“The contention of the applicants appears to us singularly
unreasonable. It was proved before the Railway Commissioners,
and is not disputed, that the actual cost to the company of the
accommodation and services, which, for many years after the railway
system was very largely developed, and all the principal lines in the
kingdom were at work, were on some of the most important railways
in England provided by independent carriers, and did not fall upon
the railway company, amounted to 1s. 5d. per ton; and it is admitted
that, even with the help of the six-mile clause, the company, if
the contention of the applicants is correct, would, in the case of
traffic carried not more than six miles, have to carry goods coming
under class 5, at a dead loss, which may be approximately stated as
8d. per ton for station services alone, besides getting nothing for
the use of railway and trucks and for providing power.
“The charges of and incidental to ‘conveyance,’ as we have explained
that phrase, are properly measured by the mile of distance travelled
over. The terminal services of station accommodation, loading,
watching, checking, and the like, have no common measure with the
distance run, and are the same, whether that distance be two or two
hundred miles....
“Our answer, therefore, is that the providing of station
accommodation, and work of the general nature indicated to us by the
Railway Commissioners, appear to us to be capable of falling under
the definition of ‘services incidental to the duty or business of a
carrier,’ and _prima facie_ to do so. Whether in any particular case
they do so, or to what extent they do so, must be a question of fact
for the Commissioners, the line we should draw being, that whatever
is necessary for ‘conveyance’ in the sense in which we have defined
it--being all capable of being measured by reference to the distance
travelled--is covered by the mileage rate. Whatever is properly
incidental, not to conveyance, but to the performance of the duty and
business of a carrier ... that is to say, is actually performed and
is done at a terminal station, may be made the subject of a separate
reasonable charge.
“How could the Legislature ever provide for every single station on
this line, for every terminal station, what was a proper charge? It
could only be done by limiting it, as it has done, by ‘a reasonable
sum,’ and it is for the Railway Commissioners to say what is a
reasonable sum, under the circumstances at each terminal station. ‘No
station is to be considered as a terminal station in regard to any
goods conveyed on the railways of the company unless such goods have
been received thereat direct from the consignor of such traffic, or
are directed to be delivered thereat.’ Therefore terminal stations
are recognised, and terminal charges are recognised distinctly.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account