for shipment, liability to a certain extent is released. And when ticket is bought before taking the train a lower rate may be made than if fare is paid to the conductor. 47 So a different rate may be made for summer and winter, if traffic conditions differ with the seasons. 48 When a practice had existed on the part of certain carriers of live cattle to make a carload rate irrespective of weight, leaving the shipper to load into the car as many cattle as he pleased and was able to put into it, and the carriers substituted for this practice the rule that while naming a car-lot rate they prescribed a minimum weight for a carload, and then charged by the hundred pounds in proportion to the car-lot rate for any excess over the minimum, it was held that this rule was not unlawful.49 A carrier, which had not provided track scales at stations, prescribed a rule or regulation forbidding shippers to load grain in cars beyond a specified weight above the market capacity under a so-called "penalty" of increased rates on the excess weight; this was held not unreasonable provided the increase in charges for excessive weight is not unreasonable, as the margin between such maximum and the carrier's minimum carload weight for grain is so wide that shippers may, without scales, readily comply with both rules. 50 But unreasonable conditions may not be imposed. A shipper should not be subjected to unnecessary restrictions as to the kind of case or package he should use.51 To make a different rate on coal loaded by tipple than for coal loaded from teams is not reasonable.52 And a differ 46 Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 385, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 85. 47 Cist v. Michigan Central R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 217. 48 Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Louisville & N. R. R., 5 I. C. C. Rep. 656. 49 Leonard v. Chicago & A. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 599, 3 I. C. C. 241. 50 Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. 255, and see Phelps v. Texas & P. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 363, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 36; Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 841, 5 I. C. C. 193. 51 Rhode Island Egg & B. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 512, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 176. 52 Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 10 I. C. C. 226. ence in the rate based on the ultimate destination of the goods is not justified. 53 When a conditional rate is justified, the difference must be no more than is reasonable under the circumstances. 54 And if a difference in rate is authorized, it is only while the circumstances justifying it exist. 55 § 420. Current theories as to relative rates. All the principles governing the fixing of rates which have ever been suggested may be seen in brief compass in an elaborate opinion of Judge Bethea: 56 "There are a great many factors and circumstances to be considered in fixing a rate.57 Among other things: (1) The value of the service to the shipper, including the value of the goods and the profit he could make out of them by shipment. This is considered an ideal method, when not interfered with by competition or other factors. It includes the theory so strenuously contended for by petitioners, the commission, and its attorneys, of making the finished product carry a higher rate than the raw material. This method is considered practical, and is based on an idea similar to taxation.58 (2) The cost of service to the carrier would be an ideal theory, but is not practical. Such cost can be reached approximately, but not accurately enough to make this factor controlling. It is worthy of consideration, however. 59 (3) Weight, bulk, and convenience of transportation. (4) The amount of the product or the commodity in the hands of a few persons to ship or compete for, recognizing the principle of selling cheaper at wholesale than at retail.60 (5) General public good, including good to the shipper, the railroad company and the different localities.61 (6) Competition, which the authorities, as well as the experts, in their testimony in these cases, recognize as a very important factor.62 None of the above factors alone are considered necessarily controlling by the authorities. Neither are they all controlling as a matter of law. It is a question of fact to be decided by the proper tribunal in each case as to what is controlling." 63 § 421. Conclusion as to proportionate rate. As a result of these considerations, the hypothesis may be drawn that a rate, duly proportioned to what is truly the cost of service, should be established for each article of traffic. In all cases, where other factors in the situation are not such as to imperatively demand recognition, this rate should be fixed according to the share of the entire burden of charge which ought reasonably to be borne by that particular article. In determining the reasonable share of the burden to be borne by an article, various considerations must be weighed, and the rate when finally established will be determined as a result of all such considerations. It must be clear, therefore, that the establishment of the particular rate is not, like the establishment of the general schedule of charges, a matter which can be settled altogether by a mathematical formula. There are 60 Citing Int. Com. Comm. v. B. & O. Ry., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 844, 36 L. ed. 699. 61 Citing Int. Com. Comm. V. B. & O. Ry., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 844, 36 L. ed. 699. 62 Citing Phipps v. London & Northwestern Ry., 2 Q. B. D. 229. 63 Citing Int. Com. Comm. V. Alabama Midland Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. 45, 42 L. ed. 414; East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Co. v. Int. Com. Comm., 181 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. 516, 45 L. ed. 719, Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Comm., 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. 666, 40 L. ed. 940; Int. Com. Comm. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 190 U. S. 273, 23 Sup. Ct. 687, 47 L. ed. 1047, etc. too many economic factors operating in bringing about a particular rate for that to be possible really. The division of rates among the particular commodities involves judgment and experience; it is not an exact division, but only the closest possible approximation to fairness. CHAPTER X VALUE OF SERVICE RECEIVED § 430. Provisions of the Act. 431. Rates based upon value. Topic A. Value as the Basis § 432. What the traffic will bear. 433. Essential defects in the principle. 434. Legal limitations peculiarly necessary. 435. Value of service to shipper. 436. Value of the goods. 437. Limit of value of service. 438. Traffic will continue to move at unfair rates. 439. Worth of the service to the owners. 440. Treating the schedule as a whole. 441. Doctrine hardly applicable to passenger fares. Topic B. Rates Reasonable Per Se § 442. Carrier entitled to reasonable compensation. 446. What makes rates unreasonable? 447. Current rates for other transportation. 448. Comparison with other rates. 449. Evidence inadmissible unless conditions are similar. 450. Comparison of rates between different localities. 451. Usual rates govern passenger fares. Topic C. Rates Dictated by Competition § 452. Rates may be made to meet competition. 457. Standard rate among competing lines. 458. Competition not a ground for raising rates. 459. Absence of competition does not justify increase. 460. No obligation to meet competition. 461. Competition in passenger fares. |