carrying through unbroken carloads. These matters would receive further discussion at present were it not that these differences are fully treated under the head of discrimination later on.

§ 520. Shipment in form more convenient for handling.

6

Where the form of package results in a saving of expense to the carrier by reason of greater convenience of handling, a higher classification for the less convenient form of shipment will be justified. In one case it appeared that iron pipe fittings shipped in cases from northern points to southern territory took second-class rates, but if shipped in casks, barrels or kegs a special iron rate, lower than the sixth-class rate, was applied on any quantity. The Commission pointed out that "the barrel package is preferably used in the ordinary course of business because of its comparative cheapness. Even at the same or approximately equal rates boxes would not ordinarily be used, except when the quantity to be separately packed is insufficient to fill a barrel. In such a case the goods can be placed in a keg without much inconvenience or additional expense, and it can hardly be considered burdensome to require that kind of package if shippers desire to forward small lots at the special iron rate. The carrier offers that rate to all persons and on all quantities, provided the articles are sent in packages of barrel form; otherwise a higher rate is charged. The lower rate is not allowed for some exceptional or expensive mode of shipment, but on the package long in general use and apparently favored by shippers irrespective of rates, because of its suitability for the purpose and the low cost for which it can be procured. As the choice is wholly with the shipper it cannot be a hardship for him,

6 Trades League of Phila. v. P. W. & B. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 368.

The term knocked down in pieces, means that a machine must be

severed into all its component parts and these parts shipped as separate pieces. United Refrigerator Ice Machine Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 439.

under the circumstances disclosed, to pay the higher rate when he elects to pack his goods in cases." Upon the same ground the Commission has held that milk shipped in cans, by which method it could be carried more cheaply, ought, other things being equal, to have a lower rating than milk carried in bottles."

§ 521. Perishable freight.

It is obvious that perishable freight may be placed in a higher class than non-perishable goods of the same general nature. It requires special care in the carriage, greater speed, and special equipment, and the risk of loss to the carrier is greater. The transportation of fruit is of this nature, and a high special classification is permissible. In a case which involved the classification of bananas, the Commission said: "The kind of service required in the transportation of bananas is a somewhat exacting one. While not usually carried under refrigeration, a special ventilated car is needed. They must be handled with great expedition and in point of fact the Southern does transport them from Charleston to Richmond and Lynchburg and intermediate points by an express freight service which approximates a passenger schedule. The liability to damage is considerable, and it appears that claims for damage are frequently made." So in the case of melons, the Commissioner said: "Melons being perishable, rapid transit and prompt delivery are of the first importance and where the carrier renders a special service a higher rate than for the carriage of ordinary freight is warranted. The defendants furnish special trains for the melon traffic

7 Milk Producers' Protective Ass'n v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 92.

From a classification standpoint, the security of a package may with propriety be considered in fixing the rating. Western Classification Case, 25 I. C. C. 442.

8 Gardner v. Southern Ry., C. C. Rep. 342.

10 I.

That transportation of grapes entails special service may be a justification of advance. Western Fruit Jobbers' Ass'n v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 417.

and undertake to make quick movement and speedy delivery." "

$522. Less than usual care required.

Conversely, where the commodity requires less than ordinary care that fact is to be considered in lowering its classification.10 "Coal is among the most desirable kinds of traffic. The reasons for this have been several times stated by the Commission and need not be repeated here in detail. The cost of receiving, transporting and delivering that commodity is less than in case of almost any other article of freight. Its value is not great, the hazard of loss in transit is insignificant, it is an article of universal necessity in daily life, and as a steam fuel it furnishes the basis of many other industries. Coal rates in this country are usually highly competitive, and this fact, together with its desirability as traffic, and the large quantities which are moved have produced on the average a very low rate." 11

§ 523. Unusual care in handling required.

In regard to explosives the argument has been made that one-half of the rate on dynamite is for the transportation service, and the other half for risk or insurance. 12 And clearly a much higher rate on explosives is justified on account of risk of accident.13 Rates on explosives should vary according to the risk attending the transportation of each particular kind.14 Thus masurite, which is a

'Loud v. South Carolina Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 205, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 529.

These observations do not apply exclusively to food stuffs; lime is a commodity requiring perishablefreight service. Iowa-Minnesota Cement Rates, 28 I. C. C. 477.

10 Denison L. & P. Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 337.

11 Central Y. P. Ass'n v. Illinois

C. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 505, applies the same principles to lumber transportation.

12 Dupont de Nemours Powder Co. v. C. R. R. of N. J., 25 I. C. C. 19.

13 U. S. v. W. & N. R. R., 26 I. C. C. 309.

14 Blumenstein v. P. & R. Ry., 21 I. C. C. R. 90.

high explosive, but not dangerous to handle, should be accorded a lower rate than dynamite, the handling of which is attended with great danger.1 15 Oil in less than carload shipments is not a desirable traffic; there is more or less leakage, giving rise to damage claims on account of other commodities shipped in the same car which may be injured both by direct contact with the oil and by the odor therefrom; and it is, therefore, necessary to handle small, less than carload lots, in separate cars and on account of its inflammable nature extreme care must be exercised in its movement.16 Likewise a charge of third-class rates on raw tallow in barrels or other packages with cloth covers is not shown to be unreasonable, although the charge for such commodity in barrels or casks with wooden covers is fourth class, in view of the fact that the barrels when covered with cloth can be placed by the carriers in one position only during transit, and also because of the fact that on account of its disgusting character it endangers other traffic when reshipped."

524. Classification based on volume of business.

A difference in classification based on the amount of a shipment, or the number of shipments, where the amount does not lead to any economy of management on the part of the carrier, is not justifiable. Thus a difference of classification of surgical chairs and sewing machines, based on the fact that few surgical chairs and many sewing machines are offered for carriage, is improper. 18 "The mere fact that one article, for example, sewing machines, is shipped 'in greater quantities' than surgical chairs, when each as a rule is shipped in less than carload quantities, and of no large difference in bulk, weight and value, and of no appreciable difference in expense of handling and of 15 Masurite Explosive Co. V. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 405.

16 Marshall Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 210.

17 Green Bay Soap Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 609.

18 Harvard Co. v. Pennsylvania Ry., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 257, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 212.

haul, that this alone should constitute in itself any reason why the former should enjoy lower rates or classification than the latter, merely for the reason that they are shipped 'in greater quantities,' is a doctrine to which we cannot give our assent. In such a case mere quantity, not measured by a recognized unit of quantity adapted to carriage and lessening the expense of handling and carriage, cannot be allowed to affect rates in the transportation of property. The small dealer is entitled to just and reasonable rates on his product, as much so as many and large dealers, and any discrimination between them in rates based upon the idea that the one class of persons makes many shipments while the other makes but few is unjust and unreasonable under the Act to Regulate Commerce. It is a discrimination in favor of one kind of traffic as against another in the vital matter of rates, and is unlawful." 19

§ 525. Large volume of traffic in a certain commodity.

But though such a difference as that just examined will not justify a difference in classification, the case is entirely different where the volume of traffic in a certain commodity is so great as to justify a certain special method of handling it. Thus the enormous traffic in grain in the west justifies a special classification for it; and so the vast traffic in lumber in Georgia should be considered in the classification of that commodity.20 So the great volume of shipments of flour as compared with other cereal products justifies a lower classification of flour.21 The volume of traffic which may be considered, as has been seen, is the entire traffic in the commodity in question. It is not permissible to consider the amount of traffic furnished by a single shipper. 22 "The

19 The only discrimination which can legally be made between a large shipment and a small one must be based upon the difference in the cost of service. California Commercial Ass'n v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 14 I. C. C. 422.

20 Tift v. Southern Ry., 138 Fed. 753.

21 Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep.

61.

22 Warner v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 74, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 32.