river, east-bound, tons, 1,286,831; west-bound, tons, 2,015,147.

"The method of arranging freight tariffs is to follow the law that governs the cost of service, to decrease the rate per mile with distance. This decrease in long distances is very great. For example: Des Moines, a large jobbing centre, is 350 miles from Chicago. On a consignment from Des Moines to a point 40 miles west of Des Moines, in less than car-load lots of fourth-class goods, the rate is about the same as from Chicago for the same distance west of that city-about 12 cents per hundred pounds-while the difference from Chicago to Des Moines and from Chicago to the point 40 miles west of Des Moines, on the same shipment, is but two cents per hundred pounds. The whole merit of this controversy lies in the effort of the eastern jobbers to require their Des Moines competitors to pay the 10 cents per hundred more than they, to place the same goods in the hands of their customers 40 miles west of Des Moines."

The questions involved in these cases, like most transportation questions, are complicated by conflicting interests on the part of persons engaged in trade and commerce, and of localities in different portions of the country. They can not be disposed of with sole reference to the interests of any one class of persons or one part of the country, but must be determined with due consideration of all interests, but more especially those of the general public, embracing, in their greatly preponderating number, the producers and consumers of the traffic, but without injustice to the transportation agencies. A general rule that shall be equitable to all is exceedingly desirable, but, in the conflict of interests, is difficult, if not impossible, to apply; and in the frequently changing conditions of commerce no rule of classification or rates can have an assurance of permanence or absolute equity. Classification is not yet an applied science founded on correct principles and governed by just and consistent rules. It is still in process of growth and development, and the best traffic experts, uninfluenced by exceptional conditions of roads or of special interests, are required to elabo

rate a system that shall be simple and just, and fairly adapted to the wants of the country. The numerous classifications prior to the Act to regulate commerce were mostly irregular expedients, framed with little regard to principles of equity, and lacking greatly as they did in uniformity were confusing to the public. Some, for long distance transportation, had been constructed with more care and upon more reasonable principles regarding character of traffic and value of service.

The provisions of the Act to regulate commerce, operating directly upon the greater part of the commerce of the country, and, by necessary consequence, indirectly upon the whole internal commerce, rendered the multitudinous antecedent classifications impracticable, and made a new and improved general classification, or at least classifications. suited to territorial areas substantially similar in conditions and traversed by the same traffic, necessary in order to establish rates over connecting roads in conformity to the requirements of the law. The Official Classification for the business of a very large territory and for a great number of roads thus came into existence. But, being hastily prepared, and in many respects a compromise of diverse and rival interests, especially on the part of roads, it inevitably had imperfections and inconsistencies. Some of these have been corrected by subsequent issues, and, except for the rigid methods of classification committees and the lack of lawful authority, more numerous and more rapid improvements would doubtless have been made. But, as all action in classification in the first instance, is voluntary on the part of carriers, both in recommending changes and their adoption by different roads, the difficulties in making material alterations are serious. Common consent is the only mode until complaint is made concerning rates.

The present contention has arisen out of this condition. The railroad managers made a classification of the varied and numerous articles of commerce, including those in controversy, which was a compromise between the roads in the eastern and western portions of the territory intended to be governed by the classification. The reasons that originally

controlled, whether rightly or wrongly, are still supposed by some of the constituent roads to be influential. And more thorough investigation of the subject has led all the roads, or at least the principal lines and the governing committees, to make a stand against the changes demanded. And in this they are earnestly supported, as shown by the argument of Mr. Dey, by the important interests west of the Mississippi river. The general question remains, therefore, in most respects in a similar condition to that in which it was first presented to the framers of the Official Classification.

In another case before the Commission the principles or considerations that mainly govern committees charged with the preparation of a classification were stated in evidence by a prominent official to be as follows:

"The competitive element, or the rates made necessary by competition; volume of the business, or tonnage; the direction in which the freight moves, whether that in which most of the freight is transported, or the reverse direction, in which the empty cars move; the value of the article to some extent; its bulk; its weight; and the risks attending transportation; the facilities required for particular or unusual transportation; the conditions attending transportation, embracing many things, such as the necessity for furnishing special equipment, as in the case of cars for dressed beef or cars specially adapted for freight of a perishable nature, large cars for freight of extraordinary bulk, &c.; also the analogy which the article classed bears to other articles in the classification; the conditions under which different railroad companies can afford to transport traffic have a large influence; the volume of a particular traffic upon a line of road, and the nature of the competition that it has to meet."

It will be observed that these considerations have reference almost exclusively to the relation of carriers to the traffic, and that no prominence is given to any duty carriers owe to the public, or to any limitations upon the interests of carriers. The public character of carriers, and the public interests affected beneficially or injuriously by the conditions of the service rendered, require a just degree of consideration

for those interests, and in general it is believed they are not disregarded, though in some and perhaps many instances injustice may be done by too much concern for the carrier and too little for the public. As was said in the second annual report (page 9), the Commission has laid down the principle "that carriers in making rates cannot arrange them from an exclusive regard to their own interest, but that they must respect the interests of those who may have occasion to employ their services, and subordinate their own interests to the rules of relative equality and justice which the Act prescribes."

How to reconcile rival or competing interests and comply with the law by reasonable rates and impartial service, with just compensation for the work of the carrier, is a problem of no less difficulty than it has been heretofore. Every special interest is willing to have itself favored at the expense of others, but the purpose of the law is that burdens and benefits shall be equitably distributed, and average reasonable results can be reached in no other way, and are all that can justly be demanded.

The complainants insist that by the present classification unjust burdens are imposed upon miscellaneous shipments in small quantities as compared with car-load shipments, and they ask a return to the former method of no distinction in rates between car-loads and less than car-loads and still in use by the roads in the Southern Railway and Steamship Association. They urge that a discrimination in charges between car-loads and less than car-loads is unjust and in violation of the first four sections of the Act to regulate commerce. This contention leaves out of view the dissimilar circumstances and conditions of the two methods of shipment and the material element of greater cost to the carrier in the one case than the other. The supposed illegality of a discrimination in charges for car-loads and less quantities with varying destinations cannot be maintained under any of the provisions of the Act. The law itself must have a reasonable interpretation, and its provisions are ample to warrant differences in rates founded upon the character of the traffic and the dissimilar conditions of shipment and carriage. The

first section requires all rates to be reasonable, and this necessarily means under the circumstances of the traffic and transportation. The second, third and fourth sections no more require an equal rate for different kinds of traffic and different modes of transportation than they require the same charge between stations, however near or however remote. The elements of distance, of difference in character of traffic, and of dissimilar transportation conditions as grounds for distinction in rates are as clearly recognized as the right of a carrier to compensation for its services. Some discrimination for adequate cause is therefore lawful. The discrimination must not be unjust nor the advantage undue, and the respective rates must not be relatively unreasonable. It is the extent of the discrimination that may be unreasonable and unjust, and not always the mere fact of a difference.

The compulsory restoration of equal rates for car-loads and less than car-loads in respect of goods properly so classified because naturally and legitimately carried in both modes to meet the demands of commerce, is altogether impracticable, and would seriously demoralize classification and business. It would be a retrograde movement, detrimental in many respects to the public interests. A lower less than car-load rate might follow in some instances, but the car-load rate would necessarily advance in most cases to make an average remunerative rate, and the interior jobber would lose his vocation unless the cost to the consumer were generally increased. It is a sound rule for carriers to adapt their classifications to the laws of trade. If an article moves in sufficent volume, and the demands of commerce will be better served, it is reasonable to give it a car-load classification and rate. The car-load is probably the only practicable unit of quantity. And the fact of an antecedent condition when no such distinction existed, and perhaps was not required, furnishes no argument for a return to a mode no longer suited to the requirements of business.

The important question in these cases is therefore whether the classifications of the articles under consideration mark too wide a difference in rates with reference to quantity carried. The complainants concede that difference in cost of