1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
Fish Struggle Reaches 17th Day
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LAST Friday, the hearing of the application by Mr Charles Alexander, of Aberdeen, for the renewal of A licences reached its 17th day. The case occupied four days last week and has been further adjourned until the end of this month. It concerns the transport of fish' from Aberdeen to Glasgow and various English markets.
Before the Northern Scotland Licensing Authority, a railway witness stated that the railways were still carrying most of the fish from Aberdeen, and maintained that their service was superior to that of Mr. Alexander. Even the fish trade was said to admit the adequacy Of the railway, service. The diversion of traffic from rail to road was, the Witness 'added, mainly a question of rates.
For the railways, it was stated that at a conference in London the chairman of the L.N.E. Railway Co.had indicated that, if road transport were developed, the railway companies might have seriously to consider the question of discontinuing the special facilities offered to the Aberdeen fiSh trade. '
Another railway witness said that 65 per cent, of the tonnage of 'fish to Liverpool was rail-borne, and that trains from Aberdeen arrived in good time for the risarkets. Over a period
of three months trains from Aberdeen were said to have arrived on every occasion in time for the opening of the Manchester market.
Last Friday, Mr. Alexander produced a number of affidavits bearing on evidence previously given in opposition to his statements' by an Official of the L.M.S. Railway Co. The affidavits were to the effect that, contrary to railway allegations, Mr. Alexander's vehicles had not carried fruit from Liverpool to. Glasgow. Mr. Alexander stated that he had been put to considerable expense in seCuring chartered accountants' and other statements on affidavit to rebut allegations which the L.M.S. had not seen fit to substarrtiate.
The Licensing Authority pointed out that the question of rates charged by the railways for the transport of fish from Aberdeen to London and other wholesale 'markets had occurred frequently during the inquiry. It had not once been suggested by the objectors that the applicant was carrying fish or other goods at rates uneconomic to himself.
It was not the Authority's duty to have regard to a difference between road and rail rates. In Aberdeen the railway rates for fish were exceptional, beink 40 per cent, or more below the standard charges.