THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL 4. FAIR TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS AMONG THE PUBLIC OF INDIIDI3AL EMPLOYEES. The individual in this country has always been considered of more importance than the mass. The great-safeguard, which, with regard to railways, he still has to rely on, is the stimulating effect of competition. In France, where the railways are guaranteed monopolies, the common law is much more severe against the companies in respect to delays, loss, claims, etc., than here, but few Englishmen would ]?ke to exchange our system for theirs. The greatest cause of grievancc viz., secret rebates, I have already spoken of above. But with regard to employees, the case is somewhat different. The power and wealth of the greatest corporations is so enormous, that they are veritable states within a state. For instance the whole National Debt of Holland stands as follows in regard to the capital of the London and North Western Railway. Whole debt of Hollan d, 1890 - - Capital of L. & N. W. Railway, 1890 - - 290,487,000 - - 2103,755,000 While discipline is and must be strict, the employees ought to have some protection against anything like personal tyranny. Probably publicity and perfectly fair trial is the best remedy that can be suggested. My friend, Mr. Acworth, has pointed out to me that in the service where discipline has to be most strictly maintained, viz., in the army, the latest-joined subaltern can appeal a?a?nst his colonel to a court-martial, and a fair trial is always insured. I do not for a moment mean to insinuate that it is the wish it is certainly not the interest of the Companies, to treat their servants unfairly, but I believe it would lead to better results, if the old view of secrecy in these matters were abolished, and a more public system of trial, punishments, and inquiries into alleged grievances could be instituted. I am convinced from experience that many cases of useless labour, for instance of station-masters, to take a particular ex- a?nple, could be remedied, if it were not for the jealousies of various departments at head-quarters, who all insist on the m?fortunate station-master obeyin? each of their departmental orders. If there were a registered "court of inquiry" the appeal to which should not in any way make an employee a "marked man" this sort of thing could be stopped at once, and it would be to the advantage of the company that it should be stopped.
