46

conditions in the territory had adapted themselves to existing any-quantity rates. On the other hand, a tariff was lately held to be unreasonable because of failure to establish carload rating on automobile parts.47 And, still later, a carload rating, with a minimum of 24,000 was ordered to be established by the Commission on smoking tobaccos.48 Where carriers have in effect a uniform rate per 100 pounds for any quantity, which rate applies uniformly to all shippers, a different rate applied to carloads than that applied to less-than-carloads will not be ordered when such differential will have a tendency to increase the rate on less-than-carloads, and permit the large dealer to drive the smaller dealers out of the market, and cut off the consumers and small dealer from purchasing at distant markets in less-than-carload lots.49 Generally speak

ing, therefore, if the carrier chooses to carry goods in less than carload lots at the same rate as carload lots, the shippers cannot complain unless their rates are unreasonable. And, indeed, under certain circumstances any quantity rates are clearly much better for all concerned. 50

§ 532. Minimum carloads.

The carload rate necessarily involves some standard for determining what shall constitute a carload; and this is usually established by fixing a minimum weight of the commodity as a carload. This must of course be fixed reasonably, and must not exceed the weight that can properly be loaded in the car provided. It is in the interest of economical transportation that cars containing light and bulky articles should be loaded as heavily as possible; and it is equally plain that a carrier can afford, to an extent, to decrease its rates in proportion as the loading

46 See also Duncan & Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry., 16 I. C. C. 590.

47 Auto Vehicle Co. v. C., M. &

St. P. Ry., 21 I. C. C. R. 286.

48 Bagley & Co. v. P. M. R. R., 25 I. C. C. 698.

49 Brownell v. Columbus & C. M. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 285, 5 I. C. C. 638.

50 German Kali Works v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 223.

increases. 51 A carrier in defining a carload and fixing the rate should furnish a car adapted to carry properly the quantity designated, and not put the shipper to any expense to fit up the car; this expense would seem to be in excess of the tariff rate and unlawful.52 It would manifestly be unjust, under any rule as to minimum loads or otherwise, to charge for weight not carried in a car which the carrier has furnished and in which on account of its size and the nature and bulk of the freight the required minimum cannot be loaded.53 There may, of course, be some exceptions to such a rule in cases where the freight is extremely light in weight in comparison with its bulk, and of such character as to forbid close packing; but it has proper application to general freight which is usually capable of being shipped in bulk or in bales or boxes. 54

§ 533. Minimum carload regulations.

Like other regulations minimum arrangements should be as uniform as possible; if they are unduly numerous, the chief advantages are lost. Rules for minimum weights which cannot be invariably enforced, or which, if so enforced, are plainly prejudicial to any class of shippers, are not to be regarded as lawful.55 In a recent proceeding, however, minimum rates for furniture were graduated according to the length of the car based upon 16,000 pounds for 36-foot equipment.56 In the case of a tank car, it is to be noted, there is a natural minimum in the capacity of

51 Montague & Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 72.

52 National Hay Ass'n v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264.

53 No commodity is loaded always to its exact minimum; the actual loading usually very considerably exceeds the minimum prescribed; the same thing is to a degree true of baled wool. In re Wool, Hides, and Pelts, 25 I. C. C. 185.

54 There is no justification for a carload minimum of twice the weight the commodity will ordinarily load. Barnard Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 91.

55 Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 255.

56 Commodity Rates Between Missouri River Points, 28 I. C. C. 265.

the tank itself. 57 A minimum as high as the product can be carried under most advantageous circumstances, with a comparatively low rate, is, it seems, best for shipper.58 It is not a sufficient reason for denial of a reasonable minimum weight for single-deck cars to establish the fact that the shipper might be able to obtain a reasonable minimum by ordering double-deck cars, when there are no facilities for loading double-deck cars. 59 It is perhaps needless to state that the carload rate is always charged in one contingency, in observance of a rule that the amount charged for less than a carload of freight shall not exceed charges on a minimum carload weight of the article.60

$ 534. Mixed carloads.

Mixed carloads of articles of the same class and the same general nature may receive carload rates. The liberalization of mixtures is in the interest of the whole public; they result in a better utilization of car space, lessen demands upon terminal properties, decrease expense of operation, and facilitate movement of freight.61 Thus a mixed carload of celery and cauliflower, vegetables entitled to the same classification, should receive carload rates; any classification which interferes with the reasonable freedom of the shipper in this respect is improper.62 "Examination of the tariff providing for mixed carloads of green fruit shows that bananas and pineapples may go as a mixed carload, and that lemons and bananas mixed take the carload rate; and that pineapples may be mixed in a carload with almost any other kind of fruit therein specified except lemons and oranges. As bananas and pineapples may be mixed and lemons and bananas may be mixed,

57 Rates on Asphalt & Asphaltum, 26 I. C. C. 614.

58 Ponchatoula Farmers' Ass'n v. I. C. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 513.

59 Kibbe v. St. L., B. & M. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 661.

Co. v. A. G. S. R. R., 26 I. C. C. 446.

61 Marshall Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 575.

62 Tecumseh Celery Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & M. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep.

60 American Brake Shoe & Foundry 318, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 663.

it is difficult to see why the complaint is not correct in contending that lemons, bananas and pineapples may be mixed in one carload and carried at the carload rate, and yet technically lemons and pineapples cannot be forwarded together in a carload and receive the benefit of the carload charge under the present classification.” 63 It might be added that it is an almost universal rule that where a package contains articles taking different rate the entire package goes at the rate applicable to the highest rated article.64

§ 535. Shipment in form permitting greater carload.

On the same principle it would seem that if goods are so compactly shipped that more can be carried in a single car, a lower classification should be given them. This was claimed by the complainant in the case of the Planters' Compress Company v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway.65 The complainant offered for carriage round bales of cotton so closely compressed and in such a form that twice as much cotton could be loaded and carried in a single car as could be loaded and carried in the ordinary form. While, as was pointed out, this did not increase the total amount of cotton carried, it certainly decreased the expense of carrying such total amount. Notwithstanding this fact, the majority of the Commission held that the complainant was not entitled to a lower classification. The most important argument in favor of the decision is that the method of compression was expensive and was not open to everyone, and that it was therefore improper to give an advantage to the comparatively few shippers who could use it. This argument is sound, and is probably sufficient to justify the decision; and it has its bearing on the point next under discussion.66

63 Clements, Com., in Roth v. Texas & P. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 602, 605.

64 Oak Grove Farm Creamery v. Adams Exp. Co., 19 I. C. C. 454.

65 11 I. C. C. Rep. 382.

66 The Commission disapproves a rule permitting the application of the balance of a through carload rate on a less-than-carload quantity mov

§ 536. Trainloads.

While lower carload rates are based on a real saving in cost of transportation, the same thing cannot be said, at least to the same extent, of train-load rates; and such rates are not generally permissible.67 As the Commission has had occasion to point out, giving greater consideration to trainload than to carload traffic would be to the prejudice of small shippers and the public.68 But in England it is held that under certain circumstances lower rates may be given for shipments in trainloads.69 And, indeed, were it not for the policy involved, it would be held very probably in America that there is a sufficient difference in traffic costs between car loads and train loads to justify rates slightly lower for the train service as against the car service.70

§ 537. Traffic handled in special trains.

This general subject was considered at length in connection with the classification of peaches carried to market on special trains." The complaint was made by shippers of peaches from Delaware to New York. The traffic was moved in separate trains from other freight, and at a high rate of speed. The freight moved, according to the evidence, at about 28 to 30 miles an hour, which did not include the time at stations. Notwithstanding the speed at which the trains were moved, the time required to reach Jersey City from the Peninsula was 12 hours and upwards. Respondents estimated the cost of movement of this traffic at about double that of ordinary freight. Empty cars in this trade were returned at the same rate of speed. They carried no return loads. Cars used for general freight ordinarily carry return loads and make

ing from a transit point. Southwestern Millers' League v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 552.

67 Paine v. Lehigh Valley R. R.,

7 I. C. C. 218.

68 Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. C. & E. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 592.

69 Nicholson v. Gt. Western Ry., 4 C. B. (N. S). 366.

70 Carsteens Packing Co. v. O. S. L. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 324.

71 Delaware State Grange v. New York, P. & N. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 554, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 309.