Co., 18 I. C. C. 310, order sustained, Los Angeles Switching Case (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.), 234 U. S. 294, 58 L. ed. 1319, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 814, reversing Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 188 Fed. 229.

Carriers can not segregate a terminal service, heretofore treated as part of transportation service covered by the freight rate, and assign to it a separate charge, without taking into consideration the entire through service of which it forms a part and the compensation heretofore received for such through service.-Lighterage and Storage Regulations at New York, 35 I. C. C. 47; Reconsignment Case No. 3, 53 I. C. C. 455.

A reasonable and nondiscriminatory charge for switching delivery in addition to the line-haul rate may be imposed for terminal services performed by carriers in delivering freight off their lines if separately stated.-Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles V. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 310, order sustained, Los Angeles Switching Case (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.), 234 U. S. 294, 58 L. ed. 1319, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 814, reversing Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 188 Fed. 229; Pacific Coast Jobbers & Mfrs. Assn. v. Southern Pac. Co., 18 I. C. C. 333, order sustained, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pac. Co., 234 U. S. 315, 58 L. ed. 1329, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 820, reversing Southern Pac. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 188 Fed. 241; Boardman Co. V. Southern Pac. Co., 37 I. C. C. 81.

Paragraph (3) of this section, defining transportation as including terminal delivery, is jurisdictional, and does not affect the measure of the rate or relationship of rates, for the terminal service is included within the transportation.-St. Louis Chamber of

Commerce v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 57 I. C. C. 639.

Multiple-Line Movements

See Cost of service; Multiple lines involved, note 127 under this paragraph.

535. Arbitraries or differentials for multiple-line shipments.-Merely because a railroad is operated in connection with other lines owned by the same company, but under separate charters, whereby the earnings of such road are increased and its operating expenses reduced, does not prevent its being considered as a separate and independent line for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of rates thereon, fixed by the State; full consideration of the joint operation being given when the road is credited for the increased business and reduced expenses.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Brown, 123 Fed. 946 (involving rates fixed by State authority).

The absorption of a competing line of railway by another in alleged violation of the statutes of a State is for the State courts and can be considered by the commission only in its ultimate results of inducing unreasonable rates.-Warren Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 381.

For purpose of rate making, movements over two or more carriers under common ownership or control are treated generally as single-line rather than joint-line hauls.-Investigation of Alleged Unreasonable Rates on Meats, 23 I. C. C. 656; Superior Commercial Club of Superior, Wis. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 24 I. C. C. 96; Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 638; Fourth Section Violations in the Southeast, 30 I. C. C. 153; Shreveport Chamber of Commerce v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 296; F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 50 I. C. C. 34; Inland Empire Shippers League v. Director General, 59 I. C. C.

321; North Vernon Lbr. Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 61 I. C. C. 355; Hudson Mule Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 63 I. C. C. 6; Holmes & Hallowell Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 69 I. C. C. 11; Fort Worth Cotton Oil Mill v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 80 I. C. C. 18; Corporation Comm. of Oklahoma v. Arkansas R., 80 I. C. C. 607; Arizona Packing Co. v. Arizona E. R. Co., 81 I. C. C. 115; Apache Cotton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Director General, 81 I. C. C. 569; Cotton Mfrs. Assn. of South Carolina v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry. Co., 85 I. C. C. 131; Nebraska Livestock Case, 89 I. C. C. 444; Transit Privileges on Lumber, 95 I. C. C. 154; Corporation Comm. of Oklahoma v. Abilene & Ry. Co., 98 I. C. C. 183; Livestock to, from, and between Points in Southeast, 101 I. C. C. 105; Traffic Bureau, Raleigh Chamber of Commerce V. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 109 I. C. C. 52; Oklahoma Traffic Assn. v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 113 I. C. C. 635; United Paperboard Co., Inc. v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 95 I. C. C. 680; Bragg & Millsaps Co. v Atlanta & W. P. Ry. Co., 128 I. C. C. 238; Colbert Limerock Asphalt Co. v. Alabama Central R. Co., 129 I. C. C. 177.

When two lines are members of the same system, the fact that a movement over such lines involves a twoline haul is of little importance.Consolidated Fuel Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C. 213.

A separately incorporated feeder line of railroad, the stock of which is owned equally by two transcontinental railroads, and partly constructed by them through such corporation, and controlled by them jointly, must be considered as a part of those systems and not as an independent line.Pacific Lbr. Co. v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co., 51 I. C. C. 738.

Stock control of a connecting road, separately operated, does not authorize treatment of the two roads as a continuous line for rate purposes.Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. v. Georgia Public Service Comm., 289 Fed. 878.

What might perhaps have been proper as between companies operating separate and distinct short lines may become unreasonable and unjust when both are absorbed by a large system which serves an extensive territory.-Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 286.

Evidence of ownership by one carrier of shares of capital stock of another carrier, or of a majority of such shares, does not in and of itself warrant a finding that both carriers are under common management and control.-Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 I. C. C. 654; Bragg & Millsaps Co. v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 128 I. C. C. 238.

The mere fact that one haul is a two-line haul as distinguished from another haul which is a one-line haul does not in and of itself justify a higher charge for the two-line haul.— Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 523; Coakley v. Director General, 59 I. C. C. 141; Magargee Bros., Inc., v. Delaware & H. Co., 68 I. C. C. 203; Sand and Gravel from Lafayette, Ind., 77 I. C. C. 719.

The fact that a joint-line haul is required in the movement of traffic to or from a certain point, while movement to or from another point alleged to be favored is frequently over but one line, is not controlling.-Monroe Chamber of Commerce v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 58 I. C. C. 685.

There is no fixed rule of transportation requiring a higher rate for a two-line than for a one-line haul of the same distance.-Mississippi River Case, 28 I. C. C. 47; Coal to South Dakota, 47 I. C. C. 750.

The reasonableness of the higher charge for the two-line haul must be determined from the particular facts and circumstances.-Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 638, 28 I. C. C. 250; In re Investigation of Alleged Unreasonable Rates on Meats, 22 I. O.

V.

C. 160; Maricopa County Commercial Club v. Southern Pac. Co., 22 I. C. C. 429; Wharton Steel Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C. 303; Baker Commercial Club Oregon-W. R. & Nav. Co., 25 I. C. C. 281; Rates from Walsenburg Coal Fields, 26 I. C. C. 85; Waverly Oil Works Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 28 I. C. C. 621; Hughes Creek Coal Co. v. Kanawha & M. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C. 671; Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Louis ville & N. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 523; Sand and Gravel from Lafayette, Ind., 77 1. C. C. 719; Weatherford Chamber of Commerce v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 31 I. C. C. 665; Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 33 I. C. C. 160; Duffney Brick Co. v. Boston & M. R., 39 I. C. C. 118; Oklahoma Cottonseed Crushers' Assn. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 497; Northwestern Cooperage & Lbr. Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 43 I. C. C. 629; Independent Ice, Feed & Fuel Co. v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 44 I. C. C. 666; Corporation Comm. of Oklahoma v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 98 I. C. C. 183, order held not to apply to intrastate rates, Arkansas R. Comm. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 274 U. S. 597, 71 L. ed. 1224, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Anthracite Coal Investigation, 104 I. C. C. 514.

Somewhat higher rates for hauls over routes composed of two or more lines, not under a common management and control, than for hauls over one line or over two or more lines under a common management and control, are reasonable.-F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.. 50 I. C. C. 34; Oklahoma Corp. Comm. v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 98 I. C. C. 183, order held not to apply to , intrastate rates, Arkansas R. Comm. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 274 U. S. 597, 71 L. ed. 1224, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Anthracite Coal Investigation, 104 I. C. C. 514.

The necessary additional cost of separate organization and separate billing must be taken into account, and

warrant a slightly higher charge for a two-line haul.-Brush Creek Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 449.

There is a material difference be tween a reasonable amount to be added for additional mileage on a straightaway long haul and a reasonable allowance to be added for an out-of-line haul which involves two and probably three terminal services. Kansas City Transp. Bureau of Commercial Club v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 491. 536. Disappearance of arbitrary at long distances.-Although the commission has recognized the justice of establishing a higher rate for a short two-line haul than for a one-line haul of equal length, the necessity for such higher rate is not controlling on longdistance hauls.-Omaha Grain Exc. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 572. On hauls of several hundred miles [usually stated as 500 miles] the reason for allowing a higher charge for a two-line than for a one-line haul largely disappears.-Wichita Board of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C. 625; Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 638; Hughes Creek Coal Co. v. Kanawha & M. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C. 671; J. D. Hollingshead Co. v. Director General, 62 I. C. C. 147; Traffic Bureau of Douglas Chamber of Commerce v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 64 I. C. C. 405; Kansas Rock Salt Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 69 I. C. C. 745; Calivada Fertilizer Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 73 I. C. C. 496; Memphis-Southwestern Investigation, 77 I. C. C. 473; Utah Lime & Stone Co., v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 87 I. C. C. 181; Pacific Guano &. Fertilizer Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 91 I. C. C. 228.

The same principle applies equally to a three-line haul.-Hayden Bros. Coal Corp. v. Denver & S. L. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 94. 537. Disregard of differential in group adjustments.-If the two-line

haul is more expensive than the oneline haul, the additional expense, if slight, should not be reflected in the rate in a general group adjustment.— Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 523; Bituminous Coal from Sewell Valley R. Stations, 58 I. C. C. 261; Orange Chamber of Commerce v. Alexandria & W. Ry. Co., 98 I. C. C. 101; Anthracite Coal Investigation, 122 I. C. C. 527.

Class Rates

See Classification history, principles, and practices, sec. 1 (6), this title.

Percentage relationship between classes, sec. 1 (6), note 129.

Commodity rates exceeding class rates, notes 321 and 571, under this paragraph.

Relation of commodity rates to class rate structure, note 574, under this paragraph.

545. Purpose, generally.-Class rates are designated by numbers and letters, often bearing some definite percentage relationship to one another and generally either based upon distance or made between specific points with due regard for distance.-Railroad Comm. of Louisiana v. Aransas Harbor Term. Ry. Co., 48 I. C. C. 312.

One fundamental function of class rates is to provide a basis for possible shipments.-Cancellation of Class Rates on Sugar, 126 I. C. C. 527.

It is proper to make class rates on heavy commodities when the shipments are more or less limited.-James & Abbott Co. v. Boston & M. R., 17 I. C. C. 273.

Rates for the transportation service are divided into class rates and commodity rates, and some articles, which move in large volume and in carload quantities, are usually accorded commodity rates, while articles of general merchandise, moving in less-than-carload quantities, usually take class rates. Harness to Oklahoma, 37 I. C. C. 726.

The commission encourages the making of class rates wherever practicable, because of their tendency to uniformity and stability.-Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 30.

Whether class rates are too high or too low should be made a separate issue, distinct from classification. Nevertheless, as far as possible, the establishment of ratings and the publication of ratings should follow changes in the classification very closely.Western Classification Case, 25 I. C. C. 442.

A complaint attacking the reasonableness of a class rate implies either (1) that the article is improperly classified, or (2) that, if properly classified, the class rate, as such, is too high, or (3) that the article moves in sufficient volume to entitle it to a commodity rate.-Burson Knitting Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 92 I. C. C. 607; Arkansas Light & Power Co. v. Alton & S. R., 136 I. C. C. 423.

Class rates are often designed chiefly for less-than-carload traffic and sporadic carload shipments, while in other cases they are used extensively for the movement of carload traffic in volume.-New England Divisions, 126 I. C. C. 579.

Class rates vary widely in the uses to which they are put and in the theories upon which they are constructed.-Southern Class Rate Investigation, 109 I. C. C. 309; In re Divisions of Freight Rates, 148 I. C. C. 457.

Class rates as they now exist in different territories are frequently not accurate indicia of general rate levels of different sections of the country.Southern Class Rate Investigation, 109 I. C. C. 300; New England Divisions, 126 I. C. C. 579; Oklahoma Portland Cement Co. v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 128 I. C. C. 63; In re Divisions of Freight Rates, 148 I. C. C. 457.

A general increase in class rates, which preserves existing relationships,

distributes itself more generally and more equitably than would general increases on commodity rates.-Fifteen Per Cent Case, 45 I. C. C. 303.

When articles move at commodity rates to such a predominant extent that the class rates can no longer be regarded as the normal adjustment, it is desirable to ascertain whether a standardization of rate relationship such as the classifications were intended to afford can again be effected, upon a new basis different from that found inadequate in the existing classifications.-Rates on Lumber and Lumber Products, 52 I. C. C. 598. The interests of neither the public nor the carriers are served by maintaining carload class rates on such high bases that they are rarely used, making it necessary to establish commodity rates on practically all commodities which move in carloads in material volume.-Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I. C. C. 203.

The fact that a commodity moves within a given classification territo on class rates which have been found reasonable is not proof that it should move on class rates from a point outside that territory to destinations therein. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 128 I. C. C. 445.

Class rates are ordinarily on a higher level than commodity rates and often apply in connection with more extensive groupings.-Apples to California, 148 I. C. C. 285.

546. Jobbers' rates.-A carrier is not compelled to give to merchants of a town on its line the privilege of shipping their goods from the point of purchase to their own locality and again from thence to the place at which the goods may be sold by them at the same rate which would have been charged had there been but one shipment from the point of purchase to the point of ultimate delivery.Martin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 25; P. P. Williams Co. v.

Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 482; Fort Dodge Commercial Club v. Director General, 60 I. C. C. 224; Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 96 I. C. C. 465.

No jobbing point is entitled, through unfair rate adjustment, to supremacy in a particular consuming territory.Billings Chamber of Commerce v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 71.

The fact that the jobbing situation is controlled by the outbound rates from the jobbing points is no justification for depriving any locality of just and reasonable inbound rates.-Rates on Bananas from Gulf Ports, 30 I. C. C. 510.

Jobbing points are not concerned as to the measure of the rate itself but are interested solely as to the relative adjustment between them.-Rates on Sugar, 31 I. C. C. 495.

Jobbers are shippers, and as such are entitled to rates which are just, reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory.-Lindsay & Co. v. Northern Exp. Co., 33 I. C. C. 394.

It is not practicable to have rates into and out of all jobbing points so constructed that the resulting through charges from the factory to ultimate destination are the same by all jobbing centers. Hutchinson Traffic Bureau v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 43 I. C. C. 689; Wichita Wholesale Furniture Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 44 I. C. C. 339; Mobridge Grocery Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 52 I. C. C. 307; Fort Dodge Commercial Club v. Director General, 57 I. C. C. 343, 60 I. C. C. 224.

Advantages of location, competitive conditions, the volume and flow of traffic, and numerous other considerations must be given due weight in determining the adjustment of rates in and out of different jobbing points.Johnston v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 51 I. C. C. 356.

The construction of rates by equalizing rates in and out of competing jobbing centers is impracticable, even if