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." 49 § 485. Classification a 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. The attempt to frame separate rates, the Commission early said, 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 requires that the schedule of charges which every carrier must keep open to the public "shall contain the classification in force." 50 Recently the Commission ordered that there should be a new classification of express rates, in which the standard or first-class rate shall be that on merchandise and to which there shall be but one great class of exceptions, or second class, consisting of articles of food and drink now carried under the term of "general specials." The rate on the latter class should be a certain percentage of the merchandise rate, and 75 per cent of the merchandise rate would yield a fair rate. While other rates were permitted to meet traffic needs and develop industries, it was said that all such rates should be based on conditions of service and should likewise be stated in percentages of the merchandise rate.51 49 Differences in loading justify differences in rate. Re Advances in Lemons, 23 I. C. C. 27. 50 Coxe v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 559. 51 In re Express Rates, 24 I. C. C. 380. § 486. 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.52 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 still prevail throughout the country, although subject to various modifications applying only in particular instances. This general statement requires some modification in detail. Thus goods shipped west from Chicago take the Western Classification at once and 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 rating. For example, class rates to and from the Mississippi River crossings are published under special classifications. 53 52 Thurber v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 742, 3 I. C. C. 473. For a discussion of circumstances justifying advanced rating in the classification of articles in Western Classification territory, see the Western Classification Case, 25 I. C. C. 442. 53 Texarkana Freight Bureau v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C. 569. There are other groupings to be noted; for example, lying north of the Ohio and extending west from Pittsburgh to the Mississippi River, but excluding the upper crossings and the northern corner of the State of Illinois, is the so-called Central § 487. 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 throughout the country of a uniform classification of freight, believing it to be to the interest and advantage of both carriers and shippers.54 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.55 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 ig Freight Association territory. Commercial Club of Duluth v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 639. 54 Yeomans, Com., in Duluth Shin gle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489. 55 1 Int. Com. Rep. 770, 1 I C. C. Rep. 473. nored.56 Very recently the Commission has spoken more hopefully of the possibility of a uniform classification, noting that the carriers are working upon it and Congress has it under advisement.57 § 488. Classification necessarily imperfect. It is obvious, of course, that the fewer the classes created the more imperfect the classification will necessarily be. Since the very nature of classification is the grouping together of different things, it is not possible to secure exact accuracy of treatment for all the varieties included in the class; and the fixing of rates in this method therefore involves compromise, and can at best only approximate correctness. 58 As the Commission said, in one of the most exhaustive cases on this subject-National Hay Association v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway— "The making of railroad tariffs is simplified by classifying the great number of articles commonly offered for transportation and fixing rates for the different classes instead of making a separate rate for each commodity. In a classification such as the Official, which contains but six general classes, it is manifestly impossible to bring together in each class only such articles as resemble each other in the elements of character, use, value, volume, bulk, weight, risk and expense of handling, which have so often been referred to as governing conditions in freight classification. Besides these general considerations affecting classification, competition is often an important factor. Such competition includes not only that between carriers, but also that of a commodity produced in one section with the same commodity produced in another section, and sometimes the competition of one kind of traffic with another. Necessarily many articles must appear 56 McDill, Com., in F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61. 57 Boston Chamber of Commerce v. A., T. & S. F. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 230. 58 Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cleveland, Cin., Chicago & St. L. Ry., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 131, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 87, per Veazie, Com. together in a class which bear little relation to each other in all these respects, though some may be of like character while differing in bulk or in value, others have similar bulk while varying largely as to weight or volume, and still others present similarity in one or more of the elements mentioned, but have no common relation as to others. The best that can be done under such a scheme of classification is to place two or more articles possessing general similarity in the same class, and where an article is not analogous to any other to put that article in the class containing commodities which are most nearly related to it in general character and other essential respects." 59 § 489. Classification not unduly minute. No classification can be so minute as to conform to the differing varieties and conditions of traffic; and to separate different grades or densities of the same article into different classes with varying rates, even if it could be accomplished, would go far to defeat the real purpose of classification. If the rate on an article is reasonable to those who ship the great bulk of that article in the form in which it is commonly prepared for transportation, that rate does not become unreasonable to the shipper of a small quantity of the same article, merely because the shipment is prepared in an uncommon form, and one which affords the carrier a greater profit per hundred pounds. This is particularly true when the preparation of that article in the more profitable form would impose some degree of hardship upon a large majority of shippers because of its greater expense; and for this among other reasons it was held that cotton compressed in a round bale, in which form it could be handled much more easily and occupied much less space than in the ordinary bale, was not necessarily for that reason entitled to a lower classification. C., C. & St. L. Ry., 11 I. C. C. Rep. 382. 59 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264, 306. 60 |