To take one more illustration: steamboats ply between Liverpool and Bristol. Goods carried by railway between these two places by one or other of the three available routes must pass through some one of the following places:--Birmingham, Worcester, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Chester or Warrington. The local rates to all these intermediate towns may appear disproportionate to those charged between the extreme points. But is there any real injustice done? Is it disadvantageous to the public that railway companies should compete with sea carriage between different ports in the Kingdom? Should not railway companies be allowed to accept in respect of traffic so carried, which would otherwise be wholly lost to them, a less percentage of profit without being compelled to reduce all their rates to intermediate inland places to the same or proportionately less amounts? What injustice is done to those whoso goods are carried to and from intermediate inland places by the fact that their rates are higher, or higher in proportion, than the competitive rates, provided the rates to intermediate places are in themselves fair and within the Company’s legal maximum? A third source of complaint of disproportionate rates arises from the competition between ports. Assume, for instance, port A to be 51 miles, port B 72 miles, and port C a greater distance from D, one of the great seats of manufacture and commerce. The merchants and shipowners at C and B desire to compete with A, and they induce the railway company to carry from all three at the same rates. The result is that the rates are lower for the throughout distance than to and from some of the intermediate places. The grounds of grievance would be removed by the railway company ceasing to carry from C and B at the same rates as from A. But the importation of foreign goods would continue; the only difference being that they would be carried through one port instead of two or more. And here a curious fact may be noted. If, in the case supposed, the railways between A and D, B and D, and C and D belonged to separate companies, in all probability no complaint would be made of the rates from A, B, and C to D being the same. On the contrary, competition being always desired by the public, it would be considered in that case advantageous and in the interest of the public. But because the lines between B and D and C and D belong to the same company as that between A and D complaints are made on account of the rates being equal. What is hailed in the one case as a benefit is decried in the other as mischievous and unjust.[18]