The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1898-01-15
Railway Pooling in England

When Mr.. w. NJ. Acworth, the we'll
known English writer and authority on
railways, was in this country last fall,
says Robert P. Porter in the Philadel-
phia Inquirer, I had d pleasant converse
ton with him at the Manhattan hotel Mr.
Acworth is a young, up-to-date man, well
conversant with railway matters in the
United States. He is sufficiently discern
ing to see both our good points and our
weak spots, and while he marveled great
~ at some things we are doing, in others
he was obliged TO admit the English
methods of dealing with railways are
better. For example, railway stocks and
bonds in England are looked upon as the
hest sort of securities; and there is no
likelihood of any legislation or any court
decisioG in England which would put I'M
certainty into these valuations. The secu-
rites of the principal British railways
are in fact as good as consols. Nj. Ac-
worth was greatly struck with what our
railways would of necessity have to do
in the next twenty-five years to improve
their equipment, their road-beds tracks
and termini. If this is properly done. Mr..
Acworth said nearly all the surplus earn
ings of railways must be used in the
work. Among other questions we dis
cussed was the extent of pooling in Eng
land. Mr.. Acworth had read the articles
published last summer and fall on this
subject in The Inquirer, and said in the
main they were correct, though he SEEM
ed to believe l had rather understated the
pooling practice in England than overstat-
ed 1t. He promised to look it up more
carefully on his return to England and
make more definite statement.
This statement 1 find in the current
number of the Railroad Gazette over Mr..
Acworths signature. In this article he
endeavors to define. the English law on
the subject of pooling, a task by no means
esy because there appears to be no posi-
tive authority to enter into agreements
with competitors. Mr.. Acworth says:
Accordingly, in the report of the joint
committee of the two houses OF parlia-
ment in 1872, it is stated that:
Whether division of traffic receipts
on the joint-purse principle is valid at law
or not is open to considerable doubt 1t
is clear that the courts will not set aside
such an arrangement on the ground that
ii is illegal in the sense of being contrary
TO public policy But the doubt is wheth-
er such an arrangement, which is in fact
a sort of partnership, is not ultra wires
of each company, and whether 1t may not
therefore be set aside at the instance or
a shareholder. This doubt, the committee
are advised, is such as to make it un-
safe for companies to enter into such an
agreement without the sanction of parlia-
ment, although there is evidence that they
sometimes do So
This is the position under the general
law. There may be found, however, sew
eraI private acts of parliament under
which particular agreement for the ex-
clusion of competition have been clothed
with statute force. The important point
of this inquiry of Mr.. Acworth is that
he has made it clear that in England no
attempt has been made to restrain COM
panies from pooling, and that in particu-
lar cases parliament has even actively
interfered to put a stop to competition.
AS to the extent of pooling in England,
Mr.. Acworth practically repeats what he
said to me when in this country-namely,
that it was more extensive than generally
supposed. He qualities the statement.
however, by saying there is probably no
single person in England who could speak
with more than an approach to accuracy,
for each company keeps it's arrangements
with its neighbors strictly private. On
this point L quote Mr.. Acworth:
Consequently the outside public, as
rule, know nothing of them, while even
railroad officials themselves know only
the agreement by which their own com
panieS are affected. But my own distinct
impression is that the joint committee OF
1872 moderated the extent to which pool
ing prevails. It is. for instance. matter
of common knowledge that the vast com
petitive traffic of the Lancashire and
Yorkshire and the Northwestern in Ian
cashire is pooled. The same thing is true
of the North British and the Coledonian
in Scotland Territorial agreements
agreements. that is, not to promote or to
aiG and abet new railroads in the district
OF a rival company-are also common.
There is, for example, one between lne
CaIedonian and North British, and anoth-
or between the Great Western and the
Southwestern. Further 1t Is general
rule. not without, however, important eX-
ceptions that. as against a company
which can carry all the way from 10
n a cornpany which can only carry part
of the way does not attempt 10 compete
bv quoting rates or fares or advertising
through services. AS for the rule tnat no
ccmDauv alters rates or fares 10 competi-
ti,-a Doints without notice TO its rivals.
this is so fundamental in English railroad
practice that its observance IS regarued
as q matter Of course In the rlNaI ooJeC.s
tO the proposed reduction, nine times OUT
Of ten II is abandoned. The tenth time
= NAV he persisted in, but the persistence
Is almost equivalent TO declaration OF
war"
This summing up Of the railway situa-
ton in England should be OF value 70
CONGRESS- in discussing the pooling bill
after the holidays. as MI AcWor'h Is :"
recognized authority. From personal Cd
seryation, and after discussing TINS ques-
ton with several of the Leading rali"ay
non Of England. / am inclined TO think
that in that country there is a fairly gen
eraI agreement among railway interests
in this most difficult of all railroad prob
lens, England has hit the happy means
between the semi-sta gnation OF the EURO
mean continent and the unbridled and su-
icidal competition Of the American rali-
roads. Railway matters run smoothly n
England simply because 1t has not oeen
the policy OF legislation TO neediessiy hs-
rass and attack interests upon whose
prosperity the welfare of 50 many people