last five years, until at the last moment when a technical objection was made the plea of forcibly interrupting the passage of this Company’s trains. . . . The directors would add that so far from the opening of the Ashford and Hastings line having been delayed by objections raised by this Company, they were officially informed by the Commissioners of Railways that the certificate was withheld in consequence of the incompleteness of the works.”
The South-Coast Company removed their impounded rolling stock on the 3rd and 4th of March, it having been shown that the S.E. Company were legally in the wrong. But the latter, by way of retaliation, entered into a fierce competition with the former by a system of low fares; hence, at the half-yearly meeting, on the 24th of July.
The Report of the L.B. & S.C. Company stated that the principal increase of expenses had arisen from competition with the S.E. Company at Hastings, together with £3,000 for new and lighter engines for branch lines. It also stated that the Directors notified to the S.E. Company their determination to take no step in the direction of competition unless compelled to do it in self-defence; but as the S.E. Company, after the first month, increased the number and speed of their trains at reduced fares for the 94 miles from London through Ashford, the Directors had no alternative but to place an additional trains on their lines also, and at the same fares. Expense was thus entailed on both companies, with diminished receipts. The loss, however, it was stated, was less than it would have been had not the demand for half the profits of the entire traffic from London been resisted. The chairman (Mr. Laing) congratulated the shareholders on the progressive increase of traffic to an annual extent of £100,000 during the last three years, and the present year, to probably £120,000. He did not blame the S.E. Company for the course they had taken so much as he did the Legislature for sanctioning two lines to a town for which one line was ample. He had noticed generally that in such cases an injury was inflicted on the town; for, when the companies got tired of competition, they entered into an arrangement, not to develop the traffic, but to make the best of a bad job; and it might be so in the present instance. When the Tunbridge Wells line was opened it might be shorter than their own line, but the gradients would be a much steeper. The directors would be glad to settle the dispute with the S.E. Company, but if they divided the traffic before the Tunbridge Wells line was opened, the S.C. Company would be doing all the work at a loss of £20,000 a year. Mr. Laing was right in his view of the results of unprofitable competition; and such a result was clearly foreshadowed in the present case; for after the arrangement made by the two companies when tired of a ruinous rivalry, the facilities were never so good, and the fares were never so reasonable as when there was only one line.
