Part 8

Chapter 83,383 wordsPublic domain

This diversity of system and practice will give some idea of the difficulty experienced in framing a classification suitable to each country, or, indeed, to various portions of the same country. The difficulty will be still better understood by observing the different manner in which goods placed in the 2nd Class, under the Railway Clearing House Classification, are classified in other countries.

CLASSES. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | FRANCE. | | | | | |-----------| | | | DESCRIPTION OF |ENG- |Nord. |BEL- | HOL- | GER- | CANADA. GOODS. |LAND.| |Ouest. |GIUM.|LAND. | MANY.|---------------- | | | |PLM| | | | Any | Car | | | | | | | |Quantity| Loads. ---------------+-----+---+---+---+-----+------+------+--------+------- Aerated Waters | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | Gen. | Gen. | 3 | 4 | | | | | |Tariff|Tariff| | Agricultural | | | | | | | | | Machines| ” | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ” | ” |1, 1½ | .. | | | | | | | | &D1 | ” Seeds | ” | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | B |S.T. 1| 2 | 5 Bacon and Hams | ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Gen. | Gen. | 2 | 4 | | | | | |Tariff|Tariff| | Bedsteads | ” | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ” |S.T. 1| 1 | .. Biscuits | ” | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ” | Gen. | 2 | 4 | | | | | | |Tariff| | Cattle Food | ” | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | B |S.T. 2| 3 | 5 Cheese (Packed)| ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Gen. | Gen. | 3 | 4 | | | | | |Tariff|Tariff| | Cider in Cases | ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ” | ” | 3 | 4 Colours and | | | | | | | | | Paints, Common| ” | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | ” | ” | 3 | 5 Confectionary | | | | | | | | | in Casks | ” | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ” | ” | 1 | 4 Flax, Raw | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ” |S.T. 2| 3 | 5 Hemp, Raw | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ” | ” | 3 | 5 Leather, | | | | | | | | | Undressed | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | ” | Gen. | 3 | 5 | | | | | | |Tariff| | Osiers | ” | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | B |S.T. 2| 2 | 6 Preserves, | | | | | | Gen. | Gen. | | Casks | ” | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 |Tariff|Tariff| 2 | 4 Cotton Yarn for| | | | | | | | | Weaving | ” | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ” | ” | 3 | 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a comparison of the number of articles included in each classification, so far as such exists, in France, Germany, Holland, and Belgium:--

CLASSES. Chargeable ENGLAND. Mineral Special First Second Third Fourth Fifth at Mileage Scale, &c. Railway Clearing House 80 446 453 500 672 319 180 103

FRANCE. Sixth. Fifth. Fourth. Third. Second. First.[39] Ouest 36 329 533 250 212 326 P.L.&M. 35 104 231 265 279 511 Nord 36 106 253 279 288 557

[39] The first class in France corresponds with the highest or fifth class in England.

CLASSES.

BELGIUM. Fourth. Third. Second. First. 168 177 294 Goods of all descriptions in part loads.

HOLLAND. B. C. 158 84

GERMANY. Special Tariff 1. Special Tariff 2. Special Tariff 3. 314 119 176

The number of articles which the companies proposed to provide for in the standard classification by their Bills deposited in the Session of 1885, was 2,656, classified as under:--

CLASSES.

Mineral. Special. First. Second. Third. Fourth. Fifth. 86 389 469 483 682 334 213

Assuming that any maximum classification to be framed should comply with the conditions which have been already stated, and that it should accommodate trade in all districts of the country, the classification suggested by the railway companies in their Bills will bear the test of any fair inquiry. When the change which we have indicated is carried out--when the maximum rate clauses of the companies are consolidated and revised on an equitable basis having regard to the present powers and to the new classification--traders will be able easily to ascertain whether the charges made by the companies are within their Parliamentary powers.

SECTION XI.

TERMINAL CHARGES.

We come to another common complaint against railway companies,--the one which, next to that relating to differential and import rates, has lately been most heard of. From time to time during the last 30 years, and especially of late, the right of railway companies to make charges for what are known as terminal services beyond the remuneration for actual conveyance has been challenged. On the part of the railway companies there has been no change of practice. No new kind of charges has been imposed; those in dispute have been made from the very beginning of railways in this country. Introduced by the common carriers upon the railways, they were continued by the railway companies. On the strength of the right to receive these charges, companies took upon themselves the carrying business, constructed large goods stations, with vast siding and other accommodation, and in providing land, premises and appliances, expended an enormous amount of capital, not necessary for earning the statutory mileage rates. The legality of such charges has been, after full argument on appeal, upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench (_Hall v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company_, L. R. 15 Q. B. D. 505): their equitable character is not less clear, and the contention to the contrary is, in the words of the joint judgment of Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Mathew, “singularly unreasonable.”[40]

“We have already mentioned the anticipation, in the early days, that the railway companies would merely furnish the railway and charge tolls for the use of it by carriers and others, who would employ private locomotives, carriages and wagons. The notion was borrowed from the experience as to canals and highways; and it has been well said that ”no proper understanding of a good deal of our railway legislation, and pre-eminently of clauses relating to tolls or charges, can be arrived at, unless it (the theory) is firmly grasped and steadily kept in view.”[41] On railways, as on canals, there were three states of circumstances which it was considered must be provided for: First a railway company, like a canal company, might simply provide a highway, looking to the tolls alone for the use of that highway for a revenue upon their capital; secondly, without themselves being carriers, the railway company might provide trucks and locomotive power, as the canal companies provided boats and haulage power on the canal; or, thirdly, both the canal company and the railway company might be carriers upon the highway which they themselves had provided, and find the wharves, stations, other necessary premises, accommodation and appliances, and the capital for that purpose.

[40] Mr. Justice Manisty delivered a separate Judgment. See note at foot of page 99.

[41] Wills, J., in Hall v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, p. 536. See also Field J. in Brown v. Great Western Railway Company, L. R. 9 Q. B. D., p. 751.

The owners of lands along the banks of canals were entitled to construct, in connection with them, wharves, basins and warehouses; and we find in the earlier railway Acts, and in the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (subject to which all railways since that date have been, constructed), similar powers with respect to railways conferred upon adjoining owners. They were authorised to construct sidings and junctions for the purpose of making communications between their own lands and the railway. It was intended that a trader should load his wagons on his own premises, carry them over the railway and take them off the railway again at another siding or communication, paying the railway company a mere toll for the use of the length of line over which the traffic was in fact worked. Nor was this a mere theory. For many years upon some of the railways in this country the work of carrying merchandise was, to a considerable extent, actually performed by large firms of carriers, such as Pickfords, and others, who provided their own siding accommodation with the railways, and built or rented their own stations and warehouses. During this period the railway companies, so far as this part of their traffic was concerned, merely provided the highways, the wagons and the engine power, and hauled the traffic from its place of origin to its destination; and they undertook no responsibility as common carriers in respect of the goods. The carriers provided the station accommodation, loaded and unloaded the goods, checked and weighed them, and handed over the loaded or unloaded trucks to the railway company in a convenient position for the engine to be attached to them. Of course, the carriers, who undertook all liability as such, charged the public not only the tolls which they paid to the railway company, but also a considerable additional sum to cover the risk of their Common Law liabilities, the cost of providing station and warehouse accommodation, clerkage and invoicing of goods, and other services beyond the haulage of the trucks.[42] Upon some lines the state of things which we have described existed for many years. But gradually the railway companies began to undertake the duties and responsibilities of carriers. They purchased or built, often at enormous expense, the necessary terminal accommodation which, under the previous system, had been provided by private carriers; and they made to the public charges similar to those which the carriers themselves had before made for corresponding accommodation and services. The companies raised the large sums required to furnish this accommodation and for their working capital as carriers, upon the faith that they were entitled to stand in all respects, in the place of the carriers or forwarding agents, and to make reasonable charges for accommodation and services not covered by, and obviously having no relation to, the mileage rates for simple haulage from point to point.

[42] Mr. William Pierssene, Manager to Messrs. Pickford & Co., stated in his evidence before the Railway Commissioners in the case of Kempson v. The G. W. R. (4 N & M 426), that in addition to the amount of the railway companies’ tolls, a sum varying from twelve to _eighteen shillings_ a ton was paid by the customer for the services which now form the subject of terminal and cartage charges.

This view has been sanctioned by the Legislature in almost all Railway Acts passed since 1845. The charges which a company are authorised to make are of three kinds--first, tolls for the use of the railway as a highway; secondly, charges, in addition to the tolls, for the use of carriages, wagons, and for locomotive power where such of them are provided by the company--in other words, for conveyance along the railway. A third class of charges becomes due when the company not merely convey the goods, as they would for the carriers who had their own station accommodation and staff, but are themselves the carriers; cases where, in addition to providing the highway, vehicles, and locomotive power, they perform “such services as are incidental to the duty or business of a carrier.” These services include the providing of stations, warehouses and sheds, where goods are received, sorted, loaded, covered, checked, weighed, and labelled, and trucks marshalled for convenient removal to their various places of destination, and the maintenance of a large staff of clerks, book-keepers, porters, workmen, engines and horses necessary for these operations. In this last case the company are entitled to make, in addition to the charges proper to highway, rolling stock, and locomotive power, a reasonable charge for the services, often costly and onerous, rendered in their totally different capacity of carriers.

It is undisputed that if the railway companies were not carriers and acted as toll takers only, they would be entitled to claim their full tolls. But what would be the result if they put in force such a right? The carriers or forwarding agents who would replace them, naturally would, as they formerly did, levy such payments as would cover the cost of station accommodation, and all the services performed in respect of the carriage of goods beyond the mere conveyance along the railway. Can it have been in the contemplation of the Legislature that railway companies were not to be entitled to make the same charges?

Suppose a Bill were before Parliament for the construction of a railway, and a clause requiring that the mileage rates should cover the cost of terminal accommodation were inserted, and the promoters accepted the Bill with such a restriction. The construction of a station at the terminus of the railway in a large town is very costly, and it would be to the interest of the company to make the station outside the town where land and works would be cheap. They would thus save capital upon which they would obtain no return, and, at the same time, they would be entitled to charge the public the full cost of cartage, whatever the amount might be. The Great Western Company, for instance, might have constructed their terminus at Wormwood Scrubs--from which place the cost of cartage to the City would probably be 7s. 6d. per ton, which the public would have to pay. With the view of affording better accommodation and of reducing the expense of cartage, they have erected a station under Smithfield Market, at a cost, in interest on outlay, maintenance, and other terminal expenses of an average of 3s. 8d. per ton. According to the opponents of terminal charges the Great Western Company are only entitled to be paid a mileage rate proportional to the distance from Wormwood Scrubs to Smithfield, that is, as for seven miles, to cover the use of the railway and the station. To take other illustrations, could it be supposed that the London and North Western Railway Company would have spent several millions of capital in providing expensive station accommodation in the immediate vicinity of the Docks in Liverpool, instead of receiving and delivering the traffic at Edge Hill, or that companies would have constructed vast stations in London, Manchester, Leeds, and many other important places, unless the cost was to be covered by payments in addition to the mileage rates? So inequitable and opposed to the real interests of traders is this contention that it is difficult to understand how it could ever be put forward.

One of the allegations before the Railway Rates Committee in 1881-2, was, that the companies carried some traffic at too low rates, and, to compensate themselves, imposed higher rates than otherwise would be necessary on other traffic. Now, if railway companies were not allowed to charge for terminal accommodation and services, one effect would be that in consequence of the cost of the construction and the expenses of stations, short distance traffic would be actually carried at a loss.

In recent years terminal charges have been recognised in every Act for the construction of new railways, by the introduction of a clause of which the following is a copy:--

“No station shall be considered a terminal station in regard to any goods conveyed on the Railway, unless such goods have been received thereat direct from the consignor, or are directed to be delivered thereat to the consignee.”

If the railway companies were not entitled to charge terminals for the use of the stations, the insertion of such a clause in Acts of Parliament would be meaningless; the intention of the clause evidently was that the companies may not charge terminals in respect of any intermediate station or junction, and the fair inference is that they may do so at the sending or receiving station.[43]

[43] Hall v. L. B. & S. C. Railway. Manisty, J., L. R., 15 Q. B. D. p. 544.

The equitable mature of the claim of the railway companies to make terminal charges has been admitted on several occasions by some, if not by all, of the railway commissioners. Their refusal to consider terminal charges as legally justifiable has arisen only from the doubt which existed in their minds as to the strict construction of the words of the clauses; and that question has now been decided by the Queen’s Bench Division in “_Hall_ v. _The London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company_.” Some portions of the judgment of the Court in that case deal only with the construction of the sections of the particular Private Acts of the defendant company; but the remarks of the Judges upon the general principles which govern the railway companies, claim to make terminal charges, explain so clearly their natural equity as well as their legality, that they may not improperly be quoted:--

“This notion of the railway being a highway for the common use of the public, in the same sense that an ordinary highway is so, was the starting point of English railway legislation. It is deeply engrained in it. In the early days of railways it was acted upon at least occasionally, and in respect of goods traffic, and although it enters but slightly into modern railway practice, _no proper understanding of a good deal of our railway legislation, and pre-eminently of clauses relating to tolls or charges, can be arrived at, unless it is firmly grasped and steadily kept in view_. Those states of things were from this point of view to be expected and to be provided for by legislation. The company might be merely the owners of a highway and toll takers for the use of it by other people with their own carriages and locomotives. That state of things would be worked out by the railway company possessing the mere line of railway from end to end, and by the persons making use of it, buying or renting contiguous land whereon to keep their rolling stock, and have their offices, availing themselves of the powers of Section 76 of the Act of 1845, and getting on to the railway by means of sidings connected with the railway.

“A second state of things, as we know from the evidence in this case to which by the consent of the parties we are at liberty to refer, prevailed extensively for many years after the railway system was in full operation, and for some years at least after the passing of the Act of 1845. The railway company provided the line and provided the engines and trucks, but they were not carriers. The large warehouses and sheds wherein goods were received, sorted, loaded, covered, checked, weighed and labelled, and trucks or carriages marshalled and prepared for convenient removal to their various places of destination--a corresponding work was done in respect of goods arriving from a distance--the staff of clerks, book-keepers, porters, workmen, and horses necessary for these operations were all provided and maintained at the expense of the carrier, and no portion of them fell upon the company. The company, on the other hand, as owners of the rolling stock, for the use of which, as well as of their railways, they received payment, provided whatever accommodation they needed in order to keep in convenient proximity to the places where the carrier had his depôts the necessary supply of rolling stock.

“The third state of things which might exist simultaneously with the second, or might be the one prevailing exclusively on a particular line, existed when the company were themselves the carriers of the goods, and when as carriers they provided the accommodation and performed the services above described.

“The company might thus be: 1, toll-takers and neither conveyers nor carriers; 2, conveyers but not carriers; 3, carriers. It would naturally be expected that in the first case they would have powers to take tolls, and tolls only, and that in the second, they would have power to make charges, which should include tolls and charges for the use of rolling stock, and it would seem reasonable enough that (inasmuch as they would probably have much greater facilities for keeping and using their rolling stock to advantage and with economy than any other person could have) where they provided both trucks and locomotives as well as took tolls, the maximum charge should be lower than the aggregate of the three separate charges which they might make for, 1, use of railways; 2, use of carriages; 3, locomotive power.