RAILWAY CHARGES.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1263, 5 April 1878, Page 2

RAILWAY CHARGES.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sin, —Some six months ago business arrangements required me to remove from Christchurch to Lyttelton. My furniture, that of a three-roomed cottage, I sent by railway at a cost of 33s 6d. During this past week I have removed back again to Christchurch, and on Thursday last sent part of my goods by railway—-viz., a case weighing about 4cwt,, a small chest of drawers, three chairs, a sofa, and a kitchen table, purposing to send the rest on the Saturday. Judge of my surprise when on applying at Christchurch for the goods I was told there was £1 Os 8d to pay, that is 4s for the case, and Ids 8d for the other few things which may have weighed 2cwt., certainly not more. In fact the official who discharged them said that with the exception of the case, he could get the lot on a hand barrow. I objected to pay this, of course without avail. The officials declared I was charged the legal rate, and there was no appeal. The remainder of my goods in bulk and weight three times that sent by rail, I carted over the hills at a cost of £l. The cause of the great difference was this. When the goods went to Lyttelton they were weighed, and the whole lot cost 6d, but when sent from Lyttelton they wore measured, and a third part coats that way more than the whole. And the measurement is so cleverly done. Thus the public is charged for the entire cubical space occupied by each chair, notwithstanding that two chairs occupy no more than one. Also the cubical space of a fourlegged table, although the said chairs will go inside the legs of the table, and take no more space than the table itself. The same with the sofa frame, the table and chairs aforesaid would all go into the cubical apace occupied by the sofa; but each article of itself is measured, and all space charged for, and what is more at double rates for what is called loose furniture. If, sir, it has come to this, that goods can be conveyed cheaper by horse and dray than by tram, ijhep the so owe? a sweeping reform

is made in railway management the better. The sum of £1 Os 8d for conveying between two stations eight miles apart about 6cwt. of goods, is simply iniquitous, and if it is extended to other goods besides household furniture, must do much to oppress commerce in every possible way. In my especial case the imposition—for I can call it nothing else—touched me in a very sore place, for I could but very badly afford it. By this clever system a case weighing about 4owt. was charged llowt. 3qrs., and about 2cwt. of furniture was measured into 1 ton 4ewt. 2qrs. If this will not he too much for your space, it may be the means of saving to some one a good round sum of money, and will also do a good thing by ventilating the subsubject of oppression in high place. Yours, &c., FREDERICK RUTLAND,