the Board of Trade, which does not grant an appeal to the Commission unless it believes there is cause of action, the probability is that all or nearly all of these applications are based on a real discrimination.2 It appears that 72 of the suits are for damages growing out of the Rickett rebate case; the rest are scattering. A few examples will show their character: 1. Application for order enjoining railways to desist from undue preference to complainant's competitors through rebates on flour. 2. For injunction against railways granting preferences to the firm of Leethan & Sons on their traffic. This case was tried, the preference found, and the injunction granted. 3. Undue preferences to certain manufacturers of pig iron in the rates on coke. 4. Undue preference to a certain shipping company through superior facilities and lower rates than were given to others on the same goods and the same routes. Case settled before trial. 5. Undue preference to Corral & Company by rebates on coal to certain stations while refusing to make the same allowances to other shippers. 6. Charging higher rates than E. on coal to the same point. Case tried, undue preference found. 7. Refusal of allowances for cartage made to others. 8. Refusal to supply cars in due proportion. 9. Preference of competing millers and subjecting traffic of applicant to undue prejudice. 10. Preference of brewers at Burton and Lichfield by low rates and terminal allowances. 11. Preferences in favor of brick-makers in Nuncaton and Tamworth by assessing the weights of their bricks lower than the bricks of complainants. 12. Allowing 93 cents a ton for services in loading and unloading, etc., and refusing similar

2 The sixteenth annual report of the Commission, dated 1905, and covering the year 1904, has come just in time for a note before the galleys are made up into pages. Of the 103 suits entered before the Commission in 1904, about a quarter (25) relate to undue preference, rebates, refusal or neglect to afford such reasonable facilities as were accorded to others under similar circumstances; and most of the other cases, charging unreasonable rates, etc., were really based on some element of unjust discrimination in one form or another. (See Appendix B.)

allowances for similar services by other shippers. 13. Undue preference through higher rates on coal for domestic use than on coal for export, etc.

The English Railway Act of 1888 provides that "no railway company shall make any difference in the tolls, rates or charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the same or similar services." But this part of the law has been constantly and vigorously violated as we shall see in a moment. The main aim of the English Government has been to keep the railways from lifting the rates or overcharging, and it has carried this to a point which, with the strenuous provisions against grade crossings and in respect to fencing and other safety measures, has gone far to discourage English railway development. The companies submit classifications and schedules of maximum rates and charges to the Board of Trade, which hears all objections and tries to arrive at an agreement with the companies. The agreed tariffs, or, in cases where no agreement is reached, the tariffs the Board thinks ought to be adopted, are embodied in Bills, introduced to Parliament, and after hearing if need be enacted into law. Thus Parliament enacts a tariff of maximum charges, and the law forbids discrimination, and "whenever it is shown that any railway company charges one trader or class of traders, or the traders in any district, lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or similar merchandise, or lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or similar services, than they charge to other traders, or classes of traders, or to the traders in another district, or make any difference in treatment in respect of any such trader or traders, the burden of proving that such lower charge or difference in treatment does not amount to an undue preference shall lie on the railway company." The long-haul abuse is met by a provision free from any ambiguous "similar circumstances and conditions" clause. "The Commissioners shall have power

to direct that no higher charge shall be made to any person for services in respect of merchandise carried over a less distance than is made to any other person for similar services in respect of the like description and quantity of merchandise carried over a greater distance on the same line of railway." Section 31, provides that if any person believes a railway is making an unreasonable charge, or treating him in any respect in an oppressive or unreasonable manner he may complain to the Board of Trade, which shall endeavor to settle the difficulty by conciliation and arbitration. If this is not possible, and the case comes within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission the Board will give the plaintiff a certificate to take the matter before the Commission for adjudication. Under Section 1 of the Act of 1894 complaints may be made of the unreasonable increase of any rate, directly or indirectly, since December 31, 1892, and if the Board cannot effect an amicable settlement the complainant may submit the case to the Railway Commission for judgment. Some Northampton traders at once began proceedings under this law, and after 2 years of litigation at a cost to the plaintiffs of $10,000 they got a verdict, but the companies declined to accept the case as a test, so that any one who feels aggrieved by an excessive rate must spend the time and money necessary to carry his case through the Commissioners' Court to a decision.

The Board of Trade reports to Parliament every few years all the complaints presented to it and the disposition thereof. By the last report at hand, issued in 1902 and covering the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, it appears that nearly 3,000 complaints (2,946) have been filed from 1888 to 1902,-2,032 related to "unreasonable increase of rates" since 1892, and in 101 of these cases, when no amicable settlement could be made, the Board gave certificates of appeal to the Commission, but only a few of the complaints were carried up. Complaint of excessive rates

(not cases of increase) numbered 423, 88 of them in the last 3 years reported: higher charge for shorter distance than for a longer haul on the same line, 66, 11 of them in the last 3 years; disproportionate rates, or higher charge for a given distance on one line than on another 157, 37 of them in the last 2 years; and 268 miscellaneous cases, 95 of which were entered in the last 3 years. About 4 percent of the complaints relate to canals, the rest are railway cases. It takes 50 large pages to state the 325 complaints entered in the last 3 years. A very large part, practically all in fact, are either in form or in substance, cases of discrimination; even in complaints of excessive rates the gist of the charge is usually that the rates complained of are excessive as compared with other rates the companies make.3

A few further concrete illustrations from recent years may be of interest. 1. Refusal of free cartage to a manufacturer though another mill further away had the benefit of free delivery. 2. Refusal of allowance for loading, etc., on private siding though such allowance was made to a rival firm. 3. Rates on coal from mines at Leigh and Abram to Winnington, 26 miles, were 50 cents a ton against 42 cents from the mine at Haydock, 29 miles. 4. Complaints of delay, insufficient facilities, etc. 5. Fourteen complaints of increased charges for conveyance of small parcels in freight-train transportation and that companies were not following a decision of the Railway Commission. One of the complaints on the ground just stated was filed against the railways generally by the Co-operative Wholesale Society with practically 10,000,000

3 While this book is on the press, the eighth report, covering 1902 and 1903, has come to hand. More than half the 180 new complaints filed in the 2 years directly relate to questions of discrimination — undue preference, rebates, denial of facilities accorded to others, excessive charges as compared with other rates, etc., and nearly all the 180 cases involve discrimination directly or indirectly. (See Appendix B.)

people back of it in interest and sympathy. The companies revised the schedule and reduced the rates. 6. Refusal to grant complainant the same facilities for warehousing traffic as are granted to their competitors. The Board succeeded in removing the preference without trial. 7. A rate of $11.25 on india-rubber goods from Birmingham to Newcastle-on-Tyne against $8.95 on the same goods intended for export. 8. One shipper stated that he was charged $9.75 for a carload of coal (6 tons) from Cork to Baltimore, while the Baltimore Fishery Schools were charged only $5.10 for the same service. After the usual correspondence by the Board of Trade the matter was settled by the railroads agreeing to give the plaintiff the same rate as the Fishery Schools. 9. Another shipper alleged that since he had sent his traffic from Methven via the North British route from Perth instead of the Caledonian, the company had delayed his traffic at Perth while other traffic was sent on; that the company had deprived him of the use of facilities formerly enjoyed, and had stopped his credit. This reads almost like an American

case.

The long and short haul cases also remind one of home in about the same ratio that a raspberry bush reminds one of a full grown oak. Both personal preference and the long-haul discrimination are comparatively rare in England. The greatest resemblance to America is in the rates on imports. The English railway manager has as good an appetite for foreign goods as any American manager, and in this matter the law does not tie him up as it does in so many respects with its maximum rates and large discretion in the Railway Commissioners to prevent excessive rates and undue preference. Foreign linen goes from Liverpool to London for $6.10 a ton while home linen pays $9.25 or 50 percent more. Foreign woolen and worsted goods are carried from Manchester to London for $6.10, against $9.75 or 60 percent more for English goods. Foreign