rilE.SIDKNTIAL ADDRESS. 775 



last year by the Cbam'ber of Deputies, and has now, aftov much contention, been 

 passed by the Senate within the Last few weeks. But it is not without interest 

 to note that, though a majority both of deputies and of senators supported the Bill, 

 the representatives of the district served by the company were by a large 

 majority opposed to it, while the commercial community of the whole of France, 

 as represented by the Chambers of Commerce, were almost unanimously hostile.^ 

 So far as can be seen at present, the purchase of the Western Railway by the 

 State is not likely to be made a precedent for tlie general nationalisation of the 

 French railways. Still, the broad fact remains that a series of railway maps of 

 the continent of Europe, constructed at intervals of ten years, would undoubtedly 

 show an ever-increasing proportion of State lines, and that the last of the series 

 would exhibit the private lines as very far below the State lines both in extent 

 and in volume of traffic. 



A word ought to be said of Holland, not only because Holland is a country 

 with free institutions like our own, but because the railway position of Holland 

 is unique. The railways of that country were built partly by the State and 

 partly by private enterprise, but the working has always been wholly in private 

 hands. Some ten years ago, however, the Dutch Government bought up the 

 private lines and rearranged the whole system. The main lines of the country 

 are now leased to two operating companies, so organised that each company has 

 access to every important town, and railway competition is now practically 

 ubiquitous throughout Holland. So far there are no signs that the Dutch people 

 are otherwise than satisfied with their system. Now compare this with France. 

 The French Government, though it has hitherto, except on the comparatively 

 unimportant State railways in the south-west of the country, stood aloof from the 

 actual operation, has always kept entire control of railway construction and of 

 the allocation of new lines between the several companies. And the French 

 Government has proceeded on a principle diametrically opposed to the Dutch 

 principle. In France railway competition has, as far as possible, been definitely 

 excluded, and the various systems have been made to meet, not, as in Holland, at 

 the great towns, but at the points where the competitive traffic was, as near as 

 might be, a negligible quantity. Now that questions of competition and combina- 

 tion are to the fore in England, and seem likely to give very practical occupation 

 to Parliament in the Session of 1909, the precedents on both sides are perhaps not 

 without interest. 



When we turn from the continent of Europe to the continent of America the 

 position of aftairs is startlingly dissimilar. The railways of America far surpass 

 in length those of the continent of Europe, while in capital expenditure they are 

 equal. State-ownership and operation of railways on the continent of America 

 is as much the exception as it is the rule in Europe. In Canada tliere is one 

 comparatively important State railway, the Inter- Colonial, about 1,.500 miles in 

 length. Though its earnings are quite considerable — about 20^. per mile per week — 

 it barely pays working expenses. I may add that in all the voluminous literature 

 of the subject I have never seen this line cited as an example of the benefits of 

 State management. There is another small line, in Prince Edward Island, which 

 is worked at a loss ; and a third, the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, 

 owned not by the Dominion but by the Provinciai Government, which is too new 

 to afford any ground for conclusions. 



The Federal Government of the United States has never owned a railway, 

 though some of the individual States did own, and in some cases also work, rail- 

 ways in very early days. Tliey all burnt their fingers badly. But the story is 

 80 old a one that it would be unreasonable to found any argument on it to-day. 



In Mexico, of which I shall have more to say directly, the State owns no rail- 

 ways. As for Central America, Costa Rica and Honduras have some petty lines, 



' Further, it is common knowledge that the Senate only passed the Bill (.and 

 . that by a majority of no more than three) because M. Clemenceau insisted that 

 he would resign if it was not passed, and, though they disliked nationali.sation much, 

 they disliked M. Clemenceau's resignation more. 



