effect which would offset the advantage of the cheapest rate.

For example, in the case of a steel industry, it might so happen that at I there were facilities for fabricating iron or steel in transit, whereby structural iron or steel could be shipped from A to I to be fabricated and then reshipped to F at the thru rate applying from A to F. Or, in the case of a live-stock shipper, it might be that at I where there is a primary stock market, and that under the reconsigning privileges, he would be allowed to stop his stock at that point to test the market and, if he did not sell, to reship to F.

Thus it will be seen that not only must rates be analyzed, but the special privileges or accessorial services rendered by the carrier on given lines of traffic must also be considered.

THE CUSTOMER'S CONVENIENCE

Quite frequently the initial line, if it be the terminal line at destination, or if, with its connection, it forms a thru route to a given destination, may not be in a position to afford the consignee as advantageous a location for delivery as some lines via which a higher rate might prevail.

The receivers of freight in Chicago might insist on Illinois Central Railroad delivery at some public team track which could not be effected unless the Illinois Central Railroad was given a road haul, or, if effected, it would be at a considerable added expense to the consignee. The expense of The expense of switching the car from the initial line to the Illinois Central, if they would accept it at all, would offset any saving which might be made thru the selection of the lower rated route.

In such cases, good judgment must be used in routing the shipment in order to insure to the customer not only the lowest rate but the most convenient delivery.

TRANSFERS

Continuous lines or routes operating thru train service should be selected in preference to those lines or routes wherein numerous transfers are involved. Each transfer multiplies the opportunity for damage to the goods and the likelihood of their reaching the purchaser in an unsatisfactory condition. Such possi

bilities are not conducive to the best interest of trade development.

PACKING REQUIREMENTS

The packing requirements established in connection with commodity rates and in the case of class rates as affected by interstate and state classifications should be carefully considered in order that they be made uniform, and, if not, the goods so prepared for shipment as to avoid unnecessary delay and added expense in effecting the distribution.

A story is told about a trunk that was shipped via a route over which there was no thru rate applicable, and as a consequence the shipment was governed by three different classifications. The first classification provided that the trunk might be shipped when strapped and sealed, a requirement with which the shipper complied. On arrival at the first junction point, the second carrier required the trunk to be crated before it would forward it.

This was done at some expense and

inconvenience to the shipper, whereupon the shipment was forwarded to the junction with the third carrier (the terminal line), who declined to receive it until it was boxed, which necessitated further delay and added expense. Had the packing requirements been uniform, all this expense and delay would have been obviated.

CLASSIFICATION SURVEY

To appreciate the effect of classification packing requirements, it is desirable to tabulate the articles to be shipped by the firm, and to indicate opposite each article the ratings, the packing requirements, and the minimum weight established by the several classifications. Such a tabulation is illustrated in Fig. 41.

On numerous occasions the Interstate Commerce Commission has ruled that the mere difference in the rating assessed on an article in two different classifications does not necessarily prove that the higher rating is unreasonable. In many other cases, however, such differentiation in rating on a given kind. of traffic has been condemned. The advantage of the procedure suggested in Fig. 41 is that it brings out these inconsistencies which may then be further analyzed for the purpose of justifying the classification rating as applied to the traffic in question.

Only the interstate classifications have been indicated, namely, the Official Classification, the Southern Classification, and the Western Classification. It might be, for example, that a shipper in Chicago would do considerable shipping under the Illinois classification and the Iowa classification or, in other localities, shippers might be concerned with the intrastate classification of their state or those of adjoining states, in which

instance additional columns should be provided for such classifications.

Another advantage of this plan is that it brings to a focus the requirements of the different classifications as to methods of packing and as to the measure of rates attaching to that style of packing. In the illustration, for example, an aeroplane manufacturer would find that in carloads he would be required to pay, under the Official Classification, the rating of one and one-quarter times first class; under Southern Classification, first class; and under Western Classification, one and one-half times first class.

From such a survey, a manufacturer of baking powder would discover inconsistencies in the ratings on the basic ingredients of baking powder, such as argols, cream of tartar, and even on baking powder itself, altho it would seem that rates on such articles should bear some definite relation to each other.

Taking argols, for example, it is difficult to understand why, when shipped in barrels, the article should take second class in one instance, third class in another instance, and fourth class in still another instance.

Furthermore, argol is a crude form of cream of tartar. It seems manifestly unfair to charge a fourthclass rating on the article when shipped in bulk in barrels, and a third-class rating on the refined product, cream of tartar, as in the case of the Official Classification.

However, as as before stated, the mere difference between classifications as to this requirement is not sufficient evidence to condemn a rate without hearing. It is, however, strong presumptive evidence that the requirement is unreasonable, and the industry is thus made aware of the discrepancies which affect its traffic.