who desired a lower classification. The Commission said: 81 "By this classification it takes the rates of the other kinds of property in the class. These consist largely of articles in glass packed like the bitters in boxes for transportation. Among them are: acids, apple or fruit butter, bromine, cider, coffee condensed, drugs and medicines, honey, ink, liquors, or liquids, milk food, oils, paints, pickles, prunes, syrup, and a variety of others. There is no apparent injustice in classifying the bitters with such articles. And a rate that is reasonable for the class is reasonable for an article properly included in the class. The petitioners suffer no injustice, therefore, peculiar to themselves, from the classification of their goods. If the classification of their bitters should be changed the same reasons would compel a like change of a large number of similar articles." 82 § 515. Dry goods. Window shades and various articles of dry goods were thus compared.83 "In the elements of bulk, weight and value, several of the dry-goods articles described in the table set out in the sixth finding as taking third class rates have greater similarity to a 23-dozen case of finished shades than exist between such a case of shades and the first-class articles mentioned in that table. There is, however, little analogy in uses or character between window shades and the dry-goods articles referred to. With the exception of lace curtains, these articles are dry goods in the piece; and lace curtains are in the category of ornamental house furnishings, while the window shade is regarded as a household necessity. But the fact that both shades and lace curtains are in the first class, the latter many times more valuable, is an element to be 81 Myers v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 403, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 573. 82 The rating on articles in glass may properly be higher than the rat ing on articles in bulk. Western noted, though against this it must be considered that many incongruities are unavoidable when the carriers undertake, as they do by the Official Classification, to divide the great mass of freight articles into practically six classes; and the desirability of simplicity in the classification is a feature which should not be overlooked. The items of similar bulk and weight, less value and risk of carriage, and important volume of traffic, are all in the direction of giving to window shades a classification as low as that which is provided for window hollands." 84 § 516. Difference between commodities. When articles are plainly different in character, they are rightly put in different classes. In a case where it was attempted to compare salt and grain 85 the Commission said that there was no sufficient similarity between salt and grain to make a comparison in any degree instructive. In a recent proceeding the complainant attacked the classification first class on wire brooms and brushes as unreasonable, compared with toilet brushes taking the same rates. Wire brushes are not intended for toilet use, and are a rough, heavy, low-priced product, made for the most part of unfinished hardwood blocks, brush wire and common wire nails and used for scrubbing and cleaning rough surfaces. These brushes and brooms are immune from damage in transit, and packed for shipment, weigh 38 lbs. per cubic foot; average value per cubic foot, $6.15, while toilet brushes have an average value of about $27.00 per cubic foot. Upon this showing the Commission held that wire brooms and brushes should take a lower rate than the finer class of brushes and brooms, and should be rated as third class.86 84 Mohair should not pay a higher rate than wool. National Mohair Growers' Ass'n v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 23 I. C. C. R. 180. Cotton piece goods compared with dry goods. Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 205. 85 Anthony Salt Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 1, 43. 86 Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R., 13 I. C. C. 109. § 517. Raw material and manufactured products. It was early held that a court would not uphold an order of the Commission to the effect that the same rate should be charged for the cheaper grade of window shades as for the most expensive.87 But it has recently been deIcided that it is not undue and unreasonable discrimination against the Chicago packing house industries, on the part of the railroads, in making lower rate for manufactured packing house products than for live stock, on account of competition.88 The general rule is that manufactured products bear higher rates than raw material; but there are some exceptions to this rule. As a traffic matter, the Commission realizes that the value of raw material and manufactured products substantially differs, and frequently the risk incident to transportation of latter is greater. Maintaining a rate on cottonseed in excess of the rate concurrently charged on cottonseed oil, subjects the former commodity, and the shippers thereof, to undue prejudice and disadvantage.90 Staves are a manufactured product, and should not take a lower rating than lumber.91 The rate on malt may properly be higher than the rate on the barley from which it is manufactured.92 The rate on plain wire entering into manufacture of spring beds should be lower than the rate on spring beds.93 Sulphuric acid is strictly a raw material in the manufacture of fertilizer, and distinctly lower rates should be applied to its transportation than upon the manufactured fertilizer.94 While the manufactured product commonly takes a higher rate than the raw material it has been held that the 87 Interstate Commerce Comm. v. D., L. & W. Ry., 64 Fed. 723. 88 Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Chicago Gt. W. Ry., 209 U. S. 108, 52 L. ed. 705, 28 Sup. Ct. 493. 89 East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R., 20 I. C. C. R. 37. 90 Louisville Cotton Seed Products Co. v. L. & N. R. R., 26 I. C. C. 607. 91 Holland Blow Stave Co. v. A. C. L. R. R., 27 I. C. C. 488. 92 Texas Brewing Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 21 I. C. C. R. 171. 93 Leggett & Platt Spring Bed & Mfg. Co. v. M. P. Ry., 22 I. C. C. R. 513. 94 International Agricultural Corporation v. L. & N. R. R., 22 I. C. C. R. 488. maintenance of a parity of rates on wheat and flour tends to equalize conditions at all points at which flourmilling industries exist, and seems to be a sound rate policy.95 There is no justification, however, for higher rates on wheat than on flour; and an arrangement similar to that proposed at Chicago should be made effective on wheat milled at Lockport.96 Likewise it has been held that the same rate on petroleum and its products, is not improper.97 The general principle is, however, usually respected to the effect that the carrier may make reasonable differentials between rates on raw material and articles manufactured therefrom.98 Nothing is better established than that a manufactured article usually should take higher rating than the raw materials from which they are made.99 Topic D. Differences between Commodities Carried § 518. Classification based on the package. " 1 It seems to be true as a general principle that a shipper should be left free to ship in such package as suits his convenience, and therefore that a classification based on kind or size of package is improper. So where the carriers attempted to classify eggs carried in "returnable cases,' that is, cases substantially built and comparatively expensive, lower than eggs carried in cheaper cases, though as a matter of fact the cheaper cases served their purpose equally well and caused no additional trouble or expense to the carrier, the Commission held the proposed classification invalid. A shipper, the Commission said, should not be subjected to unnecessary restrictions as to the kind of case he should use. And the Commission is equally 95 Bulte Milling Co. v. C. & A. R. R., 15 I. C. C. 351. 6 National Refining Co. v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry., 20 I. C. C. R. R. 649. "Electric Malting Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 23 I. C. C. R. 378. 98 Eastern Wheel M'frs Ass'n v. A. & V. Ry., 27 I. C. C. 370. 99 Bulte Milling Co. v. C. & A. R. R., 15 I. C. C. 351. 1 Rhode Island E. & B. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 512, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 176. clear that a railroad should not make excessive charges against bulky and lengthy articles." But of course a carrier can make higher rates for such freights than for goods of the average character in these respects.3 § 519. Business expensive to handle. Where the service is usually expensive to handle a relatively larger rate is plainly justifiable. So when perishable meats are forwarded a special equipment is required resulting in a higher rate. Where, however, no special equipment is necessary, as for lumber which may go by any kind of car without special equipment, the rate must be much lower. And although not perishable a much higher rate could be charged upon valuable ores than upon coal by reason of the additional risk of loss in transit. So if an article is bulky, out of usual proportion to its weight, as straw hats, a much higher rate per hundred pounds can be charged than for pig lead. So if goods are packed in convenient packages for handling, as hardware in casks, a lower rate can be made than for uncrated furniture. And, to reserve the most important illustration of this principle to the last, a much lower rate can be made for goods shipped in carload lots than for package freight by reason of the obvious economy of 5 A barrel is a package, and brimstone in barrels would ordinarily be termed package shipments, as distinguished from loose brimstone in bulk, and be rated as such. McLaughlin G. K. Co. v. Maine S. S. Co., 22 I. C. C. 108. 3 Brunswick B. C. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 23 I. C. C. 395. Classification is sometimes made with respect to the manner of packing of articles. Metropolitan Paving Brick Co. v. A. A. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 197. 4 Weight in relation to bulk must be taken into consideration in fram ing classifications and rates. Ford Co. v. M. C. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 507. See also in relation to bulk as an element in classification. Michigan Seating Co. v. G. I. W. Ry., 29 I. C. C. 123. 5 Charges may properly be made somewhat higher for transportation of show cases in crates than in boxes. Wadell Show Case & Cabinet Co. v. M. C. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 106. Weight per cubic foot enters into determination of proper classification. Yawman & E. Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 15 I. C. C . 260. |