Ee 
F.—ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND STATISTICS 139 
The adoption of such a policy would mean not only a drastic revision 
of the present system of road taxation, but also the handing over of the 
permanent way of the railways at a fair valuation to the State, which would 
then become responsible for its maintenance. 
The difficulties of getting public opinion to approve such a scheme are 
obvious, and were fully recognised by Acworth himself. The railways 
are private enterprises, and the suggestion that the tax-payer or rate-payer 
should be called upon to pay any part of the cost of construction and 
maintenance even of new lines, much more of lines constructed in the 
past, “ would come as a shock’ to the average Englishman, though both 
in Paris and New York, this has in fact been done in the case of urban 
lines. This would be the first difficulty. Nor is it likely that public 
opinion would be won over by the fact that both in this country and in 
the U.S.A. laws have been passed limiting the profits which railways 
may earn to a reasonable return on their invested capital. 
But there is a further difficulty. It is obvious that if the railway 
companies were relieved of this part of their cost of operation, railway 
charges could be very greatly reduced. The capital expenditure of the 
four grouped companies to December 31, 1933, on the lines open for 
traffic or under construction amounts to £795 millions. Interest on this 
sum at 4 per cent. would amount to £31-8 millions. Maintenance of 
way and works amounts to £16-8 millions. Though a considerable 
reduction would have to be made from both these items in respect of 
works which are not part of the permanent way, it is clear that the rail- 
ways would be able to make sweeping reductions in their charges and yet 
earn their full standard revenue, as fixed by the Railways Act, 1921. 
But would this in itself secure that economic distribution of traffic, 
both of passengers and goods, as between competing modes of transport, 
which is the distribution desired? ‘Though it would remove some 
glaring inequalities, as between road and rail, it would not really effect 
the object Acworth had in mind. The cost to the State in providing and 
maintaining the communications for each mode of transport might easily 
prove to be heavier for a unit of transport work undertaken by one mode 
of transport than by another. Nor is it easy to see how the State might 
so adjust the scales that traffic—having regard to the kind of service 
required—would pass by the most economic method. In the absence of such 
adjustment the economic loss to the community would be considerable. 
Whilst, therefore, we can agree with Acworth that ‘ it is incumbent 
on the Government so to shape its policy as to encourage that means of 
communication which in each case is on the whole the most economical 
to the community at large ’ and that ‘ to permit individual users to employ 
a means of communication which, though the total cost is greater, is 
cheaper to them because they can impose on the tax-payer or rate-payer 
a portion of the cost is economically unsound,’ yet we cannot but feel that 
a solution of the problem is not to be found along the lines he indicates. 
Nor do I think a solution is to be found in an attempt to bring about 
some rational and economic division of traffic as between rail and road, 
as was advocated by Mr. G. Walker in his paper to this Section at Leicester 
last year. Under his scheme the railways would be considered not as a 
