During the three years 1899-1901 as many as 825 complaints were submitted :o the Board of Trade. Of these, 98 were amicably settled, 106 were not lroceeded with by the complainants, and 119 could not be settled amicably. Ile complaints are classified in the Report of the Board of Trade as follows :-88 )f rates being unreasonable or excessive ; 11 of higher rates being charged for ;horter distances on the same line ; 37 of disproportionate rates or of higher rates )eing charged for shorter distances not on the same line ; 94 of unreasonable ncrease in the rates, and 95 of a miscellaneous character. These latter included :omplaints of delay in the conveyance of traffic, lack of accommodation, insufficient ;upply of trucks, claims for rebate in respect of accommodation not provided or )f services not performed by the railway companies, and disputes as to the nterpretation of the classification of goods.
Cases which involve questions of UNDUE PREFERENCE (q.v.) or other luestions of a legal character can only be decided by the Railway and Canal :ommissioners. But in certain cases relating to reasonable facilities (see p. 18) t is necessary to make a complaint to the Board of Trade before proceedings can )e taken before the Commissioners.
Example of complaints.—A few of such may usefully be noticed here. In one !ase it was complained of the railway companies generally, that they charged ill overmantels as " furniture " at the conveyance rates of the highest class (5), whether the overmantels were expensive or not and though the large majority were )f a common make. As a result, and after some correspondence, a meeting took place at the Board of Trade between the complainants and certain other manu facturers and the representatives of the railway companies, and a proposal made at the meeting that overmantels, wood in cases, should be charged not exceeding class 5z—a proposal which was subsequently agreed to between tbe parties. In another, it appeared that the Great Northern and the London and North-Western Companies had charged an increased rate since 1892 for the conveyance of cotton yarns to London, a grievance which was remedied by the company readopting the old rate. Again, certain Chesterfield fishmongers complained that the Great Western and the Midland Railways charged a rate of 60s. per ton for the conveyance of mackerel from New Mulford.to Chesterfield, while to Sheffield, twelve miles farther, the rate was only 50s. per ton. Upon this the companies put in operation a reduced rate of 50s. And in another case, a Rugby Inerchant alleged against the London and North-Western and M idland Railways, that th e through rates per ton for grain from Bristol, Sharpness Docks, and Gloucester to Rugby of 13s. 4d., I Is. 8d.,
and 10s. respectively were excessive as compared with local rate ; and, moreover, that the companies had closed his ledger account owing to his deducting a rebate to which he considered he was entitled. The Board of Trade thereupon entered into a correspondence with the companies, who eventually informed the Board that the Bristol rate had been reduced to 12s. ld., the Sharpness Docks rate to 10s. 10d., and the Gloucester rate to 9s. 7d. ; and, further, that the complainant's ledger account had been re-opened and the deductions written off. It will be seen that in these cases the complainants were enabled to gain their point as a consequence of the intervention on their behalf of the Board of Trade. But the figures already quoted show that this success is not too general. The Manchester Ship Canal and Midland Railways having refused to grant certain proposed through rates for the conveyance of traffic between Trafford Park Junction and stations on the Midland Railway, the local ratepayers complained to the Board of Trade. After correspondence a meeting was held at the Board of Trade, but an amicable settlement was not effected. At the request of the complainants, however, the Board granted a certificate enabling the complaint to be taken to the Commissioners. The following was found to be a case of undue preference. A Dundee merchant complained of the alleged illegal action of the North British Railway in charging a rate of 4s. per ton for screened small coal Halbeath Colliery to Newport, Fife, while the rate to Tayport and Dundee was 2s. 9d., the latter places being respectively 2} miles nearer and 12 miles farther than Newport ; also that the company declined to send on the coal carriage forward, as was done with the Dundee traffic. To this the company replied that special dross rates operated to certain places where there were large works or an export trade, but that these circumstances did not apply to Newport. Thereupon the Board sent a copy of the reply to the complainant and informed him that the determination of such complaints would rest with the Railway and Canal Commission. In another case—a complaint of unreasonable demurrage of coal waggons—it was discovered that the matter was one to be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade under the provisions of the company's Confirmation Act. Where the allegation was that the local railway companies had discontinued the delivery of goods at Brynamman, the companies pointed out that they were under no statutory obligation to deliver goods, but expressed their willingness to recognise any haulier approved by the traders of the place who would undertake the cartage service, and to allow him the cartage rebate.