276 AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION 



traders' contention was that the proviso forbade a 

 differentiation of rates in favour of imported goods, and 

 explicitly shut out the considerations that might be 

 advanced to justify lower preferential rates in respect of 

 home traffic. 



The Company relied, in their first replies, on the plea 

 that the low rate from Southampton Docks to London 

 was (i) an apportioned amount of a through rate, and 

 (2) that it was necessary to enable them to compete with 

 the water route to London. But on coming into court 

 they had to abandon these pleas as untenable, in view of 

 the wording of the Act and of the proviso, and to rely 

 solely on the plea that the services rendered in respect 

 of the foreign produce cannot be treated " as the same 

 or similar services " as those in respect of home produce, 

 when they can be rendered at a lower cost, and with 

 larger returns, owing to the conditions of the traffic, 

 uniformity of packing, ease of handling, etc. 



The Commissioners held that, as regards the local 

 charges in England, foreign and home produce should 

 stand on the same footing, and that justification of 

 a lower charge because of less cost of service ought 

 to be admitted as between foreign and home produce 

 in the same way as it would be between one kind of 

 home traffic and another, and that this justification could 

 not be excluded by the proviso simply on the ground 

 that the goods in question were imported. 



What the proviso really is intended to exclude is any 

 advantage to foreign goods because of the distance of 

 their place of origin, or any consideration of what may 

 be necessary to secure traffic because of sea competition 

 outside the United Kingdom. " If the railway company 

 have proved facts which would justify the admitted dif- i 

 ferences had the goods in both cases been home goods, ] 

 the company are not debarred from relying on those I 

 facts as an answer because the goods which received the 

 benefit of the differences are of foreign origin." 



Sir Frederick Peel thinks that the proviso requires 

 differences "to be judged solely with reference to services 

 rendered by the railway company," and that " differences 



