REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FRUIT INDUSTRY. 539 



companies have been willing to contract out of their liability by giving 

 lower rates (as much as 50 per cent, lower in the case of parcels), the 

 goods being then sent at what is called owner's risk ; and in this case, by 

 the terms of their contract note, they are relieved of all liability, except 

 such as can be proved to have arisen from the wilful misconduct 

 of their own servants. Notwithstanding this, the companies continued 

 to pay a good many claims on goods sent at owner's risk until about two 

 years ago, when, according to the evidence of very many witnesses, they 

 made a combination, and since then it has been most difficult to obtain 

 the payment of claims, these now being adjudicated upon, not by the 

 officials of the particular line, but by a joint committee. The railway 

 witnesses did not deny this. They stated that they had been much too 

 easy in the past in the payment of claims in the case of goods forwarded 

 at owner's risk, and that in consequence, after giving the growers the 

 benefit of the low rates, they were still undertaking the liability which 

 they had intended to avoid. They further said that this had arisen 

 largely through competition — one line paying a claim, when it was not 

 legally liable to do so, at a competitive station in order to secure traffic 

 in the future— and that they had, therefore, agreed that all claims in 

 respect of goods conveyed at owner's risk should be dealt with in 

 future by a joint body known as the Joint Claims Committee. This 

 action may not be illegal, but it has caused great irritation among 

 growers all over the kingdom. 



57. (j) With regard to the other evil effects which are said to have 

 followed from the tendency to closer combination exhibited in recent 

 years by the railway companies three instances given in evidence may be 

 quoted : — 



Messrs. Clayton and Welchman stated that, as a result of the 

 combination among the three railways which serve the Wisbech 

 district, some of the facilities previously given had been curtailed, 

 especially with regard to the collection of fruit. 



Mr. Monro and others stated that the Metropolitan Conference 

 of Railway Companies had curtailed the facilities for the collection 

 of fruit and empties in London. 



Mr. Gibbons, on behalf of the Guernsey growers, gave a large 

 amount of evidence to show that the service from the Channel 

 Islands, and the facilities given there, had been changed for the 

 worse since the traffic agreement concluded by the Great Western 

 and London and South Western Railways came into force. Mr. 

 Gibbons's statements were confirmed by Mr. Monro, as regards 

 late delivery of Channel Islauds produce in London. 



58. With regard to the powers of the Board of Trade, Sir Herbert 

 Jekyll stated that the Board relied chiefly on what is commonly called 

 the Conciliation Clause of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. By 

 this clause the Board acts as umpire between traders and the railway 

 companies ; first, by means of correspondence and investigation of com- 

 plaints, and then, if thought desirable, by inviting both the aggrieved 

 parties and the representatives of the companies to meet in conference, 

 an official of the Board taking the chair. It should be observed that the 

 Board has no coercive or compulsory powers under this section, to which 



N 2 



