the court, it is surprising that the effect which is accorded to the report of a commissioner or referee should, in the same page of the opinion, be denied to a report of the Commission.

There certainly appears to be no reason, in the nature of things, why that effect can not and should not be given to the reports of the Commission. It is true that in the case of a master's report original proceedings have been commenced in the court itself, and the master acts under an order of reference from the court. But this is of no consequence; the law can surely create a tribunal for the preliminary investigation of any class of questions, give that tribunal's decisions at least the effectiveness of a master's report, and confine the revisory power of the regular courts to the case actually made out before such tribunal.

The commission therefore recommends the enactment of an amendment to the existing law, which shall embody substantially the following provisions and principles relative to hearings before the Commission, and to proceedings to enforce its orders, viz:

That notice of the time and place of hearing, and the opportunity to appear and be heard, shall be given by the commission to all parties interested.

That the production of testimony before the commission shall be governed by the rules of evidence prevailing on the chancery side of the Federal courts, any party being given the right to except to the admission or rejection of testimony.

That the report of the commission, after hearing, shall state specifically what changes, if any, should be made, and what action, if any, should be taken by any common carrier in respect to the matters under investigation, in order to conform its conduct and the management of its business to the requirements of this act.

That a copy of the report, with an order to cease from violating the law, be served on the carriers as now provided.

That in case of disobedience to the order of the Commission, the record of proceedings before the Commission, together with a copy of its recommendations, etc., shall be certified into court, with a petition asking the court to enforce obedience to the order of the Commission, notice of such application being duly given.

That the court shall be empowered thereupon to determine, upon request of parties, whether any matter embraced in the recommendations and order of the Commission entitles the carrier to a jury trial; and to frame an issue covering such matter, if any, for a trial by jury on the law side of the court. On the trial of such issue any relevant legal testimony to be admissable, and the proceedings at and after the trial to be in all respects as if the trial were had in an action at common law. That as to all matters embraced in there commendations and order of the Commission not requring jury trial, or as to which jury trial is not demanded, the court sitting as a court of equity shall proceed to hear and decide them, notwithstanding the pendency of any issue for jury trial.

That the hearing by the court, as to all matters not requiring jury trial, shall be confined to the record of proceedings had before the Commission, and to such errors in the record as shall be specifically pointed out by parties alleging error therein. That if the record discloses no error in the recommendation and order of the Commission, plainly prejudicial to the parties alleging error therein, the court shall enforce the same by proper process.

That if the record does disclose error in the recommendations and decisions of the Commission, plainly prejudicial to the parties alleging error therein, the court shall either make such final order as may be proper, or recommit the case to the Commission.

The constitutional guarantee of jury trial, it is believed, is here fully met; and, in cases not requiring jury trial, every requirement for the validity of a master's report and for its return into court, with the evidence on which it is based, is here provided for.

Every year of the Commission's experience only confirms its opinion of the necessity for this amendment. No more authoritativeness, it is to be remembered, is asked for the reports and decisions of the Commission than the law and universal practice gives to reports of masters in chancery of the Federal courts. With less than this the investigations of commissions generally can, to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall quoted in a preceding page, "be of little avail."

The Commission believes that it would also be wise to provide in the act for rehearings by the Commission of cases which have been heard and decided, either by the Commission or in court, where a change of circumstances and conditions may render expedient a modification or reversal of previous orders.

UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.

In every report heretofore made by the Commission the question of a uniform classification of freights has received attention.

In the report for 1887 the origin and diversity of classification of freights was treated of, the general necessity for a classification was discussed, the desirability of uniformity was explained, and some of the difficulties in the way of accomplishing uniformity were set forth. Some of the principles underlying the system of classification were also examined, as illustrating the difficulties in the way of arriving at uniformity upon all lines and in all sections of the country. The opinion was however expressed that despite all these difficulties the tendency was in the direction of uniform classification, and a doubt was expressed whether that tendency would be hastened by conferring upon a National Commission the power to make a common classification of interstate traffic for the interstate carriers of the country.

In its next report the Commission was able to state that very considerable progress in the direction of uniformity had been voluntarily made by the carriers during the preceding year. Attention was in that report particularly called to the adoption by the trunk lines, socalled, of the official classification, which to a large extent superseded a number of independent and conflicting classifications which had previously prevailed in the territory east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers, a section where a greater volume of business is done by the railroads than in any other part of the country. It was observed of the official classification that it had not at first been entirely satisfactory to the parties agreeing upon it, and that it had from time to time been somewhat changed, though not radically. Other con

solidations of conflicting classifications into one, or a few, of compara tive harmony were shown to have been accomplished within certain fairly well-defined sections of the country.

The principal classifications then prevailing were stated to be the Official, the Western, and the Southern Railway and Steamship Association classifications, existing, respectively, in the sections of country roughly outlined as follows: The first in the territory east of and including Chicago and St. Louis and north of the Ohio River; the second in the territory west, north, and southwest from Chicago and St. Louis; and the third, in the territory south of the Ohio and Potomac and east of the Mississippi. Mention was made in this report of an effort made by a conference of railway representatives to merge the Official and Western classifications into one, a result which, if accomplished, would have been a long stride in the direction of uniformity, but which, unfortunately, failed of being realized. The reasons for the failure were thus given in the report on classification adopted at the conference referred to. The report is here given at length, because it may be presumed to be a presentation from the carriers' standpoint of the difficulties attendant upon the formation of a uniform classification.

The committee, consisting of representatives of the trunk lines of the Central Traffic Association and of the organizations extending westward from Chicago and St. Louis, appointed to prepare for submission a classification which should govern in the interchange of all freight traffic, excepting that destined to and from the Pacific coast, at its last meeting held in New York July 19 and 20, 1888, unanimously

Resolved, That this committee, while recognizing the desirability of a uniform classification, report that after patient and prolonged conferences held for the purpose of formulating such a classification, it is unable at this time to agree upon one which it can recommend for adoption.

Among the reasons which led to the foregoing conclusions may be stated the following:

When the joint conference committee was appointed in September last it was believed the time had come for the adoption of one classification which should govern on all freight traffic interchanged between eastern and western railroads. The disparities which prevailed in the classifications used respectively east and west of the Mississippi River had been brought to the notice of various authorities, State and commercial, and they in turn had drawn the attention thereto of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The last-named body, it was thought, would be obliged to move in the direction of greater uniformity in freight classification, and rather than by waiting invite such action, those who spoke for the railroad companies advised that steps be taken to at least remove the more glaring differences which existed between the classifications of the eastern and western roads. Moreover, the progress of events had pointed plainly in the direction of uniformity. Previous to the adoption of the interstate law there were numerous classifications in effect in the territory served by the trunk lines and their affiliated roads. With a zeal and pertinacity unprecedented, a committee representing the lines just described had, a few weeks before the interstate law became effective, addressed themselves resolutely to the task of consolidating into one the various classifications which long had been recognized between the Mississippi River and the Atlantic seaboard, thus creating one classification adapted to the requirements of the traffic in the most populous

district of the country. Not only were there numerous local clsssifications thus to be taken up, but the rates and the classifications were not the same eastward bound as they were westward bound on the traffic interchanged between the East and the West. Westward bound there were but five regular classes, while eastward bound there were thirteen.

To make the rates applicable in either direction and embrace the numerous commodities within six classes was, therefore, a great undertaking; but, although many were skeptical regarding the outcome, patiently and persistently it was carried to a successful completion. The trunk lines having thus adapted to their local and through freight traffic in either direction one classification, known now as the Official, it was urged that the way had been paved for the march still further toward uniformity. With that view your committee was appointed, and in the hope of achieving ultimate success the work was begun.

Six conferences were held, in addition to the one at which this report was agreed upon, each extending over a period of several days. Soon it became apparent that radical differences existed in the requirements and conditions of the sections east and west of the Mississippi River respectively. The former desired not to increase the difference between the less than car lot and the car-lot rates on the same commodities, and to preserve as ne arly as possible the relations they had established between the several classes, while the latter urged that on account of the cost of operating and the comparatively small tonnage in the sparsely settled West, they could not afford to add to the number of less than car-lot classes, nor could they profitably handle and foster their traffic without exercising greater latitude than was proposed in the making of rates and the differences between the same. Hence, they desired that eight classes be adopted, with the understanding that all less than car lots be included in the first four classes, thus limiting the remaining four classes to articles carried in car lots.

Such a proposition, while manifestly in the interest of the western lines, because adapted to their circumstances and essential to their profitable operation, could not consistently be accepted by the trunk lines. For years the latter had operated without any difference in merchandise rates westward between car lots and less; therefore, when they consented to the adoption of six classes and the recognition of numerous car lots, as shown in the official classification, they had gone quite as far as it was believed they could with safety go, in view of the long-established custom prevailing in this respect throughout the territory between the seaboard and the Mississippi River. The result was, at this point, a difference in views between eastern and western members, which could not well be reconciled; and the work subsequently done by the committee, in proposing to rate less than car lot articles below fourth class was in most, if not all, cases affected by a majority vote-the East having eight and the West seven members of the committee.

Notwithstanding this difference, lines leading to the Missouri River were disposed to proceed with the work, and if possible adopt one classification to govern between the Atlantic seaboard and the Missouri River points, Saint Paul, and Minneapolis. Resolutions looking to that end were at one time adopted by western and northwestern lines, but before the suggestions made could be carried out events took another turn.

From causes not necessary now to be enumerated the western roads became involved in a widespread and disastrous rate war, during which those in civil authority intimated they might be obliged to prescribe for the roads schedules approximating the charges which at times had by the carriers been voluntarily made. Accordingly, when the Iowa commissioners promulgated a schedule of rates for the roads in that State which, by the companies interested, was considered ruinously low, the authorities in Nebraska and Minnesota gave notice of their desire to follow the example set. Thus the Western roads were confronted with reductions which in no event could they expect wholly to escape. Through tariffs to Missouri River

points had already been greatly reduced, and local rates in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas were certain to reach a level not anticipated by the most despondent when the work of your committee was begun. The effect of those reductions upon the revenues of the Western roads was viewed by the managers with alarm, and as they had been informed the adoption of the classification outlined by your committee would involve them in further reductions, they were understood to shrink from assuming an additional loss which they could just as well avoid.

Besides, the question of practicability had not been fully considered when it was proposed to carry a union classification as far as the Missouri River. Lines leading from Chicago and St. Louis own, operate, or control several thousand miles of road west of the Missouri River. If they should attempt to use one classification to and another west of the line just described it would oblige them to divide their systems at that point, inasmuch as through tariffs could not be issued in simple form from Chicago, St. Louis, and points common therewith, as they now are, to the multiplicity of stations west of the Missouri River, unless one classification should govern throughout. Otherwise they would be compelled to print commodity tariffs to the many common points on their own lines and those of their connections west of the Missouri River. This, it was evident, could not readily be done.

Meantime, the position thus taken was confirmed by the action of roads interested in the transcontinental and other traffic. Those lines met early in June, and at once set about formulating freight tariffs, subject to the Western classification. This involved a vast amount of labor, inasmuch as the various articles enumerated had to be carefully scanned, and a considerable number requiring special treatment were placed in commodity lists. With those exceptions, it was agreed that the Western should supersede the Pacific coast classification on business from Mississippi River points and Chicago destined to the Pacific coast. At the same time an award, by one chosen to determine certain disputed questions pertaining to El Paso and other traffic, decreed that the Western classification should hereafter govern on freight destined to El Paso, Eagle Pass, and the Republic of Mexico, and tariff's were issued accordingly.

Shortly before the Texas connections of the Fort Worth and Denver City Railroad had consented to adopt the Western classification on business carried to and from Colorado and Utah. Furthermore, the Texas lines signified their willingness to unite with the Western roads in the adoption of a joint classification. Hence, it was presumed that within a brief time there would practically be but one classification in use in the territory west of Chicago and the Mississippi River. The impression was that in thus securing uniformity in the territory west of that reached by the trunk lines, they would possibly be accomplishing as much as did the latter when they consolidated into one the many classifications which previously governed in the district between the Atlantic and the Mississippi, north of the Ohio River.

The divergent views herein before described as held by your committee have been honestly entertained, and the conclusions reached, both on the part of the East and the West, are such as the varying circumstances and conditions of each section seem to make necessary. It remains for your committee to express their sincere regret that after so much earnest toil their expectations of being able at this time to submit for your approval a joint classification are doomed to disappointment.

The Commission was disposed to recognize fully the embarrassments of the situation as here depicted, and deemed it its duty to state "that all action taken on the subject should lead toward uniformity, but that to force it at once would be undesirable." It was deemed proper, also, to call attention to the fact that the carriers are by no means the only parties to be affected by a general harmonizing of the various classifications. As classification is but a general method of establishing rates