The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-15 00:00:00

BAILTVAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES.

LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN.
Captain C. E. Mangles, M.P., the chairman of
this company, has addressed a long letter to the
shareholders, giving the particulars of the dispute
respecting the Portsmouth line and traffic between
his company and the London, Brighton, and South-
Coast Railway Company, or rather between the
boards of the two companies. Several pages of
the printed letter are occupied with explanations
and corrections of the published statements and
assertions of Mr. Schuster, the chairman of the
Brighton Company, as to the matters in dispute.
With regard to one of those statements, Captain
Mangles informs the shareholders that "the South-4
had been Western Railway Company
exclu-
sively in possession of the traffic of Portsmouth
and the Isle of Wight, through Gosport, for
a considerable period before the Brighton Com-
pany had any concern with either ; that the South
'Western Company had been first also, in 1838, to
the making of a railway to Portsmouth
Ler had also in 1845 been tin; promoters of a
direct line by Godalming and Chichester to Ports-
mouth, and were, when in 1847 the two companies,
wisely and for their mutual benefit, determined on
the making of but one line between Cosham and
Portsmouth for their joint use, possessed of the
authority of Parliament, and of the means equally
with the Brighton Company, to make such a line to
connect their system with Portsmouth. It would
have been absurd to make two such line ;slid
although the South Western Company. mt,
have allowed their annoy-
pardonably if unwisely,
s disturbance of the
ance at the Brighton Compan'
South Western exclusive hold on Portsmouth to
postpone amicable arrangements with the Brighton
Company, it will, at all events at the present day,
be seen that each company acted with prudence in
the determination it came to. Mr. Schuster
dairas that the Brighton Company made conces-
sions to the South Western Company at this time.
I might with justice assert the contrary posi-
tion. The truth is, the Brighton Company were
glad to receive our money for a joint ownership in
the line they were authorized to construct, and we,
forgetting the past, were glad to save the difference
between the oum we paid them and what it would
have cost us to make an independent line. Both
companies were gainers by the transaction, and
when the joint line was completed, and our share
in it conveyed to us and our money paid, each com-
pany was equally entitled to make the best of its
position, and each was wise in agreeing with the
other that their future relations should be relations
of peace. Accordingly, in 1848, an agreement be-
tween the two companies was made, the principles
of which, briefly, were to avoid competition and
to devide (after deduction cif an agreed rate for
working expenses) the receipts by the two com-
panies from the traffic between Portsmouth
and the points (London and its neighbourhood)
to which both companies could afford railway
communication in certain proportions, viz., five-
eights to the South Western Company, and
three-eighths to the Brighton Company.
This agreement was made foi' a perpetuity.
In 1852, after some differences between the com-
panies, a readjustment of relations, at the Instance
of the Brighton Company, took place ; and, with a
view to the prevention of future jealousies, the new
arrangement embraced also the traffic between Gos-
port and London, and the proportions agreed on
for the future division of the aggregate receipts of 1,
the two companies in respect of London traffic,
after deducting the agreed rate of working ex-
penses, were two-thirds to the South Western
Company and one-third to the Brighton Company:"
The arrangement of 1852 was limited to 21 years.
The agreed rate of deduction for working expenses
had been fixed in 1848 at 30 per cent. In 1852 it
was reduced to 15 per cent., the latter rate being
less than the actual expenseincurred. The accounts
of the -making and the breaking of subsequent
agreements between the two companies are most
unsatisfactory features in the dispute. One
company, it seems, is quite as much to blame as the
other. Professions of friendship and of peace
were undermined by counter schemes of branch
lines into a district of country extending from
40 to 50 miles east and west between the
two companies's lines, which according to their ar-
rangements was not to have railway communica-
tion of any kind without the assent of both
comanies. Fortunately for the public interests,
g faith in this respect was broken by both
companies. It appears that the distance from
London to Portsmouth by the Brighton Railway
is 95 miles, and by the South Western 941 miles ;
but by the new Portsmouth line the distance from
London to Portsmouth is 74 miles. The chairman
of the South Western contends that the new
Portsmouth line threatened the property of his
company, and therefore it was their interest to
secure it with a view to prevent further mischief.
The chairman of the Brighton insisted on his com-
pany becoming joint owners of the new Portsmouth
line, 32 miles in length, to which the South
Western Board objected in toto, while they had non
objection to divide the Portsmouth traffic with the
Brighton Company and give them their just share
of it as heretofore. They considered it very bad
policy to allow the latter company to become joint
owners cf a line in their district, and refused such
partnership accordingly. The South -Western
would in this case be working over about 140 miles
for joint purposes, while the Brighton Company
would still be.working over about 100 for such pur-
poses ; and the South-Western state that, while
claiming in division two-thirds only of the net joint
earnings, they would in all probability carry a
considerably greater proportion. They invited the
Brighton Board to join them in seeking powers from
Parliament to make the traffic arrangement, what-
ever it might be, binding, but to this proposition
the Brighton Board never replied. It seems to
puzzle the chairman and board of the South-Wes-
tern that Mr. Schuster, chairman of the Brighton,
and his board, should insist on joint ownership or
joint working of a line which he (Mr. Schuster)
described " as a single line of 32 miles, with gra-
dients of 1 in 80 almost all the way," as one
" which the Government would not use for troops,
whom they would always send by one or other of
the level lines," and as one " which would subject
its owners to an expenditure of £50,000 a year
before they could look for profit," &c. The
chairman of the South-Western assures the share-
holders that they have been advised, to take the
Portsmouth line, not for its intrinsic merits, but for
protective purposes ; that they have been enabled
to work the Portsmouth line more satisfactorily
than they expected ; that Government had
despatched troops over it, and that there was not
the remotest cause for the alarm that £50,000 a-
year must be expended before a profit could be
realised. Captain Mangles, in conclusion, strongly
advises the shareholders to vote in favour of u
of :the
Portsmouth:Amalgamation Bill, and to ca
that arrangement. With regard to the Brighton
Company he says, " Let us hold to the tone we
have latterly assumed, and continue to tell the
Brighton Company that the Portsmouth line must
be exclusively ours. Let us remind them that the
House of Commons has already declared this, and
that the House of Lords will, doubtless, take the
. same view of the public interests, and within a
few weeks clinch our ownership. Let us not for
a moment attempt to use this ownership unfairly
against the Brighton Company; but, on the con-
trary, let us go on to obtain, by our pending South-
Western Bill, from Parliament, power to make,
legally, arrangements respecting the London and
Portsmouth traffic, and let us proceed, if the
Brighton Board will, to make just arrangements in
exercise of that power. Prospective arrangements
attempting to define territory cannot be made
legally or even, in my judgment, practically bind-
ing, so lonq as the action of third parties, who
have opposing or independent interests are (and
they must be) left unrestrained. But the good
sense and good feeling of the respective directions
may, if properly exerted, effect all that is in this
respect needful, and may, I believe, be better relied
on than specific pledges promising a defined course
of action under circumstances which can neither be
foreseen nor defined."

The Railway Companies' Association, at their
meeting on Thursday, unanimously resolved to in-
vite both companies to submit their differences to
them for arbitration.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER-

HAMPTON.

The receipts of this company, including the Stour-
bridge. Extension and Stratford-upon-Avon Canals,
for the fortnight endinn. June 5, have been 49,500,
wtohzile3,3t7hol,
se for the corresponding fortnight amounted
while being at the rate of 39.26 per cent.,
that for the corresponding fortnight of 1858
amounted to
cent. The
aggregate £3,479, or at the rate of 38.79 per
and 3day receipts for the first 11 fort-
nightsof the half-year amounted to
£98,054, as againsts 4 5d1,054 for the corresponding
11 fortnights and
rof the previous year,
showing an increase orZ
gate expenses for the first fortnightslll,oAu d
andth e aggre-
gate
days
of the half year amoanted to £42,104, being at the
rate of 42 93 per cent., as against
corresponding 11 fortnightsan £37,876 for the
4 days of the pre•
Tim year, or at the rate of 46.72 per eent.,showing
a decrease of £4,228 le the expenses
to the increase in the receipts, meeshich, added
a total in-
crease of £21,228 in the net returns as compared
with the corresponding period of 1858,

CHANNEL ISLANDS' TELEGRAPII
COMPANY•
The first half-yearly meeting of this company