Sir Bernhard Samuelson observes that terminal charges are a necessary corollary of the Foreign mileage rates,[44] the scientific basis of which he so much approves; the equity of, and right to make terminal charges is equally a corollary to the system upon which the rates in this country have been fixed. The maximum charges for the user of the road, the user of the truck, and the provision of the engine are capable of being fairly measured by reference to the distance travelled. They are, therefore, properly the subject of a mileage rate. But the providing of station accommodation, and work which the Railway Companies perform as carriers—as distinguished from mere conveyance—have no relation to mileage. They must reasonably be—as it has been held in the case of “Hall v. The London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company,” they legally are—the subject of an additional charge.
We may here correct a common error. The opponents of terminal charges are in the habit of speaking and writing of them as if the companies claimed that they might at their own discretion demand such payments as they thought fit.[45] The railway companies have never contended that they were entitled to make arbitrary terminal charges. Indeed, such a contention would be a legal absurdity. On the contrary, they have always submitted that, while their right to make those charges was undoubted, the amount must not only be reasonable, but also be subject to review by the Railway Commissioners under the 15th Section of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873. Sir Bernhard Samuelson is inaccurate in stating that the railway companies proposed by their Bills of last Session to make those charges subject only to their own discretion. While strongly relying both upon their legal right and the justice of their claim, the railway companies were willing to submit proposals to the consideration of Parliament for a re-settlement of their powers in this respect. But they expressly provided that the Railway Commissioners should have power to hear and determine any question or dispute which might arise with respect to the amount or reasonableness of any terminal charge made by the company, and that any decision of the Commissioners as to terminal charges should be binding and conclusive on all Courts and in all proceedings whatsoever;” words borrowed from s. 15 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873.
A few details as to the law and practice on this subject in Continental countries may be useful. And, first, as to Germany. When the question of the introduction of a new tariff for the German railways was under consideration, it was agreed that in previously fixing the railway rates, sufficient consideration had not been given to the expense incurred at the sending and receiving stations, irrespective of the distance the traffic was carried. The result of the calculations which were made was that those expenses should be estimated at 12 marks per truck load of ten tons. This was accordingly adopted as the standard figure for all goods carried in wagon loads, while for small consignments the charge was fixed at 20 marks. The addition of those normal allowances to the rates on traffic to be carried short distances would have considerably increased the charges previously made. It was accordingly agreed, as a compromise, to graduate the terminal charges for short distances; the graduation being simply the means of avoiding what might have been considered a large increase in the railway rates, in consequence of the adoption of the “reform tariff system.” These terminals represent the working expenses at the forwarding and receiving stations, the labour of receiving the goods from sender, marshalling or shunting the trucks to the sidings set apart for the delivery of the goods, and also the expense incurred by railway companies for stationery and clerkage; but they do not include the expense of loading and unloading, except in the case of Grande Vitesse and “Piece Goods,” They vary from 10d. per ton in full truck loads of 10 tons, to 2s. per ton of general goods, and in the special tariff classes, which include minerals, from 7¼d. in full trucks of 10 tons to 1s. 2½d. per ton.
In Belgium there is a fixed charge of 1 fr. per ton of 1,000 kilogrammes for the use of station and for clerkage; but it does not include loading and unloading, or booking, counting, or advice of arrival of goods, for all of which services extra charges are authorised and, in fact, made. This is practically a terminal charge.
In Holland the terminal charges vary from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 6d. per ton in the truck load classes, and 2s. 6d. per ton in respect of ordinary or “piece” goods in quantities of less than 5 tons. In the latter case the cost of loading and unloading is included in the terminal charge, but not in the truck load classes. In neither case are weighing, counting, stamping freight note, labelling or advice of arrival included. For all of these services extra charges are made.
In France only small charges varying from 20 cents. per ton for goods in full truck loads, to 35 cents. per ton for goods in less quantities, are made for the use of stations, though there are various charges for loading and unloading, booking, advice of arrival, and other services. Either, therefore, the traffic for short distances is carried at a loss, or no adequate return to cover the use of station and conveyance is obtained—a course, which, assuming the outlay upon a railway is entitled to a fair return, is opposed to sound commercial principles.[46]
SECTION XII.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS
IN ENGLAND AND ON THE CONTINENT.
Sometimes it is asserted, although it is more often taken for granted, that all railway rates on the Continent are more favourable to traders than English rates. Upon this assumption is based the contention that the reduction of the latter may fairly be demanded. Whenever such statements have been carefully examined—e.g. in the inquiry before the Joint Committee of 1872—they have been proved to be erroneous. Nevertheless, they are still constantly repeated. More than once it has been publicly stated that in Germany, Holland, Belgium, &c., “rates are fixed on a scientific basis, and an intelligible principle,” while in this country they are “haphazard and estimates.” Seldom is there any attempt to make good such assertions and criticisms. The report made by Sir Bernhard Samuelson to the President of the Association of the Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom on the “Railway Goods Tariffs of Germany, Belgium, and Holland, compared with those of this country” is an exception, and on that account is specially important. That report endeavours to prove by figures that rates in this country are excessive. It has been cited—though, probably, such was not the intention of the author—as if it were an indictment of English railways; and the purport of it is to show that English rates ought to be reduced, and that, unlike the rates on the Continent they are fixed on no proper basis. Now, even if the difference between English and Continental rates were as great as Sir B. Samuelson describes, no inference unfavourable to English railways could be fairly drawn. No comparison could be useful which did not take into account the fact that railways in Great Britain have been constructed with private capital subscribed and expended on the faith of definite powers conferred on the companies by Parliament. Sir Bernhard Samuelson, however, passes lightly over the dissimilarities which mar his comparison; the widely different circumstances under which foreign lines were constructed; their much smaller original cost per mile, and the fact that most of the lines to which he refers were either constructed or assisted by the State, have been purchased by it, or have received State guarantees. The English railway companies obtained simply authority from Parliament to purchase compulsorily the land required, and to construct the necessary works.[47] On the other hand, the railways in the countries to which his report relates were, to a great extent, either originally constructed by the State, or the companies have been assisted by contributions towards the cost of construction, or a minimum rate of interest upon the capital provided and expended by them has been guaranteed to them, or the lines have been afterwards acquired by the State.
It is remarkable that Sir Bernhard Samuelson’s report gives no information as to the railways of France, though the nearest of the Continental countries, and though many of her products compete with ours. To correct this deficiency, it may be desirable to mention a few facts. The French Government constructed the first railways opened in that country or made advances for that purpose without charging interest; and they have since made or purchased other lines. In aid of the original lines for which concessions for 99 years were granted, the State in France contributed a vast amount, as appears by the following statement:—