When considering rates on generic articles, such as canned goods, which move generally through the land, the exact tonnage of one kind of canned goods which may move within a given period from one point to one destination is not controlling.—Armour & Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 112 I. C. C. 695.

In a case involving transportation of a large volume of a low-grade commodity moving from competing points to a common market, distance is not the principal factor to be considered in determining reasonableness of rates. Crushed Stone to Detroit, 136 I. C. C. 223.

If the fact that one section is a large producer and another a small producer of certain classes of traffic is a factor to be considered in fixing rates from them to a common market, it would seem that it should operate to give more favorable rates to the latter with a view of stimulating and increasing its production.-Freight Bureau of Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 195, order sustained, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. ed. 243, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 896, affirming 64 Fed. 981, 76 Fed. 183, and Shinkle, Wilson & Kress Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 62 Fed. 690, 76 Fed. 1007.

Light traffic, steep grades, sparse population, have controlling weight in determining just and reasonable rates on freight transported by a carrier on a short local line.-Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & P. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 389.

Density of traffic is always regarded as a factor entering into reduction of rates.-Oregon & Washington Lbr. Mfrs. Assn. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 1, order sustained, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pac. R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 56 L. ed. 308, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 108.

Difference in density of traffic is considered in determining the relative rea

sonableness of rates.-Philadelphia Veneer & Lbr. Co., Inc., v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 25 I. C. C. 653; In re Excessive Rates on Food Products, 4 I. C. C. 48; Export Rates on Flaxseed Products from Minneapolis, 27 I. C. C. 246; Commercial Club of Sioux Falls v. Pullman Co., 31 I. C. C. 654; Nebraska State Ry. Commrs. V. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 32 I. C. C. 41; Eastern Fruit Growers Assn. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 33 I. C. C. 343; Iron and Steel Cases, 36 I. C. C. 86; 1915 Western Rate Advance CasesPart II, 37 I. C. C. 114; Public Utilities Comm. of Colorado v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 52 I. C. C. 439; Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co. v. Director General, 60 I. C. C. 515; Express Rates, 1922, 83 I. C. C. 606; Grain and Grain Products, 122 I. C. C. 235.

It would be manifestly undesirable and impracticable, even if in harmony with the act, to prescribe rates dependent upon density of traffic on particular lines. Rather, average conditions in each part of the country should prevail.-Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I. C. C. 203.

In determining just and reasonable rates consideration must be given to density of traffic and yield of carriers in a sparsely populated section, as well as to the share of transportation charges borne by a particular commodity when compared with other commodities.-Sames, Moore & Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 113 I. C. C. 501.

If the rate on a given article is reasonable to those who ship the great bulk of that article in the form in which commonly prepared for transportation, that rate does not become unreasonable to the shipper of a small quantity of the same article merely because he chooses to prepare his shipments in a form which affords the carrier a greater profit per 100 pounds.Planters Compress Co. v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 382.

The industry that gives the carrier the most tonnage, counting the sup

plies brought in and products carried out, does not of right have lower rates upon its product than its neighboring industry which furnishes less tonnage to the carrier, counting in the constituent elements of tonnage supplies brought in, and products carried out.— Board of Trade of Chicago v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 158.

It is not the traffic in one commodity, but the aggregate of all traffic within a territory, which determines traffic density.-Carnation Milk Products Co. v. Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co., 96 I. C. C. 208.

Not much importance can be attached to the fact that the volume of a single item of traffic has increased; that the traffic of carriers as a whole has enormously increased is much more significant.-In re Transportation of Wool, Hides, and Pelts, 23 I. C. C. 151.

Articles carried in greater volume usually take relatively lower rates, though some commodities moving in comparatively small volume take lower rates because of low value, small trade margins in proportion to value, or on account of other controlling commercial conditions.-Procter & Gamble Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C. 440.

Quaere, whether the same high-rate structure should prevail in a district so thickly populated, in which traffic moves in such quantities as naturally prevails in that part of southern territory as where it is more sparsely settled and where transportation costs are relatively higher.-Low Moor Iron Co. of Virginia v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 615.

Increase in a carrier's business up to a certain point at least makes strongly for a reduction in the rate.In re Transportation of Wool, Hides, and Pelts, 23 I. C. C. 151.

The commission can not say that because tonnage is less than it would be under lower rates, the existing rates are unreasonable.-Sloss-Shef

field Steel & Iron Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 46 I. C. C. 558.

In accepting exceptionally low competitive rates on a comparatively small volume of traffic moving to a given point established in order to secure any part of the traffic, a road is not thereby estopped from charging reasonably remunerative rates to other points to which it hauls the volume of the traffic from which it must derive the principal part of its revenues.-Railroad Comm. of Kentucky v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 300.

If the rate and the cost of service remain the same, increase in tonnage must produce increased revenue.Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau, of Salt Lake City v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 218.

Carriers making an advance in rates should be able to present a satisfactory justification particularly when the traffic affected is of large and constantly increasing volume and of vital importance to a large section of country.-Railroad Comm. of Florida v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C. 13, order held invalid on other grounds, Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Florida Fruit Exc., 167 U. S. 512, 42 L. ed. 257, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 998.

Differences in rates because of differences in tonnage shipped should be confined, ordinarily, to such distinctions as are made between carload and less than carload shipments.-Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 226.

Increased volume of business and increased competition may warrant a reasonable reduction in the rates, corresponding with the growing volume of business and the competition in the market.-New Jersey Fruit Exc. v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 2 I. C. C. 142.

The rate should decrease as density of traffic increases. Advances in Rates-Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243; In re Advances on Flaxseed, 23 I. C. C. 272.

Ordinarily ton-mile revenues should decrease as distance increases, but where the more distant points are in regions of lower traffic density than regions in which the intermediate points are located, a departure from this principle may be justified.-Board of Railroad Commrs. of South Dakota v. Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co., 74 I. C. C. 295; Interior Iowa Cities Case, 29 I. C. C. 536; Commercial Club of Mitchell, S. D., v. Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co., 46 I. C. C. 1; Carnation Milk Products Co. v. Ahnapee & W. Ry. Co., 81 I. C. C. 699; Nebraska Tire & Rubber Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 115 I. C. C. 99.

As to passenger fares.-See Passenger fares, notes 760-779, under this paragraph.

Volume of traffic is considered in fixing passenger fares.-Merchants & Mfrs. Assn. of Baltimore v. Atlantic City R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 129.

When unreasonable passenger rates are ordered to be reduced, the sparsity of population is hardly a controlling inquiry; the question is the volume of passenger business the lines handle and under what circumstances.-Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau of Salt Lake City v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 218.

It is customary upon very short hauls and where traffic is very light to charge higher rates for freight as well as passenger service per mile than in case of long roads which have a large volume of business, and there are many grounds upon which it can be justified.-Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 195.

When overhead through traffic and expense is relatively constant, irrespective of whether the local traffic is light or heavy, the latter fact is not controlling as to the reasonableness of the local rates.-Arizona Corp. Comm. v. Arizona Eastern R. Co., 85 I. C. C. 76.

Operating conditions, population, and density of traffic vary greatly in 46988° S. Doc. 166, 70-1, vol 1

Regular or sporadic movement, as to commodity rates, note 567, under this paragraph.

The fact that a shipment constituted a sporadic movement or that the classification of a commodity moved was not specifically assailed is immaterial. Every shipper is entitled to a reasonable rate, whether class or commodity, and when he attacks the reasonableness of either rate that issue must be decided upon its merits.-Walter Armacost & Co. v. Merchants & Miners Transp. Co., 88 I. C. C. 185; Chattanooga Bottle & Glass Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 93 I. C. C. 71; J. C. Budding Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 100 I. C. C. 411.

While the volume of movement is an important element to be considered in arriving at a reasonable rate an excessive rate can not be justified merely because movements thereunder are infrequent.-Orford Soap Co. v. Boston & M. R., 107 I. C. C. 338; Municipal Electric & Water Depts. of Anderson, Ind., v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 101 I. C. C. 618; Barr & Dougherty v Georgia Northern Ry. Co., 109 I. C. C. 487; Liberty Cooperage & Lbr. Co. v. Michigan Central R. Co., 139 I. C. C. 73.

The fact that movement of a particular commodity may be isolated or sporadic in character does not justify the charging of unreasonable rates. George Russell Reed Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 146 I. C. C. 30.

A shipper should not be denied his right to reasonable charges merely because relatively few shipments of a particular commodity move between certain points.-Leach v. Oregon-W. R. & Nav. Co., 151 I. C. C. 513.

-24

That few, if any, shipments were made of a specific commodity between specific points prior to a certain year, does not justify the assessing of rates that were excessive.-Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 96 I. C. C. 99.

An excessive rate can not be justified solely because movements thereunder are infrequent. The maintenance of a rate that is too high may be one of the causes of which a light movement is the effect.-United Verde Extension Mining Co. v. United Verde & P. Ry. Co., 66 I. C. C. 377; Eldorado Refining Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 132 I. C. C. 612.

Even where the movement is of a temporary character the shipper is entitled to a just and reasonable rate consistent with those charged others under similar condition.-Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Director General, 98 I. C. C. 541; Orford Soap Co. v. Boston & M. R., 107 I. C. C. 338; Barr & Dougherty v. Georgia Northern Ry. Co., 109 I. C. C. 487.

An isolated movement during a comparatively short period from a nonproducing point is not a proper basis for requiring establishment of rates which are not likely to be needed in movement of other shipments.-Indiana State Highway Comm. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 83 I. C. C. 577.

Carriers relying on isolated movement of a commodity should not overlook the fact that it was produced at the point of origin and consumed at destination, and that a shipper is entitled to a reasonable rate.-H. B. Smith Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 142 I. C. C. 657.

Light or irregular movement will not ordinarily justify collection of a higher basis of rates than that which generally applies on the same or comparable traffic moving in the same direction in the same general territory, but in the absence of undue prejudice or preference this rule of principle can not be applied where the rates offered in comparison are not reason

able maximum rates.-Armour & Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 132 I. C. C. 123.

The fact that shipments were isolated or sporadic is a circumstance to be given weight in determining whether lower rates should be established for the future or reparation awarded, but it is not the sole determinative factor.-Meigs Pulpwood Co., Inc., v. Director General, 78 I. C. C. 473; Crawford & Sebastian v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 92 I. C. C. 453; Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 93 I. C. C. 667; Carter Oil Co. v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 96 I. C. C. 215; Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 136 I. C. C. 327.

Class rates applying on sporadic shipments can not be condemned merely because commodity rates are maintained in the opposite direction in which there is a regular movement.Pure Oil Co. v. Director General, 64 I. C. C. 444.

A rate applicable on an isolated shipment is not properly comparable with rates from large producing centers to consuming points especially where the commodity in issue is not produced at the origin in question and further production is improbable and no indication is given of further shipments from that point.-E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Director General, 59 I. C. C. 99; Assets Realizing Mines Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 57 I. C. C. 39; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Director General, 58 I. C. C. 427.

A combination rate assessed on an unrouted sporadic shipment which moved over a route embracing three lines is unreasonable when it exceeds a lower rate contemporaneously in effect by a slightly shorter two-line route. Notwithstanding that shipment was sporadic the shipper is entitled to have its traffic move at a rate that is not unreasonable.-Lone Star Gas Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co., 109 I. C. C. 258.

Evidence as to volume of tonnage expected to move in the future is not sufficient to justify lower rates.-Rumford Chemical Works v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 142 I. C. C. 43.

Higher rates during the months when lake navigation is closed than that applied when competition by lakecarrying vessels is in force is not in itself unlawful.-American Insulated Wire & Cable Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 415.

35. Monopolistic character of service. The causes which induced enactment of the act chiefly grew out of the use of railroads as the principal modern instrumentality of commerce. While shippers of merchandise are under no legal necessity to use railroads, they are so practically. The demand for speedy and prompt movement virtually forbids the employment of slow and old-fashioned methods of transportation, at least in the case of the more valuable articles of traffic. At the same time the immense outlay of money required to build and maintain railroads and the necessity of resorting in securing the rights of way to the power of eminent domain, in effect disables individual merchants and shippers from themselves providing such means of carriage. From the very nature of the case therefore railroads are monopolies, and the evils that usually accompany monopolies soon began to show themselves.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 197, 40 L. ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 666.

Railroads are monopolistic in many respects, and because of that fact are subject to public regulation. In this public regulation cost of service, and hence distance, are factors which must be taken into consideration. But railroads are also subject to competition with respect to much of their traffic, and it has been and is the policy of public regulation to allow them considerable latitude in meeting this competition. This accounts for

many inconsistencies in the rate structure and also for many instances where distances are disregarded.Maritime Assn., Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 95 I. C. C. 539.

A railroad may not say that it can retain a monopoly of a certain traffic no matter what its service or what the public necessities require.-Enterprise Fuel Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219.

36. Public character of service.Transportation by rail is a service of a quasi-public nature, not to be sold to the highest bidder, nor subject to the law of supply and demand. This sufficiently appears from the provisions of the act, which requires the same rate to be charged all persons and enjoins the publication of that rate.-In re Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 I. C. C. 382.

Railways are entitled to impose rates which will maintain their properties in condition to properly discharge the functions which they undertake and yield a fair return to their owners. In consideration of the fact that the public has permitted, and in some sense induced, these companies to undertake this quasi-public duty, instead of discharging it itself, where serious doubt exists, the railway should be given the benefit of that doubt.-Mayor and City Council of Wichita v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C. 534.

The means of transportation are fundamental and indispensable agencies in our industrial life and for the common weal should be kept abreast of public requirements.-Five Per Cent Case, 32 I. C. C. 325.

The levying of tolls by a railway for its transportation service is in essence the imposing of a tax upon the public which requires that service.-City of Spokane v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 376.

The lines of carriers are public highways, the use of which can not be