gum compounds. Complainant's contention is that the fourth-class carload rating in item 10 as published in the supplement was applicable to synthetic gum because the index to the supplement so stated, and because item 10 can reasonably be read as describing two separate commodities, namely, "Synthetic Gum" and "Resin Compounds." This contention is untenable. The supplement did not cancel item 9 and hence that item and the first-class any-quantity rating provided in connection therewith remained continuously applicable to synthetic gums throughout the period when the supplement with its erroneous index was effective.

At the hearing complainant asserted that shipments, other than those described in the complaint, have ..oved at the fourth-class rate, and at the oral argument it requested that defendants be directed to waive the collection of undercharges on such shipments, if the firstclass rate should be found applicable. In the complaint as filed complainant sought reparation only on six specified shipments.

On April 30, 1928, the first-class any-quantity rating was restricted to less-than-carload shipments and a rating of third class, minimum 30,000 pounds, was added for carloads. The assailed first-class rate yields 33.6 mills per ton-mile, and, based on the average loading of 46,427 pounds, 78.1 cents per car-mile. The respective revenues under the present third-class rate of 99.5 cents are 22.4 mills per ton-mile and 52.1 cents per car-mile. Complainant takes the position that the Boston class rates are improper for application to Pittsfield, as those rates also apply to such points as Bangor, Me., approximately 500 miles farther distant, and for the further reason that class rates to Albany, N. Y., a point only 50 miles less distant from Chicago, are substantially lower as shown in the following table:

The destination groupings on class-rate traffic from central to trunk-line and New England territories are of long standing. The question of whether they should be generally revised is now before us in No. 15879, the Eastern Class Rate Investigation. In the circumstances, we think the interests of all concerned would be best served by reserving for decision in that investigation the question which complainant here raises as to the grouping of Pittsfield.

Although the reasonableness of the former any-quantity firstclass and the present carload third-class ratings on this commodity, as such, are not assailed in the complaint, the evidence of both parties is principally classification evidence. Complainant compares the transportation characteristics of Bakelite gum with those of crude rubber, numerous other gums, and certain other articles which are competitive to some extent or have similar transportation characteristics. Ratings hereinafter referred to are the carload ratings unless otherwise specified. The most competitive article is crude rubber from which is produced many hard-rubber articles closely similar in appearance and identical in use with Bakelite articles. Crude rubber is valued at 19 cents a pound and weighs 45 pounds a cubic foot. The present fourth-class rating and minimum of 40,000 pounds on crude rubber was prescribed in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. A. C. & Y. Ry. Co., 53 I. C. C. 389. Gum shellac, rated fourth class, is competitive with Bakelite gum in the manufacture of varnish. It is valued at from 44 to 70 cents a pound. Other commodities competitive to a lesser degree include gutta percha and chicle, both rated fourth class, stearine, rated fifth class, and pitch and rosin, both rated sixth class. Rosin, it appears, is only competitive in that some other competitive gums are adulterated with rosin. Complainant states generally that the transportation characteristics of these commodities are comparable to those of Bakelite gum. Defendants point out that there is some competition between Bakelite and certain higher-rated commodities as casein solids, rated first class, any quantity, but they concede that rubber is the most competitive article.

The rating as applied to past shipments was in effect for some years prior to April 30, 1928, when it was voluntarily reduced by the carriers. When originally established the value of bakelite was 90 cents per pound. Since that time the value has steadily declined. The movement appears to be entirely on the classification basis so that this is primarily a classification case. Except where unusual circumstances are present reparation does not follow from a reduction in a classification rating. We accordingly find that the rate charged on the shipments described of record was not unreasonable, but in view of the apparently permanent decline in the value which has taken place we find that the third-class rate of 99.5 cents at present applicable to carload shipments is, and for the future will be, unreasonable to the extent that it exceeds or may exceed the contemporaneous fourth-class rate subject to a minimum not exceeding 36,000 pounds. An appropriate order will be entered.

AITCHISON, Commissioner, dissenting in part:

I can not agree with the majority that reparation should be denied in this case. The six shipments upon which reparation is sought averaged 46,427 pounds in weight and 35 cents per pound in value. The first-class rating applied thereon, measured by the factors ordinarily used by us to determine the proper classification of a commodity, was clearly unreasonable, and resulted in transportation charges which were unconscionably high. I favor reparation to the basis of a rule 26 rating.

157 I. C. C.

No. 170061

UPSON COMPANY v. ANN ARBOR RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

Submitted January 13, 1928. Decided October 23, 1929

1. Rates on fiber wall board, in carloads, from Lockport, N. Y., to points in western classification territory found not unreasonable but found unduly prejudicial as compared with rates on plaster wall board, in carloads, from Southard, Okla., Sweetwater, Tex., and Fort Dodge, Iowa, to the same points. Bases for removal of undue prejudice prescribed.

2. Rates on fiber wall board, in carloads, from Black Rock, Buffalo, and Lockport, N. Y., Federal, Ill., Minneapolis, Minn., and Cornell, Wis., to certain points in Texas, and on plaster board, in carloads, from Fort Dodge Iowa, to Dallas, Tex., found not unreasonable. Complaint in No. 18958 dismissed.

3. Rates on wall board made of fiber board and wood combined from Oakland, Calif., to transcontinental Groups A to M, both inclusive, found not unreasonable or unduly prejudicial. Complaint in No. 16491 dismissed. 4. Carload rating on fiber wall board in the western classification found not unreasonable or unduly prejudicial.

5. Rules and practices governing shipment of plaster wall board in mixed carloads with plaster and plaster products (other than plaster wall board) from Southard, Okla., Sweetwater, Tex., and Fort Dodge, Iowa, to points in western classification territory found unduly prejudicial. Basis for removal of undue prejudice prescribed.

H. C. Lust for complainant in No. 17006; Frank A. Leffingwell for complainants in No. 18958; and E. W. Hollingsworth and Bishop & Bahler for complainants in No. 16491.

J. C. Ryan, F. J. Hapeman, H. C. Sackett, and Wm. McIver for Alton Box Board & Paper Company and Cornell Wood Products Company; C. R. Hillyer for Gypsum Industries and Schumacher Wall Board Corporation; W. D. Lindsay and Lester L. Falk for United States Gypsum Company; F. P. Dougherty for Universal Gypsum Company; H. J. Lang and George B. Cromwell for Certainteed Products Corporation; L. M. O'Leary for Fort Dodge (Iowa) Chamber of Commerce; Thomas L. Philips and William N. Webb for Celotex Company; R. J. Henderson for Insulite Company; and Mathias F. Perz for Compo-Board Company, interveners in No. 17006; O. T. Helpling for Schumacher Wall Board Corporation and

1 This report also embraces No. 18958, Dallas Sash & Door Company et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company et al.; and No. 16491, Pacific Tank & Pipe Company et al. v. Southern Pacific Company et al.

Buttonlath Company; and A. R. Robertson for United States Gypsum Company, interveners in No. 16491.

L. P. Day, Robert W. Fyfe, P. F. Gault, J. N. Davis, A. B. Enoch, Walter L. McFarland, Guy A. Gladson, M. G. Roberts, R. S. Outlaw, W. T. Hughes, C. S. Burg, G. B. Ross, Lewis Jeffrey, Robt. Thompson, C. H. Pistor, J. L. Steward, H. A. Scandrett, J. M. Souby, Douglas F. Smith, E. W. Camp, F. E. Andrews, Berne Levy, J. E. Lyons, H. W. Klein, S. L. Bradshaw, L. N. Bradshaw, J. F. Bon, and H. C. Bush for defendants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS LEWIS, MCMANAMY, AND TAYLOR MCMANAMY, Commissioner:

These cases were heard separately but deal with related issues and will be disposed of in one report. Exceptions were filed to the reports proposed by the examiners and oral argument was had in Nos. 17006 and 18958. We have reached conclusions in Nos. 17006 and 18958 differing from those suggested in the proposed report.

ISSUES

Complainant in No. 17006 is a corporation manufacturing fiber wall board at Lockport, N. Y. In substance it alleges (1) that the rates and classification rating on fiber wall board, in carloads, from Lockport to destinations in western classification territory have been and are unreasonable, and as compared with the rates and rating on plaster wall board, unjustly discriminatory, unduly prejudicial to complainant, and unduly preferential of manufacturers of the latter commodity, located at various points, typical of which are Oakfield and Buffalo, N. Y., Grand Rapids, Mich., Fort Dodge, Iowa, Blue Rapids, Kans., Southard and Oklahoma City, Okla., Sweetwater, Tex., Seattle, Wash., and San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Stockton, Calif.; (2) that less than the applicable charges have been applied on plaster wall board from and to the points above described; and (3) that mixed-carload privileges accorded to shippers of plaster wall board have been unduly preferential of those shippers and unduly prejudicial to complainant. We are asked to prescribe lawful rates, ratings, rules, and practices and to award reparation.

The complaint is in general supported by intervening manufacturers of various kinds of fiber wall board, who ask that any relief that may be accorded complainant be extended also to them. Our findings and order herein must necessarily be restricted to the issues and the territory defined in the complaint. The Gypsum Industries, a national association of manufacturers of plaster wall