handling a carload of one commodity. But the subject has its difficulties, and the carrier is not obliged to grant this privilege. In pointing this out the Commission said: 19 "With regard to the question of allowing the same rate on mixed carloads which is given to carloads of a single product, it may be remarked that it is almost inextricably involved in the question of the rate. A rule which might work well when the load was composed of articles bearing the same rate would be very difficult to formulate where the different articles took differing rates. The questions, which rates should govern, whether the highest or lowest, whether the proportion of different articles should influence the carload rate, whether the mixed rate should follow the highest or lowest class rate,-would all be involved, and it would probably be found difficult to formulate an equitable rule which should fix the rate upon such a load." " 20 § 724. Lower rates for shipments in bulk. That there are often certain advantages to the carrier in shipments in bulk in car lots over shipments in packages in car lots cannot be denied.21 It is upon this basis that it is cheaper to handle the traffic that the railroads have felt justified in giving a lower rate per ton-mile to those who ship oil in bulk in tank cars in comparison with those who ship oil in barrels in car lots. It is urged in behalf of the right of the railroads to make such differences in the rates that the different circumstances and conditions about these two modes of carrying oil fully justify these differences in the rates, viz.: the carrier furnishes the car for transporting the barrel oil, while the shipper usually supplies car and tank for carriage of tank oil, and that at a less charge for mileage than actual cost 19 Schumacher Milling Co. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61. V. 20 See Roth v. T. & P. Ry., 9 I. C. C. 602. 21 See Pennsylvania Refining Co. v. Western N. Y. & P. R. R., 208 U. S. 208, 52 L. ed. 456, 28 Sup. Ct. 268. of maintenance of the car; injury to the cars used for barrel oil unfitting them for general use; larger returnempty haul on box cars used for barrel oil than on tank cars; greater risk of such goods in transit and in depot, as well as greater danger to other freights in same train and in same depot in the case of barrel oil over that of tank oil, greater cost of service in loading and unloading barrel oil to and from the cars by the carrier, when tank oil is invariably loaded and unloaded by the shipper; inability of carrier to secure insurance on cars used for transporting barreled oil, while shipper of tank oil furnishes the car and assumes all risks.22 Such differences in the cost of the service should, it would seem, justify a carrier in making reasonable differences in its rates. § 725. Shipments in trainloads problematical. It is urged with considerable force that a railroad is justified under the rules that are now under discussion in giving a lower rate for a trainload consigned from one shipping point to one point of delivery, since it cannot be denied that there is at least a slight difference in the cost of handling the traffic in trainloads. But such concessions are dangerous, as it would tend to concentrate the business of the country into very few hands if a lower rate could be given to the great operator who could ship in train lots. At all events the Interstate Commerce Commission set itself against such special rates for train loads in Paine Bros. & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad. 23 "We perceive no sufficient reason for different rates on carload than on cargo or trainload shipments, whether the grain is carried for export or for domestic use. The principle involved in such a distinction violates the rule of equality and tends to defeat its just and wholesome purpose. That purpose is not fully accomplished if one scale of charges is 22 See Scofield v. Lake S. & M. S. Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 67, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 90. 23 7 I. C. C. Rep. 218. handling a carload of one commodity. But the subject has its difficulties, and the carrier is not obliged to grant this privilege. In pointing this out the Commission said: 19 "With regard to the question of allowing the same rate on mixed carloads which is given to carloads of a single product, it may be remarked that it is almost inextricably involved in the question of the rate. A rule which might work well when the load was composed of articles bearing the same rate would be very difficult to formulate where the different articles took differing rates. The questions, which rates should govern, whether the highest or lowest, whether the proportion of different articles should influence the carload rate, whether the mixed rate should follow the highest or lowest class rate, would all be involved, and it would probably be found difficult to formulate an equitable rule which should fix the rate upon such a load." 20 § 724. Lower rates for shipments in bulk. That there are often certain advantages to the carrier in shipments in bulk in car lots over shipments in packages in car lots cannot be denied.21 It is upon this basis that it is cheaper to handle the traffic that the railroads have felt justified in giving a lower rate per ton-mile to those who ship oil in bulk in tank cars in comparison with those who ship oil in barrels in car lots. It is urged in behalf of the right of the railroads to make such differences in the rates that the different circumstances and conditions about these two modes of carrying oil fully justify these differences in the rates, viz.: the carrier furnishes the car for transporting the barrel oil, while the shipper usually supplies car and tank for carriage of tank oil, and that at a less charge for mileage than actual cost 19 Schumacher Milling Co. V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61. 20 See Roth v. T. & P. Ry., 9 I. C. C. 602. 21 See Pennsylvania Refining Co. v. Western N. Y. & P. R. R., 208 U. S. 208, 52 L. ed. 456, 28 Sup. Ct. 268. of maintenance of the car; injury to the cars used for barrel oil unfitting them for general use; larger returnempty haul on box cars used for barrel oil than on tank cars; greater risk of such goods in transit and in depot, as well as greater danger to other freights in same train and in same depot in the case of barrel oil over that of tank oil, greater cost of service in loading and unloading barrel oil to and from the cars by the carrier, when tank oil is invariably loaded and unloaded by the shipper; inability of carrier to secure insurance on cars used for transporting barreled oil, while shipper of tank oil furnishes the car and assumes all risks.22 Such differences in the cost of the service should, it would seem, justify a carrier in making reasonable differences in its rates. § 725. Shipments in trainloads problematical. It is urged with considerable force that a railroad is justified under the rules that are now under discussion in giving a lower rate for a trainload consigned from one shipping point to one point of delivery, since it cannot be denied that there is at least a slight difference in the cost of handling the traffic in trainloads. But such concessions are dangerous, as it would tend to concentrate the business of the country into very few hands if a lower rate could be given to the great operator who could ship in train lots. At all events the Interstate Commerce Commission set itself against such special rates for train loads in Paine Bros. & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad. 23 "We perceive no sufficient reason for different rates on carload than on cargo or trainload shipments, whether the grain is carried for export or for domestic use. The principle involved in such a distinction violates the rule of equality and tends to defeat its just and wholesome purpose. That purpose is not fully accomplished if one scale of charges is 23 7 I. C. C. Rep. 218. " See Scofield v. Lake S. & M. S. Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 67, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 90. applied to cargo shipments and a higher rate is imposed for single carloads, even though all cargo shippers pay the same and all carload shippers are charged alike." 24 However, in several cases the bearing upon rates of trainload movements is discussed.25 In establishing ratings it is considered whether the hauling of certain goods in trainloads is the exception or the rule. 26 It has distinct weight in the rating of the commodity if the traffic moves in trainloads. 27 That traffic moves in trainload lots from one point, and in smaller lots from another point, was considered by the Commission in determining the relative reasonableness of rates. 28 But in certain other cases where the point was urged, the trainloading was not considered. 29 And as to the matter of special rates to shippers of carload quantities, the Commission is as clear to-day as ever that whatever may be cost of service, giving greater consideration to trainload than to carload traffic would be to prejudice of small shipper and the public. 30 § 726. Contracts for regular shipments. In some English cases concessions are permitted to shippers who agree to make regular shipments. The leading case for this is Nicholson v. Great Western Railway Company,31 where the court refused to restrain the company from giving lower rates to the Ruabon Coal Company than were given to the complainant in the shipment of coal, it appearing that there was a contract between the railroad company and the Ruabon Coal Company, whereby the coal company undertook to ship, for a period of 10 years, as much coal for a distance of at least 24 Carstens Packing Co. v. O. S. L. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 324, accord. 25 Taylor v. N. & W. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 613. 26 Traffic Bureau of Nashville v. L. & N. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 533. 27 R. R. Com'rs of Fla. v. S. Exp. Co., 28 I. C. C. 634. 28 Wharton Steel Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R., 25 I. C. C. 303. 29 Richards v. Atlantic C. L. Ry., 23 I. C. C. 239. 30 Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. C. & E. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 592. 315 C. B. (N. S.) 366. |