Ontario Fruit Growers and Transportation Problems* 



A YEAR ago your Transportation 

 Committee honored me by my 

 appointment as transportation agent 

 of your association to look into 

 the conditions governing the transpor- 

 tation of fruit, and the facilities af- 

 forded by the different carriers. The work 

 has become deeply interesting. It is high 

 time the education being advanced by the 

 various rural fruit growers' associations 

 and also by the mother association be not 

 directed only towards production, but to 

 transportation and marketing. 



The fruit grower must prepare his fruit 

 for the consuming public in accordance with 

 certain legislation under a penalty. No 

 matter how great the quantity, or how good 

 the quality, the success of the industry is 

 then largely dependent upon the condition 

 in which the common carriers of this pro- 

 vince deliver it to the various markets. 



The products of agriculture are second 

 only in quantity ol railway tonnage to the 

 products of mines. Fruit and vegetables, 

 of which the railways carried over a million 

 tons last year, are third highest in the list 

 of agricultural products, contributing to the 

 railway receipts. In other words, the agri- 

 culturists are the second best customers 

 the railways of the Dominion of Canada 

 have, and are therefore entitled to at least 

 equal advantages with the shippers of other 

 commodities. 



The problem of rates — and we believe 

 they are all the traffic will bear — is not the 

 essential iwint, nor is it the most important 

 of the many complaints or grievances of 

 the fruit growers and shippers. It is lack 

 of railway equipment, inefficient terminal 

 facilities, a service in transit that assures 

 no certainty of reaching a market in proper 

 time, delays in supplying cars, rough hand- 

 ling, lack of shelter, pilfering, neglect in 

 icing cars or attending heaters according 

 to season, and certain privileges that are 

 accorded shippers of other commodities, but 

 not for fruit. These are a few of the more 

 important matters, attributable to some of 

 which are the serious losses fruit frowers 

 have experienced, and to which the province 

 as a whole is suffering because our On- 

 tario fruit is not reaching the markets, 

 escpecially the western markets, in a pro- 

 per condition, to meet the competition it is 

 subjected to there. 



The task, therefore, confronting your 

 Transportation Committee is one of great 

 importance. I beg to submit, herewith, 

 a synopsis of what has been attempted and 

 accomplished during the past year. 



.Application was made to the Railway 

 Commission to compel the railway com- 

 panies under their jurisdiction to allow part 

 carloads of fruit charged at carload rate 

 and weight from original point of ship- 

 ment to final destination to be stopped in 

 transit for completion of load at an addi- 

 tional charge of three dollars a car for 

 each stop. In support of this request it 

 was pointed out that British Columbia fruit 

 shippers had the advantage of an inward 

 rate, covering a sixty mile radius of ten 

 cents a hundred pounds, for assorting car- 

 loads, and that shippers of horses, cattle, 

 hogs, sheep, live poultry, grain, canned 

 goods, lumber, and poles were permitted 

 to ship part carloads at carload rate and 

 weight from point of shipment to destina- 

 tion and stop for completion of load for 

 three dollars. 



•Eiracts from a report nresented at the recent 

 annual meetine of the Ontario Fruit Growers' 

 ^ssodation. • 



:G. E. Mcintosh, Forest, Ont. 



The ruling of the Board upon this re- 

 quest was given on March 6th, 1913, and 

 was as follows : "That the application for 

 the stop-over privilege be, and is hereby 

 refused." It is established by various de- 

 cisions of this Board, says Commisisoner 

 McLean, as well as by decisions of the 

 Interstate Commerce Commission, that the 

 tra/nsit practice is a privilege, not a right, 

 and the Board is without power to direct 

 that this privilege be given by the railway. 



Section 317 of the Canadian Railway Act 

 reads: "No Company shall make or give 

 any undue or unreasonable preference or 

 advantage to, or in favor of, any particular 

 person or Company, or any particular de- 

 scription of traffic, in any respect what- 

 ever." Yet the Board of Railway Com- 

 missioners allow such to exist, and have 

 ruled that they have not the power to com- 

 pel a railway company to extend this three 

 dollar stop-over privilege, preference, or 

 advantage, or whatever you may call it, to 

 the fruit shippers who are paying a rate 

 double that of live stock, two and one-halt 

 times that paid for lumber, three times the 

 rate paid for grain, and four times greater 

 than that on poles. 



MtNIMUM INWARD BATES 



From December, 1904, when tariffs were 

 first filed with the Railway Commission, 

 down to March 28, 1911, both the G.T.R. 

 and C.P.R. carried apples to concentration 

 points for storage, inspection, or comple- 

 tion of carloads and reshipment, at a re- 

 duction of one-third from the local tariff 

 rates. The combination of the in and out 

 rates not to be less than the through rate 

 from the first shipping point to the final 

 destination, plus two cents per hundred 

 pounds ; and if to the concentration point 

 a joint route had to be used, the reduction 

 applied only to that portion of the earn- 

 ings of the company that received the se- 

 cond haul, or reshipment from that point. 

 On March 29th, 1911, the arrangement was 

 modified by withdrawing the completion of 

 carloads concession, and restricting the 

 storage and inspection privileges to car- 

 loads. 



The Commission was asked jointly by 

 the Simcoe Fruits and your Transportation 

 Committee to order the re-establishment of 

 these concessions in the event of not grant- 

 ing the stop-over privileges. The Board's 

 ruling upon this request, dated March 6th, 

 1913, was as follows: "That the railway 

 companies subject to the jurisdiction of 

 the Board re-establish the arrangement for- 

 merly in effect, whereby apples were car- 

 ried to concentration points for storage, 

 inspection, and for completion of carloads 

 and reshipment, subject to certain condi- 

 tions, at a reduction of one-third from the 

 local tariff rate to the concentration points, 

 so as to become effective within thirty days 

 from the date of this order, the railways 

 having not satisfactorily justified the abro- 

 gation of the arrangement which has been 

 shown to have been in existence in On- 

 tario for a number of years." 



On July 5th, 1913, I am informed by Mr. 

 Cartwright, secretary of the Commission, 

 that the railway companies had applied for 

 permission to refer this ruling to the Su- 

 preme Court, on the grounds that the 

 Board had not jurisdiction to issue such an 

 order. Their request was granted, but I 

 am given to understand the order issued by 

 the Board on March 6th, as above read, re- 

 mains in effect until either quashed or 

 withdrawn, and the rebate concession is 

 therefore available for those requiring it. 



As several shippers were annually paying 

 out large sums of money for providing slat 

 floors for refrigerator cars or box cars 

 when refrigerators could not be supplied, 

 to protect their shipments, the Commission 

 was asked for a ruling compelling the rail- 

 ways to pay shippers for providing such. 



Their request was granted bv an order 

 issued June 30th, 1913, No. 19570, reading :i- 

 follows : 



"It is ordered that where shippers fur- 

 nish slats for the floors of refrigerator cars 

 not equipped with permanent slatted or 

 double floors, or for the floors of box cars 

 tendered to and accepted by shippers in 

 lieu of refrigerator cars, for the carriage 

 of fresh fruits, railway companies subject to 

 the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Can- 

 ada shall allow the shipper three dollars 

 per car for the said slatting ; the shipper 

 to be permitted to deduct the said allowance 

 from the freight charges payable by him 

 upon the shipment in such car in which 

 the said slatting has been furnished ; the 

 shipper's receipt for the amount so allowed 

 to be given the railway company's agent at 

 the forwarding station, and to be accepted 

 by him as so much cash in the prepayment 

 of the freight charges on such car." 



This is three dollars better than it was 

 up till this order went into effect, but your 

 Transportation Committee are not yet sat- 

 isfied in this matter. Some shippers put 

 in floors and have done so this season that 

 cost considerably over three dollars, and 

 weigh probably one thousand pounds, but 

 under the Canadian classification no reduc- 

 tion is allowed off the minimum carload 

 weight for these floors, and consequently 

 the shipper has to pay freight on same. 

 We might take the case of a Sarnia ship- 

 per fitting a car as outlined ; he gets no 

 allowance from his freight minimum. In 

 Port Huron — a mile away — another shipper 

 fits a car, and under the official classifica- 

 tion he is allowed one thousand pounds for 

 such fittings, from the car minimum. 



RBCIPKOCAL DEMTTRRAGE 



The Ontario Fruit Growers' Association, 

 the Toronto and Montreal Boards of Trade, 

 the Canadian Millers' Association, the On- 

 tario Associated Boards of Trade, the On- 

 tario Coal Dealers' Association, and the 

 International Harvester Co. were heard in 

 Ottawa, June 16th and 17th, by the Railway 

 Commission on the question of reciprocal 

 or average demurrage. It was my privilege 

 to also represent your Transportation Com- 

 mittee at this hearing, to endeavor to show 

 the great need of something being done to 

 ensure a better service in the supplying of 

 cars, a better mileage rate in transit, and 

 a more prompt delivery at terminals for 

 fruit shipments. 



At present a shipper who allows his car 

 to remain more than twenty-four hours of 

 free time at intervals before unloading is 

 fined one dollar a day for every day beyond 

 such free time. Last winter the Board 

 raised this to two dollars and three dollars 

 for the first and second day, for four 

 months as an experiment, but the experi- 

 ment did not bring about the results which 

 the railways claimed would be forthcom- 

 ing, viz., that cars would be released, by 

 consignees, and could then be supplied 

 promptly to the shippers. The fact then 

 is apparent that the fault is really conges- 

 tion at terminals, which can only be reme- 

 died by the railways providing better ter- 

 minal facilities. 



{Continued on page 16) 



