The British State Telegraphs: A Study of the Problem of a Large Body of Civil Servants in a Democracy
()
About this ebook
Related to The British State Telegraphs
Related ebooks
The British State Telegraphs: A Study of the Problem of a Large Body of Civil Servants in a Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOff The Rails Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHeld in contempt: What’s wrong with the House of Commons? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAustralasian Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHistory of the English People, Volume VIII Modern England, 1760-1815 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUnwritten Rule: How to Fix the British Constitution Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Northern Question: A History of a Divided Country Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA History of England: Period III – Constitutional Monarchy from 1689-1837 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMonopolies and the People Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCan't Pay, Won't Pay: The Fight to Stop the Poll Tax Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhich Way's Up?: The Big Challenges Facing Britain and How to Confront Them Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsComrades in conflict: Labour, the trade unions and 1969's <i>In Place of Strife</i> Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFabianism and the Empire:: A Manifesto by the Fabian Society Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Party's Over: The Rise and Fall of the Conservatives from Thatcher to Sunak Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe History of Parliamentary Taxation in England Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Prometheus Post - Issue Two: The Prometheus Post Magazine, #2 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCitt and Bumpkin (1680) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe General Strike 1926: A New History Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe History of the British Post Office Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Power of Journalists Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhy Vote Leave Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Tariff in Our Times Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBurke's Speech on Conciliation with America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Athenian Option: Radical Reform for the House of Lords Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPay Me Forty Quid and I'll Tell You Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHistory of England From the Year 1830-1874, Volume 2 (Barnes & Noble Digital Library) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReform of the House of Lords Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsProportional Representation Applied To Party Government A New Electoral System Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Classics For You
Flowers for Algernon Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Count of Monte Cristo (abridged) (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Old Man and the Sea: The Hemingway Library Edition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Silmarillion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Poisonwood Bible: A Novel Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Fellowship Of The Ring: Being the First Part of The Lord of the Rings Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Confederacy of Dunces Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Master & Margarita Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Sense and Sensibility (Centaur Classics) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Things They Carried Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Rebecca Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Farewell to Arms Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Odyssey: (The Stephen Mitchell Translation) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Princess Bride: S. Morgenstern's Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mythos Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Little Women (Seasons Edition -- Winter) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Learn French! Apprends l'Anglais! THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY: In French and English Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Jungle: A Novel Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Animal Farm: A Fairy Story Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Wuthering Heights (with an Introduction by Mary Augusta Ward) Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ulysses: With linked Table of Contents Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Master and Margarita Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A Good Man Is Hard To Find And Other Stories Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Canterbury Tales Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Titus Groan Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5For Whom the Bell Tolls: The Hemingway Library Edition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Bell Jar: A Novel Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5We Have Always Lived in the Castle Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Canterbury Tales Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Republic by Plato Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Related categories
Reviews for The British State Telegraphs
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
The British State Telegraphs - Hugo Richard Meyer
Hugo Richard Meyer
The British State Telegraphs
A Study of the Problem of a Large Body of Civil Servants in a Democracy
EAN 8596547041436
DigiCat, 2022
Contact: [email protected]
Table of Contents
PREFACE
CHAPTER I Introduction
CHAPTER II The Argument for the Nationalization of the Telegraphs
CHAPTER III The Alleged Break-down of Laissez-Faire
CHAPTER IV The Purchase of the Telegraphs
CHAPTER V None of Mr. Scudamore’s Financial Forecasts Were Realized
CHAPTER VI The Party Leaders Ignore Their Fear of an Organized Civil Service
CHAPTER VII The House of Commons Is Responsible for the Financial Failure of the State Telegraphs
CHAPTER VIII The State Telegraphs Subsidize the Newspaper Press
CHAPTER IX The Post Office Employees Press the House of Commons for Increases of Wages and Salaries
CHAPTER X The Tweedmouth Committee Report
CHAPTER XI The Post Office Employees Continue to Press the House of Commons for Increases of Wages and Salaries
CHAPTER XII The Bradford Committee Report
CHAPTER XIII The House of Commons Select Committee on Post Office Servants , 1906
CHAPTER XIV The House of Commons, Under Pressure from the Civil Service Unions, Curtails the Executive’s Power to Dismiss Incompetent and Redundant Employees
CHAPTER XV The House of Commons, Under Pressure from the Civil Service Unions, Curtails the Executive’s Power to Promote Employees According to Merit
CHAPTER XVI Members of the House of Commons Intervene on Behalf of Public Servants Who Have Been Disciplined
CHAPTER XVII The Spirit of the Civil Service
CHAPTER XVIII The House of Commons Stands For Extravagance
CHAPTER XIX Conclusion
INDEX
PREFACE
Table of Contents
In order to keep within reasonable limits the size of this volume, the author has been obliged to reserve for a separate volume the story of the Telephone in Great Britain. The series of books promised in the Preface to the author’s Municipal Ownership in Great Britain will, therefore, number not four, but five.
THE BRITISH STATE TELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Table of Contents
SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY
The story of the British State Telegraphs divides itself into two parts: the purchase of the telegraphs, in 1870, from the companies that had established the industry of telegraphy; and the subsequent conduct of the business of telegraphy by the Government. The first part is covered by Chapters II to VI; the second part by the remaining chapters. Both parts contain a record of fact and experience that should be of service to the American public at the present moment, when there is before them the proposal to embark upon the policy of the municipal ownership and operation of the so-called municipal public service industries. The second part, however, will interest a wider body of readers than the first part; for it deals with a question that is of profound interest and importance at all times—the problem of a large body of civil servants in a Democracy.
Chapters II to VI tell of the demand of the British Chambers of Commerce, under the leadership of the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh, for lower charges on telegraphic messages; the appointment by the Government of Mr. Scudamore, Second Secretary of the Post Office, to report upon the relative merits of private telegraphs and State telegraphs; the character of the report submitted by Mr. Scudamore; and the reasons why that report—upon which rested the whole argument for nationalization—was not adequately considered either by the Select Committee of the House of Commons, to whom the Bill for the purchase of the telegraphs was referred, or by the House of Commons itself. The principal reason was that the agitation carried on by the Chambers of Commerce and the newspaper press¹ proved so successful that both political parties committed themselves to nationalization before Mr. Scudamore’s report had been submitted to searching criticism. Under the circumstances, the Disraeli Ministry was unwilling to go into the general election of 1868 without having made substantial progress toward the nationalization of the telegraphs. In order to remove opposition to its Bill in the House of Commons, the Disraeli Ministry conceded practically everything asked by the telegraph companies, the railway companies and the newspaper press.² The result was that the Government paid a high price absolutely for the telegraphs. Whether the price was too high, relatively speaking, is difficult to say. In the first place, the price paid—about $40,000,000—was well within the sum which the Government had said it could afford to pay, to wit, $40,000,000 to $50,000,000. In the second place, the Government acquired an industry ready-made,
with an established staff of highly trained men educated in the school of competition—the only school that thus far has proved itself capable of bringing out the highest efficiency that is in men. In the second place, the Government acquired the sole right to transmit messages by electricity—a right which subsequent events have proved to cover all future inventions, such as the transmission of messages by means of the telephone and of wireless telegraphy. Finally, in spite of the wastefulness that characterized the Government’s operation of the telegraphs from the day the telegraphs were taken over, the Telegraph Department in the year 1880–81 became able to earn more than the interest upon the large capital invested in the telegraphs. But from that year on the Government not only became more and more wasteful, but also lost control over the charges made to the public for the transmission of messages. It is instructive to note, in this latter connection, that the control over the rates to be charged to the public was taken out of the hands of the Government by Dr. Cameron, who represented in the House of Commons the people of Glasgow, and that another Scotch city, Edinburgh, had initiated and maintained the campaign for the nationalization of the telegraphs.
One of the most extraordinary of the astounding incidents of the campaign and negotiations that resulted in the purchase of the telegraphs, was the fact that in the debates in the House of Commons was not even raised the question of the possibility of complications and dangers arising out of the multiplication of the civil servants. That fact is the more remarkable, since the leaders of both political parties at the time apprehended so much danger from the existing civil servants that they refused to take active steps to enfranchise the civil servants employed in the so-called revenue departments—the customs, inland revenue and Post Office departments—who had been disfranchised since the close of the Eighteenth Century. The Bill of 1868, which gave the franchise to the civil servants in question, was a Private Bill, introduced by Mr. Monk, a private Member of the House of Commons; and it was carried against the protest of the Disraeli Ministry, and without the active support of the leading men in the Opposition.
In the debates upon Mr. Monk’s Bill, Mr. Gladstone, sitting in Opposition, said he was not afraid that either political party ever would try to use the votes of the civil servants for the purpose of promoting its political fortunes, but he owned that he had some apprehension of what might be called class influence in the House of Commons, which in his opinion was the great reproach of the Reformed Parliament, as he believed history would record. Whether they were going to emerge into a new state of things in which class influence would be weaker, he knew not; but that class influence had been in many things evil and a scandal to them, especially for the last fifteen or twenty years [since the Reform of Parliament]; and he was fearful of its increase in consequence of the possession of the franchise, through the power which men who, as members of a regular service, were already organized, might bring to bear on Members of Parliament.
Chapters VII and following show that Mr. Gladstone’s apprehensions were well-founded; that the civil servants have become a class by themselves, with interests so widely divergent from the interests of the rest of the community that they do not distribute their allegiance between the two great political parties on the merits of the respective policies of those parties, as do an equal number of voters taken at random. The civil servants have organized themselves in great civil service unions, for the purpose of promoting their class interests by bringing pressure to bear upon the House of Commons. At the parliamentary elections they tend to vote solidly for the candidate who promises them most. In one constituency they will vote for the Liberal candidate, in another for the Conservative candidate.
Thus far neither Party appears to have made an open or definite alliance with the civil servants. But in the recent years in which the Conservative Party was in power, and year after year denied—on principle
of public policy—certain requests of the civil servants, the rank and file, as well as some of the minor leaders of the Liberal, or Opposition Party, evinced a strong tendency to vote rather solidly in the House of Commons in support of those demands of the civil servants.³ At the same time the chiefs of the Liberal, or Opposition Party, refrained from the debate as well as from the vote. It may be that the Opposition Party discipline was not strong enough to enable the Opposition chiefs to prevent the votes on the momentous issue raised in the House of Commons by the civil servants from becoming for all practical purposes Party votes; or, it may be that the Liberal Party leaders did not deem it expedient to seek to control the voting of their followers. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Conservative Ministry that was in power, repeatedly called in vain upon the House of Commons to take out of the field of Party politics the issue raised by the civil servants in the period from 1890 to 1905. The Conservative Ministry year after year denied the request of the Post Office employees for a House of Commons Select Committee on the pay and position of the Post Office employees. On the other hand, the support of that request came steadily from the Liberal Opposition. In the General Election of January, 1906, the Post Office employees threw their weight overwhelmingly on the side of the Liberal Party; and immediately after the opening of the new Parliament, the newly established Liberal Government announced that it would give the Post Office employees the House of Commons Select Committee which the late Conservative Ministry had on principle
of public policy refused to grant.
Shortly after the General Election of January, 1906, the President of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, a powerful political organization, stated that nearly 450 of the 670 Members of the House of Commons had pledged themselves, in the course of the campaign, to vote for a House of Commons Select Committee. At about the same time, Lord Balcarres, a Conservative whip in the late Balfour ministry, speaking of the 281 members who entered Parliament for the first time in 1906, said he thought he was fairly accurate when he said that they had given pretty specific pledges upon this matter [of a Select Committee] to those who had sent them to the House.
Sir Acland-Hood, chief whip in the late Balfour Ministry, added: … nearly the whole of the supporters of the then [1905] Government voted against the appointment of the Select Committee [in July, 1905]. No doubt many of them suffered for it at the general election; they either lost their seats or had their majorities reduced in consequence of the vote.
And the new Prime Minister, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, spoke of the retroactive effect of old promises extracted in moments of agony from candidates at the general election.
And finally, at the annual conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, held in March, 1906, Mr. R. S. Davis, the representative of the Metropolitan London Telegraph Clerks, said: The new Postmaster General had made concessions which had almost taken them [the postal clerks] off their feet by the rapidity with which one had succeeded another and the manner in which they were granted.
Chapters XIV to XVII describe the efforts made by the civil servants to secure exemption from the ordinary vicissitudes of life, as well as exemption from the necessity of submitting to those standards of efficiency and those rules of discipline which prevail in private employment. They show the hopelessly unbusinesslike spirit of the rank and file of the public servants, a spirit fostered by the practice of members of the House of Commons intervening, from the floor of the House as well as behind the scenes, on behalf of public servants who have not been promoted, have been disciplined or dismissed, or, have failed to persuade the executive officers to observe one or more of the peculiar claims of implied contract
and vested right
which make the British public service so attractive to those men whose object in life is not to secure full and untrammeled scope for their abilities and ambitions, but a haven of refuge from the ordinary vicissitudes of life. Members of the House of Commons intervene, in the manner indicated, in mere matters of detail of administration, because they have not the courage to refuse to obey the behests of the political leaders of the civil service unions; they do not so interfere from the mere desire to promote their political fortunes by championing the interests of a class. They recognize the fact that the art of government is the art of log-rolling, of effecting the best compromise possible, under the given conditions of political intelligence and public spirit, between the interests of a class and the interests of the country as a whole. Their views were forcibly expressed, on a recent occasion, by Captain Norton, who long has been one of the most aggressive champions in the House of Commons, of the civil servants, and who, at present, is a Junior Lord of the Treasury, in the Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman Liberal Ministry. Said Captain Norton: As regarded what had been said about undue influence [being exercised by the civil servants], his contention was that so long as the postal officials … were allowed to maintain a vote, they had precisely the same rights as all other voters in the country to exercise their fullest influence in the defense of their rights, privileges and interests. He might mention that all classes of all communities, of all professions, all trades, all combinations of individuals, such as anti-vaccinationists and so forth, had invariably used their utmost pressure in defense of their interests and views upon members of the House. …
The problem of government in every country—irrespectively of the form which the political institutions may take in any given country—is to avoid class legislation, and to make it impossible for any one class to exploit the others. Some of us—who are old-fashioned and at present in the minority—believe that the solution of that problem is to be found only in the upbuilding of the character and the intelligence of the individual citizen. Others believe that it is to be found largely, if not mainly, in extending the functions of the State and the City. To the writer, the experience of Great Britain under the experiment of the extension of the functions of the State and the City, seems to teach once more the essential soundness of the doctrine that the nation that seeks refuge from the ills that appear under the policy of laissez-faire, seeks refuge from such ills in the apparently easy, and therefore tempting, device of merely changing the form of its political institutions and political ideals, will but change the form of the ills from which it suffers.
FOOTNOTES:
1 The reason for the opposition of the newspaper press to the telegraph companies is discussed in Chapter VIII.
2 The concession made to the newspaper press is described in Chapter VIII.
3 The efforts of the civil servants culminated in the debate and vote of July 5, 1905. Upon that occasion there voted for the demands of the civil servants eighteen Liberalists who, in 1905–6, became Members of the Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman Liberal Ministry. Two of them, Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Lloyd George, became Members of the Cabinet, or inner circle of the Ministry.
CHAPTER II
The Argument for the Nationalization of the Telegraphs
Table of Contents
The indictment of the telegraph companies. The argument from foreign experience. The promise of reduced tariffs and increased facilities. The alleged financial success of foreign State telegraphs: Belgium, Switzerland and France. The argument from British company experience.
In 1856 the Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain, under the leadership of the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh, began an agitation for the purchase by the Government of the properties of the several British telegraph companies. In 1865, the telegraph companies, acting in unison, withdrew the reduced rate of twenty-four cents for twenty words, address free, that had been in force, since 1861, between certain large cities. That action, which will be described further on, caused the Chambers of Commerce to increase the agitation for State purchase. In September, 1865, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Postmaster General, commissioned Mr. F. I. Scudamore, Second Secretary of the Post Office, to inquire and report whether, in his opinion, the electric telegraph service might be beneficially worked by the Post Office—whether, if so worked, it would possess any advantages over a system worked by private companies—and whether it would entail any very large expenditure on the Post Office Department beyond the purchase of existing rights.
In July, 1866, Mr. Scudamore reported, recommending the purchase of the telegraphs. In February, 1868, he submitted a supplementary report; and in 1868 and 1869, he acted as the chief witness for the Government before the Parliamentary Committees appointed to report on the Government’s Bills proposing to authorize the State to acquire and operate the telegraphs.⁴ The extent to which the Government, throughout the considerations and negotiations which finally ended in the nationalization of the telegraphs, relied almost exclusively upon evidence supplied by Mr. Scudamore, is indicated in the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. G. W. Hunt, on July 21, 1868, that Mr. Scudamore might be said to be the author of the Bill to acquire the telegraphs.
⁵
Indictment of the Telegraph Companies
Mr. Scudamore reported that the Chambers of Commerce, and the various writers in the periodical and newspaper press who had supported the proposal of State purchase, had concurred in the following general propositions: that the charges made by the telegraph companies were too high, and tended to check the growth of telegraphic correspondence; that there were frequent delays of messages; that many important districts were unprovided with telegraphic facilities; that in many places the telegraph office was inconveniently remote from the centre of business, and was open for too small a portion of the day; that little or no improvement could be expected so long as the working of the telegraphs was conducted by commercial companies striving chiefly to earn a dividend and engaged in wasteful competition with each other; and, finally, that the growth of telegraphic correspondence had been greatly stimulated in Belgium and Switzerland by the annexation of the telegraphs to the Post Offices of those countries, and the consequent adoption of a low scale of charges; and that in Great Britain like results would follow the adoption of like means, and that from the annexation of the British telegraphs to the British Post Office there would accrue great advantage to the public, and ultimately a large revenue to the State.
Subsequently, before the Select Committees of Parliament, Mr. Scudamore maintained that in the hands of the State the telegraphs would pay from the start.
Mr. Scudamore continued his report with the statement that he had satisfied himself that in Great Britain the telegraph was not in such general use as upon the Continent; that the class who used the telegraphs most freely were stock brokers, mining agents, ship brokers, Colonial brokers, racing and betting men, fruit merchants and others engaged in business of a speculative character, or who deal in articles of a perishable nature. Even general merchants used the telegraphs comparatively little, compared with those engaged in the more speculative branches of commerce.
He added that from 1862 to 1868 the annual increase in the number of telegraphic messages had ranged pretty evenly from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., indicating merely a gradual increase in the telegraphic correspondence of those classes who had been the first to use the telegraphs. He said there had been none of those sudden and prodigious jumps
that had occurred on the Continent after each reduction in the charges for telegraphic messages, or after each extension of the telegraph system to the smaller towns.
Mr. Scudamore held that it was a serious indictment of the manner in which the telegraph companies had discharged their duties to the public, that the small tradesman had not learned to order goods by telegraph, and had not thereby enabled himself to get along with a smaller stock of goods kept constantly on hand; that the fishing villages on the remote coasts of Scotland that had no railways, had no telegraphs; that the public did not send millions of messages
of this kind: I shall not be home to dinner;
I will bring down some fish;
You can meet me at four;
and that the wife and children, away from their home in the country village, did not telegraph to the husband and father: Send me a money order.
Mr. Scudamore’s notions of the uses to which the telegraphs ought to be put were shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hunt, who looked forward to the day when persons who have a difficulty in writing letters will have less difficulty in going to a telegraph office and sending a message to a friend than writing a letter.
⁶
Argument from Foreign Experience
Mr. Scudamore supported his position with the subjoined reports from countries in which the State operated the telegraphs. The Danish Government had reported that the telegraph was used by merchants generally and for social and domestic purposes. Prussia had reported that in the early days, when the charges had been high, the use of the telegraph had been confined almost exclusively to bankers, brokers, large commercial houses and newspaper correspondents, but that with each reduction in the charges, or extension of the telegraphs to small towns, the number of those who regularly sent out and received messages had increased considerably. Switzerland had reported that messages relating to personal business and family affairs formed as important a part of the whole traffic as the messages of banking interests and other trading interests.
France had reported that 38 per cent. of the messages related to personal business and family affairs; and Belgium had reported that nearly 59 per cent. of the messages related to personal business and family affairs.
To indicate the manner in which the use of the telegraph increased with reductions in the charges made, Mr. Scudamore reported that in Belgium, in 1863, a reduction of 33 per cent. in the charge had been followed by an increase of 80 per cent. in the number of telegrams; and that, in 1866, a reduction of 50 per cent. in the charges had been followed by an increase of 85 per cent. in the traffic. In France, in 1862, a reduction of 35 per cent. in the charge, had led to an increase of 64 per cent. in the number of messages. In Switzerland, in 1868, a reduction of 50 per cent. in the charge had been followed, in the next three months, by an increase in business of 90 per cent. In Prussia, in 1867, a reduction of the charge by 33 per cent. had, in the first month, increased the number of messages by 70 per cent. The increase in business always had followed immediately, said Mr. Scudamore, showing that new classes of people took up the use of the telegraphs.
Finally, Mr. Scudamore stated that in 1866, the proportion borne by the total of telegrams sent to the aggregate of letters sent, had been: in Belgium, one telegram for every 37 letters; in Switzerland, one telegram for every 69 letters; and in the United Kingdom, one telegram for every 121 letters. The relative failure of the people of the United Kingdom to use the telegraph freely, Mr. Scudamore ascribed to the high charges made by the telegraph companies, and to the restricted facilities offered by the companies.
In 1868, the British companies were charging 24 cents for a twenty-word message, over distances not exceeding 100 miles; 36 cents for distances between 100 and 200 miles; and 48 cents for distances exceeding 200 miles. For messages passing between Great Britain and Ireland, the charge ranged from $0.72 to $1.44. In all cases the addresses of the sender and of the sendee were carried free.
Promise of Lower Charges and Better Service
The Government proposed to make a uniform charge of 24 cents for twenty words, irrespective of distance. Mr. Scudamore stated that he fully expected that in two or three years the Government would reduce its charge to 12 cents. The only reason why the Government did not propose to adopt immediately the last mentioned rate, was the desire not to overcrowd the telegraphs at the start before there had been the chance to learn with what volume of traffic the existing plant and staff could cope.⁷
In 1868 there was in the United Kingdom one telegraph office for every 13,000 people. The Government promised to inaugurate the nationalization of the telegraphs by giving one office for every 6,000 people.⁸ In the shortest time possible, the Government would open a telegraph office at every money order issuing Post Office. At that time the practice was to establish a money order office wherever there was the prospect of two money orders being issued a day; and in some instances such offices were established on the prospect of one order a day.
The contention that the public interest demanded a great increase in the number of telegraph offices, Mr. Scudamore supported by citing the number of offices in Belgium and France. In the former country there were upward of 125 telegraph offices which despatched less than one telegram a day. In fact, some offices despatched less than one a month. The Belgium Government, in figuring the cost of the Telegraph Department, charged that Department nothing whatever for office rent, or for fire, light and office fittings; nor did it charge the smaller offices anything for the time given by the State Railway employees and the postal employees to the Telegraph Department. In France there were 301 telegraph offices that took in less than $40 a year; 179 offices that took in from $40 to $100; and 185 offices that took in from $100 to $200.
Mr. Scudamore over and again assured the Parliamentary Select Committee of 1868 that the telegraphs in the hands of the State would be self-supporting from the start, and that ultimately they would be a considerable source of revenue. But he supported his indictment of the telegraph companies of the United Kingdom by drawing upon the experience of the State telegraphs of Belgium, Switzerland, and France, under very low rates on inland telegrams, as distinguished from telegrams in transit, or telegrams to and from foreign countries. In taking that course, Mr. Scudamore ignored the fact that the inland rates in question were not remunerative.
Belgium’s Experience
The Belgium State telegraphs had been opened in 1850. In the years 1850 to 1856, they had earned, upon an average, 36.8 per cent. a year upon their cost. In the period 1857 to 1862, they had earned, upon an average, 24.3 per cent. In 1863 to 1865, the annual earnings fell to an average of 13.5 per cent.; and in 1866 to 1869, they reached an average of 2.8 per cent. only. The reasons for that rapid and steady decline of the net earnings were: the opening of relatively unprofitable lines and offices; increases in wages which the Government could not withhold; a slackening in the rate of growth of the profits on the so-called foreign messages and transit messages; and a rapid increase in the losses upon the inland messages, which were carried at low rates for the purpose of stimulating traffic.
At an early date the Belgium Government concluded that the first three of the four factors just enumerated were beyond the control of the State, and therefore permanent. It resolved, therefore, to attempt to neutralize them by developing the inland traffic to such proportions that it should become a source of profit, that traffic having been, up to that time, a source of loss. Accordingly, on January 1st, 1863, the Government lowered the charge on inland messages from 30 cents for 20 words, addresses included, to 20 cents. As that reduction did not prove sufficiently effective, the charge on inland messages was reduced, on December 1st, 1865, to 10 cents for 20 words. Under that reduction the loss incurred upon the inland messages rose from an annual average of $13,800 in 1863 to 1865, to an annual average of $59,500 in 1866 to 1869; and the average annual return upon the capital invested fell to 2.8 per cent. This evidence was before Mr. Scudamore when he argued from the experience of Belgium in favor of a uniform rate, irrespective of distance, of 24 cents for 20 words, not counting the addresses. Mr. Scudamore shared the opinion of the Belgium Government that the rate of 10 cents would so stimulate the traffic as to become very profitable. As a matter of fact, things went from bad to worse in Belgium, and for many years the Belgian State telegraphs failed to earn operating expenses.⁹
By way of explanation it should be added that the so-called transit messages and foreign messages were profitable for two reasons. In the first place, the Belgian Government kept high the rates on those messages. In the second place, those messages are carried much more cheaply than inland messages. The transit messages, say from Germany to England, have only to be retransmitted; they are not received across the counter, nor are they delivered across the counter and by messenger. The foreign messages are burdened with only one of the two foregoing relatively costly operations. In 1866 the Belgian Government stated that, if the cost to the Telegraph Department of a given number of words transmitted as a message in transit be represented by two, the corresponding cost of the same number of words received and transmitted as a foreign message would be represented by three, while the cost of the same number of words received and transmitted as an inland message would be represented by five.
Swiss Experience
The Swiss State telegraphs, the experience of which Mr. Scudamore also cited in support of his Report, were opened in 1852; and in the period from 1854 to 1866 they earned, on an average, 18 per cent. upon their cost. Throughout that period the average receipts per inland messages were 21 cents, and the average receipts per foreign message were 39 cents. In the year 1865 the average receipts per message were 21 cents for inland messages, and 30 cents for foreign and transit messages, which constituted 39