April 20, 1917.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

769

Representatives of the Northumberland Miners’
Association, Deputies’, Enginemen’s and Mechanics’
associations conferred with the coal owners in New-
castle on Saturday, relative to securing a larger
•export trade for Northumberland, and a better
local distribution of business.

The Coal Controller has agreed to receive a
deputation of patent fuel manufacturers, relative to
the proposal to fix prices for supplies to neutrals.

The Coal Controller’s proposals for a combing-out
of miners was discussed at a meeting of delegates
from all the coal fields on Thursday. No official
resolution on recruiting was submitted, but the
conference decided to offer its assistance to the
Government in arriving at the best means to obtain
the men required by the War Office.

London is to have the same quantity of coal week
by week this year as in 1916.’ An order to that
effect has been issued by the Coal Controller to the
colliery companies, and arrangements have been
made for transport.

Information regarding retail coal prices in the
principal towns of Great Britain is being collected
with a view to Departmental action.

The sixth meeting of the Coke Oven Managers’
Association (Midland section) will be held in the
Grand Hotel, Sheffield, on Saturday, April 28,
commencing at 3.30 p.m. A paper entitled “Notes
on the By-product Coke Oven Industry” by Mr. P.
B. Nicholson will be read.

The 25th u James Forrest” lecture, “The Stan-
dardisation of Engineering Materials, and its
Influence on the' Prosperity of the Country,” will
be delivered by Sir John Wolfe Barry at a special
meeting of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Great
George-street, Westminster, on May 2.

The paper read lately before the
German Royal Society of Arts by Mr. J. H.
Methods. Vickery gave an illuminating de-
scription, based upon inside know-
ledge, of a subject which, irrespective altogether of
the position created by the war, is deserving of close
study at the present time. We pass over the
author’s comments upon the trend of German
diplomacy, which may be admitted to have been
clumsy and conspicuously wanting in those elements
of goodwill which lie at the foundation of any
system of sound international policy. More imme-
diately interesting are his observations upon German
methods of internal organisation, including education,
social institutions, industrial systems, banking and
domestic politics. The subject is large, and could
scarcely be expected to receive exhaustive treatment
within the limits of a single paper. A great deal has
been written of late upon these matters, but Mr,
Vickery has, nevertheless, been able to throw a
certain amount of new light upon them, and has
succeeded in bringing out, clearly and concisely,
certain fundamental principles which distinguish
German methods from those of other civilised nations.
We use this expression advisedly, and in full know-
ledge that there are many who, in the bitter spirit
which has lately been engendered, would deny to
that country any place amongst civilised communities.
Mr. Vickery, however, very rightly, deals with
his subject dispassionately. German methods, as
defined above; have been widely extolled as models
of superior organisation. In education and science,
more particularly, the German system is still believed
by many to be better than that of any other country.
But Mr. Vickery goes to the very root of the matter
when he shows that the essential difference between
the German educational system on the one hand and
the British and American systems on the other, lies
in the fact that the former aims at instruction alone,
while the latter have also in view the formation of
character. The relative importance of knowledge
and character may be a debatable point. We have
before us in, this war a wonderful object lesson in
the study of the finished products of each system;
and history will furnish the answer as to which is
the more valuable of these two attributes.

Expressed in terms of these two factors, the
problem of education is greatly simplified. It may
be difficult to define exactly how much purely

materialistic knowledge will compensate for want of
character; but it should not be impossible to devise
an educational system not one whit inferior to the
German in its practical value, and at the same time
retaining those elements of character-moulding
which have enabled the British youth to go into
the four corners of the earth, and maintain the
respect of every grade of humanity.

Turning to the social institutions of Germany,
Mr. Vickery gives a graphic picture of what he
appropriately terms stocktaking processes, in which
Germany is undoubtedly ahead of any other nation.
There are three processes of registration—civil,
business and service. So perfectly organised are
these that Germany was able, in 24 hours, between
November 30 and December 1, 1916, to obtain
a complete census of every man, woman, beast
and bird in the Empire. Every individual is
card-indexed and classified for taxation, military
service and mental capacity. The same thorough-
ness characterises her industrial system. Just as
the individual is absorbed into the national
system, so is the industrial field invaded by the
State. Nowhere is there a more perfect example
of nationalisation. The State itself is the chief
industrialist, taking a hand directly or indirectly in
every commercial activity, controlling banks, syndi-
cates and cartels, and generally exercising that
industrial paternalism which is the ideal of advanced
Socialism in all but one respect—viz., popular
control. The German system, with this one addition
of popular control, would be the most perfect
Socialistic State upon earth. It is a working model
of collective effort. Its railways, canals, and other
public services are nationalised; its industries are
fostered by the State, its people are registered as
national units and instructed to serve national
requirements. No man is free to think or act other-
wise than in the interest of the Fatherland, to whom
alone he owes the right to exist. It is to this
co-ordination of effort that Germany owes the
phenomenal rise in material prosperity to which she
had attained prior to the war. The system began
only with the formation of the empire, which has
welded the separate States into a single entity
and evolved order out of chaos. To effect
this was a gigantic task. Mr. Vickery illustrates
its magnitude by a sketch of the development of
German law, which has been evolved from a state of
almost hopeless confusion, and has resulted in the
establishment of the new Civil Code of 1900, which
was recently selected by Japan as a model in
preference to the unintelligible complexities of
English law. There is much to admire in this
picture of persistent effort to develop the State
machine. The base uses to which that machine has
been put may be disregarded in the contemplation
of its extraordinary creation. The- keynote to its
success has been the maintenance of a wonderful
discipline, inculcated from the very cradle, and
supported by a semblance of material prosperity
which has hypnotised the entire nation. Whether
that discipline will withstand the strain of the present
crisis is the absorbing psychological problem of the
moment.

The paper read recently by Mr. C.

Way leaves. Vernier before the Institution of
Electrical Engineers, dealing with
the question of wayleaves, deserves more than
passing attention, not only on the part of British
industrialists in general, but of colliery owners in
particular. It is true that the author treats the
subject more especially from the standpoint of elec-
trical development in this country, but both directly
and indirectly mineral owners are concerned with the
principles involved in his proposals. The owners of
mineral leases have been accustomed to regard
wayleaves in the light of necessary evils arising from
the special privileges of surface ownership under
British law. But, fortunately, although wayleaves
invariably constitute an additional tonnage tax on
coal, it is but rarely that colliery development has
been restricted by the refusal by surface owners to
grant reasonable facilities for passing over their
land. Some such cases, it is true, have been
recorded. For example, a case of this kind was

mentioned in the evidence given before the Royalty
Commission, in which a colliery was brought to a
standstill by the absolute refusal of the surface
owner to permit a siding to be made across two
fields, the only means of access to the railway except
by cartage along the public road. Mr. Vernier,
however, directs attention to a case where the colliery
owner himself has held up wayleaves over his own
land for the purpose of securing favourable terms for
the supply of electricity to his collieries. He says
that this difficulty is likely to become still more
troublesome in the future, since colliery owners have
in recent years adopted the policy of purchasing
agricultural land, in order to avoid heavy claims for
compensation for damage arising from subsidence
from their workings. Whatever may be the degree
of truth in this forecast, it is a perfectly legitimate
attitude to assume as a basis of argument in favour
of a simplification of the law in respect to the
relations between private ownership and public
utilities.

It is true, as the author states, that electricity
supply companies are precluded by law from laying
mains in private lands without the special consent of
the owner and occupier, and such a proceeding is only
possible upon such terms and conditions as the latter
may impose upon the undertakers. Even where the
surface owner may have no intention to refuse
consent, the resulting negotiations sometimes involve
prolonged delay, even if they do not end in a demand
for a heavier rent than is reasonable.

It is undeniable that there is at the present time a
growing need for the supply of electricity, both for
power, lighting and heating purposes. The author
rightly considers that the urgency of this question
will become still greater, owing to the work of
reconstruction that must inevitably be undertaken
after the war. He says that the need for efficiency
and economy will be seriously increased, both in
regard to a more efficient employment of our
depleted capital, and also in regard to the con-
servation of our national resources, of which coal
is unquestionably the most important. Like many
other economists of the present day, he sees salvation
in unhampered electrical development, involving a
large extension of overhead wiring for the purpose
of distributing electrical current wherever it can be
utilised. To this end he proposes that electrical
supply undertakings should be given compulsory
powers for carrying their mains over private
property. He instances the existing powers of local
authorities under the Public Health Act, 1875, in
connection with the carriage of sewers through
private land. The Land Enquiry Committee,
appointed in 1912, recommended a similar policy of
expropriation for any public purpose whatsoever, with
the proviso that the amenities of the neighbourhood
and the interest of the landowner should be injured
as little as possible. In all cases the assessment of
compensation was recommended to be placed in the
hands of a body of Judicial Land Commissioners.
Mr. Vernier would still further amplify the powers
of this body by fixing a limit of time for obtaining a
compulsory Order.

He remarks that the United Kingdom and Germany
are the only two large European States which have not
yet adopted compulsory powers of expropriation for
electric mains on private property. Such powers for
works of public utility are known in the United
States as the power of eminent domain, 7.e., the
sovereign right of a State to appropriate property to
public uses, whether the owner consents or not.
This power exists in the United States and also in
Italy, Switzerland, France, Norway, Spain, Holland
and Belgium. The only condition for the exercise of
this power is that the Government should be satisfied
that the proposed work is really one of public
utility.

It is not, however, to be inferred that so drastic a
change in the law of surface ownership is called for
in this country merely because other countries have
adopted this course. Conditions vary much in different
lands and it is necessary to show that electrical
developments in Great Britain are actually impeded by
the law of private ownership before this question can
be admitted to assume that position of urgency for
which Mr. Vernier contends. We do not claim any