CONFERENCE ON FRUIT GROWING 



69 



remove the anomalies of the rates which undoubtedly press hardly upon 

 our particular produce. The Committee hesitated to recommend a 

 statutory revision because we were not a large trade, and to re- open 

 classification on one question you would have to do it on all. Those of 

 us in Parliament who are interested in the trade would be prepared to 

 support a statutory revision, but you should try to get it done if possible 

 without going to Parliament, and that could be done under the Act of 

 1888. Companies have altered the classification and have assisted traders 

 in getting alterations made. Aluminium at first was put in Class 5, but it 

 was altered to Class 3. Go to Parliament if you will, but in the mean- 

 time try to get any glaring anomalies in your classification removed 

 under the provisions of the Act of 1888 by assistance of the Board of 

 Trade. If you cannot get that assistance you would have a much stronger 

 case when you go to Parliament. 



But a question of far more importance than rates is prompt delivery, 

 because fruit is the most perishable of all articles, and you want to 

 get into the markets easily. It is in prompt delivery, I think, that 

 the companies fail most, and you have got to press for some better 

 remedy than you have at the present time. I do not quite know what 

 means we have of enforcing this prompt delivery. You will have to 

 get some entirely new definition of the liability on the part of railway 

 companies, or you will have to get some system whereby they can be 

 fined for every instance of lateness. "Owner's risk" is a perfectly 

 absurd thing. You have to get proof of wilful misconduct on the part of 

 railway officials. It is almost impossible to prove that unless there has 

 been pilfering, and I would therefore suggest the substitution of the 

 words " culpable negligence." It would be better if there were no 

 "owner's risk rates " at all. There should be only one system of rates — 

 company's risk rates — but they must be reduced to such a figure as 

 would simply add to the present "owner's risk rates" sufficient to cover the 

 liability of the company. I would suggest that 5 per cent, be added to 

 "owner's risk rates," that the rate be made a company's rate, and that 

 there be only one such rate for the future. If you availed yourselves of 

 your power of going before the Board of Trade to show what you 

 considered unreasonable, you would be able without litigation to remove 

 some of the grievances from which you suffer. To meet the combination 

 of the railways there ought to be a Government official to watch over the 

 proceedings of the railways and to report to Parliament. I agree that the 

 companies should have the power to temporarily lower their rate. They 

 do so in the case of excursions, and why should they not do so when 

 there is a glut of fruit, which would otherwise rot on the ground ? 

 Parliament will not let them do it, because before they again raised the 

 rate they would have to show a reason why they should do it. I cannot 

 agree with Mr. Berry about the special waggons. What we asked for in 

 our Report was not special refrigerator waggons. What we did say was 

 that quite unsuitable waggons ought not to be used. Speaking generally, 

 I would ask you to try to carry out some of the suggestions which you 

 will find set out in detail in our Report, and to bring all the pressure you 

 can to get your grievances removed without going to Parliament. If the 

 grievances cannot be removed in that way you must go to Parliament. 



