: TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F, ie ONT 
to better advantage for higher-class traffic. An examination of the Railway 
Traffic Returns issued by the Board of Trade would seem to support this view. 
When speaking of the State ownership of waterways, it should be borne in 
mind that one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission was, that, 
although owners of the waterways, the State should not become carriers on 
these waterways. These water highways would be open to all carriers, whether 
private individuals or public companies, and it is reasonable to believe that the 
railway companies, who are amongst the most efficiently organised carriers, 
would be amongst the first to take advantage of the improved waterways. 
The question of State ownership of canals and waterways, or of financial aid 
by the State towards their revival, is one on which great difference of opinion 
still exists. The passing of the Development and Road Improvement Funds 
Act shows, however, that a great change is coming over public opinion on such 
matters, The improvement of communication by road is becoming year by year 
of increasing public concern, and in like manner it appears probable that 
interest in inland navigation will develop as the need for increased transport 
facilities is felt. The advances in motor traction or haulage ashore and afloat 
will hasten progress. 
The Manchester Ship Canal furnishes an example of waterway construction 
started as a private enterprise which probably would not have been completed 
but for the public spirit of the Manchester Corporation in raising 5,000,000/. in 
aid of the work on the credit of the rates of the city. No one can now deny 
the advantage this work has been to Lancashire, and yet the financial loss to the 
original shareholders has probably done much to stop the improvement of canals 
and waterways by private enterprise. 
(ui) The Waterways of France, Belgium, and Germany. 
By Frank R. Duruam, A.M.Inst.C.h. 
This paper dealt in a short, cursory manner with the following points of 
interest, quoting freely from the Final Report of the Royal Commission of 
Canals and Waterways, and Sir William Lindley’s report on the Foreign Inquiry 
to the said Commission :— 
(a) The reasons for the development of the waterway system due to economic 
development of the resources of the countries. 
(6) Distribution and standardisation of the waterways. 
(c) Ownership of the traffic conditions and facilities in the three countries. 
Ownership of the inland harbours. 
(d) Administration of the waterways. 
(ce) Organisation of the towage and the tendency towards State administration. 
({) Expenditure on waterways and networks. 
(7) Means of raising capital, methods adopted in the three countries, and 
the principle of local contributions, or contributions from interested persons. 
(4) Traffic. Development of traftic since the modernised development of the 
waterway systems. 
(1) Comparison. A short comparison with England, quoted from the Final 
Report of the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways. 
(iv) Inland Waterways in England. By R. B. Dunwoopy. 
(v) A Forward Canal Policy: Its Economic Justification. 
By W. M. Acworrtu, M.A. 
The object of this paper was to show that canals as a means of transport 
are necessarily and inherently inferior to railways; that canals cannot carry 
cheaper than railways if the total cost of carriage is taken into consideration ; 
that canals can only compete with railways if, as in France and in Germany, 
the competition is subsidised and a large part of the cost of canal carriage 
laid on the shoulders of the taxpayer, and that therefore a forward canal policy 
has no economic justification. 
The writer pointed out that in England, where canals and railways have 
1913, P P 
