§ 571. Propriety of making extra charges. While in the United States ordinarily the single rate includes all charges, upon the European continent freight rates do not appear to be made in this way. There is, first of all, a terminal charge, which applies to all traffic, to which a charge for movement is added.45 In England at the present time a shipper may require the railroad company to segregate the rate, determining what part of it is fairly a terminal charge, and if he does not take advantage of the terminal facilities, he may demand under some circumstances a reduction in the rate to that amount; but, with us, the rate ordinarily includes the cost of delivery. It would seem to follow that extra charges should not generally be made by the carrier for the use of its facilities in delivering his property to the consignee; but this is not altogether agreed." 46 § 572. Freight should cover the entire transportation. By the general principle governing this matter also, the freight rate should cover the entire carriage, taking the goods up, transporting them to their destination and setting them down. The general considerations which seem to dictate this fundamental rule are well set forth in the following quotation: 47 "The freight demanded covers the entire service of the carrier from depot to depot. It is in law the compensation, not only for the actual carriage, but also for the facilities furnished for loading and unloading. The service is a single one, and the compensation is likewise single. The law will not permit the charge for such single service to be divided. A carrier cannot make up its bill of charges in items,-one for loading, one for carriage, one for personal service of attendants, one for delivery, etc. The freight is not an aggregate of separate 45 See North Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Salt Union, Ltd., 10 R. & C. T. Cas. 161. 46 See also Beadell V. Eastern Counties R. Co., 2 C. B. (N. S.) 509. 47 Grosscup, J., in Union Trust Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 64 Fed. 992. charges, but a single charge. This policy of the law is not because a particular shipper might not deal with the carrier as intelligently in the case of one method as in the other, but because the public is not so likely to deal intelligently with a series of items as with a single freight rate. The shipper may be intelligent or unintelligent, ignorant or educated, accustomed to business, or inexperienced in such affairs, deliberate and careful, or hasty and uninquiring. The service of the carrier is for one as well as the other. A single charge presents to him at once the whole problem. A series of charges might confuse him, and leave uncertain what, in the end, the aggregate would be." 11 48 § 573. No separate charge for a part of the transit. In a recent proceeding Commissioner Lane 49 had occasion in his opinion to discuss the extent to which the obligation of transportation under the through rate goes under American practice. The American railroad rate, he said in substance, has always been recognized as covering the full service which the carrier gives in furnishing the car, a proper place at which to load it, the conveyance of that loaded car, and its terminal delivery. The charge for these various services is not in America broken up into its component parts, and a charge imposed for each, as in England. The rate, which it requires shall be published, is a complete rate which includes not only the charge for haul, but the charge for the use of the terminals at both ends of the line. As matters now stand, determination of these questions is left very much to the instructions of the Commission. As Mr. Justice Lamar said comprehensively in a recent case 50 where the charges to be made for fruit 48 See Southern Pacific Co. v. Patterson, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 27 S. W. 194, holding that an intermediate bridge charge could not be added to a through rate making it in excess of rate fixed by law. 49 Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 18 I. C. C. 310; affirmed as Interstate Commerce Commission v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 234 U. S. 294, 34 Sup. Ct. 814. 50 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. moving under refrigeration were in question, what is a proper rate on fruit in precooling shipments, or a fair charge for hauling necessary ice or rendering other transportation services, are all rate making matters committed to the Commission. It may prescribe the form in which schedules shall be prepared and arranged; and may approve tariffs stating that the single rate includes both the line haul and accessorial services absorbed in the rate. Conversely, it may prescribe a tariff fixing a through rate which includes not only the haul of the fruit, but the haul of the ice necessary to keep the fruit in condition. All these are matters committed to the decision of the administrative body, which, in each instance, is required to fix reasonable rates and establish reasonable practices. § 574. Charges for services during transportation. It has been seen that in general the protection which the railroad gives to goods in transit is an integral part of an indivisible service, and it should therefore be all included in the single rate made for the carriage. But there are some extraordinary services required in the case of particular shipments which may so vary in each case that it will be plainly justifiable, if not requisite, to make separate charges for them.51 An illustration of this possibility seems to be the charge commonly made separately for icing at the initial point and re-icing during transit of a refrigerator car containing a shipment of perishable freight. For this is a service specially required for this class of commodities, varying for different things which require different degrees of refrigeration, definitely ascertainable so that it can be charged against the particular shipment and United States, 232 U. S. 199, 34 51 See some of the original rulings on such services as Terminal charges.-Truck Farmers' Assoc. v. Northeastern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295; Cattle Raisers' Assoc. v. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 295; Re Transportation of Fruit, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 360, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 83. Elevator Charges.-In re Allowances to Elevators, 10 I. C. C. Rep. altogether separate therefore. 52 At one time the status of this charge was not clearly determined, although it has always seemed plain that it is so necessary a part of modern transportation that a railroad ought to see to it that refrigeration is provided at a reasonable price. At all events, in recent years there has been no doubt, with the increase of the power of the Commission over services intimately connected with transportation, of its jurisdiction over such an auxiliary service as refrigeration.53 The conditions under which a railroad may be compelled to furnish facilities for transportation under refrigeration are now well established as, for example, icing in transit; and it seems clear that unless the railroad has established a system of its own for such a preliminary service as precooling the shippers should have allowed to them the advantage resulting from such a service.54 It should be added, as to all such charges, that where a carrier has a right to include in the rate items for special charges, whether for services furnished by the carrier himself or by another under an arrangement with the carrier, the compensation for such incidental services must be reasonable. § 575. Services after carriage is ended. Common carriers by railroad in the United States have never followed a general custom of permitting their freight depots to be used for storage or general warehouse purposes, or of allowing their cars to be retained in the possession of shippers or consignees beyond a reasonable time for 309. Demurrage charges.-Pennsylvania Millers' State Assoc. v. Philadelphia & R. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 531. Storage charges.-Blackman v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 352. 52 Re Transportation of Fruit, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 360. Accord Truck F. Asso. v. Northeastern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295. 53 See, also, Georgia Peach Growers' Ass'n v. Atlantic Coast Line, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 255; Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 590. 54 Note the course of the California Refrigeration Cases, 19 I. C. C. 148, s. c., 20 I. C. C. 106, s. c., 23 I. C. C. 267, s. c., 204 Fed. 647, s. c., 232 U. S. 199, 34 Sup. Ct. 291. loading or unloading freight.55 It has been the common understanding, based upon specific rules and regulations issued by the carriers from time to time, that freight depots, cars, and sidings of carriers can only be kept in condition for the necessary reception and handling of goods in the daily course of transportation business by prompt forwarding of freights and quickly completing delivery of transported goods to the consignees. Among the rules or regulations commonly in force upon railways and intended to effectuate the prompt shipment, carriage and delivery of freights, are the following: (a) The loading of cars furnished for shipments within a day or other short specified time, under penalty of a demurrage charge for detaining the cars, which is a substantial sum for each additional day or fraction thereof; and a similar regulation is applied to the unloading of cars by consignees on team tracks or private sidings. (b) The removal of goods from freight houses within a specified time, usually 24 or 48 hours, after notice of arrival to consignee, under penalty of storage at the freight house or at public warehouse and collection of additional charges therefor.56 In various ways these generally described regulations are specifically stated in published freight classifications, car service rules, rate schedules, special circulars, so-called billing instructions, or bills of lading forms. They amount to conditions imposed by the carriers upon the shipment, 55 The Commission has said that a federal authority over demurrage and track storage charges in connection with interstate commerce cannot be challenged, and is exclusive. Wilson Produce Co. v. Penn. R. R., 14 I. C. C. 170. In the absence of discrimination, Commission is as yet hesitating to order that a trunk line shall absorb the switching charge of a terminal line. Mf'rs Ry. v. St. L., I. M. & So. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 93. 56 History of the uniform demurrage code now generally in force. See Allan Wood S. & I. Co. v. Pa. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 27. The placing of a car containing an order, notify shipment on a team track and the giving of notice to the consignee amounts for the time being to a discharge of the carrier's obligation in the matter of delivery. Roden B. Grocery Co. v. A. G. S. R. R., 21 I. C. C. 469. |