might well have been the principal question; but what these defendants did on January 1, 1900, was to increase the classification rating and consequently the rates upon numerous commodities selected by them from the classification, including hay and straw, and by such action they laid themselves open to the additional charge of having subjected such higher rated traffic and those interested in it to undue prejudice and unjust discrimination." 3

§ 568. Classification not determined by consideration of rate on a particular commodity.

While as a general principle it is clear that each shipper in the case of any particular shipment is entitled to a rate no greater than is reasonable for that shipment, it is equally true that if a shipper complains of the classification of the goods he offers for shipment the justice of his complaint cannot be determined by considering merely the effect of such classification on the rate charged for the particular shipment in question. Classification by its very nature involves the relation of one commodity to all others; and comparison with other commodities is therefore essential to any scheme of classification.

"An attempt to reform a classification by a selection of isolated cases and single classes, and changing them without a study of the entire scheme, would be dangerous. The entire effect of a proposed change can only be known by comprehending the relation of each particular article or class to the combined scheme. Therefore a complainant asking a change in classification, as in this case, with reference to a single group of articles, should be required to show a case of unjust discrimination or wrong done to procure a change.'

3 Clements, Com. in National Hay Assoc. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264, 304 (1902). See Interstate Com. Com. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 134 Fed. 942 (1905).

4 F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61, 67 (1893).

In the Window Shade case, at the rehearing before the Interstate Commerce Commission it was insisted that if the rates involved in the complaint against the classification of window shades are not shown to be unjust and unreasonable in themselves, that is, practically without reference to rates charged by the roads on other commodities, they ought not to be reduced. The Commission, however, held that "rates must bear just relation to each other as well as be reasonable per se.” 6

The aim of the investigation, the Commission added, “is not to ascertain how high classification or rates the affected industries will stand; the purpose of such investigations is to determine the duties of carriers and the rights of shippers and the public under the law."

§ 569. Elements in comparison of commodities.

Freight classification is based upon the relations which commodities bear to each other in such respects as character, use, bulk, weight, value, tonnage or volume, risk, cost of carriage, ease of handling and controlling conditions caused by competition. It will be noticed that all these considerations, except the last, are concerned with the nature of the commodity itself; either its material qualities or its use. They affect either the cost or risk of carriage to the carrier, or the value of carriage to the shipper. It is plain therefore classification is a method of rate making based upon all the principles governing the estab

5 Page v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 548, 556 (1894).

6 Citing Eau Claire Board of Trade v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 65, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 264 (1892); James v. Canadian P. R. Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 274, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 612 (1893); Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 627, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 230 (1887); Boards of Trade Union v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 608, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 215 (1887).

7 Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & I. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 440, 482 (1903).

lishment of particular rates which have been discussed in the preceding chapter.

$ 570. Comparison of similar things.

The comparison commonly instituted is that between similar things, for the purpose of placing them in the same class. Thus the following articles have upon comparison been ordered placed in the same class: rasins and dried fruit; rye or barley and wheat;10 envelopes for correspondence and merchandise envelopes;11 cowpeas and seed-grain.12

$571. Vegetables for table use.

Celery was compared with other vegetables for table use, and it was concluded that it should be classified with such vegetables rather than with perishable fruits.

"It is a matter of general knowledge that during recent years, and especially since the change in classification mentioned in the complaint, celery has come into much more common use. Its production has greatly increased and its market value has declined. It certainly is no more a table luxury than some of the vegetables which have a lower class in the Western Classification. As varied or qualified by the foregoing, the facts stated in the petition are found to be true, and we hold that the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed.

"For that portion of its line over which the Western Classification is in force the Wabash road should class celery with cauliflower, asparagus, lettuce, green peas, string beans, oyster

8 See Grain Shippers' Asso. v. Illinois Central R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 158 (1897).

9 Martin v. Southern Pac. Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 1, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 1 (1889).

10 Cannon Falls F. E. Co. v. Chicago, G. W. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 650 (1905).

11 Wolf Brothers v. Allegheny Valley R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 40 (1897). 12 Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 281 (1904).

plant, egg plant, and other vegetables enumerated in Class C of that classification, rather than with berries, peaches, grapes, and other fruits specified in Class III. thereof, and the defendants should transport celery from Tecumseh to Kansas City at no higher rate per carload than they charge for carrying a carload quantity of any of said vegetables named in Class C aforesaid."

572. Perishable articles of food.

14

9913

Eggs were held properly classed with fruit and other perishable articles of food in the case of Brownell v. Columbus, Cincinnati & Midland Railway. Mr. Commissioner McDill said: "The egg is a delicate and perishable commodity. Though methods adopted for its preservation retard the decomposition to which it is subject, they do not prevent the article from taking on that musty and strong flavor so often noticed in 'stored eggs.' While not as perishable as the small fruits mentioned, yet, considering the delay which is necessary in the accumulation of sufficient lots for sale or sending to market, its inherent liability to early decay, and the fact that fresh eggs' are commonly held to be an indispensable food article in every household, it must be deemed sufficiently perishable to be classed with articles of that character. In the official classification eggs, any quantity, are classed as low as berries in carloads, fruit in carloads, not otherwise specified, and butter and cheese in any quantity; and they are given a lower class than poultry, game, peaches, or oysters, not in the shell. These commodities, though diverse in character, are all perishable food products and particularly subject to deterioration after short lapses of time and under climatic influences. Considered as a perishable article eggs cannot be deemed to have an unfavorable classification; they are classed lower than some, and no higher than any, of the articles above mentioned."

13 Veazie, Commissioner, in Tecumseh Celery Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & M. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 318, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 663 (1893). 14 4 Int. Com. Rep. 285, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 638 (1893).

8573. Groceries.

A comparison of soap with other articles commonly sold by grocers was thus made by the Commission: "The fifth class of the Official Classification contains over 2,000 articles, and includes soap and many other grocery articles, such as canned fruits and vegetables, candles, cabbage, pickles, potatoes, pumpkins, parsnips, squash and turnips, chicory, citron, lemon and orange peel, desiccated cocoanut, coffee, fruit butters, jelly, sauce, soap and washing powders, macaroni, vermicelli, flour paste, mustard, olives, pickle or brine, soups and broths, sugar, syrup and tapioca. Numerous other articles sold by grocers or in general stores are also in the fifth or higher classes.

66

Although soap is most desirable traffic for the carriers, it is not a species of traffic which like hay or grain moves in very large aggregate quantities, nor is it so low in value as to call for the lowest class rating on that account. It is a widely manufactured article sold with other general merchandise, and, unlike the principal food staples which move in greatest volume from the West to the East, it is shipped from the factory in all directions and meets the products of other factories in all markets. The soaps of New York and Chicago manufacturers sell in Cincinnati in competition with complainant's products, and the latter in turn are sold in Chicago as well as New York and other extreme eastern cities and towns. This condition is more or less common to other general merchandise articles which are produced in various parts of Official Classification territory. Without some showing of discrimination against soap in its classification as compared with other articles of the same general character, or any special distinction appearing in favor of soap in either volume, value or controlling commercial considerations, we are unable to find simply because it is a desirable article of traffic for the roalroads in the matter of earnings and ease of handling that it is unjust to retain it in class 5 with other articles of like character, some