126 
MAGAZINE OF SCIENCE AND ART, 
Suppose, for instance, that in consequence of a rail¬ 
way, produce is brought to a certain market. The 
railway is an advantage to the producer who gets a 
higher price for his commodities, and to the consumer, 
who, in consequence of the additional supply, is enabled 
to provide himself at a red deed rate. If an addition 
he made to the railway charges, it will fall upon the 
consumer as well as the producer; a certain amount of 
produce will be withdrawn in consequence of the in¬ 
creased charges. The supply being diminished, the 
market price will rise. The producer will pay more 
for carriage, but will bo partly recompensed by the 
increase of the market price, which is paid by the 
consumer. 
It is easy to point out cases in which the whole cost 
of carriage is really paid by the producer, and in every 
such case he alone, of all persons concerned in the par¬ 
ticular transaction, is benefitted by the railroad, and 
upon liiui would any additional charge be levied. This I 
would happen with respect to produce intended for ex¬ 
portation, and which would have been brought to the 
seaside even if the railway had not been made. The 
producer alone derives advantage from any reduction 
effected by the railway in the cost of carriage, and he 
alone pay's the charges, all other persons concerned in 
the transaction being in exactly the same position as 
before. 
I should exceed the limits of this paper by entering 
into a minute analyses of the various cases which sug¬ 
gest themselves, but I am convinced that an attentive 
consideration will show that the same law holds good 
in all important cases, even when the benefits conferred 
by the railway are not directly of a pecuniary character. 
Such being the case, it is manifestly the duty of a 
Government having the control of a railway bo to 
arrange the charges that the establishment may be if 
possible self-supporting. This is not possible^ in all 
cases, for it is well known that there is a certain point 
beyond which, if the charges be raised, the proceeds 
diminish, the passengers and goods withdrawn more 
than compensating for the advanced rates. Now, let 
us suppose, the charges having been adjusted so as to 
produce the maximum returns, that there is still a 
deficiency, that the whole or a portion of the interest 
on the original outlay remains to be paid from some 
other source. The Government might say to those 
persons to whom the railway is an advantage, “ we 
provide you with this advantage, it costs us a certain 
sum annually—you ate paying less—pay the remain¬ 
der—submit to an increased rate of charges.” The 
just reply would be, “ lYb acknowledge the advantage, 
but we are the best judges of the value that advantage 
is to us. To pay more than we are now paying would 
be just so much loss to us.” The Government would 
only reply, “ No doubt you aro the best judges in this 
matter, and to pay more will be a loss to you, hut the 
money must be paid. If you will voluntarily contri¬ 
bute no more in the form of charges, we must impose 
and levy some tax that will yield the required amount.” 
There is no escape from the conclusion that in such a 
case the’railway is a burden. The refusal to submit 
to a rate of charges sufficient to pay all the expenses 
incurred, is made on behalf of the whole community. 
It is not the producer alone who refuses to pay more 
than a certain price for sending las goods to market. 
In a certain degree he acts as the agent for every per¬ 
son in the whole country in any way interested in the 
transaction. If it were for the advantage of the con¬ 
sumer that the produce should be brought to market, 
he w’Ould offer such a price for it as would enable the 
producer to pay the increased charge, the actual cost of 
carriage. 
In this case I say, the railway is a loss and a bur¬ 
den, and would be so even if every person in the whole 
community were included in the list of those availing 
themselves of the railway, and if a tax could be de¬ 
vised, which should fall upon every one of them in a 
perfectly equitable proportion. Even under these im¬ 
possibly favourable circumstances the loss would be 
the same, but under possible and existing circum¬ 
stances, not merely would a loss be entailed upon the 
community, but a manifest and gross injustice would 
be committed ; for whilst the railwaynvould be a great 
advantage to some, others to whom it would afford m> 
benefit, and even some to whom it would he an actual 
disadvantage, would be obliged to pay their share of 
the cost. The fares and charges are a perfectly equi¬ 
table tax. When in the manner just described, tint 
tax becomes no farther productive, when the people in 
the free exercise of their own judgment infuse to pay 
any more, then must some tax bo imposed indiscrimi¬ 
nately upon those who are benefitted, those who are not 
benefitted. and those who arc injured by the establish¬ 
ment which the tax is intended to support. 
Two examples will show moro clearly, in the first 
place, the loss to the community, and in the second, the 
un just advantage conferred upon individuals. 
Let us supjHiSe a person to have upon his property 
' a plentiful supply of a certain mineral, which lie could 
sell to the captain of a foreign shin in port, for £G 10s , 
aud suppose the commodity to be sold immediately 
out of the country, to simplify, without altering the 
nature of the transaction. -V railway we conceive to 
be made by which this mineral may be brought to the 
seaport, and the charges having been adjusted so as to 
secure the maximum returns, let the charge upon the 
mineral be .£6 per ton, the actual cost of transporting 
it £7- Here is a commodity which would be w ith¬ 
drawn if thj* charges were raised so far as to cover the 
entire cost of transport. Under existing rates, how¬ 
ever, the possessor of the mineral calculates that a 
irofitoflOs per ton will be sufficient to remunerate 
i m for his own trouble, to pay the ordinary rate of 
interest upon the capital wdiich he may require to in¬ 
vest, and to cover the profits of any persons interme¬ 
diately concerned in the transaction. The mineral 
will then he sent down for exportation, and the pro¬ 
ducer will make his profit of 10s. per ton. Now let 
us consider bow this trade affects the community. • 
The ship sails away with the mineral leaving £6 10s. 
behind. In order to obtain this £6 10s., £7 have been 
spent. There is a loss, of 10s., and other 10s. have been 
paid by the people at large to the particular individual. 
Ilis time and capital might have been employed in pro¬ 
ducing something worth 10k., so that there is a full loss 
of £1." The trade thus unnaturally brought into oper¬ 
ation is so far from being a benefit to the country, that 
it amounts simply to this,—instead of receiving any¬ 
thing in exchange for the mineral, £1 per ton is paid 
to get it removed* For every ton that is exported, the 
country loses that ton, and loses £1. 
Hut suppose there be another more fortunate per¬ 
son in the same locality possessing a supply of mineral 
for which be can obtain at the seaport £7 10s. per ton. 
The charge for carriage, as in the former case, is £C; 
the cost to the Government, £7. From every ton ex¬ 
ported the producer derives a profit of 30s., twenty of 
which arc iu reality paid to him out of tho public 
funds. 
I have no doubt that it will be urged as an objec¬ 
tion to tliis reasoning, that there is no real loss in the 
case supposed if the £7 expended does not go out of 
tho country. The fallacious principle involved in this 
objection lias been advanced, and iu some degree acted 
upon, from time immemorial. It has been continually 
refuted, and as continually reproduced in some new 
form; and the prospect seems still distant of its being 
finally set aside. The monstrous conclusions to which' 
this principle leads ought to be regarded as a sufficient 
proof of its erroneous character. If it be admitted, 
then no public expenditure, however lavish, is any loss 
to a community', no amount of taxation a burden, so 
long as tho money expended remains in the country. 
Now, if the principle be time for a small com¬ 
munity, it must be time for a large one; it must be 
true wiien applied to the whole human race considered 
as one community. Suppose a large portion ol all the 
capital in the world to be employed in carrying out 
