| MILES. | COMMODITY. | CLASS RATE. per ton. | SPECIAL RATE. per ton. |
| 0s.00d. | 0s.00d. | ||
| 17 | Soap | 08009 (a) | 07011 (a) |
| 107 | S"ap | 21009 (a) | 17006 (a) |
| 154 | S"ap | 28002 (a) | 22009 (a) |
| 46 | Undressed leather | 17006 (a) | 15000 (a) |
| 179 | Cotton and linen goods | 45007 (a) | 40000 (a) |
| 54 | Common window glass | 21009 (a) | 15010 (a) |
| 207 | Com"on win"ow gl"ss | 43004 (a) | 30005 (a) |
| 20 | Iron in Class C | 05003 (b)(c) | 03008 (b)(d) |
| 51 | Grain | 09005 (b)(c) | 07006 (b)(d) |
| 150 | Common bricks | 11000 (b)(d) | 10005 (b)(d) |
| Notes: | (a) Collection and delivery. | (b) Station to station. | |
| (c) 2-ton lots. | (d) 4-ton lots. | ||
Yet another characteristic of English railway rates is their division into "company's risk" rates and "owner's risk" rates, the latter being a lower scale on which consignments are carried provided the trader signs either a general indemnity for the whole of his traffic or a separate owner's risk consignment note on the occasion of each despatch relieving the railway from "all liability for loss, damage, misdelivery, delay or detention, except upon proof that such loss, damage, misdelivery, delay or detention arose from wilful misconduct on the part of the company's servants."
The difficulty of proving such "wilful misconduct" in case of damage or loss has long been a grievance with traders consigning under "owner's risk" rates, and vigorous efforts have been made by them, or on their behalf, from time to time to obtain a modification of these conditions.
The railway point of view in regard to this vexed question was thus expressed by Mr F. Potter, in an address on "The Government in Relation to the Railways of the Country," given to the Great Western Railway (London) Lecture and Debating Society on February 11, 1909:—
"Traders are apt to conveniently overlook the fact that owner's risk rates did not precede the ordinary rates, but that they have depended from the latter, and proposals have actually been made that the order of things should be reversed, and the owner's risk rates made the base rates, the company's risk rates being arrived at by the addition of some percentage. Traders well know the value of the insurance which the difference between the two classes of rates represents to them, and, indeed, base their practice in making use of either rate upon this knowledge. If the trader is prepared to be his own insurer, that is, when there is a sufficiently wide margin between the two rates, he takes the owner's risk rate; but if he considers his goods are too valuable for him to accept the risk himself, he makes the company do so by sending his freight at the ordinary rates."
In the controversies which have arisen on this question of owner's risk frequent reference has been made to the fact that in Germany there is only one kind of rate, and that under it the State railways do, nominally, assume the risk. I have, however, already shown in my pamphlets on "German versus British Railways" and "German Railways and Traders" that unless the consignments forwarded on the German State railways are packed so securely that it is practically impossible for them to come to any harm, they are accepted by the railway officials only after the trader has signed a form of indemnity declaring that the goods are either "unpacked" or "insufficiently packed," thus absolving the State railways of the responsibility they are supposed to accept.
Complaints respecting "preferential rates" have been an especially fertile source of controversy and litigation. The phrase as here used is somewhat misleading. The real ground of complaint is against, not simply "preference," but "undue preference."
If a lower rate is given for a 2-ton or a 5-ton than for a 2-cwt. or a 5-cwt. consignment, the trader in the former case gets a distinct advantage over the trader in the latter case, just in the same way as the wholesale man buys a large quantity of goods at a lower price than that asked for from the purchaser of only a very small quantity. Here, in each instance, we have "preference" strictly in accord with commercial principles.
The question really at issue turns upon the consideration whether there is undue or unfair preference. It is thus dealt with in a proviso to sub-section 2, section 27 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888:—
"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 circumstances."