handed down a reversal of this decision setting forth this general principle: "The outlook of the Commission and its powers must be greater than the interest of the railroads or of that which may affect those interests. It must be as comprehensive as the interest of the whole country. If the problems which as presented to it, therefore, are complex and difficult, the means of solving them are as great and adequate as can be provided." § 1385. No obligation to make preferential rates. How weak the argument is in favor of preferential rates of any kind is disclosed by one feature not perhaps as yet sufficiently emphasized. The utmost that these cases permitting preferential treatment have decided is that the company which adopts one of these policies to get business may perhaps be justified for making disproportionate rates. But it should be noted that no company receives any condemnation which ignores these policies altogether in fixing its rates. Even the most enthusiastic economists would not go so far as to argue that the railroads must make it their policy to equalize natural advantages, to the end that all regions shall have equal access to central markets. Certainly legislation designed to enforce relative equality between rates is not outrageous; and surely no rate making body would compel the establishing of preferential rates.2 § 1386. Due consideration of true differences. But even if the general principle against every sort of discrimination is held to cover not only absolute discrim 1A State may insist upon an equality of rates under equivalent conditions. Seaboard Air Line Co. v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. ed. 175, 27 Sup. Ct. 109 (1906). 2 A State may enforce equality of local rates even if loss results. Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Mississippi R. R. Comm., 203 U. S. 496, 51 L. ed. 289, 27 Sup. Ct. 163 (1906). ination when the conditions are the same, but also relative discrimination when the conditions are different, the difficult condition must be faced that while the rule against absolute discrimination is in its nature exact and will be seen to be violated if the slightest difference is made in the rates charged to patrons asking substantially the same service, the rule against relative discrimination, on the other hand, must in its nature be inexact, for there are many elements which go to make up the difference between services really unlike, all of which must be taken into account. Whether or not the different rates charged for different services are really disproportionate is not therefore to be settled by any simple computation. Thus in fixing the relative rates between different localities it is obvious that it is not a matter of mileage alone, for it is well known that the cost per ton per mile tends to diminish with the length of the haul; still other elements must be considered, such as the increase in the cost of haulage by heavy grades, of the decrease in the cost by handling a dense traffic. In determining whether there is clear disproportion between the varying rates charged to different localities, all these considerations and many more must be taken into account before a decision can be made. Topic B. Discrimination Between Services Rendered § 1387. Disproportionate rates for different services. Similar difficulties are encountered in reviewing different rates upon different commodities. Obviously this is not a question of the relative values of these commodities, although that is one element; other factors, such as the care required in handling, the speed necessary, the equipment requisite and the volume of business, must be taken into account before it can be said with any confidence that there is unreasonable disproportion in the relative rates. But although the rule has inherent difficulties in its application, it cannot be that in expert hands it is really impossible to give it sufficient enforcement to prevent gross injustice. And despite all outcry by railroad managers to the effect that it is practically impossible for others to determine the cost of service, it cannot be that these managers themselves in fixing their own rates have no principles for the determination of relative costs. § 1388. Charging what the traffic will bear. Before the lawyers got control of the problem of the regulation of rates, the economists had developed a theory that rates should correspond with value, since the more valuable the commodity, the more it could afford to pay for its carriage. Of course those who are running railroads did not need to be taught the business advantage of charging "what the traffic will bear," but it was pleasing to them to hear the system defended by the economists. However, few lawyers have ever been able to see why a carrier should be allowed to constitute himself, as it were, a tax gatherer. Indeed it seems to most lawyers eminently unjust that a railroad with its virtual monopoly should be allowed to impose such charges as it may extort. The economist used to commend the railroads for making rates so as to create markets, praise which the railroad managers willingly accepted. But the general public led by the lawyers have always been restive under this immemorial justification of benevolent despotism; for the power is too great to be intrusted to private hands without legal standards for effective control. § 1389. Difference in rate between freight classes. It has been pointed out that there are great differences between the rates payable for transportation for the same distances upon goods in different classes. There is no fixed percentage for fixing the differentiation even of the six classes usually established; still less is there any definite rule for the differences to be made between commodities with extra class rating. But it is matter of common knowledge that there are great differences between rates payable by the different classes, the highest class usually paying for the same transportation many times what is paid by the lowest class. All that can be said in general is that the principles as to rate making apply here as elsewhere and that the burden must be thrown upon the various classes without outrageous disproportion. The principles governing this matter have already been given. If the charge is excessive as compared with the charges of the same corporation for other commodities of like bulk and weight, value and risk it would seem to be improper. That such comparisons are generally resorted to is proof enough that the rule against disproportion is generally observed. To be sure the practice has been to make relatively very low rates below the class rates for commodities which would not move otherwise and very high rates, double first class for example, against valuable products which will bear the higher rates. It may be admitted that a great difference, although not so great a difference, may be made between these two extremes of the schedule, even by the theory which has chief regard to the comparative costs of service. But whether so great a gap as now exists will be permitted in the future is a question. § 1390. Differences should not be grossly dispropor tionate. To go to one extreme it is held low grade commodities may be carried at rates relatively very low indeed. Provided that the rate is remunerative, the other classes cannot complain that the rate is disproportionately low, since unless such a rate were made the traffic would not be got and the higher classes would lose the benefit. On the other hand, just because high grade commodities will stand a rate relatively very much higher, it is not justifiable to charge them outrageously disproportionate rates. The principle to be deduced from all the cases which have just been discussed is plainly that the differences in rates between the classes in a classification should not be disproportionate. § 1391. Comparison the basis of the differential. In a recent case in the United States Supreme Court 1 not only the question of the relation of car-load rates to less than car-load rates, but also the relation of less than car-load rates to each other was thus elaborately dealt with. "The question presented is not one involving only the proper relation of soap in less than carload lots, to soap in carload lots, but also its proper relation to other articles in less than carload lots. Freight is carried either in carload lots, or in less than carload lots. This division of freight necessarily attends transportation by rail. Classification, within the meaning of the act to regulate commerce, relates to these divisions separately. The classification of soap in less than carload lots is not controlled by the classification of soap in carload lots, nor is the reclassification of soap in less than carload lots controlled by the relation it bears to other articles in less than carload lots, that relation is to be determined by the degree in which, in comparison with such other articles, its handling and carrying is, or may be, affected by the cost of the service, competitive and commercial con 1 Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U. S. 142, 51 L. ed. 995, 27 Sup. Ct. 648 (1907). See also Tucker v. |