visions, load somewhat heavier than dressed beef, on the average about 30,000 pounds. This, upon a basis of 30 cents, would yield a revenue of $90 per car. The average loading of grain cars upon standard lines at the present time is probably 65,000 pounds. It was said by all witnesses inquired of that grain is now loaded to the full capacity of the car. Within the last three years railroads have added largely to their equipment of freight cars, and the addition has been almost entirely in cars of large capacity. The traffic manager of the Michigan Central testified that the cars upon his system are from 60,000 to 80,000 pounds capacity. A grain load of 65,000 pounds would yield $113.75, as against $99 for dressed meats and $90 for provisions. The total weight of the grain and car would be greater than either the dressed beef or provisions, but testimony in previous cases showed that in the operation of these railways the tendency is to regard the loaded car as the unit; a train-load, consisting of a certain number of cars without much reference to the loading of those cars.' 9 6 § 609. Reasonableness tested by comparison. Where the same rate was given to the class containing finished cheap bedroom sets of furniture and to another class containing unfinished sets of the same sort, which were of less value and could be packed in smaller bulk, it was held that the failure to make a distinction in rates was unfair; and upon consideration the rate on the unfinished class was fixed at eighty-five per cent. of that on the finished furniture.7 Upon similar principles a classification which puts into different groups" steam coal," which is coal that can be used only for manufacturing purposes, and soft or lump coal, which is of higher value and is used for domestic purposes, is proper.8 6 See Re Advances in Freight Rates, 9 I. C. C. Rep. 382 (1902.) 7 Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & G. T. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Com. 223, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 514 (1892). 8 McGrew v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 630, 641 (1894). § 610. Differences between similar commodities ought to be very slight, In one proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission the complainant claimed that beans and tomatoes should go in the same class, and that the defendant railway, by putting beans in the second class at a rate of 70 cents per hundred, while tomatoes went third class at a rate of 44 cents per hundred, had discriminated against the complainant as a shipper of beans. The Commission said: "An exact classification is impossible. Unless the number of classes is infinitely increased there must always be articles in respect to which it will be very difficult to determine into which of two classes they should fall. If the elements which fix the class are substantially the same in case of two articles, then those articles should, as a matter of law, be classified alike, and to put one in one class and another in another class would be a discrimination and a violation of the act, no matter what the purpose of doing it might be. It appears here that beans and tomatoes are both shipped in peck boxes and that the defendant's agent at Verona was accustomed to receive and bill the same number of boxes for one hundred pounds whether of beans or of tomatoes, so that the complainant, as a shipper of beans, was obliged to pay 70 cents for transporting eight boxes of his commodity to East St. Louis while the shipper of tomatoes was only obliged to pay 44 cents for transporting eight boxes of his commodity, the nominal weight being the same and the value about the same. If this were all there was of the testimony we might hold that beans ought to be rated third class with tomatoes, but the defendant's testimony tends to show that beans are more perishable, and it appears, in part from the complainant's testimony as well as that of the defendant, that tomatoes are in fact heavier than beans. 10 9 Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43 (1896). 10 See, also, Harvard Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 257, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 212 (1890). CHAPTER XIX. LENGTH OF TRANSPORTATION. § 621. General standard of comparison the ton mile. TOPIC A-FACTORS MODIFYING THE TON-MILE RATE. § 622. Mileage rate tends to decrease inversely with the distance. 623. Equal mileage rates impractical. 624. Rates are in rough proportion to distance normally. 625. Different cost of service; heavy grades. 626. Competition modifying distance rates. 627. Comparison of through rates and local rates. 628. Difference in charge for carriage in opposite directions. 629. Low back freights justifiable. 630. Creation of a market by preferential rates. 631. Equalizing manufactures in different localities. 632. Passenger fares generally on a mileage basis. TOPIC B-GROUPING OF STATIONS. § 633. The system of grouping. 634. Grouping by reason of competition in the articles transported. 635. Grouping must be reasonable. 636. When uniform rate to a group of stations is justifiable. 637. Basing points established. 638. Basing points justified. TOPIC C-THROUGH RATES. § 639. Carriers may combine in a joint rate. 640. The entire rate must be reasonable. 641. Share of separate carrier as evidence of unfairness of entire rate. 642. Through rate need not be a reduced rate. 643. Through rate may be given although transit is broken. 644. Certain objections to the practice of giving privileges in transit considered. 645. Rebate on reshipment. 646. A through arrangement necessary to justify such privileges. 647. Dangers in giving privileges in transit. 648. Through passenger accommodations. TOPIC D-EXPORT AND IMPORT RATE. § 649. Export and import rates considered. 650. Import rates may be regulated by competition. 651. Export rates regulated by competition. 652. Foreign competition justifies only necessary difference in rate. 653. Limitations upon making export and import rates. § 621. General standard of comparison the ton mile. If all conditions were equal, the rate of carriage would naturally vary according to the distance carried, and would be measured by a charge of so much per ton for each mile; or, as it is generally expressed, by a ton-mile rate. This is obviously a fair method of determining a rate where the conditions are identical; and as a theoretical dectrine it is well accepted that in the absence of other influences distance is a controlling element in determining a rate.1 As a practical matter, however, other influences are never absent; some factor exists in every case to modify the comparison and to prevent the application of the ton-mile rate. The establishment of a ton-mile rate as a standard does indeed bring rates down to the narrowest point of scrutiny, and for that purpose is valuable; but it excludes consideration of other circumstances and conditions which enter into the making of rates, no matter how compulsory or imperious they may be, and it cannot, therefore, be accepted as controlling in determining the reasonableness of rates.2 1 Eau Claire Board of Trade v. Chicago, M. & S. P. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 65, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 265, 290 (1892); Hill v. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 343, 358 (1896); Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 7 1. C. C. Rep. 180 (1897). See, generally, Chapter XXV. 2 Gustin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 277 (1899); Board of Railroad Comrs. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304 (1899); Business Men's Assoc. v. Chicago, S. P., M. & I. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 52, 67 (1890); Manufacturers & J. Union v. Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 115, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 79 (1890); Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & W. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17 (1901). TOPIC A-FACTORS MODIFYING THE TON-MILE RATE. § 622. Mileage rate tends to decrease inversely with the dis tance. It is a familiar rule in the transportation of freight by railroads and has become axiomatic that while the aggregate charge is continually increasing the further the freight is carried, yet the rate per ton per mile is constantly growing less all the time. In consequence of the existence of this rule the increase of the aggregate charge continues to be less in proportion every hundred miles after the first, arising out of the character and nature of the service performed and the cost of service; and thus it is that staple commodities and merchandise are enabled to bear the charges of transportation from and to the most distant portions of the country.3 The reason for this rule is that the cost of railway transportation is made up of the expense of the two terminals and the intermediate haul, and the terminal expenses are the same whether the haul be long or short. A few miles, or even a considerable number of miles, of additional haul may in some instances of long distance transportation be practically of very little importance, and the aggregate rate therefore may be very little affected by the additional mileage. As a result of this rule of diminishing mileage, local rates on one road cannot reasonably be compared with through rates on other roads in the same region.5 3 New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 289, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 375 (1888); Farrar v. East Tenn. V. & G. R. R., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 76, 1 I. C. C. 480 (1888); Board of Trade of Troy v. Alabama Midland Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 1 (1893). 4 McMorran v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604, 607, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 252 (1889); Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & M. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17 (1901). 5 Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 618 (1889). |