UNDUE PREFERENCE.—A railway or canal company is not entitled to make any undue preference to persons for whom it carries with regard to the tolls it charges and the services it renders. Such companies have a general right, however, to alter or vary tolls from time to time either upon the whole or upon any particular portions of their systems. But, according to section 90 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, all such tolls must " be at all times charged equally to all persons, and after the same whether per ton, per mile, or otherwise, in respect of all passengers, and of all passengers, and of all goods or carriages of the same description, and conveyed or propelled by a like carriage or engine, passing only over the same portion of the line of railway under the same circumstances ; and no reduction or advance in any such tolls shall be made either directly or indirectly in favour of or against any particular company or person travelling upon or using the railway." And railway and canal companies are bound to afford all reason.. able facilities for the traffic they undertake, even in respect of goods they carry by sea (Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888). This appears, as to land traffic, from section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, which expressly enacts that every company must, according to its powers, afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding, and delivery of traffic. And no company is to "make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favour of any particular person or company, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever." Nor shall any company " subject any particular person or company, or any particular description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever." Companies which work over one another's systems must " afford all due and reasonable facilities for receivingand forwarding all the traffic arriving by one . . . by the other, without any un reasonable delay, and without any such preference or advantage or prejudice or disadvantage as aforesaid, and so that no obstruction may be offered to the public desirous of using " such combined systems. It is the RAILWAY AND
CANAL COMMISSION that has jurisdiction to decide whether any proposed through rate is just and reasonable. And this is so notwithstanding that a less amount may be allotted to any forwarding company out of such through rate than the maximum rate such eompany is entitled to charge. The term undue preference is explained by the Act of 1888 as existing whenever a company charges " one trader or class of traders, or the traders in any district, lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or similar merchandise, or lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or similar services, than they charge to other traders or classes of traders, or to the traders in another district, or make any difference in treatment in respect of any such trader or traders, the burden of proving that such lower charge or difference in treat ment does not amount to an undue preference shall lie on the railway company." In deciding whether a lower charge or difference in treatment does or does not amount to an undue preference, the Court may take into consideration whether the lower charge or difference in treatment is necessary to secure, in the interests of the public, the traffic in respect of which it is made. It may also be considered whether the inequality cannot be removed without unduly reducing the rates charged. But under no circumstances can a difference be sanctioned which exists, in respect of tolls or treatment, between home and foreign merchandise for the same or similar services. The Court has power to direct that no higher charge shall be made to any person for services in respect of merchandise carried over a less distance than is made to any other person for similar services in respect of the "like description and quantity carried over a greater distance on the same line of railway. See RAILWAYS.