REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FRUIT INDUSTRY. 537 



that fruit was conveyed from the East of Scotland to Glasgow at a much 

 lower rate than it was to Edinburgh ; Mr. Pringle, who gave a series of 

 examples (for Potatos, not fruit) on the North Eastern Railway ; and 

 Mr. Monro, who mentioned similar cases on the Great Eastern. No 

 witness denied the existence of these inequalities ; in fact, Mr. Hennell 

 admitted that they might exist, the cause generally being competition. 

 At points where two railways compete the rate would generally be 

 charged by the shorter route ; this might cause an intermediate place 

 on the longer route to be charged at a considerably higher rate than was 

 the competitive station further on. He further pointed out that, where 

 general reductions had been made by one company, the reduced scale 

 could only apply in its entirety to non-competitive stations, the rates for 

 competitive stations having to be fixed by agreement between the com- 

 peting companies. 



51. (d) The next series of complaints was that deliveries were 

 frequently unpunctual, and that the fruit, in consequence, missed the 

 market. This complaint is a serious one, and was very general. If 

 perishable fruit does not reach the market to which it is consigned by 

 the early morning, when the retail dealers come to make their purchases 

 for the day, a great loss ensues to the grower, his fruit having to be sold 

 at a disadvantage. Among the growers who made this complaint were 

 Messrs. Best, Templeton, and Gibbons, and among the salesmen, Messrs. 

 Pringle, Craze, and Monro. In reply, Mr. Hennell admitted the great 

 importance of the question, and stated that his company were doing all 

 they could to avoid delay ; at the same time, he pointed out the difficulties 

 of running goods trains to time, and suggested that, if growers would 

 only send their produce a little earlier to the stations, delay might often 

 be avoided. Mr. Vincent Hill gave similar evidence with regard to the 

 South Eastern and Chatham Railways. 



52. (e) Bad handling of fruit, with consequent loss to the grower, 

 was also the subject of a good deal of complaint. It was mentioned by 

 the following, among others : Messrs. Lobjoit, King, Pickering, Gibbons, 

 and Chambers. That such bad handling takes place to some extent is 

 undoubtedly the case, and it was not denied by the representatives of the 

 railway companies, though they stated that they took all possible steps to 

 prevent it. Mr. Vincent Hill produced before the Committee a very 

 stringent notice, issued in 1904, to the staff of the South Eastern and 

 Chatham Railway on the subject, threatening the penalty of instant 

 dismissal in the case of any of the company's employees being detected 

 handling fruit in such a manner as to cause a risk of damage. Mr. 

 Hennell suggested that bad handling was often the result of fruit being 

 sent too late to the stations, and of bad packing. 



53. (/) Similar complaints have been made as to the pilfering of 

 fruit while on the rail, with consequent loss to the grower. The existence 

 of the evil in some cases cannot be denied. 



54. (g) Serious charges have also been made against the companies 

 for inadequate facilities, and with regard to the class of vans or waggons 

 provided for the carriage of fruit. But here, again, there has been some 

 conflict of testimony. 



Mr. Kruse complained of the sheeted vans used on goods trains, the 



N 



