66

tance transportation be practically of very little importance, and the aggregate rate therefore may be very little affected by the additional mileage.65 As a result of this rule of diminishing mileage, local rates on one road cannot reasonably be compared with through rates on other roads in the same region. Generally speaking, the Commission regards it as too well settled to need discussion that as distance increases the rate per ton-mile decreases, and merely because a greater distance point has a lower rate per ton per mile than a shorter distance point discrimination does not necessarily result.67 But while it is a fundamental maxim that rate per ton-mile shall decrease as distance increases, to disregard rule is not of necessity a discrimination in the view of the Commission.68 And it is a rule of well-nigh universal application that, as distance increases, the difference in distance becomes relatively less important.69

§ 581. General standard of comparison the ton-mile.

If all conditions were equal, the rate of carriage would naturally vary according to the distance carried, and would be measured by a charge of so much per ton for each mile; or, as it is generally expressed, by a ton-mile rate. This is obviously a fair method of determining a rate where the conditions are identical; and as a theoretical doctrine it is well accepted that in the absence of other influences distance is a controlling element in determining a rate.70 As a practical matter, however, other influences are never

65 McMorran v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604, 607, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 252; Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & M. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17.

66 Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 618.

67 Elk C. & L. Co. v. B. & O. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 84.

68 Boston Chamber of C. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 230.

69 Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v. S. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 286.

70 Eau Claire Board of Trade v. Chicago, M. & S. P. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 65, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 265; Hill v. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 343; Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 180.

absent; some factor exists in every case to modify the comparison and to prevent the application of the ton-mile rate. The establishment of a ton-mile rate as a standard does indeed bring rates down to the narrowest point of scrutiny, and for that purpose is valuable; but it excludes consideration of other circumstances and conditions which enter into the making of rates, no matter how compulsory or imperious they may be, and it cannot, therefore, be accepted as controlling in determining the reasonableness of rates. It is, therefore, fundamental with the Commission that relative unreasonableness is not proven merely by comparisons of distances.72 But why rates over for the most part an identical route, and for almost exactly the same distance, should differ materially requires some explanation.73 Distance is an element in rate adjustments, and, all other things being equal, it perhaps is a controlling element; but it can hardly control where other substantial considerations are materially different, as in grain movements.74 Thus the average haul of lemons from California produces one of the most important transportation considerations entering into reasonableness of rate when compared with average haul of oranges.75

§ 582. Equal mileage rates impractical.

The effects of an absolutely equal mileage rate, which must prevent its adoption as a practical system of charges, were thus stated by a committee of the British Parliament: 76"(a) It would prevent railway companies from

71 Gustin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 277; Board of Railroad Com'rs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304; Business Men's Ass'n v. Chicago, S. P., M. & I. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 52, 67; Manufacturers & J. Union v. Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 115, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 79; Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & W. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17.

72 Boney & Harper Milling Co. v. A. C. L. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 383. 73 Bluefield Shippers Ass'n v. N. & W. Ry., 22 I. C. C. 519.

74 Omaha Grain Exchange v. C. & N. W. Ry., 19 I. C. C. 424.

75 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C. 149.

76 Stated in a note to Ransome v. Eastern Counties Ry., 1 Eng. Ry. & Can. Traf. Cas. 63.

tance transportation be practically of very little importance, and the aggregate rate therefore may be very little affected by the additional mileage.65 As a result of this rule of diminishing mileage, local rates on one road cannot reasonably be compared with through rates on other roads in the same region. Generally speaking, the Commission regards it as too well settled to need discussion that as distance increases the rate per ton-mile decreases, and merely because a greater distance point has a lower rate per ton per mile than a shorter distance point discrimination does not necessarily result.67 But while it is a fundamental maxim that rate per ton-mile shall decrease as distance increases, to disregard rule is not of necessity a discrimination in the view of the Commission.68 And it is a rule of well-nigh universal application that, as distance increases, the difference in distance becomes relatively less important.69

§ 581. General standard of comparison the ton-mile.

If all conditions were equal, the rate of carriage would naturally vary according to the distance carried, and would be measured by a charge of so much per ton for each mile; or, as it is generally expressed, by a ton-mile rate. This is obviously a fair method of determining a rate where the conditions are identical; and as a theoretical doctrine it is well accepted that in the absence of other influences distance is a controlling element in determining a rate.7 As a practical matter, however, other influences are never

65 McMorran v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604, 607, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 252; Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & M. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17.

66 Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 618.

67 Elk C. & L. Co. v. B. & O. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 84.

68 Boston Chamber of C. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 230.

69 Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v. S. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 286.

70 Eau Claire Board of Trade v. Chicago, M. & S. P. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 65, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 265; Hill v. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 343; Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 180.

71

absent; some factor exists in every case to modify the comparison and to prevent the application of the ton-mile rate. The establishment of a ton-mile rate as a standard does indeed bring rates down to the narrowest point of scrutiny, and for that purpose is valuable; but it excludes consideration of other circumstances and conditions which enter into the making of rates, no matter how compulsory or imperious they may be, and it cannot, therefore, be accepted as controlling in determining the reasonableness of rates. It is, therefore, fundamental with the Commission that relative unreasonableness is not proven merely by comparisons of distances.72 But why rates over for the most part an identical route, and for almost exactly the same distance, should differ materially requires some explanation.73 Distance is an element in rate adjustments, and, all other things being equal, it perhaps is a controlling element; but it can hardly control where other substantial considerations are materially different, as in grain movements.74 Thus the average haul of lemons from California produces one of the most important transportation considerations entering into reasonableness of rate when compared with average haul of oranges.75

§ 582. Equal mileage rates impractical.

The effects of an absolutely equal mileage rate, which must prevent its adoption as a practical system of charges, were thus stated by a committee of the British Parliament: 76"(a) It would prevent railway companies from

71 Gustin v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 277; Board of Railroad Com'rs v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304; Business Men's Ass'n v. Chicago, S. P., M. & I. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 41, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 52, 67; Manufacturers & J. Union v. Minneapolis & S. L. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 115, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 79; Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & W. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17.

72 Boney & Harper Milling Co. v. A. C. L. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 383. 73 Bluefield Shippers Ass'n v. N. & W. Ry., 22 I. C. C. 519.

74 Omaha Grain Exchange v. C. & N. W. Ry., 19 I. C. C. 424.

75 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C. 149.

76 Stated in a note to Ransome v. Eastern Counties Ry., 1 Eng. Ry. & Can. Traf. Cas. 63.

tance transportation be practically of very little importance, and the aggregate rate therefore may be very little affected by the additional mileage.65 As a result of this rule of diminishing mileage, local rates on one road cannot reasonably be compared with through rates on other roads in the same region. Generally speaking, the Commission regards it as too well settled to need discussion that as distance increases the rate per ton-mile decreases, and merely because a greater distance point has a lower rate per ton per mile than a shorter distance point discrimination does not necessarily result.67 But while it is a fundamental maxim that rate per ton-mile shall decrease as distance increases, to disregard rule is not of necessity a discrimination in the view of the Commission.68 And it is a rule of well-nigh universal application that, as distance increases, the difference in distance becomes relatively less important.69

§ 581. General standard of comparison the ton-mile.

If all conditions were equal, the rate of carriage would naturally vary according to the distance carried, and would be measured by a charge of so much per ton for each mile; or, as it is generally expressed, by a ton-mile rate. This is obviously a fair method of determining a rate where the conditions are identical; and as a theoretical doctrine it is well accepted that in the absence of other influences distance is a controlling element in determining a rate.70 As a practical matter, however, other influences are never

65 McMorran v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604, 607, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 252; Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & M. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 17.

66 Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 618.

67 Elk C. & L. Co. v. B. & O. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 84.

A., T.

68 Boston Chamber of C. v. & S. F. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 230. 69 Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v. S. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 286.

70 Eau Claire Board of Trade v. Chicago, M. & S. P. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 65, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 265; Hill v. Nashville, C. & S. L. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 343; Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 180.