571. Vegetables for table use.

572. Perishable articles of food.

573. Groceries.

574. Articles shipped in glass.

575. Forest products.

576. Dry goods.

577. Comparison of unlike things.

578. Differences between commodities.

TOPIC D-CONVENIENCE IN HANDLING.

§ 579. Classification based on nature and size of package. 580. Shipment in small packages.

581. Shipment in form more convenient for handling. 582. Shipment in form permitting greater car load.

583. Classification based on volume of business.

584. Large volume of traffic in a certain commodity. 585. Volume of traffic in general considered.

586. Perishable freight.

587. Traffic handled in special trains.

588. Special equipment not necessary for the traffic. 589. Less than usual care required.

TOPIC E-VALUE OF THE GOODS.

§ 590. Value of the goods as an element in determining classification. 591. Difference between values justifies difference in classification. 592. Different classification of anthracite and bituminous coal.

593. Market value rather than intrinsic value.

594. Differing value of same kind of freight.

595. Low value of goods as reducing classification.

596. Value of the commodity not of the greatest importance.

TOPIC F-CAR LOAD RATES.

§ 597. Different classification and rating between car load and less than

car load lots.

598. Difference in classification not essential.

599. Minimum carloads.

600. Minimum carload regulations.

601. Mixed carloads.

602. Car loaded by several shippers.

603. Train loads.

TOPIC G-DIFFERENCE IN RATE BETWEEN CLASSES.

§ 604. General principles governing differences between classes. 605. Low grade commodities may be carried at rates relatively low. 606. High grade commodities should not be overcharged relatively. 607. Differences between the classes should not be disproportionate. 608. Principles upon which rates for different commodities should be made.

609. Reasonableness tested by comparison.

610. Differences between similar commodities ought not to be very slight.

TOPIC A-METHODS OF CLASSIFICATION.

§ 551. The meaning of classification.

Carriers have from time immemorial divided the articles carried by them into classes. The articles are classified in such a way as to bring together into one class such articles as can fairly be subjected to the same charge for carriage. A rate is then fixed for each class; not a difficult matter, since it has been found quite practicable to make the number of classes small. This division of all possible articles of transportation into a few large classes as a basis for fixing the rates of carriage is what is known as classification of freights. It has been said * that classification was first adopted on the English toll-roads and canals; and an interesting early schedule of canal tolls shows a rough classification. But it is probable that the necessity of the case forced a more or less crude classification upon carriers as soon as carriage became a business. For, as will be explained, fairness to the shipper and the convenience of the carrier both require a classification of commodities as the basis of rate-fixing

552. The necessity of classification for a proper distribution of the burden.

Different articles require such different care in carriage that it would be unjust to fix a single rate that should apply to all

1 Noyes American Railroad Rates, 5, 65.

articles carried. If a uniform rate were fixed for each pound carried, lead would be more expensive to ship than live stock; and if the rate were proportioned to bulk, a diamond would be carried more cheaply than fence-posts. It is necessary in order to distribute fairly among the shippers the burden of the entire schedule of rates to graduate the charge according to the nature of the article carried. "Classification is recognized as a necessary method of adjusting the burdens of transportation equitably upon the various articles of traffic, in view of differing circumstances and conditions, and but for the necessity of such adjustment, considerations based alone on weight and distance of haul would probably determine rates, except as modified by competition. This method, while securing practical uniformity, would probably deprive many articles which are now important factors in commerce of the benefit of transportation to distant points." 2

§ 553. The necessity of classification for convenience in rate fixing.

So many varieties of articles are carried by a modern carrier that it is a practical impossibility to consider each article by itself and fix a separate rate for its carriage. It is impossible even to enumerate all the articles that may be offered for transportation; still more so to frame a schedule showing an independent rate for every such article, and convey information of the schedule to every freight agent in such a form that he can quickly and accurately state a rate to the shipper. No modern carrier doing a large business, and especially no modern railroad, has undertaken to make rates without classification. The attempt to frame separate rates "has proved to be so cumbersome and inconvenient that the arrangement of freight into classes is deemed by the roads an essential part of rate-making, and is so treated by the Act to regulate commerce, which re

2 McDill, Com. in F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61, 66 (1893).

quires that the schedule of charges which every carrier must keep open to the public shall contain the classification in force.'

554. The history of classification in the United States.

Before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act each railroad company had its own classification of commodities, and fixed its own rates; subject to occasional modification by pools and traffic agreements with connecting or competing roads. Upon the passage of the Act the inconvenience of this system became so obvious that partially successful efforts were made to bring about a uniform classification. The railroads operating in the northeastern part of the United States agreed upon a classification known as the Official Classification; those operating in the southeastern part of the United States agreed on a separate classification known as the Southern; and those in the west agreed on the Western Classification. The boundaries between the territory covered by these classifications respectively are formed by the Potomac, the Ohio, and the Mississippi Rivers.* These classifications now prevail throughout the country.5

555. Uniformity of classification attempted.

Various attempts have been made to secure one uniform classification throughout the country; and to this effort the Interstate Commerce Commission has lent its aid. "The Commission has sought as far as practicable to secure the establishment

3 Coxe v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 559 (1891).

4 This general statement requires some modification in detail. Thus goods shipped west from Chicago take the Western classification at once. On the Pacific slope the Western classification is modified. And every railroad, as will be seen, may make "commodity" rates for certain articles outside the classification, and thus each road may to a certain extent make an independent rate.

5 See Thurber v. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 742, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 473 (1890).

throughout the country of a uniform classification of freight, believing it to be to the interest and advantage of both carriers and shippers." But although at one time the effort seemed on the point of success, nothing came of it.

It is doubtful whether it will ever become possible to frame one uniform classification. The differences of classification are in fact due to fundamentally different conditions in the three great divisions of the country; differences in density of population, in nature and purpose of traffic, in cost of construction and maintenance, which necessarily influence to some extent the classification of articles carried. Until there is greater uniformity of conditions, identity of classification is unlikely, and if secured would probably operate unjustly.

"While the nearest approximation to uniformity of classification is desirable, all agree that great caution should govern attempts to bring it about. The Commission has said, 'to force it at once was undesirable,' and' while one dealer might be greatly benefited another might be ruined,' and that the final adjustment of a uniform classification must necessarily be the arrangement of a number of compromises.' And it was said in Pyle v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Co. that occasional inequalities of rate, and slight and occasional differences in the rates charged would not prove that the whole system is wrong and that when comparison is attempted to be made of classification and rates, different conditions of transportation cannot be ignored.'" 8

556. Classification necessarily imperfect.

It is obvious, of course, that the fewer the classes created the more imperfect the classification will necessarily be. Since the

Yeomans, Com. in Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489, 505 (1905).

71 Int. Com. Rep. 770, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 473 (1888).

8 McDill, Com. in F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61, 67 (1893).