A " route." Non-carrying 193). In commenting on this case the Court of Appeal did not adopt the former views of the commissioners as to the distinction between through rates and through booking ([1897] 1 Q. B. 37; but see further observations of Collins, J., on this point in Didcot & Newbury, &c. Ry. Co. v. G. W. and L. & S. W. Ry. Cos., Times Newspaper, May 21st, 1897). This distinction is of importance since the passing of the Acts of 1891 and 1892 regulating terminal charges, inasmuch as now a similar order to book through at the respective companies' maximum rates would have the effect of eliminating intermediate terminal charges. (c) A "route" within the meaning of this section is a route from the station on the sending line where the traffic arises, to the station on the forwarding line where such traffic is delivered (E. & W. Junction Ry. Co. v. Gt. W. Ry. Co., 1 N. & Mac. 331). A route which would be reasonable if worked throughout by one railway company, does not become "unreasonable" because two or more companies are concerned in working it (Swindon and Marlboro' Ry. Co. v. Gt. W. and L. & S. W. Ry. Cos., 4 B. & Mac. 349). Where a line formed part of an alternative route between certain places, and equal rates were proposed over that route to those existing over the competitive route, although time and distance would be saved in the proposed route, and there would be no saving in the number of transfers at junctions, the commissioners allowed the rates and held the route to be reasonable, as an alternative route at equal rates was, under the circumstances, in the interests of the public (ib.). (d) A company may be a forwarding company without acting as company a the carriers of the traffic they forward (Warwick & Birmingham forwarding and Warwick & Napton Canal Navigation Co. v. Birmingham Canal Co. and others, 3 N. & Mac. 113). company. A reasonable route. Unequal proportions of rival com (e) A sending company having two alternative routes for through traffic, one eight miles longer than the other, proposed, for the purpose of a through rate, to carry by the longer one at a double cost and labour in working and maintaining the junctions, with the object of making their own mileage more, and the mileage of the forwarding company less; but the commissioners decided that the longer route was not a reasonable route within the meaning of the section (E. & W. Junction Ry. Co. v. Gt. W. Ry. Co., 1 N. & Mac. 33). That a route combines unequal proportions of two rival companies' lines, or that the junction for interchange of the traffic has pany's lines do been chosen so near to its destination that the traffic has naturally not make route run its course before it is handed over to the delivering company, unreasonable. are not grounds for holding that a route is an unreasonable one (Caledonian Ry. Co. v. North British Ry. Co. (No. 4), 3 N. & Mac. 403). Special expenses. Mileage rates. (f) The expense incurred in acquiring a railway and in executing works which will give an improved access to certain stations are works of an exceptional character as to cost, and will be considered by the commissioners in apportioning the through rates (ib.). (g) The mileage rates in this sub-section must be mileage rates for a line having the same termini as the through route, and must be charged in respect of goods carried over it for its whole length (Warwick & Birmingham and Warwick & Napton Canal Naviga tion Cos. v. Birmingham Canal Co. and others, 3 N. & Mac. 113). Where a railway company are not charging rates upon another route between the same points, being the points of arrival and departure of the proposed through route, this sub-section does not apply (Plymouth, &c. Ry. Co. v. Gt. W. Ry. Co., 6 Ry. & C. Traffic Cas. 101). Where there is a statutory agreement between two companies over whose railways rates, not in accordance with the terms of the agreement, are proposed by one of them, the commissioners are unable to allow such rates (N. Monkland Ry. Co. v. N. British Ry. Co., 3 N. & Mac. 282). () As to what constitutes an arrangement for using, maintain- Statutory ing, or working steam vessels within the meaning of this section, agreement will prevent see Belfast Central Ry. Co. v. Gt. N. Ry. Co. (Ir.) (No. 4), 4 B. & commissioners Mac. 379). allowing Where a railway company applying for through rates had agreed through rates. with a steamboat proprietor for the carriage of passengers by his steamers, in connection with their line, it was decided that such steamer and the traffic carried thereby were within the provisions of this section (Greenock and Wemyss Bay Ry. Co. v. Caledonian Ry. Co., 2 N. & Mac. 227). An arrange vessels. That there are through bookings between two places over a route partly of railway and partly of sea, by steam-vessels, is not an ment for steam arrangement for the use of these, so as to make this section apply and enable the owners to demand through rates (Ayr Harbour Trustees and others v. G. & S. W. Ry. and other Cos., 4 B. & Mac. 81). An agreement between a railway company and the owner of a steamboat to satisfy the section must be definite, and contain an obligation on the part of the latter to ply between the specified ports (Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Greenock & Wemyss Bay Ry. Co. (No. 2), 4 B. & Mac. 70). The last clause in this section extends the whole provisions of the section, and takes effect whenever there is an arrangement with the proprietors of steam vessels for the conveyance of passengers or goods to and from any port or town with which there is railway communication, provided the railway company party to the arrangement owned or worked, or were otherwise immediately interested in some portion or other of the railways forming the through route (Caledonian Ry. Co. and others v. Greenock & Wemyss Bay Ry. Co. and others, 4 B. & Mac. 135). Powers of commissioners 26. Subject to the provisions in the last preceding section contained, the commissioners shall have full power as to through to decide that any proposed through rate is just and rea- rates. sonable, notwithstanding that a less amount may be allotted to any forwarding company out of such through rate than the maximum rate such company is entitled to charge, and to allow and apportion such through rate accordingly. Undue pref. tolls, rates, services per 27. (1.) Whenever it is shown that any railway com-erence in case pany charge one trader or class of traders, or the traders of unequal in any district, lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same and charges, or similar merchandise, or lower tolls, rates, or charges and unequal for the same or similar services, than they charge to other formed. 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 (a). (2.) In deciding whether a lower charge or difference in treatment does or does not amount to an undue preference, the court having jurisdiction in the matter, or the commissioners, as the case may be, may, so far as they think reasonable, in addition to any other considerations affecting the case, take into consideration whether such lower charge or difference in treatment is necessary for the purpose of securing in the interests of the public the traffic in respect of which it is made, and whether the Extension of enactments as carried by sea. inequality cannot be removed without unduly reducing the rates charged to the complainant: Provided that no railway company shall make, nor shall the court, or the commissioners, sanction 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 (b). (3.) The court or 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. (a) The public referred to in this section is the public of the locality or district referred to, and any considerable proportion of the population in general as opposed to an individual or association of individuals will satisfy the description (Liverpool Corn Traders' Assoc. v. Gt. W. Ry. Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 120; 8 Ry. & C. Traffic Cas. 114). The effect of this section is not to limit the court to the consideration whether or not the lower charge is necessary in the interests of the public (Liverpool Corn Traders' Assoc. v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 7 Ry. & C. Traffic Cas. 125). "The public under this section must have a wider meaning than "the public" of one of the two localities concerned (ib.; and see [1891] 1 Q. B. 120). (b) This proviso does not prohibit all inequalities in rates as between home and foreign merchandise. If the facts would justify a difference between the goods compared if they had both been "home" merchandise, the railway company is not precluded from relying on those facts to justify a difference where home and foreign merchandise are compared (Mansion House Ass. v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 927; 9 Ry. & C. Traffic Cas. 20). The object of the proviso is not to give home traffic a preference over foreign traffic, but to place them in a position of strict equality (ib.). 28. The provisions of section two of the Railway and to undue pref- Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and of section fourteen of the erence to goods Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, and of any enactments amending and extending those enactments, shall apply to traffic by sea in any vessels belonging to or chartered or worked by any railway company, or in which any railway company procures merchandise to be carried, in the same manner and to the like extent as they apply to the land traffic of a railway company. Group rates to be chargeable by rail 29. (1.) Notwithstanding any provision in any general or special Act, it shall be lawful for any railway comway companies. pany, for the purpose of fixing the rates to be charged for the carriage of merchandise to and from any place on their railway, to group together any number of places in the same district, situated at various distances from any point of destination or departure of merchandise, and to charge a uniform rate or uniform rates of carriage for merchandise to and from all places comprised in the group from and to any point of destination or departure. (2.) Provided that the distances shall not be unreason able, and that the group rates charged and the places grouped together shall not be such as to create an undue preference. (3.) Where any group rate exists or is proposed, and in any case where there is a doubt whether any rates charged or proposed to be charged by a railway company may not be a contravention of section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and any Acts amending the same, the railway company may, upon giving notice in the prescribed manner, apply to the commissioners, and the commissioners may, after hearing the parties interested and any of the authorities mentioned in section seven of this Act, determine whether such group rate or any rate charged or proposed to be charged as aforesaid does or does not create an undue preference. Any persons aggrieved, and any of the authorities mentioned in section seven of this Act, may, at any time after the making of any order under this section, apply to the commissioners to vary or rescind the order, and the commissioners, after hearing all parties who are interested, may make an order accordingly. If rates, as compared with others, can be defended on the ground that they do not create an undue preference without taking into consideration the question of grouping, this section would not operate in such a case. Therefore this section must justify rates which are grouped, on the ground of commercial convenience, which would not be justified without this section. The ineasure of undue preference in the two cases is different (North Lonsdale Iron and Steel Co. v. Furness, L. & N. W. and Midland Ry. Cos., 7 Ry. & C. Traffic Cas. 146; 60 L. J. Q. B. 419). In that case it was held that the railway companies had made sufficient allowance for the difference in distance between works in their coke rates, but that as to the rates for pig iron some of the places grouped were so far apart as to create an undue preference (ib.). dock com to complain 30. Any port or harbour authority or dock company Power to which shall have reason to believe that any railway com- panies and pany is by its rates or otherwise placing their port, har-harbour boards bour, or dock, at an undue disadvantage as compared with of undue prefany other port, harbour, or dock to or from which traffic erence. is or may be carried by means of the lines of the said railway company, either alone or in conjunction with those of other railway companies, may make complaint thereof to the commissioners, who shall have the like jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject-matter of such complaint as they have to hear and determine a complaint of a contravention of section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended by subsequent Acts. A railway company had certain rates in force for traffic between their inland stations and their stations at two docks. These rates were lower than the rates for similar traffic carried to two other shipping places in the same town, the latter being reached only by short branch lines belonging to another railway company. The higher rates were of course divided between the two companies. This was complained of as an undue disadvantage to the Complaints to Board of Trade of unreasonable charges by railway companies. Annual re turns by rail way companies as the Board require. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78, s. 9. shipping places to which the higher rates were charged, but as the first company did not alone or in conjunction with the second company carry to all four shipping places, and as the second company was not limited in any way as to the charges it might make there was no undue disadvantage (Plymouth Chamber of Commerce v. Gt. W. and L. & S. W. Ry. Cos., Burnard & Algar v. Same, 9 Ry. & C. Traffic Cas. 72). A railway company's portion of a through rate must be compared with their local rates to their own termini, having regard to the difference in the services performed (ib.). 31. (1.) Whenever any person receiving or sending or desiring to send goods by any railway is of opinion that the railway company is charging him an unfair or an unreasonable rate of charge, or is in any other respect treating him in an oppressive or unreasonable manner, such person may complain to the Board of Trade. (2.) The Board of Trade, if they think that there is reasonable ground for the complaint, may thereupon call upon the railway company for an explanation, and endeavour to settle amicably the differences between the complainant and the railway company. (3.) For the purpose aforesaid, the Board of Trade may appoint either one of their own officers or any other competent person to communicate with the complainant and the railway company, and to receive and consider such explanations and communications as may be made in reference to the complaint; and the Board of Trade may pay to such last-mentioned person such remuneration as they may think fit, and as may be approved by the Treasury. (4.) The Board of Trade shall from time to time submit to Parliament reports of the complaints made to them under the provisions of this section, and the results of the proceedings taken in relation to such complaints, together with such observations thereon as the Board of Trade shall think fit. (5.) A complaint under this section may be made to the Board of Trade by any of the authorities mentioned in section seven of this Act, in any case in which, in the opinion of any of such authorities, they or any traders or persons in their district are being charged unfair or unreasonable rates by a railway company; and all the provisions of this section shall apply to a complaint so made as if the same had been made by a person entitled to make a complaint under this section. 32. (1.) The returns required of a railway company under section nine of the Railways Regulation Act, 1871, shall include such statements as the Board of Trade may from time to time prescribe, and the forms referred to in that section may from to time be altered by the Board of Trade in such manner as they think expedient for giving effect to this section, and the said section nine of the Railways Regulation Act, 1871, shall apply accordingly (a). (a) See forms appended to the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, ante, p. 661. |