Grain Doors (Straight C. L. only). Guttering-Rough. Lath, pine. Logs, Walnut (except squared or with sides hewn for export). Lumber, including ceiling, flooring (except wood carpet), wainscoting, match blocks and circus seats (not upholstered or with backs). Paving Blocks. Pickets. Piles. Sawdust. Tank material (Wooded). Telegraph and Telephone Poles. Telegraph and Telephone Braces, Brackets, Cross Arms and Pins. Tin Plate Boxes, wooden, not further manufactured than having sides and bottoms nailed together, tops K. D. tied in bundles. Well Tubing. Window stock, Aprons and Hoods. Some comparison is attempted to be made between shingles and certain articles in the classification taking the lumber rate and having the same minimum carload of 24,000 lbs. per car of 33 ft. 6 in. in length-for instance-box stuff, pine lath, sheathing, sawdust and other articles especially referred to in the testimony, claimed to be of less value and weight, the same or less than shingles per carload, but no figures are given by which weights, values or the volume of traffic can be satisfactorily compared. Shingles being put up in bundles of uniform size-250 per bundle can be handled much more conveniently and rapidly and packed more closely than some other articles, such as screens, mouldings and box stuff cut in different lengths which take the lumber rate. Estimating the comparative revenues received by defendants, it is found that the average weight of carloads of shingles in 33 ft. and less than 34 ft. cars is 29,850 lbs. via the C., M. & St. P. Ry., producing a revenue of $29.85 at 10 cents per 100 lbs. and $38.80 at 13 cents per 100 lbs., while the average weight of carloads of lumber in cars of the same length, over the same line is 38,943 lbs., amounting at 10 cents to $38.94,practically the same revenue per car as is received for the transportation of shingles at 13 cents per 100 lbs.. Over the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway, shipments of shingles from Minnesota Transfer amounting to 151 cars, averaged 31,326 lbs., which at a 13-cent rate per 100 pounds amounted to $40.72, while during the same time there were 357 carloads of lumber hauled, averaging 40,713 pounds, amounting, at 10 cents per 100 lbs., to $40.71. CONCLUSIONS. The determination of this case depends upon one question, namely, whether by charging 13 cents per 100 pounds for the transportation of shingles from Duluth to Chicago, the defendant carriers have violated the following provision of Section 3 of the Act to regulate commerce: "That it shall be unlawful, for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever;" or in other words, whether there is made or given to any locality, or to any particular description of traffic, an undue preference or advantage, or whether any locality, or particular description of traffic is subjected to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. Generally speaking the demand for and use of shingles as building material are quite as important and general as for any other lumber product, and the necessity is equally as great that such product shall be charged only a reasonable and equitable rate for its transportation. Shingles being put up in bundles for shipment the work of handling is facilitated so that no more, and perhaps even less, labor is required than for the handling of many other lumber products classed with and charged the same transportation rate as lumber, such as laths, shooks, sawdust, box and moulding material and other stuff of the regular dimensions. The weight of shingles that can be loaded in a car will also compare favor10 I. C. C. REP. ably with the above named and many other lumber products taking the lumber rate. No testimony has been submitted as to the relative values of these various products, but it may be assumed safely, that shingles are worth as much per carload as the average of articles taking the lumber rate. No claim has been made that there is any greater risk in shipping shingles than any other article included in the lumber classification. One of the reasons assigned for a lower rate for the transportation of lumber than shingles was the alleged competition for the transportation of lumber by water, while there was no such competition for the transportation of shingles; that vessels never take a full cargo of shingles, but only partial or deck loads in connection with other freight. But are we to understand from this that vessels do take full cargoes of laths, sawdust and other kinds of lumber products so as to justify the lower rate charged for their transportation? Another reason assigned for the higher rate exacted for the transportation of shingles was that the revenue derived from forest products might be equalized. And again, it may be asked, why laths, sawdust, etc., are transported at the lumber rate when the revenue per carload for their transportation would probably be less than that derived from the transportation of shingles per carload, even at the same rates? It is pertinent to inquire further why the rate on shingles and lumber is the same from Star Lake, Tomahawk, Monaqua and Wausau, to the same points of destination. The facts appearing in evidence are not consistent with defendants' claims, and do not support either of the reasons assigned for the difference between the rate on lumber and shingles. Another important consideration is, that the only instance which has been brought to the attention of the Commission of any departure from the uniform practice of the railroads of classifying shingles with lumber and transporting them at the same rate is that complained of in this case. 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; and there does not seem to be any just or sufficient reason why shingles and lumber should be classed and rated differently in the case of the transportation complained of. The Commission, therefore, finds that the defendant carriers unjustly discriminate against shingles in favor of lumber, subject Duluth and complainant and other shingle shippers from that point to undue prejudice and disadvantage, and give undue preference and advantage to other places from which shingles are transported, by exacting a higher rate therefor than for the transportation of lumber from Duluth to Chicago. An order to cease and desist from such unjust discrimination will be entered in accordance with the conclusions above stated. 10 I. C. C. REP. No. 707. THE CENTRAL YELLOW PINE ASSOCIATION v. THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; THE GULF & SHIP ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY; THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; THE MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY; THE NEW ORLEANS & NORTH EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; THE ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; THE ALABAMA & VICKSBURG RAILWAY COMPANY; THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY; THE MOBILE, JACKSON & KANSAS CITY RAILROAD COMPANY. Decided February 7, 1905. Complaint was made of an advance by defendants of 2 cents per 100 pounds on April 15, 1903 (except as to the L. & N. R. Co., as to which the advance became effective June 22, 1903), in the rates on lumber in carloads from points in lumber producing territories east of the Mississipi River in Louisiana, Mississippi, and part of Alabama served by defendant roads, to Ohio River points, applying both on shipments locally to such Ohio River points and to shipments destined beyond. On September 9, 1899, the rate previously in effect from May 1, 1894, was advanced one cent, making a total advance of 3 cents since May 1, 1894. The rates prior to the advance on April 15, 1903, were remunerative to the defendant carriers. Held: 1. That when a railroad company advances a rate which has been for some time in force, the fact of its continuance is in the nature of an admission against that company which tends to show the unreasonableness of the advance; and in this case the rates in effect for long periods prior to the advance are shown to have been profitable to the defendant carriers. |