great volume of shipments of flour as compared with other cereal products justifies a lower classification of flour.11

585. Volume of traffic in general considered.

The volume of traffic which may be considered, as has been seen, is the entire traffic in the commodity in question. It is not permissible to consider the amount of traffic furnished by a single shipper. As Mr. Commissioner Schoonmacher said in the case of Warner v. New York Central & IIudson River Railroad: 12 "The volume of traffic implies only the extent to which a particular article has become a subject of transportation, and does not imply that a large shipper of the same or like traffic can have any advantage over a shipper of smaller quantities. Like traffic of large shippers and of small shippers must have the same classification for carloads and the same for less than carloads."

§ 586. Perishable freight.

It is obvious that perishable freight may be placed in a higher class than non-perishable goods of the same general nature. It requires special care in the carriage, greater speed, and special equipment, and the risk of loss to the carrier is greater. The transportation of fruit is of this nature, and a high special classification is permissible. In a case which involved the classification of bananas, the Commission said: "The kind of service required in the transportation of bananas is a somewhat exacting one. While not usually carried under refrigeration, a special ventilated car is needed. They must be handled with great expedition and in point of fact the Southern does transport them from Charleston to Richmond and Lynchburg and inter

11 Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61. See, to the same effect, Knapp, Chairman, in Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cincinnati H. & D. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 440 (1903).

12 3 Int. Com. Rep. 74, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 32 (1890). See Chapter XXII.

mediate points by an express freight service which approximates a passenger schedule, The liability to damage is considerable, and it appears that claims for damage are frequently made." 13

So in the case of melons, the Commissioner said: "Melons being perishable, rapid transit and prompt delivery are of the first importance and where the carrier renders a special service a higher rate than for the carriage of ordinary freight is warranted. The defendants furnish special trains for the melon traffic and undertake to make quick movement and speedy delivery."

" 14

§ 587. Traffic handled in special trains.

This general subject was considered at length in connection with the classification of peaches carried to market on special trains. The complaint was made by shippers of peaches from Delaware to New York. The traffic was moved in separate trains from other freight, and at a high rate of speed. The freight moved, according to the evidence, at about 28 to 30 miles an hour, which did not include the time at stations. Notwithstanding the speed at which the trains were moved, the time required to reach Jersey City from the Peninsula was 12 hours and upwards. Respondents estimated the cost of movement of this traffic at about double that of ordinary freight. Empty cars in this trade were returned at the same rate of speed. They carried no return loads. Cars used for general freight ordinarily carry return loads and make slow time, and the usual earnings of such a car are five dollars a day. The Commission held that the peculiar needs of this service, requiring the withdrawal of cars for a period of two months or more from other service, the special fitting up of the cars for the carriage of the freight, the high rate of speed at which the trains are run in order to make early delivery at the markets, the greater wear

13 Gardner v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 342 (1904).

14 Loud v. South Carolina Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 205, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 529 (1892).

and deterioration to the cars, tracks and bridges by the increased rate of speed and the return of the cars empty, also at high speed, justifies a considerably higher rate than for ordinary freight." 15

The Commission said that the most material feature in fixing the rating was the speed; which was not confined to the loaded cars, but also included the return of the empty cars, and was therefore a service in both directions. Other peculiar elements of equipment and service were pointed out as justifying the special classification. "The expense of fitting up the cars specially for the service is an item for which the carrier is fairly entitled to remuneration. The fitting up is necessary to no other traffic but is peculiar to this traffic, and is laid aside when the cars are taken out of this business. A very small addition to the rate will, however, compensate for this expense. The withdrawal of the cars from other service except while lying idle is perhaps not a feature of controlling importance. A car is usually put in service by a carrier where it will earn most revenue, and can only be in service at one place at the same time, and not in two or more places. But the loss of revenue from cars while being fitted for this service, and again fitted for their usual service, and while reserved for this business, is fairly a part of the carrier's expense, and a legitimate item to enter into the rates. The loss from the return empty of the cars is also a legitimate consideration."

§ 588. Special equipment not necessary for the traffic.

If, however, the carrier provides a special equipment not because it is required by the nature of the traffic, but for its own convenience, or to attract patronage in competition with a rival, the fact that the article is thus carried does not justify high classification. This was held in the case of oranges. In the case of the Railroad Commission of Florida v. Savannah,

15 Delaware State Grange v. New York, P. & N. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 554, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 309 (1888).

Florida & Western Railroad 16 it appeared that the transportation of oranges received special care and attention from the defendants. Cars and steamers were ventilated; trains were run on fast schedules which limited the number of cars and increased the consumption of coal, and extra accommodations and employes were provided at shipping, junction and terminal points. Moreover, most of the cars engaged in this traffic by the all rail lines returned empty, and the cars carrying oranges north were not loaded to their full capacity, the average load not exceeding nineteen thousand pounds. The service, therefor was more expensive than that rendered in connection. with ordinary freight. Nevertheless, the Commission found that oranges were not perishable, and that this special care was unnecessary to their preservation; and thereupon held that it would not justify a high classification.

The Commission said: "It does not appear that the rapid service and special agencies employed in the carriage of oranges are necessarily required by the nature of the commodity. While spoken of as 'perishable' in the testimony of the carriers, it is evident that this characterization is correct only to a limited. extent. As is well known, oranges in considerable quantities are shipped by rail across the continent, and brought here also in numerous cargoes by slow vessels from the Mediterranean and other countries. It is an exceptionally hardy fruit and well adapted to long transportation. The shipment is made in packages of convenient size for safe and rapid handling, while in weight, as compared with bulk, it furnishes a relatively high tonnage for the space occupied. In general desirability as freight it differs widely from those more delicate and short lived products which must be speedily consumed after they are gathered, and which, from their inherent qualities, are ordinarily rendered valueless by accident or delay in transit. Therefore, the special facilities provided by the defendants for the trans

16 3 Int. Com. Rep. 688, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 13 (1891).

portation of perishable freight can hardly be claimed, so far as the orange traffic is concerned, to have been added to their general equipment solely because that traffic of necessity demanded high-speed trains and unusual conveniences of delivery. The more probable reason is found in the competition between the different lines and their desire to secure a business so important in volume and so desirable in character."

589. Less than usual care required.

9917

Conversely, where the commodity requires less than ordinary care that fact is to be considered in lowering its classification. In Denison Light & Power Company v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway,18 the question was as to the proper classification and rating of coal. Mr. Commissioner Prouty said: "Coal is among the most desirable kinds of traffic. The reasons for this have been several times stated by the Commission and need not be repeated here in detail. The cost of receiving, transporting and delivering that commodity is less than in case of almost any other article of freight. Its value is not great, the hazard of loss in transit is insignificant, it is an article of universal necessity in daily life, and as a steam fuel it furnishes the basis of many other industries. Coal rates in this country are usually highly competitive, and this fact, together with its desirability as traffic, and the large quantities which are moved have produced on the average a very low late."

Similarly in Tift v. Southern Railway, both before the Cimmission 19 and in the Circuit Court,20 stress was laid on the fact that lumber could be carried without special equipment on any car to justify a low rating for that commodity.21.

17 Railroad Com. of Florida v. Savannah, F. & W. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 688, 700, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 13 (1891.)

18 10 I. C. C. Rep. 337 (1904).

19 10 I. C. C. Rep. 5 (1904).

20 138 Fed. 753 (1905).

21 Acc. Central Y. P. Assoc. v. Illinois C. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 505 (1904).