DECISIONS

OF THE

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

JOHN H. MARTIN AND M. H. MARTIN

v. THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, AND THE UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

Tried December 16, 1887.-Report filed May 17, 1888.

Mixed car-load lots of freight are treated in different ways under the classifications employed in different parts of the country, resulting in much confusion and annoyance to shippers, especially upon traffic passing from one section to another. The immediate adoption of a uniform and reasonable rule urgently recommended.

Classification of dried fruits and raisins, both California products, in different classes, taking different rates of freight, works an injustice to shippers. In all matters of classification clearness and simplicity should be aimed at, and irregularities and inconsistencies should be eliminated. Rates obtained by combination, which produce a lower rate than the tariff calls for, are unjust, because they enable an intelligent shipper to obtain an advantage over one who has less information; and they are illegal because they show two rates to the same point, over the same line, at the same time. The tariff rates should not exceed the combination rates in any case.

Violation of the fourth section of the Act can be accomplished by differences in classification as well as by differences in tariff rates. Canadian competition at the present time does not justify a higher charge from San Francisco to Denver than to Kansas City, it having been withdrawn at the latter point, and the Canadian road now working upon an agreement as to rates with the roads in the United States at all points where it formerly competed.

The great distance of Denver from the Missouri River of itself denotes an impropriety in the charges to that point which exceed those to Kansas City.

In re Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. (1 I. C. C. R., 31) affirmed: and in accordance with the principles there laid down the conclusion follows that the greater charge for the shorter haul complained of in the present case cannot now be justified.

The Commission prefers to permit the carriers to work out for themselves all tariff details; and accords a reasonable time for that purpose.

Patterson & Thomas and J. R. Doolittle, for complainants. McDonald, Bright & Fay and Charles H. Tweed, for the Southern Pacific Company.

A. J. Poppleton, Shellabarger & Wilson, and John S. Blair, for the Union Pacific Railway Company.

Charles H. Tweed, for the Central Pacific Railway Company

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

WALKER, Commissioner:

The complainants are wholesale grocers doing business at Denver, Colorado. Their complaint alleges that a much greater sum is charged for transportation of freight from San Francisco to Denver over the defendants' lines than is charged to Kansas City, 600 miles further east, and that the charge to Kansas City added to the charge on the same articles from Kansas City back to Denver, makes a less rate than the charge from San Francisco to Denver direct.

The answer of the Central Pacific Railway Company disclaims any participation in the traffic in question, its road being under lease. The answers of the Southern Pacific Company and the Union Pacific Railway Company claim that the higher charge for the shorter haul from San Francisco to Denver than to Kansas City, is justified by the competitive circumstances and conditions attending the longer traffic, and deny that the rates are less from San Francisco tto Kansas City and thence back to Denver than from San Francisco to Denver direct.

The commodities in respect to which the complaint was

made are dried fruits and raisins produced in California. The facts which are found from the evidence are as follows:

In July, 1887, John H. Martin, one of the complainants, was in San Francisco, and there purchased 6,400 lbs. of dried fruits, and 14,525 lbs. of raisins. After making inquiries of the agent of the Union Pacific Railway Company at that point, and of others, in respect to freight rates, he forwarded said articles, on August second, over the lines of the defendants, via Ogden and Cheyenne, consigned to his firm in Denver. The consignment aggregated 20,925 lbs., or a little more than the minimum car-load shipment, which, on the lines in question, is 20,000 lbs. No rate had been definitely agreed upon in advance of the shipment, and the firm was charged at the rate of $2.30 per hundred on the dried fruits, and $2.65 per hundred pounds on the raisins, aggregating five hundred and thirty-two dollars and eleven cents ($532.11) freight, which was paid on receipt of the goods at Denver on August ninth.

The charges so collected were assessed under the Western Classification, which was then in force upon the business in question, and which called for a third-class rate on dried fruits and a second-class rate on raisins, in less than car-load shipments. The same classification placed the same articles in car-load lots, dried fruits in the fourth class, and raisins in the third class, the rates on which respectively were $1.95 and $2.30.

Complainants in the previous winter had received a carload consignment of similar goods, from San Francisco to Denver, at the rate of $1.30 per hundred. They protested vigorously in respect to the charge collected on August ninth of $532.11; the former rate. would have been but $272.03.

First-Mixed Car-loads. It is obvious that the first question arising under these facts relates to what is known as "mixed car-load lots," where two or more articles, each having a car-load rate, are united to form a single car-load in the same consignment.,

Upon this subject the Western Classification contains the following provision :

"No two or more articles having a car-load rate shall be shipped in mixed car-loads at the car-load rate, unless so provided for in the classification."

The same classification, under the heading "Dried Fruit," contains the following:

"NOTE. All dried fruit taking the same classification in L. C. L. and in C. L. may be taken in mixed C. L. at the C. L. rate."

Dried fruits and raisins under this note were not entitled to be taken in mixed car-loads at the car-load rate because their classification was not the same. The charge exacted was in precise conformity to the requirements of the tariff and classification then in force.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, in connection with an informal complaint concerning the charges upon a certain shipment of wine and brandy in a single car from the Pacific coast had meanwhile taken up the subject of mixed carloads, in correspondence with the general traffic manager of the Southern Pacific Company; in the course of which the fact was developed that the rule of the Western Classification, above noted, was very different from the rule of the Pacific Coast East Bound Through Freight Classification, which was and is used upon business from the Pacific coast to points on the Missouri river and beyond. Rule 12 of the latter classification reads as follows:

"Articles Taking Different Rates-Car-loads. Following articles of a kind, as grouped, may take rates to which each class is entitled on its own weight. Example: 12,000 lbs. of beans and 8,000 lbs. of peas will take car-load rate for each article. Shipment must bear one mark and be to one consignee:

Alcohol, high wines, pure spirits, whisky, bitters, brandy, and wine (California), ale, beer and porter; beans and peas; bones, hoofs, and horns; borax and