MAGAZINE OF SCIENCE AND AIIT. 
127 
some gigantic but unproductive work. No loss, it 
should be maintained, would ensue, for the motley 
could not go out of the world; whereas, it is obvious 
that, although the money would remain, the capital 
would soon be expended, and if the operations wete 
continued for a sufficient time, to a sulficient extent, 
the whole world might be reduced to a statu of misery 
and starvation. 
The whole difficulty arises from viewing the case 
through what is railed by Mills the “ hazy medium of 
a money transaction.” If the sum of £ 7 , which we 
have supposed to be the cost of carriage iu a particular 
case, does not go oat of the country, then of course 
there is no actual expenditure of money on the part of 
the community. The £7 is made use of in the employ¬ 
ment of labour mid capital. If £5 out of the £7 be 
paid in the form of wages, then £5 worth uf ordinary 
articles of consumption is expended in supportin''- the 
labourers. They would have consumed the same 
amount perhaps if the railway had not existed ; hut in 
order to obtain that amount they mast have been em- 
supporting? If this question be answered iu the 
affirmative, then everything becomes clear, and no occa¬ 
sion for further discussion remains. But if the answer 
be the reverse, there are still circumstances, which 
inay seem in particular cases to leave room for further 
consideration. It may be urged, for instance, that al¬ 
though the proposed works will occasion loss fora time, 
the trade of the country, in its natural growth, will 
have so increased at the end of a certain time—ten 
years suppose—that the burden will be then removed,, 
and the railway become a real advantage. Even if this 
he so, however, there appeals no reason why it should 
be made at once, rather than at the end* of the ten 
years. The railway would not improve by keeping. 
Why not defer the construction until the railway is ' 
really wanted? The capital or the power of borrowing 
it would remain, and the ten years' loss be saved. 
There is another argument of a singularly para¬ 
doxical character .sometimes advanced. Admitting 
that at first tho railway would be a source of expense 
instead of profit, it is maintained that within a mode- 
ployed directly or indirectly in producing something j rate time it would cause snrii an increase of prosperity 
to the value of at least i.5. I lie remaining £2 paid j and consequently of trade, as would compensate for the 
for the use ot capital is also lost, for the same capital loss at the beginning. This argument, involvin' 
might have been otherwise productively employed. 
The loss is not occasioned by the circumstance that* the 
sum of £7 changes hands, but by the withdrawal of 
labour and capital from full productive employment. 
It may be objected, also, to the arguments which I 
have made use of, that they lead to the conclusion that 
within itself a contradiction, requires very little re¬ 
mark. It might happen indeed that the inhabitants of 
a particular district would derive great advantage from 
a railway maintained by the country at large; they 
might fatten upon the resources of the rest of the com ¬ 
munity and grow wealthy at the expense of their neigh- 
some ot our necessary and most valuable institutions 1 hours, but the whole community would scarcely benefit 
are ot no real utility because they are not self-support- I by the process. There would be an apparent increase 
lug, because they do not pay. This conclusion is ah- 1 but in reality oulv a concentration of wealth. The ex¬ 
istence of public lands, however, is the circumstance 
which move than any other seems to reopen, and pre¬ 
sent in a new light, the question under consideration. 
The bearing of this circumstance upon the whole sub¬ 
ject of railways, may, I think, without losing much of 
its generality, be more conveniently discussed with 
reference to uur own position, as inhabitants of this 
colony. 
Those who have considered the subject in this par¬ 
ticular aspect, have not, I think, very clearly expressed 
their views. If it be proposed to expend any portion 
of our existing territorial revenue upon 1 ail wavs tiio 
question remains exactly as it was. That revenue is a 
good thing in possession ; it is as much a part of (im¬ 
properly as a community, as anything else which is 
1 ours. It is just and expedient that it" should be ex¬ 
pended in the manner most conducive to the prosperity 
of the whole community. There is no reason why that 
revenue rather than any other should be expended upon 
railways. 
It is maintained, however, and in this lies the 
whole point of the argument, that those works will 
cause an increase in the value of the public lands equi¬ 
valent to the money expended. It is meant, I suppose, 
that the money borrowed for tins purpose may, within 
a moderate time, be repaid out of the increase of the 
territorial revenue ; or, which is tho same tiling, that 
we may exchange land for railways. If the circum¬ 
stances of this colony were such that this operation 
could bo performed, then, I think, there could be no 
doubt as to its expediency, but under the same circum¬ 
stances, it may be shown that a railway as a com¬ 
mercial speculation would pay, so that wc really come 
round to the same question again. 
Suppose, for instance, that in consequence of 
£ 1 , 000,000 having been spent upon railways, 1 , 000,000 
acres of land become worth and are sold at the rate of 
25s. per aero (which were not previously saleable for 
more than 5s. per acre). A person who’purchases an 
aero of land under these circumstances, iu reality pays 
5s. for the laud and £1 for the use of the railway, 
which is, therefore, worth to him annually the interest 
upon£l. lie would ho exactly in the same position 
if lie paid only 5 s for the laud, and the interest upon 
£1 in the form of an increase upon the rail way charges; 
and this increase, when extended to all the purchasers 
surd, it may be urged, consequently the reasoning must 
be fallacious. The answer to this is simply, that the 
establishments alluded to do pay, in the sense which I 
hold to be necessary to its real utility that a . railway 
should pay. Tho people generally reap the benefit of 
the public establishments, and the people pay for them. 
It is impossible to determine In what exact" proportion 
this benefit is divided *, it^ is impossible to determine 
whose house is preserved from pillage or whose person 
from violence; or in any particular case what the pro¬ 
tection afforded costs; but one thing is certain, the 
people as a whole consider the advantages of Govern¬ 
ment. an equivalent at least, for the "cost. No free 
people would submit to Government under auv other 
conditions. Every public establishment, under srood 
and economical management, and suitable in character 
and extent to the wants and tastes of the community, 
every such establishment pays. There remains, how¬ 
ever, after the utility of an establishment is recognised, 
the secondary, though very important political problem, 
to be solved, how shall the burden be most equitably 
distributed ? This problem, which does not appear in 
general to admit of an exact solution, presents no diffi¬ 
culty, as I have endeavoured to show, in the case of a 
railway. 
If it were possible, which of course it never can he, 
to determine how and in what degree every person de¬ 
rives profit or advantage from public establishments, 
and in each particular case to withhold that profit or 
advantage until its cost bo paid, then would all really 
useful Government institutions become self-supporting. 
There are cases, however, as every one knows, in 
which a few people may submit to taxation for the sup¬ 
port of institutions not really advantageous. The burden 
may be too lightly felt to arouse a sufficient effort to 
throw it off; or the people may be deceived as to the 
real value of an establishment maintained at their 
expense. But with respect to a railway, when once in 
operation, there would be no room lor doubt. The 
amount which could be collected in the form of charges 
would be the exact measure of its value as estimated 
by the whole community. 
In considering, therefore, the expediency of con¬ 
structing railways at the public expense, the real ques¬ 
tion, the answer to which should be conclusive for or 
against the proposed undertaking, is, will they be self¬ 
