The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-27 00:00:00

Lncreased caution of their servants, the conse-

quently increased security of their line, and in the
larger traffic brought by security. Shareholders,
boards, and even the salaried managers, will
acknowledge, that fear of the pecuniary penalties
of an accident are a very effective stimulus to
caution. There would on the part of subordinates
be a much greater liability to neglect, and to
running risks, did they not know that their
1 masters suffered severely by them. The publicity
too of the pecuniary suffering is something. The
cost of the smash of "rolling stock," &c., would
be comparatively unknown. The fear of being
mulcted in thousands of pounds before the eyes
of both the shareholders and the public, is, it must
be acknowledged, a very potent motive to caution.
We all know how habit overcomes the sense of
danger; and railway servants, like workmen on
scaffolds, and sailors, and miners easily become too
familiar with risk for their own safety, as well as
the safety of others. It may seem singular, but we
believe facts bear out the observation, that hun-
dreds of men employed in dangerous occupations
will often think more of risking the loss of their
situation, if they live, than of their life itself. What
might get them turned out of place, with loss of
character, is more operative on the imagination than
the hazard of life; and every railway servant, of
every grade, knows that if he were thought to be
the cause of a costly accident, his subsequent chances
of employment would be small.
But how do these heavy compensations affect the
profits of railways ? We do not, of course, ask
about the last dividends, but the general and per-
manent profits. If what we have said respecting
the far greater caution and circumspection due to
them be correct—and we think even shareholders
will assent to it—then there will be a considerable
direct saving in their tendency to keep the line in
safe working order, and the prevention of more fre-
quent heavy damage to the company's stock
and plant. Then, again, there is a very large
amount of traffic due entirely to the security, as
well as the ease and convenience, of railway travel-
ing. As things are, there can be no question that
for chances of safety, no other means of locomotion
can be compared with the railway. The old coach
accidents were, proportionately to the number of
passengers, far more numerous, besides their at-
tracting so much less attention than a railway
" crash." But, let this element of attraction
vanish, and fearful, indeed, would be the effect
on traffic. The immense host of passengers
who take a trip to see friends, or for pleasure,
would dwindle to a much smaller number, travel-
ling by rail would tend to limit itself to cases of
business or necessity ; at least all the nervous and
timid would stay at home, or go inside some horse-
drawn vehicle, and for shorter distances.
Perhaps many would hardly be disposed to accept
the actuary's view of the case, yet it is a true one.
If sacrifice of life and njury to the person were
common on railways—at common say as fires, or as
death prior to our three score and ten—insurance
to protect against such accidents would become the
rule rather than as nowithe exception. Even now
we commend the wisdoni of thoSe who resort to the
insurance company established to meet such cases,
and have known many instances in which its
aid has been found very welcome. But the
rate of insurance would rise in proportion
to the risk of accident ; while the servants of the
company would have less stimulus to extreme
and unrelaxing caution. Both together would
work for the diminution of railway travelling.
While, if safety, or compensation, were not virtually
guaranteed, fares proportionately low would be
demanded, and must be conceded. Hence the
The Actuary would tell us, no one can insure us
so cheaply as the railway itself. It is in the
companies' power, alone, to reduce the number and
mischief of accidents to a minimum ; on them,
therefore, he would throw it, to include the pre-
miam for the insurance in every fare. It is for
them, he would say, to reckon on the probability
of so many accidents on an average of ten or
twenty years, and to charge accordingly.
Of course all we can say will not reconcile share-
holders to a diminished dividend owing to heavy
compensation, for what they think unavoidable
accidents. Still the considerations we have
suggested may lead them to doubt whether, if they
are permanent holders of Railway Stock, they
would gain much by any alteration of the law
which the general public would tolerate. Perhaps
also it would be well for such of us as have the mis-
fortune to be shareholders suffering in our dividends
to ask what even we should think if we were share-
holders suffering also it person, or suffering the loss
of a peculiarly important member of our family
through an accident en our own Line. Perhaps,
then, like the general public, we should lean
strongly to full compensation.