RAILWAY CHARGES ON GRAIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 1853, 27 May 1887, Page 7

RAILWAY CHARGES ON GRAIN.

The members of the North Otago Agri"cultural and Pastoral Association have given the Minister of Public Works a nut to crack. Ie appears that until lately the railway rate for the carriage of grain was based on the assumption that the bags used were fourbushel bags From that it followed, that in computing the weight of large quantities of grain, the four-bushel bag became the primary factor in the calculation. It may be that farmers have taken advantage of this all along, and have been in the habit of paying for four bushels when they should have paid for more. Even so, however, the farmers have not been alone to blame in the matter ; indeed, the Eailway department encouraged the abuse through having a tariff so loosely framed as to admit of its existence. As a matter of equity and principle the farmers, of course, had no right to the advantage they gained in that way, though the practice of the Eailway department was sufficient to justify them in assuming that it was a privilege the Government were willing to concede to them. Lately, however, the privilege was peremptorily abolished, and the farmers therefore feel that they have a grievance. At the meeting of the Association on Thursday, Mr Murdoch put the case for the farmers when he. said that " what he had to complain of was the rate and a-quarter charged on grain bags holding over four bushels. Previously the rule had never been enforced, and farmers were under the impression that it would remain the same always. Farmers had bagged all their grain, and they were taken unawares. It would not pay to empty a jjortion of the bags to bring them within the weight, and in consequence they would now be required to pay for more than was being carried. Again, if the bags on the truck got wet the farmer was charged with the excess, whether the claim was a just one or not." Mr Dawson further illustrated the violence of the step which the Government have taken from extreme laxity to extreme — nay, unjust rigour, by stating that " if one bag was overweight, the farmer was charged for the lot." From this it appears that the Government are guilty of more than Mr Hedley charged them with when he said " that it was sharp practice on the part of the Government to enforce the rule on so short a notice." Mr Oonncll put the whole case pretty clearly when hr said that "the Government had sprung a plant on the farmers, and he thought they should be dealt with as the spirit merchants lately had been dealt with by the Government in the matter of the new tariff, and be given reasonable notice of the enforcement of the rule." That is what should be done undoubtedly, more especially as the Government itself has been largely responsible for the abuse which it is now checking with so much peremptoriness and rigour. Let the farmers have fair notice of dU> change, and if after that they render themselves liable to arbitrary overcharges they will have themselves to blame, and -few, if any, will pity them ; for then, and in that case, the overcharges will show that they are unjustifiably willing to take an undue advantage of the railways. In the meantime, however, the Government is arbitrarily punishing them for a practice which it itself encouraged them to follow by allowing them, or leaving if possible for them, to practice it with immunity. — North Otago Times.