ton of half-ounce letters would pay,£298 14s. 4d. when delivered. How many tons are there carried on a railway that could pay such a price?

In the postal service the average weight of the package to be delivered is so small that it was easy to fix the charge so low as to be within the reach of everybody. With the railway, on the contrary, the average weight is so large that we could not fix the average charge low enough to prevent all the short distance traffic from being wiped out of existence For instance, in this country the average passenger fare is 1s. 8d. Suppose we took this down to one-half, and the goods rate, which is 6s. 8d., also to one-half, say 10d. and 3s. 4d. respectively, could the short distance traffic be maintained?

It is quite certain that under the Postal or Universal Fare System, the average charge would have to be fixed so low that it would be necessary to maintain the railways out of general taxation, instead of being both constructed and maintained out of revenue, as I contend they can be. The increased burden of taxation the Postal System would entail would be so heavy, and its incidence so unequal, that no community would put up with it. If those owning property or residing near railways were to have their transit services provided for them practically free, what is to become of those owners and residents who have no railways in their districts? They would have to provide for their own transit services, and consequently their property would sink in value, and their districts become depopulated. Under this system it is quite certain that railways could not be made to pay their working expenses, probably not one-fourth of them.

The social effects of the present "no-system "have been bad, very bad—those of the Postal System would be far worse. It must of necessity mean far greater concentration in the cities. If people or goods could go for the same price anywhere, would not most people live in the cities? Most certainly, very few women page 23 and children would reside in the country. It would simply mean greater concentration of people, of opportunities, of wealth.