PROOF AND EVIDENCE-Continued.
Presumption-Continued.
Where an appropriate application protecting a fourth-section departure
existed at the time of shipment but was denied by the commission
after shipments had moved, a presumption of unreasonableness in
rate arose from such departure and constituted a prima facie case for
complainant. Erb Co. v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 195.
A rate from a more distant point lower than a rate from an intermediate
point is only prima facie proof of the unreasonableness of the higher
rate from the intermediate point. Federated Metals Corp. v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 242 (245).
The voluntary reduction of a rate or charge does not in and of itself
establish that the prior rate or charge was unreasonable:
Jackson Traffic Bureau v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 327 (328).
Elin & Golub v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 373 (374).
Willow Springs Creamery Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 495 (497).
The presumption of unreasonableness raised by fourth-section depar-
tures resulting from a higher rate on hammered granite from Concord,
N. H., to Hartford, Conn., than the aggregate of the intermediate
rates, and from a lower rate to Montclair, N. J., to which Hartford
is intermediate, was not rebutted by a showing that rates on granite
to Atlantic coast points in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
were depressed by water competition, and to central territory by
competition with stone and granite produced in southern and central
territories. Concord Chamber of Commerce v. Boston & M. R., 427
(428).
It is settled that where carriers have charged more for a shorter than
for a longer haul over the same route a presumption is raised that the
higher rate was unreasonable. Smith Agency v. Seaboard Air Line
Ry. Co., 464 (465).
PROPORTIONAL OR RESHIPPING RATES.
Ordinarily proportional rates are somewhat lower than local rates. Harda-
way Contracting Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 90 (91).
Title page of tariff showed proportional rates in one item, which was sepa-
rated by a space and a short-ruled line from the succeeding paragraph
naming "commodity rates" from Louisville, Ky., the origin point of the
shipments; but since the application notes under the item indicated that
the latter rates applied only on crude linseed oil refined at Louisville when
originating beyond, such rates were not local but proportional, and the
sixth-class rates assessed to Chicago were applicable. National Cottonseed
Products Corp. v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co., 449.
Class and commodity rates maintained by southeastern carriers between the
ports of New Orleans, La., and Mobile, Ala., on the other hand, and inte-
rior points in southeastern territory on the other, on traffic transported from
and to Pacific Coast territory through the Panama Canal by the Lucken-
bach Steamship Company, found not unreasonable, whether measured
as local rates or as proportional rates via the steamships, since the cost to
the rail lines of moving canal-borne traffic from and to New Orleans was
the same as the cost of moving traffic originating in or destined to New
Orleans. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 752.
PUBLICATION OF RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES.
The rate on cedar posts from Ruby, Wash., to Yuma, Colo., found unrea-
sonable in that it exceeded a lower rate already established from points
in the same group and ordered established from Ruby but not published
until subsequent to the date of movement. Waiver of undercharge
authorized. Hitchner & Hitchner v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 213.
The provision of a line-haul carrier by tariff authority for the application of
a flat rate to a point on a switching and terminal line which performed
spotting services, without the proper concurrence of that line or provision
for the absorption of charges for such service, was unlawful and the charges
due to such a situation could not in any way indicate that the charges
applicable to complainant's shipments were excessive. Pressed Steel Car
Co. v. Director General, 623 (626).
The publication of shipside rates by carriers, showing the amount of the port
terminal charges absorbed merely to acquaint private operators of port
terminal facilities with the amount absorbed, would be a vain thing from
the carrier's standpoint, as it would be immaterial what charges were
named in the tariffs as port charges because they would in no instance be
assessed against the shipper. Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf
Ports, 663 (684).
The prescription of a tariff rule requiring the accessorial or terminal charges
on export, import, coastwise, and intercoastal traffic to and from Atlantic
and Gulf ports to be stated separately from the line-haul rates was not
found warranted upon further hearing in the investigation instituted upon
the commission's own order, no injury having been shown to result from
the practice of publishing single-factor rates to cover the entire transporta-
tion service from the point of origin of the freight to ship side. Id. (686,
692).
To encourage and preserve competition within reasonable limits is the de-
clared public policy of Congress as evidenced by the various provisions of
the transportation act. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 752
(760).
In General: The commission has jurisdiction to establish proportional rail
rates applicable on water-borne traffic, but the law does not authorize it
to establish them except where the existing rates are found unlawful.
Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 752 (758).
Bags, burlap, secondhand: Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Mississippi
Warrior Service, 401.
Bottles, milk, glass: Florida Dairies v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 271.
Localities:
Atlantic and Gulf Ports: Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf Ports,
663 (686, 689, 692).
Miami, Fla.: Budge Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 399.
New Orleans, La., and Mobile, Ala., from and to the Pacific coast:
Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 752.
Cyanamid: Pioneer Compost Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 489.
Mortar, high-temperature, bonding: Smith Agency v. Central of
Georgia Ry. Co., 540.
Localities: Jacksonville, Fla.: Class Rates to Jacksonville, Fla., 215.
REASONABLENESS OF RATES. See MEASURE OF RATES.
RECONSIGNMENT AND DIVERSION.
Shipment of lumber from Strother, S. C., originally consigned to Salamanca,
N. Y., was ordered diverted en route to Coudersport, Pa. Complainant's
diversion orders specified neither the routing nor the rate it sought to
have protected and the carrier, after locating the car at Brunswick, Md.,
forwarded it subject to the combination rate assessed. As the lower
through rate in effect could not be protected over any route to Coudersport
subsequent to location of the car or at any time after it left Potomac
Yards, Va., the carrier, under its reconsignment rule, should have held
the car at Brunswick and sought further orders. However, the erroneous
diversion was waived by complainant when it accepted the shipment at
Coudersport instead of refusing it at that point and requiring delivery at
the original destination. Applicable charges found not unreasonable or
otherwise unlawful. Acorn Lumber Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 191.
Applicable combination rate and diversion charge on coal, twice recon-
signed in transit and subject to reconsignment and diversion rules providing
for local rates to and from the second reconsignment point, found unreason-
able to the extent that they exceeded the joint through rate originally
assessed over the route of movement, plus a diversion charge applying
on shipment diverted or reconsigned in transit prior to arrival at original
destination. Cancellation of outstanding undercharges authorized.
Platt & Brahm Coal Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 340.
A shipment of coal from Carbon, W. Va., to Sutherland, Iowa, was diverted
under second reconsignment order at Clinton, Iowa. Therefore, the local
rates to and from the latter point, in addition to the applicable reconsign-
ment charge, were applicable under tariff rules which permitted but one
diversion under a joint rate and provided that if a second reconsignment
was made the shipment would be treated as a reshipment from the point
of reforwarding and assessed at the tariff rate therefrom plus the diversion
charge. Id. (340).
A reconsignment tariff, like a transit tariff, is local in its application. Id.
(341-342).
With quarantine regulations of the Federal Government in effect at the
time of movement, and with the nearest inspector located at St. Louis,
Mo., carrier could not be charged with misrouting in sending a shipment
via St. Louis in accordance with shipper's original routing instructions,
in the absence of evidence establishing either the date of instructions
diverting shipment through Memphis, Tenn., where a lower rate prevailed,
or the location of the car at the time. Dawson Produce Co. v. Florida
East Coast Ry. Co., 647.
Where, due to an error on the part of carrier's agent in transmitting recon-
signment orders, a back haul had been made of which complainant had
not been advised and therefore the through rate had not been protected,
the applicable combination rates assessed were not unreasonable or other-
wise unlawful, since the complainant gave no instructions to hold the
shipment in the event the through rate could not be applied; nor did
carrier's reconsignment tariffs contain a provision obligating them to
notify a shipper where reconsignment at the through rate could not be
effected. Chandler-Davis Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 749.
RELATIONSHIP OF RATES. See ADJUSTMENTS AND RELATIONSHIPS.
RELATIVE RATES.
In General:
Rates from the same origins to a more distant point on the same line
are a fairer basis of comparison than rates to destinations in adjacent
territory which reflect a highly competitive basis of rates to other
points. Kendrick Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 11 (14).
A difference of 1 cent between the class rate and the commodity rate
for comparable distances in the same territory was so slight that in
the absence of proof that the higher rate constituted an undue burden
it could not be said to be unreasonable. Perrine-Armstrong Co. v.
Erie R. Co., 22 (23).
A difference in the rates on the same commodity to two different points
is not conclusive as to the reasonableness of the rates to either point.
Equitable Paper Bag Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 115 (117).
Comparisons with various other rates, purporting to be less for greater
distances than those in issue, were of little significance when complain-
ant did not in all instances show either the short-line distances from
the compared points or the average distances from the extensive
groups from which the compared rates applied. Adams-Bank
Lumber Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co., 280 (309–310).
In the absence of other evidence, the fact that commodity rates between
San Francisco, Calif., and points in Idaho are higher than those
between Portland, Oreg., and the same Idaho points does not prove
the unreasonableness of all of the former rates, since such a situation
may result from the existence of rates to and from Portland which are
below a maximum reasonable basis. Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co.,
501 (509).
Alabama and Mississippi points: Rates on lumber from points in Ala-
bama and Mississippi, on the Memphis division of the Southern Rail-
way, to destinations in Illinois and Indiana which compared favorably
with rates from Carolina territory to eastern and interior eastern
destinations and to destinations in central territory, found not un-
reasonable. Adams-Bank Lumber Co. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co.,
280 (310).
Albion, Ind.: Less-than-carload rates on cotton piece goods, any quan-
tity, from points in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Ala-
bama, Mississippi, and Tennessee to, found not unreasonable, dis-
criminatory, or unduly prejudicial when compared with rates contem-
poraneously in effect to Chicago, or with rates subsequently estab-
lished. Elin & Golub v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 373.
Arlington, N. J.: Sixth-class rates on rough-quarried granite from Barre,
Vt., to, found unreasonable as compared with commodity rates to
other New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania points. Repa-
ration awarded. Riverside Monument Works v. Erie R. Co., 81.
Artesia, N. Mex.: Class A rate on cotton-gin machinery from Dallas,
Tex., to, found not unreasonable as compared with commodity rates
to points at comparable distances from Dallas. Artesia Alfalfa
Growers Asso. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50.
RELATIVE RATES-Continued.
Localities-Continued.
Baltimore, Md., and Washington, D. C.: Rates on limestone, in blocks,
rough quarried, scabbled, and in slabs, sawed four sides or less, from
points in the Bedford district of Indiana to, found unreasonable when
compared with rates in the same general territory for comparable
distances and with rates on various stones between other points.
Reasonable rates prescribed for the future. O'Meara v. Baltimore &
O. R. Co., 785.
Bartlesville, Okla.: Class A rates on muriatic acid in carboys from, to
Breckenridge and Borger, Tex., found unreasonable in comparison
with contemporaneous commodity rates from Kansas City and St.
Louis, Mo., for substantially longer hauls, and to the extent that they
exceeded rates established in accordance with the southwestern revi-
sion. Reparation awarded. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 275.
Boston, Mass., and New London, Conn.: Sixth-class rates on lumber,
ex-vessel from the Pacific coast, from, to destinations on New York,
New Haven & Hartford system lines in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and New York, found unreasonable as compared with
lower commodity rates between other New England points and with
distance rates prescribed in 151 I. C. C. 391 for application from Prov-
idence, R. I., and Poughkeepsie, N. Y., to the same destinations.
Distance scale of reasonable rates prescribed for the future and repa-
ration awarded. Blanchard Lumber Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R.
Buck Run, Pa.: Sixth-class rates on imported wood pulp from Baltimore,
Md., to, found unreasonable when compared with commodity rates
generally in force or prescribed in trunk-line, central, and New Eng-
land territories for comparable distances, and to the extent that they
exceeded rates equal to 90 per cent of the sixth-class rates assailed.
Reparation awarded. Ajax Paper Mills v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 357.
California points: Rates on oil-well tools from Oxnard, Calif., to Pan-
handle, Tex., and Tulsa, Okla., and from Houston, Tex., to Los Angeles
Calif., found not unreasonable when compared with rate from Tulsa
to Los Angeles previously found reasonable in 152 I. C. C. 775. Dunn
Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 798.
Caryville, Fla.: Combination rate on one locomotive crane, on its own
wheels, rated 80 per cent of sixth class in southern classification,
moving with idler car carrying parts from Brownville, Ala., to Cary-
ville, Fla., found unreasonable when compared with average rates for
comparable distances in the same general territory, and to the extent
that it exceeded a rate equal to 80 per cent of the joint sixth-class rate
subsequently established pursuant to the Southern Class Rate Inves-
tigation. Reparation awarded. Brown Florida Lumber Co. v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 440.
Chattanooga, Tenn., and Brownville, Ala.: Joint rate on creosote oil in
tank-car loads from Follansbee, W. Va., to Chattanooga, Tenn., and
combination rate from Follansbee to Brownville, Ala., found unreason-
able when compared with rates in effect and prescribed for comparable
distances in the same general territory. Reasonable rates prescribed
for the future and reparation awarded. Brown & Sons Lumber Co..
Pennsylvania R. Co., 393.
|