justify them. Undoubtedly the true economic rule for a railroad, and the one that is most conducive to its own prosperity as well as to all interests along its route, is an equitable system of rates graduated on the general rule of the statute, and free from any element of apparently unjust discrimination. This has been illustrated by the consistent practice of some of the most successful roads of the country. This rule legitimately develops business by creating opportunities which human enterprise is alert to discover and improve. Upon all the facts the conclusion of the Commission is that there is no unjust discrimination against the complainants, nor undue prejudice, occasioned by the rates on sugar charged by the respondents from San Francisco to Kansas City and to Humboldt respectively, and the complaints are therefore not sustained. MORRISON, Commissioner: I concur in the conclusion reached in the abovę opinion, but not for the reasons therein assigned. The dissimilarity in the circumstances which justifies the greater charge for the shorter distance results from the fact that Humboldt, the shorter distance point, is off of the through and direct lines. of any route from San Francisco to Kansas City. The expense of maintaining separate equipment and operating short branch roads or lines adds considerably to the cost of carriage. There is, in my opinion, no such thing as water competition between the Pacific coast and Kansas City in the carrying of refined or unrefined sugars. Refined sugar has never been successfully carried by sea, nor is it likely to be, around Cape Horn from San Francisco to New York. The experiment when tried proved a failure, because such carriage damaged refined sugar. Unrefined sugars are not produced on the Pacific coast in any quantities to be shipped. In the regular course of commerce and transportation unrefined sugars do not pass from any country of production by way of San Francisco to Atlantic ports; such sugars are carried to San Francisco in quantities for refining there. The occasions when they have been shipped from San Francisco were when the market for sugars to refine was overstocked. The occasions were wholly exceptional, and, in my opinion, the shipments as made furnish no justifiable ground on which to base an opinion that the carrying was, or in the nature of things can be, of such a character as will justify a decision based on the controlling force of water competition in the carriage of sugars between San Francisco and the Missouri river. Neither does the competition of railroads in carrying refined sugar from Atlantic ports and cities make the dissimilar circumstances and conditions which would take the carrying in question out of the general rule against unjust discrimination under section two of the Act to regulate commerce. HULBERT H. WARNER v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, THE WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, THE NEW YORK, LAKE ERIE & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, THE DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, THE NEW YORK, ONTARIO & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, THE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, THE PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILROAD COMPANY, THE LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY OF CANADA, AS MEMBERS OF THE "TRUNK LINE ASSOCIATION." Complaint filed September 14, 1889. Answers filed October 4 to Decem ber 14, 1889. Heard and submitted February 19, 1890. Decided May 21, 1890. In arranging the classification of articles of commerce, their market value and the shippers' representations to the public as to their character may properly be taken into account in ascertaining the analogy they bear to other articles, and determining the class to which they justly belong. This is especially applicable to articles in which there is no free competition among producers and shippers: And carriers are not required to estimate the intrinsic value of freight as distinguished from its commercial value for purposes of classification and rates. The volume of traffic supplied by an article for transportation is also an element that may be considered in its classification, as a basis for rates that are reasonable both for carriers and shippers. Patent medicines manufactured and shipped by the complainant are rated in the Official Classification as first class for less than car-loads and third lass for car-loads. Ale, beer, and mineral water are rated as third class in less than car loads and fifth class in car-loads. The market value of the medicines is three times or more higher than that of the other articles named and the quantity transported much less. Upon complaint made that the patent medicines should be classified the same as ale, beer and mineral water: Held, That in view of the much higher market value of the medicines and the smaller volume of traffic they supply a higher classification than for the other articles named, in which there is much greater competition among shippers, it is not unreasonable, and the classification at present in force is not shown to be unjust. J. L. Lucky, for complainant. Frank Loomis, for N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. J. A. Buchanan, for N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co. F. H. Janvier, for L. V. R. R. Co. E. W. Meddaugh and William A Day, for Grd. Tr. Ry. Co. of Canada. REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. SCHOONMAKER, Commissioner: The petition shows that the complainant is a manufacturer of proprietary or patent medicines at Rochester, N. Y., and that the respondent companies are members of the Trunk Line Association and transport freight under what is known as the Official Classification. The complaint made is, in substance, that Official Classification No. 6, dated August 15, 1889, classifies "Medicines Patent, N. O. S. (not otherwise specified), in glass, packed in wood, O. R. (owner's risk of) fermenting, freezing, or breakage" first class in less than car-loads and second class in carloads, and that transportation charges based on the classification discriminate against the petitioner's business in that they are higher than rates formerly charged on the same articles, and higher than the rates charged on ale, beer, and mineral waters, which are alleged to be similar to patent medicines in bulk, value and otherwise, and which are shipped in like quantities under the Official Classification as third class in less than car-loads and fifth class in car-loads. That prior to August 15, 1889, medicines patent, in glass, &c., were given third-class rates by the Official Classification when shipped in car-loads, and prior to April 4, 1887, the railroads operating under the Middle and Western States. Classification transported patent medicines at third-class rates in less than car-loads and at fifth-class rates in carloads. The answers of the different respondents are substantially the same. In substance they deny that the classification put into effect August 15, 1889, produced an unjust discrimination against the petitioner, or that it provides for higher rates than those charged on similar articles shipped in similar quantities. They further set forth that the railroad companies composing the Trunk Line Association, subsequent to the date of Official Classification No. 6, issued a supplement wherein patent medicines in car-loads are reduced from second class to third class, and that this change provides a rate which can not justly be complained of by petitioner or others in the same business. They admit that the traffic in question was classified prior to August 15, 1889, as alleged in the complaint, but say that as to the rates charged prior to April 4, 1887, by railroads in the Middle and Western States Association, they are not called upon to answer thereto, such rates having been various, and made according to the views then held by the several companies and associations making the same. The material facts in the case are as follows: The complainant has for several years been engaged in the manufacture and sale of patent medicines at the city of Rochester, N. Y. These medicines consist of different classes, and of several varieties under each class. The classes are designated "Warner's Safe Remedies," varying in price from $3.75 to $10 per case of a dozen bottles, depending on size of a bottle and character of remedy; "Warner's Log Cabin Remedies," varying in price from $3.75 to $7 per case of a dozen bottles; and "Benton's Hair Grower," vary |