MAGAZINE OF SCIENCE AND ART. 
125 
pose that he transports annually over this road a certain 
quantity of goods. He calculates that a certain im¬ 
proved state of tho road would save him one day’s 
labour in tlio year* and that six Jays’ labour could bring 
the road into that state, and keep it so foi three years. 
To expend those six days of labour whouId be a loss of 
three days in tho three years. Or if, in ten days, ho 
could effect a permanent improvement which would 
save him one day’s labour in the year for an indefinite 
time, it might, ’however happen that he could expend 
these ten days in some way still more conducive to his 
advantage. Or again, if tho improvement could be 
made by the expenditure of a sum of money, the in 
terest on that sum might amount to more than the 
amount of the labour saved, tn either of these cases 
it would be manifestly advisable to leave the road in 
its original state. But if the amount of goods to bo 
transported increases from year to year, the annual loss 
of labour on account of the badness of the road in¬ 
creases in the same proportion, and at last becomes so 
great as to justify the execution of the repairs* 
The same principles apply generally to a road made 
use of by a comm unitv, winch should be maintained in 
such a state of repair that the total saving may be equi¬ 
valent to the expense incurred in effecting it. Any 
expenditure beyond this would be so much waste. 
When the traffic is so far increased as to render it ex¬ 
pedient to macadamize the road,an attempt is generally 
made to throw the expense of construction and mainte¬ 
nance directly upon those who reap the advantage. I 
*av an attempt, for it is clearly impossible to carry out 
the principle to its fullest extent. Many use the road 
and pay nothing, so that some must pay more than 
they should do in strict justice, or a portion of the ex¬ 
pense must bo defrayed by the community at large. 
If it happen in any case that the tolls are not suffi¬ 
cient to pay the interest upon the money expended and 
the cost of maintenance, we cannot from this circum¬ 
stance alone infer that tho benefit to the community is 
not equivalent to the expense, for the road is of use to 
others besides the toll-payers. 
On levying tolls at all, however, the principle is re¬ 
cognised that every one should pay in proportion to the 
benefit which he receives, and to the cost incurred in 
procuring it. It is not from any doubt as to the sound¬ 
ness of this principle, that it is not fully carried out, 
but because there are many circumstances too obvious 
to require particular notice, which render it inconvenient, 
if not impossible, to do so. And, moreover, the injus¬ 
tice committed on account of the imperfect application 
of the principle is generally too trifling to occasion any 
serious annoyance or discontent. 
If, however, a macadamized road is made too soon— 
if the traffic is so small that the saving to the commu¬ 
nity is not equivalent to the interest upon the money 
expended, and the cost of maintenance — then the road, 
so far from being an advantage, is a constant drain upon 
the resources of the community. The tolls are paid as a 
matter of necessity, no other means of communication 
existing; but they are paid unwillingly, they are re¬ 
garded "as a burden—it is felt that the advantage gained 
is not proportionate to the money paid. 
When a country becomes densely populated, and the 
traffic consequently large, a still further improvement 
in the means of communication becomes requisite. 
Experience has proved that under favourable circum¬ 
stances a railway, with steam locomotive power, affords 
the most economical mode of conducting the traffic. It 
may be shown in many cases that the actual cost of car¬ 
riage, including every expense, is less, in some cases 
much less, than upon ordinary roads. There can be no 
doubt that in some - countries the introduction of rail¬ 
ways has been attended with advantages sufficient to 
repay their enormous cost. 
In calculating the probable cost of carriage upon any 
proposed line, from the results of experience upon ex¬ 
isting lines, we must bear in mind that, that cost will 
depend upon the amount of the original outlay, the 
rate of interest to be paid, the prices of the various j 
kinds of labour to be employed in conducting tho traffic 
and maintaining the way and works, upon the prico of 
fuel and other materials to he consumed, and upon the 
quantity of goods to bo carried. This last point—the 
quantity of goods to bo carried—is perhaps the most 
important of all. Until its amount is ascertained, no 
other statistical information will enable ns to perform our 
calculation with any hope of arriving at correct results. 
In availing ourselves of statistical information, we 
must curefullv distinguish between tho rates of charge 
and the actual cost of carriage, bearing in mind, too, 
j that in that cost must be included a proportional part 
] of the interest upon the original outlay. 
Let us start, for instance, with tho following fact;— 
1 In the United Kingdom, iu the year 1847, about 16£ 
million tons of goods were carried by rail an average 
distance of 22£ miies, at an average charge of about 
l^d> per mile. Assuming this to be the real cost, sup¬ 
pose that, having perfect statistical information respect-, 
mg all the elements of expense, enabling us to compare 
the cost of a similar service iu this country with that 
in the United Kingdom, we find that the corresponding 
j cost here would be 3d. per ton per mile. This calcula¬ 
tion would bo entirely worthless for all practical appli- 
' cations, merely proving, that if we had occasion 
annually to carry U5| million tons of goods an average 
distance of 22J miles, railways would enable us to 
effect tho desired transit at the cost of 3d. per ton per 
mile. Wo should still remain in the same absolute 
ignorance of what a railway would enable us to effect 
under real existing circumstances. 
Again, wo find the charge per ton per mile on the 
Parramatta Railway is Gd. This fact affords us no 
information as to the cost of carriage upon that line, 
and leaves us without any, the most remote, idea of what 
is likely to be the cost upon any proposed line. All 
arguments in favour of railways, not based upon well 
ascertained facts respecting the country and district un¬ 
der consideration, must, from the very nature of the 
case, be quite inconclusive. 
The natural course of an enquiry into the expediency 
•f constmcting railways seems to be, first, to determine, 
if possible, some general principle fixing the point in 
the progress of a community at which such undertakings 
become advisable; and next to ascertain whether the 
particular community under consideration had arrived 
at that point. 
The principle which I believe to be the true one, and 
which in is trie chief object of this paper to prove, is 
expressed in the following proposition :—The material 
prosperity of a community is not advanced by the con¬ 
struction of railways, until the circumstances of that 
community are such that the revenue derived from the 
traffic can, by a proper adjustment of the charges, be 
made sufficient to pay tho working expenses and the cur¬ 
rent rate of interest upon the outlay. If with tho most 
advantageous arrangement of the charges, there is still 
a deficiency, and the interest, or a portion of it, is paid 
from other sources, then in just such a degree are the 
railways a loss to the community. 
It is not implied in this proposition that railways 
should bo looked to as a direct source of profit, or that 
the principal object to be kept in view is a large money 
return. I do not regard the money return as the object 
of these undertaking but as the test of their real utility. 
Supposing a railway constructed at the public expense 
and under the control of Govenment, the whple cost of 
working and maintaining it, and the interest upon the 
capital expended, must he paid by the public, cither in 
the form of fares and charges, or through some mode of 
taxation not connected with the railway. If we regard 
the fares and charges as a tax, no tax could possibly be 
more equitable, for I maintain that it would fall upon 
every person deriving benefit from the establishment 
which the tax is intended to support, and in a degree 
exactly proportional to that benefit. It is a mistake 
to suppose that the charges fall upon those persons only 
who do actually and literally pay the money ; and that 
I others who are indirectly benefited pay nothing. 
