That there would be savings, and large savings, under State management I would not deny, but that is because the railways would be worked as a monopoly, and not because they would be worked by the State. The same and still larger economies in working could be effected under private enterprise if competition were abandoned in favor of universal combination or monopoly. The whole question depends on the waste of competition. Each railway company works for its own route. The result is that unnecessary train mileage is run, and train loads are lessened. The secret of success, the foundation of all economy in railway working, lies in securing the largest possible train loads. This is a simple rule, but it embodies a universal truth. If those responsible for the handling and carriage of railway traffic could work with a single eye to economical results, and in all cases forward traffic by the routes which yielded the best working results, great economies could undoubtedly be effected. This consideration does indicate that a source of improvements in railway results would be open to a railway system under Government management which is not available for privately owned railways competing with one another. And in fairness one must admit that this source of economy obtainable only under the conditions of monopoly must be set down as a point to the credit of State ownership. Many of the complaints against railway rates as excessive are really, when analyzed, complaints of undue preference. They are based on comparisons with other rates, and, in nearly every case, it is the factor of competition which lies at the root of the difficulty. This is the natural result of our mixed system of competition and control. In principle all would admit that there should be equal treatment on railways. But what is and what ought to be equality are questions in regard to which there is much room for difference of opinion.