the United States transport has been traditionally regarded as
a matter for private enterprise and initiative, and only such
measure of control provided as might be necessary in the inter-
ests of public safety and general national policy. The present
tendency has in all cases been towards a greater measure of con-
trol of transport services by the State, due to the increasing
realization of the importance of transport in the economic life
of a nation.
As regards roads and rivers the latter having formed the principal channel of communication for many centuries, the State exercised but little control in Great Britain. Roads were regarded essentially as of local interest, the local authorities or private individuals being responsible for such construction and maintenance work as was undertaken. During the eighteenth century considerable improvement of the road system in many parts of England was made by the Turnpike Trusts set up by Private Acts of Parliament, and subsequently by the work of Macadam and Telford. In 1835 the Highways Act abolished the compulsory Statute labour on roads and empowered each parish to levy a rate for road maintenance, and in 1888 the care of the main roads outside urban areas was transferred to the County Councils. During the whole period the general policy adopted had been that of adapting traffic to road conditions rather than vice versa, with consequent restriction of weight of load, and stipulations as to breadth of wheels, and the fixing of conditions for the licensing of public vehicles; but a great step forward, mainly due to the extended use of mechanical road transport, has been the passing of the Roads Act of 1920, which initiated a Road Fund financed by the excise duties on mechan- ically propelled vehicles, from which grants can be made by the State for the construction, maintenance and improvement of roads, and which provided also for a greater measure of control over vehicukr traffic.
As regards rivers, State action was mainly directed to the prevention of obstructions and abuses; and when authorizing the construction of canals which during the latter part of the 1 8th and the beginning of the ipth century became the system of transport on which Industrial England mainly depended these private undertakings, as later in the case of railways, were given compulsory powers to acquire land, and in return Parlia- ment laid down the maximum charges which they might levy. In spite of the variety in the gauge and depth of the different canals, the canal system developed into a virtual private mo- nopoly earning at one time very large profits, and the charges gave rise to much discontent among traders.
The railways suffered from this discontent, not only in the early stages of their development, but for many years after- wards, since the principal care of Parliament for a long time was to avoid the creating of another monopoly. It was at first thought that competition would be assured by the different carriers owning their locomotives and waggons, the railway com- panies owning only the lines. This was soon found to be im- practicable, and reliance was then placed in competition between different undertakings; and it was many years before it was realized to be in the interest of the State that the various com- panies should work together.
Hitherto Government control in England has been mainly restricted to matters concerning the safety of the public and railway-workers, and to the charges made by the railway com- panies for the carriage of passengers and goods. The super- visory authority was placed by Parliament with the Board of Trade, a separate railway department being formed subse- quently in the Board to deal with all railway matters. Officers of this department inspected all lines before they were opened for traffic, being given power to delay the opening where neces- sary, and were required to inquire into the causes of all acci- dents. They had no power to order work to be carried out in any special way, but if their requirements or recommendations were not given effect to, they had the power of refusing to sanc- tion the use of the lines for passenger traffic for which fares were charged. In the case of goods lines and alterations to existing lines, the interests of the public were protected by the
fact that if an accident occurred and the Board of Trade regu lations had not been complied with, juries would deal very s^ verely with the offenders. In practice, wherever railways hav been constructed or operated, the Board of Trade regulation have always been complied with.
The Board of Trade was empowered to act as conciliator t> settle, amicably if possible, differences between individuals an the railway companies, and, with a view to giving traders - specially qualified tribunal for complaints against the companies the Railway and Canal Commission was set up in 1888.
The outbreak of war in Aug. 1914 brought about a remark able extension in the control of transport service by Govern 1 ment. In Great Britain the Government at once took possessioi of the railways under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871 and during the whole period of the war these were worked ot behalf of the Government by the Railway Executive Committee a standing body formed from among general managers of the prin cipal railway companies. Certain canals were taken over by th< Canal Control Committee, and during the period of the war th' greater part of the shipping was worked under the direction o the Ministry of Shipping. In 1919 further progress in contro was made by the Ministry of Transport Act. This Act broughj into being the Ministry of Transport, and placed under thj minister the existing powers (with certain exceptions) of other Government departments in relation to railways, light rail' ways, tramways, canals, waterways and inland navigations roads, bridges and ferries, and vehicles and traffic thereon] harbours, docks and piers. By this Act the minister was chargec with the initiation and formulation of a policy for dealing will: transportation, and in order to allow time for this and to permil of development in the meantime, he was authorized to retail for a period of two years control of those undertakings whicl were already in Government possession, and if necessary tc take possession similarly of any other undertakings. Very wide powers were given to the minister in regard to these undertakings He might give directions as to the rates and fares to be charged! and the salaries and wages of employees were under his control He might order the working or discontinuance of working of ai undertaking, or any part thereof, and take steps to see tha alterations and improvements were carried out and cob'perativi working effected which would result in greater efficiency o more economical working. The minister was also empowered tc establish and work, directly or indirectly, transport services b> land or water. During the period of two years it was thought that the undertakings would be able to make considerable progress, as these powers would enable the minister to author- ize the companies to carry out alterations and improvernni! and to acquire land without the delay and expense involvt the ordinary procedure.
In addition to the above temporary powers, the minister was authorized to make grants and loans for the construction, im- provement or maintenance of the various classes of transport services and for the promotion of such services by existing companies, and he was also given powers in regard to the sification of roads, the through running of tramcars, omnibus routes, and the purchase of privately owned railway waggons.
The British Ministry of Transport was formed in Aug. 1919 Sir Eric Geddes being the first minister. It comprised depart- ments dealing with civil engineering, mechanical engineering, development, traffic, finance and statistics, public safety, roads, secretarial and legal. A separate branch was formed to deal with Irish transport questions. In July 1920, the ministry issued a memorandum containing proposals for the future organ- ization of transport undertakings in Great Britain. These pro- vided for the grouping of existing railway companies into seven groups, each of these groups being under the control of a Board of Management composed of representatives of the shareholders and employees; for the fixing of rates to a certain standard revenue, a proportion of any surplus being allocated to a devel- opment fund to assist backward districts to develop light rail- ways and other appropriate purposes; for the setting up of permanent machinery for settling railway wages and working
