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.