BEFOEE THE
Interstate Commerce Commission.
PERISHABXE EBEIGHT
I1ÍVESTIGATI0N.
I. C. C. Docket
10664.
BEIEF OF CAREIEES.
H. G. Hebbel.,
E. H. widdicombe,
A. P. Humburg,
N. W. Peoctob,
JoHsr M. Steenhagen,
Duane E. Minaed,
Elmee Westlake,
Counsel for U. S. Railroad Administration.
E, V. Fletcher,
Of Counsel.
Dated Chicago, November 1, 1919.
6UNTHORP-WARREN PRINTINS COMPANY« CHICAOO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Paqe.
Statement 1
Subject of investigation 1
Introduction 2
Genesis and iiurpose of the tariff 4
What the tariff supersedes 9
Divisions of tariff 10
Material changes which have been made in the tariff since it
was presented to the Commission 13
Frincipal matters in controversy 10
Items 18
Section 1.—Rules 18
Section 2.—Rules . 19
•—Groupings . . . 20
—Principle of stated charges 21
—Measure of stated charges 21
Section 3.—Rules 22
■—Principle of stated replenishing charges 22
■—Measure of stated replenishing charges 22
Section 4.—Rules 22
—Principle of cost of ice per ton and salt per
100 pounds basis 23
-—Measure of charges for ice and salt 23
Section 5.—Itules 23
—Principle of stated charges for carriers' pro¬
tective service against cold 24
■—iMeasure of stated charges for carriers' pro¬
tective service against cold 24
Section G.—Rules 24
—Principle of stated charges for protection
against heat or cold 25
—-Jleasure of charges 25
Argument 2G
Preliminary items in tariff 30
Items 1 to 22 30
Item 14 30
Item 15 31
Item 20 ! 32
Items 21 and 22 3G
Owner's risk or carrier's nonliability 3G
ii
Section One 40
Rule 25 40
Soutbeni territory ; 40
Freight rates not inclusive of protective service 40
Rates on fruits and vegetables from southeastern
territory 42
Florida 42
The Carolinas 54
Virginia 57
Georgia 58
lliscellaneous rates, classification ratings, and
class rates 58
Rates on poultry and eggs.... Gl.
Rates on fresh meats and packing-house
products ■ 02
Rates not dealt with 02
Conclusions as to southeastern territory 03
Rates on fruits and vegetables from Jlississippi
Valley territory 09
Eastern territory 75
C. F. A. territory 75
Eastern Trunk Line territory 94
iSre\y England 109
Western territory 120
Conclusion as to Rule 25 220
Rule 35 227
Rule 35 (B) ". 230
Rule 40 •' 231
Rules 45 and 50 239
Rule 55 247
Rule 00 ; • ■ ■ ■ 250
Rule 05 . . . 252
Rule 70 . . . 254
Rule 75 • • • 250
Rule 70 201
Rides 80 and 85 202
Rule 00 272
Rule 100 270
Rule 110 278
Rule 115 279
Rule 120 279
Rule 130 282
Rule 140 280
Rule 145 289
iii
Section Two
Rule 200 (C) 292
Rules 200 (D) aud 225 204
Rule 2C0 (P) 300
Rule 200 (G) ; • 301
Rule 200 (II) . 302
Rule 200 (I) 304
Rules 200 (K) and (M) 305
Rule 210 305
Rule 215 311
Rule 220 319
Rule 225 294, 321
Rule 230 323
Rule 235 ; 325
Rule 244 '..... 320
Rule 245 327
Rule 250 . . . 335
Rule 255 338
Half tank 340
Principle of stated charges 348
Measure of stated charges 380
Cost of Ice 413
Ice haulage 430
Switching 441
Supervision 454
Bunker damage 405
Hazard and profit 470
Section Two as applied to New York State. .....' 479
Discussion of exhibits submitted and testimony given with
respect to the cost of the service of refrigerating ship-
■ ments of perishable commodities subject to proposed
charges in Section 2 of the tariff in comparison with
proposed charges, and views of shippers with respect
• to proposed charges 503
Conclusions as to Section Two...... 525
Section Three ; 530
Rule 300 . . . 530
Rule 312 530
Propriety of westbound replenishing charge........ 531
• ■ Measure of westbound replenishing charge. 532
Section Four 537
Rule 400 •. . . ... 537
Rule 410 ■. 539
Rule 415 ... 540
iv
Priucii)le of cost of ice per ton and salt per hundredweight
basis 541
Measure of charges under Section Four 544
Section Five 547
Rule 500 547
Rule 505 549
Rule 512 553
Rule 512 (0) 554
Rule 512 (D) 555
Rule 515 • 556
, Rule 520 566
Rule 525 568
Rule 530 569
Rules 545 and 550 570
Carloads ' 573
Early history 576
Proposed charges 578
Witnesses and qualifications 579
Comparison of present and proposed charges ^. 582
Rates and services from western territory to Official
Classification territory ; also locally within Official
Classification territory 587
Canadian rates to Canada 589
Increases and decreases 590
Material and equipment, in addition to the car itself,
needed with shipments under heater protection 592
Class of cars used 594
Factors and expenses thereof incident to heater service 596
Car heaters 607
Inadequacy of present charges 613
Inspectors, messengers and inspection points 613
Movement and growth of business 618
Switching service on heated cars 620
Service 622
Hazard 626
Canned goods 627
Bananas 629
Conclusion as to Section Five. 633
Section 6—less carloads 338
Section Six 643
Description 643
Rule 605 644
Rule 610 646
Rule 015 653
Rule 620 658
V
Rule 625
Rule 030 662
IIow Section Six was constructed 668
Propriety of Section Six 672
Southern territory 672
Western territory 676
Illinois territory 707
OiHcial Classification territory 708
Questions of law 742
Conclusion as to Section Six 753
Fourth section departures 754
Fifteenth section applications 758
Concluding statement 759
Appendix A 701
Appendix B 785
List of Citations.
Albert Miller & Co. v. Northern racific, 34 I. C. C., 157 38
Alfred O. Davies v. L. & N. R. R., 18 I. C. C., 540 747
Arlington Heights Fruit E.wiiange v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C., 106. .. .
04, 335, 349, 377, 380, 436, 437, 439, 440, 454, 465, 478, 095, 747
A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co., v. U. S., 232 U. S., 199 495
Bituminous Coal, Rates on, to Mississippi Valley Territory, 36
I. C. C., 401 66
Boston Potato Receivers' Association v. Bangor & Aroostook R. R.,
25 I. C. O., 159 640
Brownell v. C. & C. M. R. R., 5 I. C. C., 155 527
California Railroad Commission v. A. G. S. R. R., 32 I. C. C., 17,
227, 436, 437, 439, 440, 478, 747
Campbell v. St. L. B. & M. Ry., 44 I. C. C., 567 301, 330, 350, 383
0. F. A. Class Scale Case, 45 I. C. C., 254 749
Coal & Coke Rates in the Southeast, 35 I. C. C., 187 66
Consolidated Freight Classification No. 1, 54 I. C. C., 471 718
Deciduous Fruit Case, 32 I. C. C., 17 227, 436, 437, 439, 440, 478
Fifteen Per Cent Case, 45 I. C. O., 303 749
Florida "Fruit & Vegetable Shijipers' Protective Association v. A. C.
L. R. R., 14 I. C. C., 476. 66, 68
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Shippers' Protective Association v. A. C.
L. R. R., 17 I. C. C., 552 50, 53, 66, 68
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Shippers' Protective Association v. A. C.
L. R. R., 22 I. C. C., 11 43, 48, 66, 68
Gamble Robinson Commission Co. v. A. & B. R. Ry., 50 I. C. 0.,
324 231, 747
Hale Halsell Grocery Co. v. M. K. & T. Ry., 42 I. 0. C., 491 231, 748
Hale Halsell Grocery Co. v. M. K. & T. Ry., 45 I. C. C., 523 231, 748
Hill v. N. 0. & St. L. Ry., 44 I. O. C., 582 673, 748
H. B. Williamson v. A. T. & S. F. Ry., 42 I. C. C., 11 350, 497
1. C. C. v. Stickney, 215 U. S., 98 385
In the Matter of Private Cars, 50 I. C. C., 677 237, 544, 748
Kansas Carlot Egg Shippers Association v. B. & O. R. R., 53
I. C. C., 59 731, 752
Longo Fruit Co. v. Hi. Traction Co., 38 I. C. C., 487. 660
Loretz, Pegram & Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 51 I. 0. C., 158. .350, 384
Melon Refrigeration Charges, 38 I. C. C., 62 350, 382
Miller & Co. v. N. P. Ry., 34 I. C. C., 157 38
.Mississippi R. R. Comm. v. New Orleans, 42 I. C. C., 574 350, 382
Montrose & Delta Counties, etc. v;. R. R., 34 I. C. C., 400 350
Mountain Ice Co. v. D. L. & W. R. R., 15 I. C. C., 305 236
National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association v. B. & O. S. W. R. R.,
43 I. 0. C., 392 729, 743, 748, 750
vil
Xational Poultry Butter & Egg Association v. B. & O. S. W. R. R.,
51 I. C. C., 34 721, 723, 729, 742, 743, 750, 753
Norfolk & Western v. Conley, 230 U. S., 605 29, 747
North Dakota v. Northern Pacific, 236 U. S., 585 29, 747
North Pacific Fruit Distributors v. N. P. Ry. Co., 40 I. O. 0.,
191 231, 748
Northern Potato Traffic Association v. C. & A. R. R., 44 I. C. C.,
426 231
Platts V. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R., 43 I. C. 0., 504 118, 745, 748
Potatoes in Refrigerator Equipment, 34 I. C. 0., 255 231, 233, 748
Private Car Line Case, 50 I. C. C., 677 237, 544, 748
Protection of Potato Shipments in Winter, 26 I. C. C., 681 577
Protection of Potato Shipments in Winter, 29 I. C. C., 504 577
Providence Fruit & Produce Exchange v. N. Y. C. R. R., 33 I. C. 0.,
294 497
Railroad Commission of California v. A. G. S. R. R., 32 I. C. C.,
17 227, 349, 379, 747
Railroad Commission of Texas v. A. T. & S. F. R. R., 20 I. C. C.,
463 212
Rates on Bituminous Coal to Mississippi Valley Territory, 36 I. C.
C., 401 66
Refrigeration Charges on Fruits and Vegetables from Colorado, 29
I. C. C., 653 349, 385, 499
Refrigeration Charges on the Kansas City Southern Ry., 26 I. C. C.,
017 349, 385, 677, 745, 747
Refrigeration Rates from New Orleans, 31 I. C. C., 637..378, 669, 670, 747
Rental Charges for Insulated Cars, 31 I. C. C., 255 231, 747
Rules Governing the Transportation of Potatoes in Refrigerator
Equipment, 34 I. C. C., 255 231, 233, 748
S. L. & S. W. Ry. V. Grant, 174 S. W., 714 319
Southern Pacific v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S.,
433 488, 516
Southern Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay Co., 214 U. S., 299 479, 746
Stickney ads Interstate Commerce Commission, 215 U. S., 98. .385, 745
Superior Commercial Club v. Great Northern Ry., 25 I. C. C., 342. . 516
Texas R. R. Commission v. A. T. & S. F. R. R., 20 I. 0. 0., 463 212
Unit Marketing System v. St. L. B. & M. Ry., 48 I. C. C., 510. .350, 490
Wattam v. N. P. R. R., 37 I. C. C., 101 301, 330
Westbound Replenishing Charges, 34 I. C. C., 140
532, 533, 534, 535, 536
Willamette Valley Lumber Case, 219 U. S., 4.33 488, 516
Williamson v. A. T. & S. F. Ry., 42 I. C. C., 11 350, 382, 497
BEFOEE THE
Interstate Commerce Commission.
PERISHABLE FREIGHT
INVESTIGATION.
I. C. C. Docket
10664.
STATEMENT.
I.
SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION.
This is an investigation instituted at the request of the
Director General of Eailroads under Section 8 of the
Federal Control Act, which empowers the President in
the administration of the railroad properties ''to avail
himself of the advice, assistance and co-operation of the
Interstate Commerce Commission." The subject of the
investigation is a consolidated tariff which the United
States Eailroad Administration has printed, entitled
"Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1," containing rules,
regulations and charges applicable to the handling and
protection of perishable freight of all kinds, which the
Eailroad Administration wishes to make effective
throughout the country. By his letter of May 20, 1919,
2
accompanying the proposed tariff, the Director General
has asked the Commission to advise him whether it is
desirable that such a tariff should be filed to become ef¬
fective as proposed or with such modifications or changes
as the Commission may recommend.
The proposed tariff contains rules, regulations and
charges applicable to the handling of perishable freight
to, from and between points in the United States, also
from points in the United States, to points in the Do¬
minion of Canada.
Pursuant to the request of the Director General, the
Commission caused to be instituted an investigation re¬
lating thereto and hearings were accordingly held and
testimony taken at Los Angeles, California; Portland,
Oregon; Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; New York,
New York; Atlanta, Georgia; and New Orleans, Louisi¬
ana.
A supplemental hearing was held and testimony taken
at Chicago, Illinois, concluding October 6, 1919.
II.
INTRODUCTION.
e
A proper perspective of this case involves the consid¬
eration at the outset of an economic question of vital im¬
portance.
The concentration of people in the great cities and the
development of numerous and populous industrial com¬
munities in the eastern part of the country, diverted mil¬
lions of people from agricultural to industrial communi¬
ties and pursuits. The natural result was the diminu¬
tion of the number of producers of food, as well as of the
population, in the producing territory, and the increase
3
in the number of nonproducing consumers of food, at
points distant from the producing territory.
From a community of rural hamlets and of small in¬
dividual producers of food, the country east of the Alle¬
gheny Mountains, to a great extent, and that east of
, the Mississippi Kiver, to some extent, became a densely
populous manufacturing area, and ceased to produce suf¬
ficient food for its own needs.
Then arose the necessity of obtaining a supply of vast
quantities of fresh foods, such as fruits, vegetables, ber¬
ries, butter, eggs, poultry and meat (to say nothing of
the cereals and other food of a nonperishable nature),
from the great agricultural West. The interdependence
of the East and the West cannot be overestimated. The
industrial development of the East is made possible by
the agricultural development of the West and the agri¬
cultural prosperity of the West is made possible by the
industrial development of the East.
An adequate supply of food products for Eastern con¬
sumption became no longer available locally, and the
distance between supply and demand widened with the
years until the ordinary unprotected vehicle of trans¬
portation, or ordinary type of equipment, no longer
served to preserve the quality and fresh, ess of the
fresh food commodities in transit. This brought into
being protective transportation service in the form of
ventilator and refrigerator cars. With the advent of
the refrigerator car the shipment of live cattle from the
Western plains for slaughter in Eastern abattoirs ceased
to a great extent, and shipments of dressed meats and
packing-house products began. Likewise western fresh
foods found a safe way to eastern markets.
The desire of the producers for a wider and more
profitable market and the desire of the carriers for in-
4
creased tonnage and longer hauls, found mutual expres¬
sion in the ventilated and refrigerator ears.
By the use of these special transportation facilities the
producer has found a constant and profitable market for
his products. The question now to be determined is
whether his essential partner in this enterprise, the car¬
rier, is receiving adequate compensation.
There never has been greater need for increased food
supplies, or more or better markets, at more alluring
prices. The agricultural resources of the United States
have not been developed to capacity. Without adequate
compensation, adequate service is impossible.
III.
GENESIS AND PURPOSE OF THE TARIFF.
The genesis and purpose of the tariff can perhaps best
be stated by a quotation from the testimony of Mr. C. E.
Bell, Assistant to Director, Division of Traffic, U. S.
Railroad Administration. That testimony, which will
be found on pages 36 to 42 of the transcript herein, is in
part as follows :
"When the Division of Traffic of the United
States Railroad Administration was organized short¬
ly after December 28, 1917, the date on which the
carriers were placed under federal control, it became
apparent to the Division of Traffic that many rules,
regulations and practices throughout the different
sections of the country, and as published by various
individual railroads, would have to he unified to the
greatest possible extent, because of the fact that
where substantially the same transportation condi¬
tions existed in difterent sections, those charged with
the administration of carriers under federal con¬
trol felt they could not justify varying rules, regu¬
lations and practices in the different sections with¬
out being charged with undue discrimination. The
5
situation created by federal control of the different
carriers was, of course, quite different from the sit¬
uation previously existing whereunder individual
carriers serving one particular section and not serv¬
ing another section were not responsible for, or re¬
quired to take into consideration, conditions in the
sections they did not serve.
The Division of Traffic, therefore, early in the year
1918, gave consideration to the unification of such
rules and regulations with the view of removing the
multitudinous conflicts resulting from different and
widely varying rules, regulations and practices pub¬
lished by individual railroads.
After careful consideration it appeared that the
most important matters were those involving va¬
rious rules and descriptions in the various classifica¬
tions and classification exceptions throughout the
country; the varying rules and practices in connec¬
tion with the transportation of live stock; the vary¬
ing and indefinite specifications in shipping contain¬
ers, and the widely varying rules, regulations, prac¬
tices and charges in connection with perishable traf¬
fic of .all kinds, and more especially in connection
with protective service on this traffic.
A special committee was appointed to unify the
rules and descriptions and the different classifica¬
tions and exceptions, and the work of this special
committee resulted in what is known as Consoli¬
dated Freight Classification No. 1, which is now un¬
der consideration by the Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission.
Another committee was appointed to harmonize
conflicting regulations and practices in connection
with the transportation of live stock, and based on
the recommendations of that committee, revised rules
will shortly be published.
Another committee was appointed to consider
specifications for shipping containers, and substan¬
tial progress has been made by this committee.
There is no character of traffic more important,
nor more generally distributed, than perishable traf¬
fic, and no class of traffic requiring more care and
attention or such expedited service. There is no
character of traffic surrounding which there are
6
now in existence more conflicting rules and prac¬
tices. Under such conditions, and the further fact
that it is to the interest of all concerned that when
transportation conditions are substantially the same,
and with unified control of the railroads, the Di¬
vision of Traffic believed there should be uniformity
of transportation rules and practices, so far as pos¬
sible, as to those commodities grown in different
sections that are sold in competition in the same
markets.
By the enforcement of uniform transportation
rules and practices on the same perishable commodi¬
ties grown in different sections, it must necessarily
follow that section may compete with section, with¬
out the charge of undue discrimination that might
result from varying practices in the different sec¬
tions and on ditïerent railroads.
As I have said, therefore, one of the first acts of
the Division of Traffic after its organization in the
early part of 1918, was to appoint a committee to
give consideration to the unification of the widely
varying rules, regulations, practices and charges
surrounding the transportation of perishable freight.
This committee was authorized and instructed to call
into conference and to assist in this AVork represen¬
tatives of various railroads in the different sections
of the country who were familiar with the condi¬
tions existing in each section. This plan of pro¬
cedure was followed by the committee appointed by
the Division of Traffic, and it may be said that Per¬
ishable Protective Tariff No. 1 reflects the knowl¬
edge and experience of men of long experience and
familiarity with the conditions and practices sur¬
rounding the movement of perishable freight in
every section of the country.
This committee discovered almost at the inception
of its work that the existing charges for protective
service, including refrigeration and heater car serv¬
ice, did not reflect the actual expenditures being
made by the carriers in the performance of the
service, and furthermore, that in certain territories
refrigeration service was being given, based only
on the actual cost of ice. It was not only the vieAV
of the committee, hut also the view of the Division
7
of Traffic, that a stated service should he governed
hy a stated charge, and in these instances where
stated charges had not previously been operated, the
committee was directed to provide stated charges
per car. The committee was further directed that
in formulating all stated charges to proceed on the
principle that a carrier is entitled to compensation
for any service performed hy it, based on the cost of
the service plus a reasonable profit. This principle
is in consonance with the law and expressions of the
Interstate Commerce Commission in various defined
cases.
The preliminary recommendations of the commit¬
tee were printed and copies submitted to representa¬
tives of the perishable interests throughout the
country, especially to the officers of various organ¬
izations of perishable shippers. These perishable
interests were requested to submit their views in
the form of briefs or letters, many of which were
received, and at the conference during the entire
week of February 24, 1919, these interests were af¬
forded an opportunity to present their further vieAvs
to representatives of the United States Eailroad
Administration. At this conference were represen¬
tatives of various perishable shippers' associations
and many shippers themselves.
Last March, the Eailroad Administration was con¬
fronted with an emergency situation necessitating
the immediate consideration of an advance in the
stated refrigeration charges applicable to Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia,
the eastern shore of Maryland and from middle
and east Tennessee. Protests against any increase in
the then existing stated charges, unless a hearing was
held, having previously been made by Florida ship¬
pers and the Eailroad Commission of Florida, con¬
ference between representatives of the Eailroad Ad¬
ministration and the Florida shipping interests
was held in Jacksonville on March 24 and 25, 1919,
at which time the entire question was thoroughly
gone into. Investigation made by the Eailroad Ad¬
ministration, however, developed that the then ex¬
isting refrigeration charges did not reflect the actual
cost of the service and, that this emergency situa-
8
tion might be taken care of, advanced charges were
published and those charges are shown in Perish¬
able Protective Tariff No. 1. The refrigeration
charges from other parts of the South that I have
ennmerated were advanced to the figures shown in
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1, but before it was
finally determined to make these advances, notice
was extended to the principal shipping organizations
in the affected territory that opportunity would be
afforded them on April 15, 1919, to present their
views. Only one representative of one organization
appeared at this conference on April 15th, and he
submitted no persuasive evidence that the proposed
charges were unreasonable.
Notwithstanding the fact that the charges re¬
ferred to in this Southern section are already in
effect, we are desirous that the Commission shall
consider them as a part of the investigation to be
made of Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 as a
whole.
After the conference, during the week of February
24, 1919, between representatives of the Eailroad
Administration and shippers, the committee that for¬
mulated the tariff under my direction, gave careful
consideration to the objections of the shippers as ex¬
pressed at this conference and as set out in the va¬
rious briefs submitted, and many modifications
have been made in the rules as originally formu¬
lated, and it may be fairly said that many of the reg¬
ulations now appearing in Perishable Protective
Tariff No. 1 largely reflect the view of the perish¬
able interests, as developed at the conference of
February 24, 1919, and in the briefs of the shippers.
Eepresentatives of the Department of Agriculture,
including the Bureau of Markets, were consulted
while the tariff was in process, and many valuable
suggestions of these Department of Agriculture
representatives were incorporated in the proposed
tariff. Determination was reached by the Eailroad
Administration to submit this tariff to the Interstate
Commerce Commission under Section 8 of the so-
called Federal Control Act, and this was done by
letter signed by the Director General on May 20,
1919.
9
It is the opinion of the Division of Traffic that the
charges, rules and regulations contained in this
tariff are not only reasonable, but that uniformity
in the rules and regulations for application through¬
out the country is most desirable and will be of
great benefit to the perishable interests of the coun¬
try, as well as to the carriers."
The perishable committee commenced work on the
tariff in June, 1918. (9414)
All of the members of the committee, which was ap¬
pointed by the Eailroad Administration, were officers or
employees of the Eailroad Administration. The commit¬
tee was empowered to draft into service to work on sub¬
committees men experienced in this line of the business
from all over the United States, whether they were con¬
nected directly with the Eailroad Administration or with
private car lines. Among those who were members of
the committee and who were connected with private car
lines were Mr. E. C. Dearborn of the Pacific Fruit Ex¬
press; Mr. Geo. H. Nelson with the Santa Fe Eefrigera-
tor Despatch and Mr. E. W. Eice with the American Ee-
frigerator Transit Company. (9429)
IV.
WHAT THE TARIFF SUPERSEDES.
The charges, rules and regulations in the proposed
protective tariff No. 1 supersede all conflicting charges,
rules and reg-ulations applicable on perishable freight
(as defined in Item 15 of the tariff) contained in tariffs,
classifications, rules and circulars of the carriers which
are parties to the proposed tariff, with the exception that
the proposed tariff will not cancel or supersede terminal
charges, rules and regulations (other than charges for
ice or salt supplied by carriers, or for protective service.
10
if any, against cold), applying on import traffic at ports
of entry into the United States by water, as provided in
carriers' tariffs applicable at such ports and lawfully
on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
(See Item No. 20, paragraphs "A" and "C.")
While the proposed tariff is designed for uniform
adoption by all carriers, some sections thereof (e. g.
Section No. 3 providing Stated Keplenishing Charges)
are given a restricted application on certain traffic, as
will be more specifically explained hereinafter.
There is a further exception to the uniform applica¬
tion for the entire United States in that, as to heater
protective service against cold. Section 5 of the tariff,
there will be a clause on title page 519 of the tariff to the
effect that provisions of that section are subject to con¬
trary rules, regulations and charges as published in cer¬
tain tariffs, supplements thereto and reissues thereof, of
certain carriers operating in New England territory,
and this exception will also be made applicable to less-
than-carload heater protective service under Section 6 of
the tariff.
V.
DIVISIONS OF TARIFF.
It might be well at the outset to briefly outline the
general construction of the proposed tariff in order that
subsequent references in the brief to various portions
of the tariff may be more clearly understood. In lino
with this thought, it may be stated that the tariff is
generally dividecl as follows:
1. Table of contents and list of railroads under fed¬
eral control, parties to the tariff.
11
2. Pages one to three cover items 1 to 22, containing
an explanation of technical terms and abbreviations later
appearing in the tariff and defining their general appli¬
cation.
3. Section No. 1, covering Rules 25 to 145, contains
general rules and regulations governing the handling of
perishable freight.
4. Section No. 2 has to do with stated refrigeration
charges carloads, and is divided into—
(a) Rules 200 to 260, inclusive, providing special rules
or governing special charges; and Rule 245 which in¬
cludes charges per carload on precooled and preiced cars
of citrus fruit from California ; and Rule 250, like charges
on precooled and preiced cars of citrus fruit from
Florida ;
(b) Geographical origin and destination groupings
(Items 900 to 1056, inclusive) ;
(c) Alphabetical list of points of origin and destina¬
tion in the United States and similar list of points of
destination in Canada ; the alphabetical lists being segre¬
gated as to states in the United States and provinces in
the Dominion of Canada;
(d) Tables 1 to 96, both inclusive, setting forth the
stated charges per carload for refrigeration of perish¬
able commodities from different states in the United
States, or different groups of those states, to various
states or provinces of destination. In each table, the
commodities are divided according to numerical columns,
each column providing a different stated charge.
5. Section No. 3 contains—
(a) Special rules governing stated replenishing
charges—Rules 300 to 340, inclusive ; and enumerates the
commodities to which the section applies; and
12
(b) Tables 97, 98 and 99 providing stated charges for
service of replenishing ice and/or salt in transit.
6. Section No. 4 contains—
(a) Eules and charges governing services of icing
and re-icing and enumerates the commodities to which
the section applies;
(b) The charge per ton of ice and per hundred
pounds of salt at icing stations in the various states of
the United States for icing and re-icing the commodities
to which Section 4 applies. The charges there stated
also apply to ice and salt applied by carrier or car line
for account of another carrier or car line in connection
with commodities moving under stated charges, provided
in Sections 2, 3 and 6 of the tariff ; also to ice or salt sup-
j)lied under Sections 2, 3 or 6 when not chargeable to
carrier or car line as provided by the rules in those sec¬
tions.
7. Section No. 5 contains—
(a) Special rules governing protective service against
cold, Eules 500 to 550; and
(b) Tables 101 to 103, both inclusive, setting forth
stated charges per carload in dollars and cents from
given points of origin to given points of destination for
"Carrier's Protective Service" against cold; and
8. Section No. 6 contains—
(a) Special rules governing less-than-carload ship¬
ments of perishables; and
(b) Tables 104 to 126, inclusive, providing charges
per 100 pounds of freight for protective service against
cold or heat as the ease may be. Table No. 104 provides
charges based on mileage, divided as between 200 miles
or less, and over 200 and under 400 miles. Tables 105
to 117, inclusive, provide refrigeration cliarges in cents
13
per hundred pounds of freight from given points of
origin to given points of destination for distances 400
miles or more; while tables 118 to 126, inclusive, pro¬
vide charges in cents per 100 pounds of freight for pro¬
tective service against cold from given points of origin
to given points of destination for distances 400 miles
or more.
VI.
material chastges which have been made in the tariff
since it was presented to the commission for its rec¬
ommendations, either with respect to
(a) Eules;
(b) Charges;
(c) Groupings; or
(d) Service offered.
Since the tariff was presented to the Commission for
its recommendations, some material changes and modifi¬
cations, thereof have been made by carriers, as indicated
in the letter in their behalf, addressed to the examiner
under date of October 23, 1919, as shown in Appendix A
to this Brief.
VII.
commodities to which, and territories in which, va¬
rious sections of tariff as now proposed apply.
Section No. 2—Stated Charges for Refrigeration,
Carloads—
(a) Applies intrastate and interstate on fresh or
crushed fruits, vegetables, berries, melons and fruit
juices (not beverages) throughout the United States.
14
(b) Applies either intrastate or interstate on all
other perishables (except bananas or cocoanuts) includ¬
ing packing-house products and dairy and freight only
from points in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Ore¬
gon and Washington.
(c) Does not apply on bananas or cocoanuts.
Section No. 3—Stated Charges for Service of Replenish¬
ing Ice and/or Salt In Transit, on Carloads— •
Applies on fresh meats, packing-house products, fish,
clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, butterine, oleomargarine,
ale, beer, beverages, butter, cheese, eggs, dressed poul¬
try and game (except when covered by stated refrigera¬
tion charges under Section 2 of the tax'iff) originating in
or moving through—
(1st) Colorado (all points); Iowa (Group A); Kan¬
sas (Groups A and B) ; Minnesota (all points) ; Missouri
(Group B) ; and destined to Arizona (all points) ; Cali¬
fornia (all points) ; Idaho (Groups 1, 2 and 3) ; Montana
(limited territory) ; Nevada (all points) ; Oregon (all
points) ; AVashington (all points) ; New Mexico (all
points); and British Columbia (all points).
(See Table No. 97.)
(2nd) Originating in or moving through Nebraska
(Groups A and B) ; North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Da¬
kota and Texas, destined to the same points above de¬
scribed in paragraph "1st."
(See Table No. 98.)
(3rd) Betiveen all points in California.
(See Table No. 99.)
(4th) From North Portland and Portland, Oregon to
Salem, Oregon.
(See Table No. 99.)
15
(5tli) From Eeno, Nevada, to San Francisco, Soutli
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Stockton, Sacramento
and Fresno, California, and
(See Table No. 99.)
(6tb) From all points in New Mexico and Utah tc
all points in California.
(See Table No. 99.)
Section No. 4.—Cost of Ice Per Ton and Salt Per Hun¬
dred Pounds.
Applies on fresh meats, packing-house products, but¬
ter, eggs, cheese, dressed poultry, and game, butter oleo¬
margarine, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, fish, ale, beer,
beverages, bananas and cocoanuts within all territory
in the United States except where or ivlien stated charges
under Section No. 2 or-Section No. 3 apply as hereto¬
fore outlined, and upon the commodities named, and ex¬
cept as Section No. 6 of the tariff may apply upon less-
than-carload shipments.
Section No. 5—Protective Service Against Cold—
Carloads.
Applies on all traffic requiring any protective service
against cold with the proviso that, as "meats (not
canned), dressed poultry, fish, shell fish, games, butter,
cheese and eggs; also chocolate, candy, bananas, pine¬
apples, celery, cauliflower, lettuce, spinach, artichokes
and tomatoes are particularly liable to be damaged by
artificial heat, carriers do not hold themselves out as of¬
fering to furnish 'Carrier's Protective Service' on such
commodities;" but that, if upon request of shipper,
owner or consignee, carriers supply artificial heat, these
shipments will be transported solely at owner's risk of
loss or damage by artificial heat,
16
"Carrier's Protective Service" against cold applies
within the following territory:
Between points in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah,
Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Da¬
kota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Illinois and the Northern Peninsula of Mich¬
igan.
Section No. 6.—Less-than-Carload Protective Service
Against Cold; Also Against Heat.
This section applies as follows :
(a) Protective service against cold applies on all per¬
ishable commodities when loaded in a "scheduled re¬
frigerator car" except when shipper tenders same sub¬
ject to "box car service," and applies in the same terri¬
tory to which "Protective Service against Cold," car¬
loads, applies in Section No. 5 as hereinabove de¬
scribed.
(b) Protective service against heat applies on all per¬
ishable commodities when loaded in "Scheduled Eefrig-
erator Car" and moving under refrigeration, except
when tendered subject to "box car service" and applies
in all parts of the United States where "Scheduled Ke-
frigerator Car Service" is available.
VIII.
principal matters in controversy.
Due to the comprehensive scope of the investigation,
the immense mass of testimony introduced in the case,
covering close to. ten thousand pages, and the fact that
the final hearing did not conclude until October 6, 1919,
the limited time at our disposal has not made it possible,
and it therefore will not be our aim, to discuss in this'
17
brief every objection or argument which was voiced dur¬
ing the progress of the hearings. This is especially so
because there is scarcely a rule or provision or charge
in the tariff which has not heen made the subject of dis¬
cussion. In fact there have been several attacks on rules
which are not in the tariff. We shall, however, endeavor
to point out and to answer as best we can, within the time
allotted, the principal objections which have been made,
either to rules, regulations, practices or charges. This
we think can best be done by relating the discussion to
the divisions or sections of the tariff itself, adverting to
the rules or items in connection with the respective sec¬
tions.
In connection with the discussion of the rules, atten¬
tion is directed to the fact that there is on file in this pro¬
ceeding, as "E. F. McPike's Exhibits Nos. 1 to 66, inclu¬
sive," a printed volume in which the witness McPike dis¬
cusses, either specifically or generally, practically every
rule in the tariff. We do not deem it advisable or neces¬
sary to repeat such discussion in this brief, but will, as
a part thereof, file one copy of such printed volume with
each copy of the brief, and will also furnish a copy
thereof with each copy of the brief served upon inter¬
ested parties.
We now come to a brief statement of the principal mat¬
ters in controversy. Under this section of the brief, no
attempt will be made to outline the objections to the items
or rules (which will be done in connection with the argu¬
ment), but we will content ourselves with a mere refer¬
ence to the item or rule, and its subject matter.
18
Items.
Item 14. Definition of refrigerator and insulated
cars.
Item 15. Definition and list of perishable commodi¬
ties.
Item 20. General application of the tariff.
Section 1.—Rules.
This section contains general rules and regulations
governing the handling of perishable freight.
The rules in this section which were subjected to at¬
tack are as follows :
Eule 25 (B) Charges for protective service not in¬
cluded in freight rate.
Eule 35. Ordering ears.
Eule 40. Charge for use of refrigerator or full insul-
Eestrictions against improper loading, etc.
False floors and floor racks.
Protection by hay, etc.
Preservatives placed in packages or in body
Schedule not guaranteed by carrier.
Side-door ventilation.
Eefrigeration and artificial heat combined.
Shipper's instructions.
Waybill notations.
Charge for transfer.
Diversions and reconsigmncnts.
Eule 100. Sampling or inspection by consignee.
ated cars.
Eule
45.
Eule
50.
Eule
55.
Eule
60.
of car.
Eule
65.
Eule
70.
Eule
75.
Eule
80.
Eule 85.
Eule 90.
Eule
95.
19
Eule 110. Transportation of caretakers with carloads
of bananas.
Eule 115. Shipper's instructions to caretakers.
Eule 120, Vegetables or fruit in stock or box cars.
Eule 130. Condition of perishable goods not guar¬
anteed by carriers.
Eule 140. Charge for disinfecting cars.
Eule 145. Shipments stored in transit.
Section 2.—Rides.
200 (A)—analogous to Eule 25.
200 (C)—providing that when one or more commodi¬
ties are loaded in car with carload shipment under re¬
frigeration, stated refrigeration charges will be on basis
of the highest carload refrigeration charge applicable
on any of the commodities in the car.
200 (D)—providing that stated refrigeration charges
include the services of icing and re-icing from point of
origin to but not after arrival in the terminal train yard
serving the destination, without any allowance for free
time. (Also refers to Eule 225, hereinafter mentioned.)
200 (G)—providing that when shippers elect to tender
freight loaded in cars the bunkers, tanks or body of
which contain ice with instructions "not under refriger¬
ation, do not ice," etc., stated refrigeration charges will
be imposed.
Eule 200 (H)—stating that carriers will not replenish
ice in packages with freight but necessary ice will be
placed in bunkers or tanks of such cars.
Eule 200 (I)—providing that carriers will not supply
or place ice or salt in the body of refrigerator cars
equipped with ice bunkers or tanks.
20
Eule 210—which provides for icing by shipper at op¬
tion of carrier, and for reimbursement of shipper there¬
for at tariff charges published in Section 4 of the tariff.
Eule 215—relating to delay to iced cars at loading sta¬
tions, and charges to be imposed.
Eule 220—relating to iced cars ordered but not used.
Eule 225—relating to re-icing at intermediate stop or
hold points, at reconsigning points and at final destina¬
tion, and charges for such ice.
Eule 2.30—relating to the opening of ventilators of cars
under refrigeration, and charges incident thereto.
Eule 235—providing that ice remaining in bunkers
after arrival of car at final destination is the property
of the carrier.
Eule 244—relating to consolidation of fresh fruits,
berries, melons and fresh vegetables and providing
charges applicable thereto.
Eule 245—having reference to precooled and preiced
citrus fruit from California, and providing stated charges
therefor.
Eule 250—relating to precooled and preiced cars of
citrus fruit from Florida, and specifying stated charges
therefor.
Eule 255—covering half-tank refrigeration service on
citrus fruit from Florida.
Groupings.
Items 900 to 948 contain a geographical description of
origin groupings, and items 1,000 to 1,056 a like descrip¬
tion of destination groupings, to apply in connection with
tables of stated refrigeration charges in Section 2 of the
tariff.
21
Objections were made to the following groupings;
Kansas, item 1,016.
Nebraska, items 925 and 1,028.
New York, items 930 and 1,034.
Washington, items 945 and 1,053.
Principle of Stated Charges.
Objection has been made to the principle of stated re¬
frigeration charges—
(a) By those shippers-of fruits, vegetables, etc., who
are now moving their commoditiess under refrigeration
on a cost of ice per ton basis, and whose commodities it
is now proposed to include under stated charges in Sec¬
tion 2.
(b) By some of the shippers whose commodities now
move either under Section 2 or 3 in some portions of the
country.
(c) By a limited number of shippers whose commodi¬
ties now move under the stated charge basis, and to a
limited extent.
(d) By those shippers whose commodities the tariff
proposes to make subject to Section 4, or the cost of ice
per ton basis, but who are apprehensive that either the
Administration or the Commission may seek to place
such commodities either on a Section 2 or Section 3 basis.
Measure of Stated Charges.
Objection has been made to the measure of the stated
charges by nearly all classes of shippers, with some
laudable exceptions, but it may also be said that, where
stated refrigeration charges are now in effect, the ob¬
jection was not so much to an increase as it was to the
extent of the increase. The grounds of the objections
22
were varied and will be set out at some length when we
come to the argument.
Section 3.—Rules.
Objection was made to the following rules in the sec¬
tion :
Eule 300—which provides for the application of the sec¬
tion and in particular defines the commodities to which it
applies, is also analogous to Eule 25 (B).
Eule 312—^which relates to shippers' instructions with
regard to icing or re-icing.
Principle of Stated Replenishing Charges.
Objection was made by some of the shippers, whose
commodities now move under refrigeration subject to
this section, to the propriety of the principle of such
charges, as applied to their products. The grounds of
the objection will be found in our argument.
Measure of Stated Replenishing Charges.
Eather mild objections, Avithout any substantiating
figures, were voiced to the measure of these charges by
some of those whose commodities move subject thereto.
Section 4.—Rules.
Objection was made to the folloA\dng rules in this sec¬
tion:
Eule 400—which provides for the application of the
section, and defines the commodities subject thereto.
Eule 415—AA'hicli refers to iced ears delayed at loading
station.
23
Principle of Cost of Ice Per Ton and Salt Per 100
Pounds Basis.
Nearly all shippers, except those who have enjoyed the
certainty and efficiency and protection of a stated charge
basis, preferred to be on a cost of ice per ton and salt per
100 pounds basis ; in other words, they desired to pay
simply the cost of the ice and salt, without in any way
compensating the carriers for any accessorial service
whatever. The objections that were made were to the in¬
clusion in Section 4 of the commodities which are, by the
proposed tariff, made subject thereto, and the failure to
include therein the commodities in which the objectors
were interested.
Measure of Charges for Ice and Salt.
There were no particular objections made to the
charges for ice as shown in Section 4 of the tariff, but con¬
siderable objection was registered against the charge
for salt in some portions of the United States.
Section 5.—Rules.
Objection was made to the following rules in this sec¬
tion :
Rule 500—relating to application of Section 5.
Rule 505—covering shipper's instructions in connec¬
tion with "Carriers' Protective Service" or "Shippers'
Protective Service."
Rule 510—relating to rights and obligations of car¬
riers and shippers in connection with "Shippers' Pro¬
tective Service."
Rule 512—having to do with the transportation of care¬
takers with carloads when shipper installs portable
heater.
24
Eule 515—providing for application of "Carriers'
Protective Service."
Eule 520—relating to cars delayed at loading station.
Eule 525—referring to cars ordered, but not used, and
imposing a charge therefor.
Eule 530'—relating to additional protective service at
intermediate stop, hold or reconsigming points and at
final destination when moving under "Carriers' Pro¬
tective Service, ' ' and providing a charge therefor.
Eule 540—covering disposition of revenue accruing as
result of "Carriers' Protective Service."
Eule 545—referring to transportation, without charge,
of stoves, false floors, lining, etc.
Eule 550'—covers return of stoves or heaters, fittings
therefor, portable false floors, etc.
Principle of Stated, Charges for "Carriers' Protective
Service" Against Cold.
No objection was made to the principle of a stated
charge for this service.
Measure of Stated Charge for "Carriers' Protective
Service" Against Cold.
Objection was registered to the measure of the stated
charges for "Carriers' Protective Service" against cold.
The grounds of the objection will be stated in our argu¬
ment.
Section 6.—Rules.
The rules in this section which were the subject of at¬
tack are these :
Eule 600—providing for the application of the section;
also analogous to Eule 25 ( B).
25
Eule 605—prescribing character of instructions to be
specified by shipper or shipping order and bill of lad¬
ing.
Rule 610—defining "Scheduled Refrigerator Car Serv¬
ice," and providing for application of stated charges
for such service, both when commodities are protected
against heat, and when protected against cold.
Rule 615—relating to carriers' right to refuse to ac¬
cept perishable freight, either because of its odor or na¬
ture, the lack of availability of "Scheduled Refrigerator
Car Service," or because of temperature at loading sta¬
tion or en route, etc.
Rule 620—relating to the acceptance and handling of
less-than-oarload shipments of perishables in the ab¬
sence of "Scheduled Refrigerator Car Service."
Rule 625—having for its subject meat peddler cars and
providing for the application of Section 4 thereto.
Rule 630—relates to the furnishing or use of individual
cars for one consignee at one destination, with specified
minima, and specifies the commodities subject thereto.
Principle of Stated Charges for Protection Against Heat
or Cold.
Objection was made to the principle of stated charges,
or in fact, any charge for protection either against heat
or cold on less-than-carload shipments. The objections
will be hereafter stated in our argument.
Measure of Charges.
Objection was also registered to the measure of the
charges under this section.
26
ARGUMENT.
Having set fortli as briefly as could fairly be done,
the matters involved in the present proceeding, it seems
desirable, before entering upon a detailed discussion of
the justification of the various parts of the tariff, to set
forth in a general Avay some of the broader aspects in
which it is believed the proposed tariff should be con¬
sidered.
As was so well stated by Mr. Bell in behalf of the
Railroad Administration at the opening of the proceed¬
ing, the primary object which the Administration sought
to promote in formulating the proposed tariff was the
establishment of a uniform method of treatment of the
services involved in the handling of perishable freight
throughout the United States upon a sound economic
basis. The lack of harmony in this respect which exists
in the country at the present time ought no longer to
be tolerated. Not only is it desirable from the stand¬
point of convenience and expediency that this special
phase of transportation should be covered by a single,
uniform tariff containing all the rules, regulations and
charges relating thereto, but such a tariff will also serve
to a very large extent, if not entirely, to eliminate the
discrimination, whether unlawful or otherwise, which
exists at the present time as between different com¬
munities and different commodities.
As a matter of convenience, the plan should commend
itself to the shipping public as well as to the carriers.
It will help to simplify the traffic problem, which at
present results from the publication of the numerous,
individual rules and charges of carriers participating
along the same route. It will serve to clarify provisions
27
which, because of their variety of expression by differ¬
ent carriers, are obscure and ofttimes inconsistent. The
shipper at the point of origin will be in position to know
precisely what service he may expect and what charges
the shipment Avill bear from the time of its delivery to
the carrier until the time when it is ultimately delivered
to the consignee.
Only in this way is a shipper in a given territory
located upon a single railroad enabled to know the trans¬
portation advantages or disadvantages. of his compet¬
itors located in other territories and upon other rail¬
roads. By means of this tariff the shipper can tell at
a glance what service his competitors are receiving and
Avhat charges they are paying.
It requires but little argument to show that it is highly
desirable that the rules and charges in respect of special
protective service should be separately published. As
an abstract proposition, there would be no excuse in the
present day for a carrier, Avhich had never heretofore
engaged in this special transportation service, to estab¬
lish such a service de novo without, at the same time,
covering such service by a separate tariff. The only
excuse which can be accepted for not stating such pro¬
visions in separate issues is that the service is an out¬
growth of the period in transportation history when the
matter of tariff publication was handled without regard
to the distinctions in the nature of the service. The de¬
sirability of such separate publication has been recog¬
nized since the passage of the Hepburn Act in 1906, and
in view of the mandatory requirements of that act, as
they are discussed elseAvhere in this brief, the Commis¬
sion should now give its official sanction to the separate
publication of these provisions as proposed in the tariff
noAv under consideration. Such separation will place
28
this service upon a distinct accounting basis so that at
any time it can be ascertained whether the service is
properly remunerative.
The fact that the charges proposed in the tariff may
result in increased revenue to the carriers, we believe
should commend itself to the Commission. The general
statement that the carriers as a whole are greatly in
need of increased revenue will not seriously be ques¬
tioned. By this tariff the want of revenue will, to some
comparatively slight extent, be ameliorated by increasing
the charges for these special services to a point where
they will more nearly approximate an adequate return
for the services performed.
For the presentation of this case, the carriers have,
as fully and sincerely as they could, studied the costs
which Avere involved in the performance of every detail
of these special services, and have presented them to
the Commission as fully as could be done in order to
show clearly the extent to which the value of these serv¬
ices exceeds the amounts paid for them by the ship¬
ping public. This has been very difficult on most rail¬
roads because of the lack of accounting systems whereby
proper allocation is made to this service of expenses,
attributable thereto.
The result of this investigation into the cost of the
service has astonished the carriers themselves. While
they believed, and in some intances where definitely
aware of the fact that they were being underpaid for
this service, they did not expect in many instances to
find the great deficits which their investigations dis¬
closed.
The development of refrigerator service has since 1867
progressed from an ordinary box car with a box of ice
inside the door to the modern combined ventilator and
29
refrigerator car whicli will carry the most highly per¬
ishable commodity safely across the continent. The
cost of the equipment has advanced from the trivial
expense of the wooden lining and the sawdust insulation
of the car of 1867 to the cost of over $3,700 of the mod¬
ern standard refrigerator car. The cost of the service
itself has in the same time increased from the price of
a few hundred pounds of ice at a time when the cost of
ice Avas low to the present consumption of approxi¬
mately six tons at a cost of more than sixty-two dollars
on a car of perishable freight from Chicago to New
Y Ork.
It is entirely fair that this service should pay for
itself. Since the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Norfolk é Western v. Conley, 236 U. S., 605, and North
Dakota v. Northern Pacific Railway, 236 U. S., 585, there
can no longer be any question of the right of the car¬
rier, if it chooses to do so, to secure for each individual
service which it performs a charge which will yield a
fair profit above the cost of that service. If, therefore,
the carriers in the present proceeding were proposing
to secure compensation measured by this legal standard,
their right to do so would be unquestioned. They are,
however, in most instances not going to this full extent.
Whether the need of greater revenue of these carriers
is such as to justify an increase in general transporta¬
tion rates or not is a question which we need not here
consider, but however that may be, the propriety of
assessing charges upon these special services commen¬
surate with the cost of operation is such as to call for
the approval of the Commission. Only in this way will
the carriers be enabled to maintain this service and
supply the equipment which it requires. The fact that
they have not heretofore been able to assess a proper
charge against this service has been a factor which has
30
called into being the private car lines, which were able
to make such a charge and thus maintain their service.
The carriers cannot be expected in the present inade¬
quacy of their general revenues, to use their income dis¬
proportionately for the maintenance of the special serv¬
ice and thus sacrifice the proper service of transpor¬
tation generality.
These general considerations should be borne in mind
throughout the proceeding.
We now proceed to set forth the more specific consid¬
erations which arise in connection with the various sec¬
tions of the tariff. Their sequence will conform to the
order in which the various provisions appear in the
tariff.
PEELIMINAKY ITEMS IN TARIFF,
Items 1 to 22.
Both inclusive, in the proposed tariff are only
technical terms and definitions thereof as generally
required in the publication of tariffs. As to such
of those particular items as are specifically men¬
tioned in the record of the case, the carriers would sub¬
mit the following facts;
Item 14.
The only objection presented will be taken care
of by the revised wording of a portion of that
item as indicated in letter addressed to the examiner in
behalf of carriers under date of October 23, 1919. (See
Appendix A.)
31
Item 15.
Definition and list of perishable freight:
Shippers' Views.
Witness J. CuETis Robinson is of opinion that the
prefix (a) designating articles which are susceptible to
damage by artificial heat should also be prefixed to
"fruits, fresh, not otherwise indexed by name" and to
"vegetables, fresh or green." ' (Tr., 1616-17.)
Witness E. S. De Pass states that condensed or evap¬
orated milk shown in item No. 15, page 2 of tariff, should
be amended to read, "milk, condensed or evaporated,
when for export," eliminating milk for domestic use from
tariff, export milk being, he says, the only shipments
on which carriers' protective service has ever been asked
for or furnished. (Tr., 5560.)
Witness Peeeman Bradeoed states that fresh fruits
and vegetables should he governed by prefix (a), thus
including same with articles declared to he susceptible
to damage by artificial heat. (Tr., 6968-69.)
Witness Wm. J. Womee objects to "ice" being in¬
cluded in list of perishable commodities. (Tr., 7197.)
Witness John Andeew. Ronan states that "sauer¬
kraut" never needs heat and never needs refrigeration,
so far as using ice in transit is concerned ; and that this
also applies to "onion sets," and that both of these ar¬
ticles should be eliminated from item No. 15 (Tr., 9740) ;
he admits that these commodities need a refrigerator ear
in Avinter months to protect against extreme cold
weather; says refrigerator car not needed in the summer
time as neither sauerkraut nor onion sets require pro¬
tection against heat. (Tr., 9741.)
Witness L. P. Barry says that ginger ale and bever-
:v2
ages are subject to damage by freezing; that liquid blu¬
ing is in the same class as blacking; catsup is not sub¬
ject to damage by heat or cold, except when temperature
is 10 degrees below zero or lower ; certain cheese is sub¬
ject to damage by both freezing and heat, while other
cheese is not; dry chocolate is not subject to damage by
either heat or cold; extracts, liquid, are not subject to
damage by either heat or cold; ink is subject to damage
by freezing; mince meat is not subject to damage by
either heat or cold; mushrooms, canned, are not subject
to damage by either heat or cold ; states over nine-tenths
of shipments handled by wholesale grocers are not sub¬
ject to heat or cold conditions. (Tr., 9082-9085.)
Ansiver.
The carriers will admit that some of the commodities
mentioned by protestants may not be susceptible to dam¬
age by heat or cold, unless subjected to extremes of tem¬
perature, but as most, if not all, of those commodities
are susceptible to damage by some weather conditions,
it is fair and proper to include them in Item No. 15 of
tariff; the carriers further submit that in any event the
shippers are not deprived from using box cars when they
so elect. In connection Avith item No. 15, the carriers
Avould point out the few minor changes made by them in
the letter addressed to the examiner under date of Oc¬
tober 23, 1919. (See Appendix A.)
Item 20.
General application of tariff:
Shippers' Views.
Witness Wm. J. Womer stated that paragraph (A) of
item No. 20 would indicate that proposed tariff will
cancel all conflicting tariffs and rules; that although Eule
33
No. 55 brings forward from certain current tariffs an
exception for eggs, no similar exceptions which may now
be in effect in other current tariffs are given similar
treatment or consideration, but will be canceled by the
proposed tariff; that if any exceptions are to be made
for eggs, the witness desires that similar exception be
made for "ice". (Tr., 7197-98.)
Witness McPike, on cross-examination by Mr. 0. W.
ïong, states that proposed tariff will not cancel Eules
Nos. 9-D and 9-E in Western Classification so far as such
rules are lawfully applicable, but that proposed tariff
will take precedence as to all accessorial services and
rules and regulations and charges governing same. (Tr..
2537-88, 2541.)
Witness McPike, in response to questions by Mr. T. H.
McGlrath, regarding application of proposed tariff on
import traffic, states that if the current tariff rules are
in terminal tariffs and govern terminal matters at ports
of entry by water, srch rules would not be disturbed by
the proposed new tariff, but witness McPike promised
further consideration would be given to this feature by
carriers. (Tr., 2551-52.)
Witness à. E. Helm suggests that paragraph (D) of
item No. 20 be amended as follows :
"Nothing in this tariff shall be construed as re¬
lieving the carriers from such liability as may rest
upon them for loss or damage when same is the re¬
sult of carrier's negligence. In case of dispute as
to liability for loss or damage, the burden to prove
freedom from such negligence shall be on the car¬
rier. ' '
Witness claims that this is a condition announced in
the standard bill of lading and recently approved by
the Interstate Commerce Commission. (Tr., 1994-95.)
Witness B. W. Edwards in connection with paragraph
34
(D), suggests that the words ''loss or damage" be
amended to read "loss or damage when same is the re¬
sult of carrier's negligence," because "loss" is usually-
supposed to mean loss of the shipment and not loss oc¬
casioned by delay; further suggests that the word "de¬
lay" be included in this item. (Tr., 4507-4509.)
Witness 0. W. Tong stated that in his opinion para¬
graph (D) in this item affords opportunity for freight
claim agents to reject claims under "shipper's protec¬
tive service," where carriers have been negligent, re¬
gardless of the fact that other provisions of this tariff
provide that carriers will not attempt to exempt them¬
selves from liability for negligence; that if this item is
allowed to go into effect, agents are going to consider
that they do not have to give that property any atten¬
tion at all, even if cars have been unusually delayed.
(Tr., 4684-86.) Witness further stated that this item
Avill allow discrimination. (Tr., 4686-7.)
Witness M. C. Eagatz, in response to questions by Mr.
0. W. Tong, states that if this item is allowed to take
effect, carriers will not give shipments any protection
when handed as "Option No.^1 business," by which ex¬
pression the witness referred to shipments moving un¬
der "shippers' protective service." (Tr., 5064.)
Witness Kenneth Fowler states that paragraph (D)
of Item No. 20, in his opinion, takes precedence over all
special rules, limiting carriers' liability in other sections
of tariff ; understand that it is not the intention of car¬
riers to attempt to modify the law in any way as regards
their liability. (Tr., 7417.)
Witness T. H. Tench states that paragraph (D) of
Item No. 20 has no place in the tariff or at least should
be rewritten to conform to the language of the uniform
bill of lading. (Tr., 8093.)
35
Answer.
The carriers would first call attention to the general
explanation and defense of Item No. 20 given in witness
McPike's Exhibit No. 4.
Paragraph (A) of Item No. 20 will necessarily and
rightfully should cancel all conflicting tariffs in order
to insure that on future traffic there shall he but the one
issue in effect, thus preventing possible discrimination.
Paragraph (C) as to import traffic, will be modified by
carriers so that the conclusion now reading: * * as
provided in carriers' terminal tariffs applicable," will
he changed to read thus: * * as provided in car¬
riers' tariffs applicable.'!
The effect of this change will be to give pre¬
cedence to terminal rules, and charegs, published in
other tariffs, regardless of whether or not such other
issues are strictly terminal tariffs, that is, so far as ap¬
plication at ports of entry by water is concerned.
As to paragraph (D) of_Item No. 20, the carriers sub¬
mit that the language thereof as printed very clearly
shows that they are not attempting to escape their lia¬
bility for any loss or damage arising from negligence by
carriers. The carriers admit that all questions of burden
of proof will have to be determined by the courts in ac¬
cordance with the usual rules of evidence and that there¬
fore it is unnecessary to insert in Item No. 20 any spe-
fic provisions as to the burden of proof to he assumed by
carriers.
36
Items 21 and 22.
Definitions of Intermediate Point, etc. :
Shippers' Views.
Witness MePike in answer to a question by Mr. Hill
as to whether or not charges for transportation services
should not he less for a lesser service than for a greater
service, replied, "Not necessarily so," and pointed out
that there are various departures from the fourth sec¬
tion of the law, and further stated that item No. 21 sim¬
ply shows how the tariff is to be interpreted and defines
the technical term "next or distant point." (Tr., 526-
530.)
Answer.
The carriers now reaffirm the explanation given by
witness MePike as quoted next above and would further
submit that the wording of items Nos. 21 and 22 is in ac¬
cordance with the general practice in current tariffs con¬
taining stated refrigeration charges.
OWNER'S RISK OR CARRIERS' NONLIABILITY.
As to the various rules in the proposed tariiï, which
under certain conditions provide for transportation
solely at owner's risk of loss or damage by heat or cold
not the result of carriers' negligence, the carriers now
desire to direct special attention to their answers herein
relating to Eules Nos. 75, 130 and 620 of proposed tar¬
iff, also to Witness MePike's Exhibits Nos. 28, 59 and 66,
wherein the underlying reasons, justification and prac¬
tical necessity of such uniform tariff rules were ex¬
plained and, as the carriers believe, fully demonstrated.
The carriers are firmly of opinion that none of such
rules is contrary to the common law or to any of the
37
statutes governing transportation nor, in the belief "of
carriers, are any of those rules contrary to public pol¬
icy. The carriers consider that it is highly desirable to
have uniform tariff rules of that kind and thus give to
shippers in advance of shipment such proper notice and
warning rather than to rely only upon the making of
various and varying notations upon hills of lading,
which, the carriers contend, they would have the lawful
right to do in such cases, but which might often give rise
to possible discrimination and entail delays in the move¬
ment of perishable food products. The carriers earn¬
estly hope that for these reasons, among others, the
Commission will express its approval of such rules in
principle and in fact, particularly when, as shown under
Item No. 20, paragraph (D) of proposed tariff, the car¬
riers are very clearly not attempting to escape their li¬
ability for negligence.
The carriers in making this general statement in this
place do so with the desire to avoid what would other¬
wise amount to considerable repetition in this brief by
making substantially the same defense to various in¬
dividual rules containing clauses of the character men¬
tioned. As shown in the numerous citations which ac¬
companied the carriers' answer herein relating to Eule
No. 130, it is no new departure for rules of this general
character to he published in carriers' tariffs.
The Commission itself, on différent occasions, has
specifically recognized the lawful right of carriers to
publish tariff rules limiting their liability for loss or
damage by heat or cold when not the result of negligence
by carriers. In this connection, carriers direct atten¬
tion to their answer herein relating to Eule No. 620 to
box car service at owner's risk for less-than-carload
shipments of perishable products. The carriers also call
attention to the practice in Western Trunk Line territory
38
and North Pacific Coast territory in connection with
cars which have heretofore moved under what is com¬
monly called "Option No. 1" or "Shippers' Protective
Service." In such cases, the current tariffs provide
substantially that the shipper assumes all responsibil¬
ity for loss or damage due to heat or cold not the direct
result of actionable negligence of carriers. See para¬
graph (a) of Pule No. 2 of Item No. 800 on page 27 of
Agent E. B. Boyd's I. C. C. No. A-1020; also paragraph
(a) of option No. 1 on page 24 of Agent E. H. Countiss'
Tariff I. C. C. 1043. These rules last mentioned are in
this respect very similar to paragraph (A) of Kule No.
510 in the proposed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1.
Eules of this character were before the Commission for
review in several cases, in one of which (Docket 6731)
the Commission made the following significant remark:
"It may here be .noted, parenthetically, that where
the heater service is performed by the shipper and
loss or damage results from freezing or overheat¬
ing not the direct result of negligence by the car¬
rier, such loss or damage is not caused by the car¬
rier. It follows, therefore, that the rule here at¬
tacked does not violate the Cummins Amendment
of March 4, 1915, to Section 20 of the Act to Eegu-
late Commerce." {Albert Miller & Co. v. Northern
Pac., 34 I. C. C., 157.)
It is true that in the case last cited the tariff rules then
involved did offer the shipper, at his option, the alterna¬
tive of forwarding his goods under "Carriers' Protec¬
tive Service, "but in the present instance, the carriers sub¬
mit that in the proposed Perishable Protective Tariff
No. 1, the shippers are likewise offered, at their own op¬
tion, the use and benefit of all available accessorial serv¬
ices, both for carload and less-than-carload traffic on basis
of reasonable weights. Therefore, to force the carriers to
assume the liability of loss or damage resulting from the
absence of such accessorial services, which are neither
39
requested nor paid for by the shipper, would he to cre¬
ate discrimination and amount virtually to confiscation,
requiring the carriers to furnish expensive special serv¬
ice without compensation. The carriers feel confident
that the Commission will not desire to impose any such
new and heavy burden upon them and that on the con¬
trary the Commission will give its approval to the rules
which are here under discussion in connection with pro¬
posed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1.
If the carriers were to he denied the right to publish
such tariff rules, which they consider to he entirely law¬
ful and reasonable, the only other alternative would he
to deprive the shippers absolutely of any right whatso¬
ever to request or to dictate any special character of
accessorial service, leaving the determination of all these
matters in the hands of the c.arriers exclusively, who, in
their own judgment, would at all times furnish such
accessorial services as they saw fit and collect the full
tariff charges therefor, which would he a radical de¬
parture from the present practice under which the ship¬
pers are permitted to make a reasonable request for such
authorized accessorial services as they may desire in
connection Avith individual shipments. The carriers con¬
sider it obvious, therefore, that they cannot he deprived
of the right to release themselves as contemplated by the
proposed rules, thus tending to make them responsible
for any and all loss or damage to perishable goods in
transit, unless, as a necessary corollary, the now gen¬
erally prevailing rights and privileges of the shipper as
to dictating the character of service he desires in transit
he abrogated absolutely. The carriers cannot be placed
between two fires.
40
SECTION ONE.
HULE 25.
In the discussion of this rule will be set forth the
evidence of the carriers showing the history of the traffic
and classifications and rates by which they have demon¬
strated that the special service of protection from heat
and cold and the furnishing of special equipment have
not been contemplated by the freight rates. The three
classification territories will be dealt -with separately,
and Ave ask the indulgence of the Commission for such
repetition of idea as may be found by reason of such
separate treatment.
Southern Territory.
To avoid discussing Eule 25 with respect to Southern
Classification territory both here and under Section Six
it has been omitted here as it is essential there. Eefer-
ence is therefore made to that part of the brief which
discusses Southern Classification territory under Section
Six so far as 1. c. 1. shipments are concerned.
THE FEEIGHT. KATES ON FRUITS AND ATEGETABLES FROM SOUTH¬
ERN PRODUCING POINTS, AND THE RATES ON OTHER TRAFFIC
HANDLED IN REFRIGERATOR CARS BY THE SOUTHERN RAIL¬
ROADS, DO NOT INCLUDE THE FACTORS OF ICEi HAULAGE OR
SWITCHING TO AND FROM ICE PLANTS, OR ANY OTHER AC¬
CESSORIAL SERAUCE OF PROTECTION FROM HEAT OR COLD.
In making up the refrigerator charges shown in the
proposed tariff from points in the territory south of the
Ohio and Potomac rivers and east of the Mississippi
River, the costs of hauling the ice loaded in the refrig-
41
erator cars and of switcliing the cars to and from the
ice plants were included, with some exceptions. This is
vigorously objected to, especially by the Florida fruit
and vegetable shippers, on the ground that these items
of cost or service are already included in the freight
rates, and should not be charged for twice. It therefore
becomes desirable to discuss the question whether or not
the rates on shipments of fruits and vegetables from
southern producing points actually do now include the
costs of ice haulage and switching to and from ice plants,
or, more accurately stated, whether or not these rates
Avere ever made higher or are now higher to the extent
of what it costs to haul the ice and switch the cars than
they would have been if these items of expense had never
been necessary.
It is the position of the southern railroads that these
two elements of the expense, ice haulage, and switching,
involved in the movement of traffic in refrigerator cars,
have never been considered or included in determining
the measure of the rates charged by them for the trans¬
portation of fruits and vegetables, or any other traffic,
from, to, or between points in the southern states; that
these freight rates have in practically all instances been
fixed and controlled by commercial and competitive con¬
ditions which precluded any consideration of cost ele¬
ments; that the former rates on fruits and vegetables,
upon which the present figures are predicated, were
established before the commodities on which they ap¬
plied moved in refrigerator cars to any material extent;
and that not only were those rates not increased to com¬
pensate the carriers for the added expense of handling
the articles in refrigerator cars after they commenced
to be shipped that way in large volume, hut, on the con¬
trary, the rates were in most instances actually reduced
42
from time to time up to the general revision of June 25,
1918.
Their testimony on this subject falls logically into three
branches: that relating to the rates on fruits and vege¬
tables from the southeastern territory ; that dealing with
the rates on these commodities from the Mississippi Val¬
ley territory; and that concerning class rates and the
rates on various miscellaneous commodities.
1.
Rates on Fruits and Vegetables from Southeastern
Territory.
The witnesses who testified on this branch of the case
were Mr. G. L. Tillery, Mr. J. H. Ketner, and Mr. G. H.
Kerr. These gentlemen are assistant general freight
agents of the Atlantic Coast Line, Seaboard Air Line,
and Southern Eailroads, respectively, and each of them
has not only had years of experience in the traffic de¬
partments of the roads they represent, but each has
just made a thorough study of this particular question.
(Pages 7527, 7769, 7770, 7771, 7901.)
Florida.
The general method of constructing through rates on
oranges and other citrus fruits, on other kinds of fruit,
and on vegetables is to add proportional or gathering
rates from the producing stations to the Florida basing
points, of which Jacksonville is the chief, and the propor¬
tional rates from such base points to destinations.
(Tillery's Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11; Ketner,
p. 7861, 7862.)
43
The gathering rates to Jacksonville were formerly the
same as the local rates to that city, hut in January, 1912,
they were reduced,—or rearranged from an any-quantity
basis to different rates on carload and less-than-carload
shipments—^by the Commission in its report in the case of
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Shippers Protective Asso¬
ciation V. A. C. L. R. R. Co., et al., 22 1. C. C., 11, decided
November 6,1911.
(Tillery, pp. 7550; Tillery's Exhibit 10; Ketner,
pp. 7779, 7858; Ketner's Exhibits 1 and 2.)
The former any-quantity rates from Florida points
to Jacksonville had been fixed by the Florida Railroad
Commission, effective March 1, 1898, and represented
reductions under the rates which the carriers had estab¬
lished. There is nothing in the records of the carriers
or in the reports of the Florida Commission to indicate
that any of these rates were fixed with reference to these
products moving under refrigeration, or, to any allow¬
ance or addition being made for the haulage of ice or
switching to and from ice houses.
(Ketner, pp. 7779, 7780, 7782, 7858; Ketner's
Exhibits 1 and 2.)
Neither is there anything in the report of the Commis¬
sion in 22 I. C. C., 11, to indicate that it included or
added any amounts to cover the cost of these items when
it reduced the carload rates on fruits and vegetables to
Jacksonville, when for beyond.
(Tillery, pp. 7550, 7551; Ketner, pp. 7791, 7792,
7876.)
At the time of the change made as the result of the
Commission's decision practically none of the citrus fruit
traffic moved under refrigeration.
(Tillery, p. 7551.)
44
On vegetables the rates established by the Commis¬
sion for movement in refrigerator cars allowed approxi¬
mately the same revenue per car as the rates established
by it for the movement in ventilated cars. For example,
under the basis established from Lakeland, Fla., to Jack¬
sonville, for beyond, the minimum per car charge when
in refrigerator cars was $49—when in ventilated cars
$50.40—so it will be seen that the Commission added
nothing to the transportation charge to cover the addi¬
tional expense of ice haulage in bunkers and of switch¬
ing to ice plants when shipments are under refrigeration.
(Tillery, pp. 7550, 7551; Ketner, pp. 7791, 7792.)
And these rates have not been changed since then, ex¬
cept for the increase of General Order 28.
(Tillery, Exhibits 10 and 11, pp. 7550, 7551 ; Ket¬
ner's Exhibits 1 and 2.)
The first all-rail routes from Jacksonville, Fla., to the
east became available about the year 1886.
(Ketner, p. 7861, 7863; Ketner's Exhibit 4.)
Prior to that time and for many years subsequently
Florida vegetables and oranges and other fruits shipped
to the East moved by boat or railroad to Jacksonville and
thence by the coastwise steamship lines.
(Tillery, pp. 7540, 7541; Ketner, pp. 7775, 7776,
7777, 7784, 7863, 7864; Ketner's Exhibit 4.)
This steamship competition and transportation still
exists.
(Ketner, p. 7864.)
The rates established from time to time by the all-rail
routes from Jacksonville to the eastern cities were made
to meet this steamship competition—and hence they were
45
fixed without any regard to the kind of cars used, or the
cost of handling them.
(Tillery, pp. 7540, 7541, 7898; Ketner, pp. 7775,
7776, 7777, 7778, 7855, 7863, 7864.)
As a matter of fact, however, the kind of cars used
were ordinary freight cars. The first all-rail rates from
Florida to the East were made at the time when there
was no use of refrigeration in the handling of this class
of traffic. This is also true of various species of vege¬
tables which, on account of their more hardy nature, may
be successfully transported without refrigeration.
(Tillery, p. 7531; Ketner, pp. 7777, 7784, 7785;
Ketner's Exhibits 4 and 6.)
"The first car out of Florida under refrigeration
was in 1888 and the general level of rates out of
Florida Avas established prior to that time, and since
then there has been a downward trend in those rates,
therefore they could not have included this service."
(Ketner, p. 7777.)
During subsequent years the traffic just referred to
(citrus fruits as well as vegetables) demanded more and
more the increased use of refrigerator cars in order to
secure ventilation, but not refrigeration.
(Tillery, pp. 7531, 7534, 7535.)
The movement of oranges under refrigeration from
Florida is. of comparatively recent origin. Until 1907,
the movement Avas almost entirely under ventilation, and,
in fact, the greater part of the movement was not handled
in refrigerator cars—such portion as did move in re¬
frigerator ears being principally under ventilation, and
only a small fraction of the refrigerator car movement
was refrigerated.
(Tillery, pp. 7535, 7553; Tillery's Exhibit No.
13.)
46
The movement of citrus fruit under refrigeration was
negligible prior to the season 1912-1913, while the
measure of the rates on this traffic as in effect prior to
June 25, 1918, had been fixed and determined before
1912-1913.
( Tillery, p. 7553; Tillery's Exhibits 4 and 5;
Ketner, p. 7785.)
Conditions affecting the sale and distribution of this
traffic have so much changed with the passing of the
years that to-day the controlling reason for the demand
for refrigerator cars instead of ventilator cars is the fact
that the shippers do not always know what the destina¬
tion of the shipment is going to be but are availing them¬
selves more and more of the reconsigning privilege, and
require a refrigerator car so that, if necessary, the ship¬
ment may be given refrigeration protection en route
without the necessity for transferring the contents of
the car.
(Tillery, pages 7531, 7532; Ketner, pages 7785,
7786.)
Mr. Tillery's Exhibit No. 4 shows the rates in effect
since 1897 on citrus fruits from Florida base points to
New York, and his Exhibit No. 5, is a similar statement
of rates on citrus fruits from Florida base points to
Cincinnati, and in both of these statements the earliest
rates shown were as high as or higher than the rates
Avhich were in effect prior to the general increase of
June 25, 1918, under General Order No. 28.
(Tillery, pages 7539, 7531.)
As stated, these rates were established at a time when
little or no citrus fruit traffic moved in refrigerator cars.
In fact, the oldest tariffs referred to in these exhibits
were intended to apply particularly in connection with
47
the movement on citrus fruits in ordinary or ventilated
equipment, and these tariffs made no reference to the
handling of shipments in refrigerator cars prior to Octo¬
ber 18, 1900. When the first reference was made in the
tariff to the use of these rates in connection wdth ship¬
ments moving under ice in refrigerator cars, the note
provided clearly that when oranges, etc., were shipped
in refrigerator cars, such cars must be furnished by the
shippers, and the cost of icing, etc., would be in addition
to the freight rates, the ice to be furnished by the own¬
ers of the cars.
(Tillery, pages 7539, 7530, 7531, 7537; Tillery's
Exhibits 1, 2, 3.)
During the period prior to the passage of the Hep¬
burn bill, the railroad companies published no rates for
refrigeration, and the tariffs of the Atlantic Coast Line
Railroad publishing the freight rates on fruits and vege¬
tables from Florida contained the following note :
"Neither this company nor its connection are en¬
gaged in the refrigeration business, and the rates
shown in this tariff do not include compensation for
the service or cost of refrigeration."
(Tillery, pages 7530, 7531, 7537, 7538.)
Effective December 11, 1907, the charges for refrig¬
erating citrus fruits were stated in the same tariff as
published the transportation rates from Jacksonville to
the eastern and northern markets, but a note was car¬
ried showing that such charges would be in addition to
the regular rates of transportation.
(Tillery, page 7540.)
The notes dealing with the subject of refrigeration in
the tariffs carrying the transportation charges on citrus
fruits from Florida v^ere modified or changed from time
48
to time but the purpose and effect of these notes at all
times was to indicate that the freight rates did not in¬
clude any part of the cost of performing a refrigeration
service.
(Tillery, page 7540.)
Thus the note that became effective on March 6, 1909,
states that the rates do not include the cost of refrig¬
eration, and the term "cost of refrigeration," of course,
covers not only the ice used but the various services per¬
formed in connection with the furnishing of such ice.
(Tillery, pages 7540, 7537, 7538.)
The proportional rates on oranges and other citrus
fruits from Jacksonville to the Ohio River crossings
were made to meet the competition of California oranges
in the territory north of the Ohio River, and not with
any reference either to the cost of the service or the
character of the equipment.
(Ketner, pages 7787, 7788.)
The rates on citrus fruits from Jacksonville to the
East, while originally controlled by the ocean competi¬
tion, were made still lower by the Commission in the
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association case
because of and in comparison with the low proportional
rates from Jacksonville to Cincinnati and other Ohio
River crossings.
(Ketner, pages 7787, 7788; Tillery, pages 7898,
7899.)
The important fact, of course, is that the freight rates
on citrus fruits from Florida are not and never have
been based on any factor pertaining to the cost of haul¬
ing ice or the cost of performing switching that is inci¬
dent to the refrigeration service, and the history of the
49
rates, as well as the exhibits of record showing the notes
in the tariffs, and the chronological statements of the
rates, fully demonstrate this fact.
(Tillery, pages 7540, 7530, 7531, 7536, 7895, 7897 ;
Tillery's Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Ketner, pages
7779, 7771, 7777, 7779, 7792.)
The history of the tariffs on other fruits and on vege¬
tables leads necessarily to the same conclusion with re¬
spect to the rates on those commodities from Jackson¬
ville and other Florida basing points.
(Tillery, pages 7542, 7543, 7544; Tillery's Ex¬
hibits 6, 7 ; Ketner, pages 7770, 7771.)
These rates Avere also originally made to meet the
steamship competition from Jacksonville, and prior to
April, 1910, the same transportation rates applied on
shipments in refrigerator cars as on shipments in ordi¬
nary or ventilated equipment—in other words, the trans¬
portation rates originally applicable on shipments in
ordinary or ventilated equipment had been applied with¬
out change on shipments in refrigerator cars when the
traffic began to move in this kind of equipment.
(Tillery, page 7536; Ketner, pages 7789, 7855.)
Mr. Tillery's Exhibit No. 6 is a chronological state¬
ment of the rates on celery, lettuce and beans in carloads
and less than carloads from Jacksonville, when from be¬
yond, to New York, via all-rail, since April, 1895.
(Tillery, pages 7542, 7543.)
These three vegetables (celery, lettuce, and beans) are
well representative of those that move under refrig¬
eration from Florida. The earliest rates shown in this
exhibit are as high as or higher than the rates which
Avere applicable prior to June 25, 1918. The statement
50
goes back to April 10, 1895, when an any-quantity rate
of 43 cents per bushel box was in effect. The tariff then
stated by a note that when shipped in refrigerator cars,
the cost of icing would be in addition to freight rates,
and that refrigerator cars would be furnished by the
shipper. We construe the term "cost of icing" as cov¬
ering not only the cost of the ice but also the cost of all
of the services incident to the furnishing of such ice. The
note was subjected to slight changes and modified from
time to time during the succeeding years until August
2, 1906, -when it was revised to show that neither the ini¬
tial carrier nor its connections were engaged in a re¬
frigeration business, and that the rates shown in the
tariff did not include compensation for the service or
cost of refrigeration.
(Tillery, pages 7543, 7544.)
The only difference in the rates from Florida points
as between shipments of fruits and vegetables under re¬
frigeration and under ventilation resulted from the order
of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Florida Fruit
and Vegetable Shippers Protective Association v. A. C. L.
R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C., 552, decided February 8,1910,
in which the Commission ordered as to vegetables a
minimum of 350 crates under refrigeration, and a mini¬
mum of 420 crates under ventilation, because when
shipped under refrigeration, not over 350 crates, equiva¬
lent to 17,500 pounds, can be properly loaded, and like¬
wise provided different rates per package as applied to
these different minima.
(Tillery, page 7532.)
It may be correctly stated that the only reason why
the Commission provided these different rates per pack¬
age was in order to insure to the carriers approximately
51
thé same earnings per car on vegetables when shipped in
refrigerator cars as when handled in ventilated cars.
(Tillery, pages 7532, 7533; Ketner, page 7791.)
This was certainly the effect of the difference pre¬
scribed, so far as the minimum car was concerned; and
this may be illustrated by the rate fixed on vegetables,
N. 0. S., including celery, from Jacksonville, when from
beyond, to New York via all rail, which became effective
April 15,1910. The carload rate under refrigeration was
made 39 cents per standard crate, 350 crates minimum—
which is equal to $136.50 per minimum car, and the car¬
load rate under ventilation was made 33 cents per stand¬
ard crate, minimum 420 crates—or $138.60 per minimum
ear. This illustration shows that the Commission, hav¬
ing established both the rate under ventilation and that
when under refrigeration, did not take into consideration
the added cost of hauling ice in bunkers and switching
cars to ice plants, because the rate under refrigeration
makes the per car charge actually less than the per car
charge when under ventilation. If it had taken into con¬
sideration the costs of the additional service involved
when the movement is under refrigeration, the rate or
revenue per car would have been made substantially
higher than that applying when in ventilated cars.
(Tillery, pages 7532, 7533; Tillery's Exhibit 6;
Ketner, page 7791.)
There is absolutely nothing in the Commission's sev¬
eral reports in the proceeding referred to, which indi¬
cates that it included the items of ice haulage and switch¬
ing in fixing the freight rates on vegetables when shipped
under refrigeration, and there was absolutely no evi¬
dence or admission by the carriers' witnesses in that
proceeding to the effect that those items had ever been
considered or included in arriving at the former rates
52
on fruits or vegetables from Florida. The reports, of
course, "speak for themselves," but this statement as to
the carriers ' testimony is substantiated by a recent care¬
ful examination by Mr. Ketner of the record in that case.
(Ketner, pages 7791, 7792, 7875, 7876, 7884, 7885,
7886, 7887.)
The history of these rates on vegetables from Jackson¬
ville to the East and of the notes in the taritfs publishing
them, as shown in Mr. Tillery's Exhibit 6, and detailed
in his testimony, and in that of Mr. Ketner, clearly show
that the rates do not and never have included any factor
pertaining to the cost of hauling ice in bunkers or of
switching incidental to refrigeration. "The oldest rates
shown did not include such factors in their construction,
and nothing has ever been added to the rates to cover
such factors." On the contrary, the rates have been re¬
duced from time to time.
(Tillery, pages 7543, 7544; Ketner, pages 770,
This is equally true in respect to the proportional rates
on Florida vegetables from Jacksonville to the West.
The exhibits of record do not contain the earliest figures,
but the rates they do show were made in competition
with the rates on and the movement of vegetables from
producing points in other territories, and not with any
regard to the cost of transportation.
(Tillery, pages 7544, 7545; Tillery's Exhibit 7;
Ketner, pages 7786, 7770, 7771.)
Thus there was in effect prior to January, 1910, an ex¬
tremely low depressed competitive rate of only 25 cents
per crate on vegetables from Jacksonville to Cincinnati
and the other Ohio River cities, and this rate was in¬
creased to 30 cents, effective January 10, 1910, not be¬
cause of any cost considerations or of the kinds of cars
53
used, but simply because the former rate was consid¬
ered unnecessarily low, and it was thought that the
slightly higher rate of 30 cents per crate would be low
enough to permit the Florida producers to meet the com¬
petition of other vegetable growing sections in marketing
their produce.
(Tillery, page 7545; Tillery's Exhibit No. 7;
Ketner, pages 7786, 7887.)
The 30-cent rate from Jacksonville to the Ohio River
crossings was also considered by the Commission in the
Florida Fruit d Vegetable Shippers Case, 17 I. C. C.,
558, and was approved as reasonably low. In fact, the
Commission indicated that this rate was really lower than
it Avould or could prescribe as a maximum reasonable
figure.
(Ketner, pages 7787, 7854, 7855; Tillery, page
7545.)
The oldest tariffs publishing rates on vegetables from
Jacksonville to the Ohio and Mississippi River cities and
crossings made no reference to shipments in refrigerator
cars, the rates being published to apply on shipments in
ordinary or ventilated equipment, but the wording of
those tariffs did not preclude their application on ship¬
ments in refrigerator cars, although the refrigeration
charges were in addition, but the freight rates were not
constructed based on any factor pertaining to the haulage
of ice or the cost of switching incidental to the refrigera¬
tion service. Effective April 17, 1905, a note was in¬
cluded in the tariffs so as to clearly show that the cost
of icing would be in addition to the rates published there¬
in. This note was later changed to read as follows :
"Rates shown in this tariff do not include com¬
pensation for the service or cost of refrigeration."
These notes have been subjected to some modification
54
since that time, but the intention at all times has been
to make it clear that the freight rates on vegetables from
Florida to the North and West do not and never did
include the cost of the refrigeration service, and it is a
fact that in the construction of these rates no factor of
the refrigeration cost was ever taken into consideration.
(Tillery, pages 7545, 7546; Ketner, pages 7770,
7771, 7786, 7787, 7792.)
Mr. Tillery's exhibits and testimony as to the general
downward tendency of the rates on fruits and vegetables
from Florida is confirmed by Mr. Ketner's investigation
of the Seaboard Air Line's records and tariffs; as are
also his conclusions.
(Ketner, pages 7770, 7771, 7772, 7773, 7774.)
The Carolinas.
Until the present inquiry was presented, no considera¬
tion of the item of expense of transporting ice in bunk¬
ers or switching cars to the ice plants has ever been
given in constructing rates for the transportation of
fruits or vegetables from points in North and South
Carolina. The volume of the Carolina perishable traffic
moves under rates which on June 24, 1918, were lower
than the rates for the same service as originally estab¬
lished. There is relatively a small use of refrigeration
in the movement of perishable traffic from Carolina ter¬
ritory as compared with the movement in ventilated box
cars. The largest single item of refrigerated movement
consists of strawberries, on which the rates were estab¬
lished without regard to the expense of transporting ice
in bunkers or switching refrigerator cars to be iced.
While the strawberry traffic is of such a character as to
require refrigeration, rates thereon were made prior to
the time when refrigeration rates were published by the
55
railroads which took place immediately subsequent to
the passage of the Hepburn Bill. They did not at that
time make any change in the specific freight rates, but
merely brought forward and published in their taritf
form the separately established charges for refrigera¬
tion. These refrigeration charges were paid to the pri¬
vate car line and the railroads continued to receive their
old freight rates. That is to say, the publication of a re¬
frigeration tariff resulted in no increased earnings for
the carriers. Before that time, the transportation tariffs
on not only berries, but other fruits and vegetables, pro¬
vided specifically that the rates contained therein did not
include any expense of refrigeration, and the shippers
dealt directly with refrigerator car companies.
(Tillery, pages 7528, 7529, 7547.)
Throughout all of these years no transportation rate
was predicated upon any factor pertaining to the refrig¬
eration service. The same rates have applied on fruits
and vegetables in refrigerator cars as were applicable on
fruits and vegetables in ventilated box cars.
(Tillery, pages 7529, 7530, 7547; Tillery's Ex¬
hibits 8, 9.)
The early all-rail rates on vegetables from the South
Carolina producing section around Charleston were made
to compete with the movement via steamer lines from
Charleston to eastern cities, and the eastern markets
have always taken the greater part of the produce
shipped from the Charleston section. In those early
days the service by the direct steamers was just as quick
or quicker than via all rail, and the all-rail lines were
compelled to make very low rates in order to control a
share of the business. The rate adjustment from the
Charleston district which originated under these con¬
ditions has influenced the adjustment not only from the
56
other Carolina points but to all eastern destinations.
The competition via Norfolk and steamship has also influ¬
enced some of these rates.
(Tillery, pages 7547, 7548, 7549; Ketner, pages
7774, 7775.)
Not only has nothing ever been added to these water
competitive rates to compensate the all-rail carriers for
the added cost of handling the traffic in refrigerator cars,
but the tendency of the rates has been gradually down¬
wards. Thus the rates on cabbage, potatoes, and other
vegetables from Meggetts and Yonges Island, S. C.,
which are typical points on the Atlantic Coast Line Eail-
road near Charleston, to New York, via all rail were
substantially reduced from time to time during the twenty-
year period from March, 1898, to June, 1918, and this ex¬
ample is fairly illustrative of the history and tendency of
the rates from other shipping points in South Carolina
as well as from points in North Carolina.
(Tillery's Exhibit 8, page 7547; Tillery, page
7547 ; Ketner, pages 7773, 7774.)
Moreover, the tariffs publishing these rates have al¬
ways contained notes stating that they did not include
refrigerating costs and those notes necessarily demon¬
strate that the rates are not, and never have been, con¬
structed based on any factor pertaining to the cost of
hauling ice or the cost of SAvitching that is incidental to
the refrigerating service.
(Tillery, pages 7547, 7528, 7529, 7530; Ketner,
pages 7770, 7771.)
What has been just said about the method of construct¬
ing rates, as to the factors taken into consideration, ap¬
plies also to the rates from the Carolina territory to the
West.
(Tillery, page 7549; Tillery's Exhibit 9; Ket¬
ner, pages 7770, 7771.)
57
However, the movement of vegetables from Carolina
points to the West is unusual and unimportant.
(Tillery, pages 7549, 7550.)
On apples shipped from points in North Carolina to
the South the rates of the railroads were fixed merely as
the freight rates to apply on shipments in ordinary box
cars and when the shippers see fit to supply a refriger¬
ator car the railroads haul the traffic and charge precisely
the same rates.
(Kerr, page 7927.)
This fact is established by Mr. Kerr's Exhibit 8, which
shoves. the rates published by the Southern Eailroad
since 1896 on apples from Hendersonville, N. C., to At¬
lanta, Birmingham, Chattanooga and Montgomery. The
purpose of this exhibit is to show that the rates on ap¬
ples did not include either refrigeration or the use of
refrigerator cars. The tariffs publishing these rates all
contained notes indicating that neither the Southern Bail-
way nor its connections are engaged in a refrigerator
business and that the rates shown in the tariffs do not
include compensation for the service or cost of refriger¬
ation.
(Kerr, pages 7926, 7927; Kerr's Exhibit 8.)
Virginia.
The principal movement referred to in this record from
points in Virginia- is that of apples under refrigeration.
(Kerr, pages 7927, 7929.)
But the record shows that about 90 per cent of the
movement of apples from Virginia is in ordinary box
cars.
(Kerr, page 7928.)
58
Moreover, there was no change' (other than the general
five per cent advance in 1915) in the rates on apples from
Charlottesville, Va., and Harrisonburg, Va., representa¬
tive shipping points, to New York and Philadelphia dur¬
ing the 21 years from 1897 to 1918, and this fact, coupled
vdth the fact that about 90 per cent of the movement is in
box cars, indicates that the rates were made and intended
to apply primarily on shipments in ordinary box cars.
(Kerr, page 7928; Kerr's Exhibit 9.)
Georgia.
The refrigeration charges on Georgia peaches are satis¬
factory to the shippers, and for that reason the carriers
did not introduce evidence on the question whether the
rates on peaches from points in Georgia do or do not
include the cost of ice haulage and switching. They do
not, however, concede that the freight rates do include
either of these items.
(Bell, pages 7727, 7725.)
MISCELLANEOUS BATES OF THE SOUTHEEN RAILROADS.
CLASSIFICATION RATINGS AND CLASS BATES.
The classification ratings in the Southern Classifica¬
tion, and consequently the class rates in the Southern
Classification territory, do not now include, and never
have included protection of the commodities upon which
they apply from either heat or cold, and none of these
rates or ratings have ever included the cost or charges
for such services, or been made higher than they other¬
wise would have been because of any additional expense
to the carriers in handling shipments in refrigerator
cars, or in cars protected from the cold.
(Voorhees, pages 7505, 7506, 7507, 7508, 7510,
7511, 7512, 751.3, 7514, 7515, 7516, 7517, 7522.)
59
The facts were testified to by Mr. E. K. Voorhees, who
is a member of the Southern Classification Committee,
and who has had years of experience in southern and
other classification work, as the result of a recent care¬
ful investigation by him of the subject, classification and
carrier records, as rvell as of his personal experience
since the year 1896.
(Voorhees, pages 7501, 7502, 7504, 7508.)
The rules of the current and former Southern Classi¬
fications, a complete record of which is contained in Mr.
Voorhees' Exhibits 1 and 2, make it very plain that none
of the classification ratings or rules require the rail¬
roads to furnish refrigeration or protection from cold
for either carload or less-than-carload shipments.
(Voorhees, pages 7504, 7505, 7506, 7507, 7514,
7515; Voorhees' Exhibits 1 and 2, pages 7505,
7514.)
The fact that the coastwise steamship lines between
the eastern cities and the South Atlantic ports, who have
no refrigerating facilities, have always been parties to
the Southern Classification tends strongly to indicate
that the ratings do not include either the service or ex¬
pense of refrigeration.
(Voorhees, pages 7503, 7512.)
The history of the ratings themselves compels the
same inference since many of the ratings on perishable
commodities have either remained unchanged for many
years, or have been gradually reduced.
(Voorhees, pages 7515, 7519, 7520; Voorhees'
Exhibit 3.)
Also the same result follows from comparing the rat¬
ings on perishable commodities, and those on various
other articles of traffic having like classification charac-
6C
teristics, since many of the perishable articles are rated
as low as or lower than comparable nonperishahle com¬
modities, and this would not he the case if the excep¬
tional costs of furnishing refrigeration or protection
from cold had been taken into consideration.
(Voorhees, pages 7516, 7517, 7520, 7521; Voor-
hees' Exhibit 4.)
Moreover, it is obvious that the southern carriers
would not advertise in a general tariff like a classifi¬
cation that the ratings therein included protective serv¬
ice when as a matter of fact many of the railroads never
owned any refrigerator or heater cars and were not
equipped to perform such service and others furnished
it only to a limited extent.
(Voorhees, pages 7511, 7512.)
Lastly, many of the commodities named in the pro¬
posed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1, under certain
conditions, may be handled safely and satisfactorily in
common ears and protective service is not required in all
instances; hence, it is not practicable or customary in
making up or revising classifications to base the ratings
on any such factors, or to make them include the cost of
protective service against heat or cold, because, as Mr.
Voorhees explained, "in so many cases the articles move
both in common cars and in refrigerator cars ; almost
any article that is shipped in some part of the country
is shipped without ice. There may be a few that would
always require ice, but there are a very few. Some ar¬
ticles are shipped to-day under refrigeration that ten
years ago were shipped without refrigeration."
(Voorhees, pages 7513, 7514, 7523, 7524.)
Hence, the classification attitude is that if an article
moves under refrigeration whether there is an additional
61
charge or not it ought to be authorized separately from
the classification. The classification is too general a
tariff to cover any such special service, and the man
making the classification does not know Avhether it is go¬
ing to move under refrigeration or not.
(Voorhees, pages 7524, 7525.)
"Based upon my personal experience with the ques¬
tion, which extends to 1896 at least," testified Mr. Voor¬
hees "and the investigation I have made, the rating never
did include, and do not now include, the charges for such
service," as protection from heat or cold.
(Voorhees, page 7508.)
Rates on Poultry and Eggs.
The railroads in the Southern territory do not pro¬
vide scheduled refrigerator car services within the scope
of Section 6 of the proposed tariff. The Southern Kail-
road is the one exception to this, and its traffic which
would come under the provisions of Section 6 is confined
to shipments of eggs and dressed poultry from stations
on the lines in eastern Tennessee to eastern cities. That
service is already covered by a refrigeration tariff, I. C.
C. No. A-8573 which became effective June 10, 1919.
(Kerr, pages 7909, 7910.)
This refrigeration service has been in effect only a
few months although the traffic has been moving in ordi¬
nary equipment for a great number of years.
(Kerr, pages 7913, 7914, 7915.)
The freight rates on eggs and dressed poultry from
points on the Southern Railroad in east Tennessee never
did and do not now include the cost of refrigeration.
As a matter of fact, refrigeration was never considered
62
necessary on these shipments of eggs nntil just recently.
(Kerr, pages 7918, 7919, 7920.)
The rates remained unchanged from 1902 to June 25,
1918, during Avhich time the traffic moved in ordinary
cars and the present freight rates were not increased in
any way when the shipments recently commenced to
move in refrigerator cars.
(Kerr's Exhibit 7, page 7919; Kerr, pages 7919,
7920.)
Rates on Fresh Meats and Packing-House Products.
The rates charged on shipments of fresh meats and
packing-house products from the West to the Southeast,
and from Birmingham, Alabama to the North and East
were never made to include or with reference to the costs
of hauling ice in refrigerator cars, or of switching such
cars for icing or re-icing.
(Ketner, pages 7789, 7790, 7868.)
Rates Not Dealt With.
So far as the rates on fruits and vegetables from Flor¬
ida and the Carolinas are concerned, the points of origin
and points of destination shown in the various exhibits
and discussed in the testimony are fairly illustrative of
the general adjustment of rates on that traffic.
(Tillery, page 7553.)
Counsel for the railroads in the southern region ex¬
plained of record that they had only introduced testi¬
mony dealing Avith representative rate situations, but
that the southern carriers do not concede that any of
their freight charges applicable on shipments handled
in refrigerator cars Avere ever made to include the items
of ice haulage and switching, or any higher than they
63
otherwise would have been if the traffic were not han¬
dled in refrigerator cars.
(Eecord, pages 7935, 7936.)
CONCLUSIONS AS TO SOUTHEASTERN TERRITORY.
It seems entirely evident from the positive testimony
of Messrs. Ketner and Tillery representing the two rail¬
roads that handle the principal part of the traffic, that
the freight rates published by those railroads for the
transportation of citrus fruits and vegetables from points
on their lines and on their connecting lines in Florida to
northern and eastern markets were not originally made
and have never since been made higher than they other¬
wise would have been made because of the handling of a
portion of this traffic in refrigerator cars.
"I made a conscientious effort," testified Mr. Ket¬
ner, "to develop whether our freight charges and
transportation charges on fruits and vegetables
from Florida and Carolina territory involved the
item of ice haulage in bunkers in refrigerator cars,
and switching to and from ice houses, and I say the
result of my investigation is that our freight charges
as originally established and as they now stand do
not include those items, and never have included
them."
If that is so it is not clear how the shippers can have
any just complaint against the inclusion of the cost of
these services in the refrigerator ear rates. They are
extra accessorial services, incidental only to the move¬
ment of shipments under refrigeration, and there seems
to he no impropriety in asking the users of the refrigera¬
tors to stand the added expense of which they alone ob¬
tain the benefit. And if they ought to pay some one for
the extra costs of ice haulage and switching at ice plants,
it should he immaterial to them whether the payment is
64
collected in the g'uise of freight rates or refrigerator
charges. At any rate, the evidence is entirely clear that
such payments have never heretofore been included or
collected in the carriers '■ rates of freight, and it would be
therefore essentially unfair to them to reduce those rates,
as the Florida people suggest be done, because of the in¬
clusion of these items in the refrigerator rates. Merely
because some $13.50 per car has been included in the re¬
frigeration charge as representing the cost of ice haul¬
age and switching from Florida to New York would fur¬
nish no just reason for reducing the railroads' rates and
revenues $13.50 per car on Florida fruits and vegetables,
because, as pointed out by Mr. Ketner, "that element has
not been included in the freight rate, and why should we
have to pay $13.50 for something that has been included
in the freight rate"!
While it is true that the carriers perform the service of
hauling the ice and switching the cars, it is equally true
that the exceptional expense of performing this service
would not be incurred if the shipments were not made in
refrigerator cars and under refrigeration, it therefore
is an item of cost that is properly allocated to the re¬
frigerator car service; and if the railroads have the
right to make an additional charge for it (and such a
right will hardly be disputed), there seems nothing il¬
logical or unreasonable so far as the shippers are con¬
cerned in providing for such charges in the refrigeration
rates instead of the freight schedules, if the carriers elect
to do so. Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co.
et al., 20 I. C. C., 106, at pages 108,109.
The only real objection the Florida shippers have to
urge against this method of assessment is their erroneous
assumption that this additional charge has been taken
into account already in determining the freight rates,
and the sole argument they can advance against the car-
65
riers' positive and convincing evidence that this assump¬
tion is erroneous is the curious fallacy that the railroads
are estopped from denying it because in previous hear¬
ings before the Commission their witnesses in defending
the reasonableness of the freight rates on fruits and
vegetables from Florida have referred to the obvious
fact that it is more expensive to handle perishables in
refrigerator cars than in ordinary freight car equip¬
ment.
The essential fallacy in this argument lies in their
failure to distinguish between the factors which may
happen to be considered by a trafSc official (or the Com¬
mission) in fixing a given rate, and the various evi¬
dentiary facts or arguments which he may later rely
upon in defending such a rate, however made against the
charge that it is so high as to be unjust and unreason¬
able. We see nothing at all inconsistent or illogical in
saying that a given rate, such as, for example, the rate
on vegetables from Jacksonville to Cincinnati, was made,
solely in order to meet competition, and at the same time
asserting that one of the reasons why it is not an un¬
reasonably high rate is the fact that the service is ex¬
ceptionally expensive and among the causes of such ex¬
pense are the use of refrigerator cars and the various
additional costs that are necessarily incurred in han¬
dling traffic moving under refrigeration. Such a defense
of a rate does not imply that these additional costs were
considered in arriving at the measure of the rate, espe¬
cially when those Avho made the rates testify positively
that no costs at all were considered.
Let us consider an analogous case. In the transpor¬
tation of coal traffic it is usually necessary to return the
cars to the mines empty. That is an additional expense
which is not incurred in the handling of most of the kinds
of traffic. The rates on coal from western Kentucky
66
mines to Memphis, Tenn., have been for many years de¬
pressed and made unusually low because of the competi¬
tion of Pennsylvania coal floated down the Ohio and Mis¬
sissippi Rivers. That competition was the reason and
the sole reason for the exact figures that were accepted
for the movement of coal by railroad from the western
Kentucky mines to Memphis. Yet when those figures
came to be attacked before the Commission as being ex¬
cessive and unreasonable the carriers' witnesses in de¬
fending the rates showed and properly showed, along
with a mass of other evidentiary facts, that the coal
cars are hauled back empty from Memphis to the mines.
Manifestly, their action in directing attention to this fact
did not involve any admission that the cost of this empty
return movement was included in the rate, because they
proved from their records, and the Commission so found,
that the measure of the rate was determined solely by
the river competition, and without any regard to any of
the costs of service at all. Coal S Coke Rates in the
Southeast, 35 I. C. C., 187, Rates on Rituminous Coal to
Mississippi Valleif Territory 36 I. C. C., 401. .It would
be obviously unfair and illogical under these circum¬
stances to reduce this rate on coal from western Ken¬
tucky mines to Memphis in the event some traffic would
develop which Avould enable the cars to be handled back
loaded instead of empty, merely because a witness in de¬
fending the rate referred to the empty return movement
as an added item of expense.
Yet this is precisely the position of the Florida pro¬
ducers in the pending proceeding. They want cither the
freight rates or the refrigeration reduced by some $12.50
per car merely because the defendant's witnesses in the
old Florida Fruit é Vegetable Association Cases, 14 I.
C. C., 476, 17 I. C. C., 552 and 22 I. C. C., 11, referred to
the facts that part of the shipments moved in special
67
equipment under refrigeration, that it is more expensive
to handle freight in refrigerator cars than in ordinary
ecjuipment, and that one of these added costs is the han¬
dling of ice in cars and switching at ice plants, as con¬
stituting some of the reasons, along Avith a large number
of others why their rates on fruits and vegetables from
Florida producing points to the North and East were
not excessive or unreasonable. Yet the same witnesses
testified that those rates, which applied on shipments in
all kinds of cars, had been made by them expressly and
soleh^ to meet ocean competition to the East and market
competition to the West, and this fact alone precludes
any admission or estoppel that they had included the
costs of ice haulage and switching in fixing the measure
of the rates so made.
Such an estoppel aa'ouM be without sanction in reason
or in law, an\T\my, in this present investigation where
the Commission is seeking to ascertain the facts as they
actually exist, and where it is not hound by a record of
testimony taken eight or ten years ago ; a record that is
not even made a part of the present proceeding. In the
present record it has before it the evidence of experi¬
enced traffic officers of the tAvo railroads that made the
rates and Avho ought to knoAv hoAv and AAffiy the rates Avere
made and what factors AA-ere considered in making them,
and A\dio have just completed a careful investigation of
the subject. It has also the history of the rates and
chronological statements of the changes in them since
an early period. It has also before it the important con¬
sideration that the general tendency of these rates has
been gradually doAvnward, that the original figures were
determined at a time Avhen the movement of freight in
refrigerators was utterly insignificant, and that no one
can point to any specific time since then at AA'hich the
cost of ice haulage and ice plant sAvitching of refrigera-
68
tor cars was added on to those figures or any subse¬
quent ones. If at any time during ali these years the
Atlantic Coast Line or Seaboard Air Line traffic officials
deliberately added |12.50 per car or any other amount
to the rates published by those railroads on fruits and
vegetables from Florida, for the purpose of making those
rates include a charge for the services of ice haulage and
switching to and from icing plants, the records of those
carriers would show it, and their present officials would
know of it. Yet none of them knows anything about it,
the rates themselves do not show it, and the only pos¬
sible conclusion is that it never happened.
There is certainly nothing in the reports of the Com¬
mission in the Florida Fruit <f Vegetable Association
cases, supra, that even remotely indicates that it added
$12.50 per car or any other sum to what it considered to
be reasonable rates on oranges and other fruits, or on
vegetables, from Florida producing points to Jackson¬
ville or from Jacksonville to eastern cities or western
markets, so as to make the rates which wmre approved or
prescribed by it cover additional charges for ice haulage
and switching. The only mention of these items occurs
in that section of its report in 14 I. C. C. commencing at
page 505 which deals with the subject of refrigeration
charges. (14 I. C. C. 508.) Since the Commission either
approved or reduced the rates in its reports in that pro¬
ceeding and does not anywhere state that it included the
expense of ice haulage or switching in the reduced rates
and it was not in the previous rates the logical presump¬
tion is that these items were not included in or added
to the rates prescribed by the Commission. The bur¬
den of proof to rebut that presumption rests on those
who affirm the contrary. There is nothing on the rec¬
ord so far that does it.
69
We therefore submit in conclusion that the southern
lines have fairly established in this investigation the
ultimate proposition that none of their freight rates or
line-haul transportation charges on shipments of per¬
ishable traffic in refrigerator cars include either the cost
of or charges for hauling ice in the cars or switching the
cars to and from the ice plants or, in fact, any other ac¬
cessorial services or expenses connected with the move¬
ment of the shipments under refrigeration or when pro¬
tected from the cold.
RATES ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM MISSISSIPPI VALLEY
TERRITORY.
The Mississippi Valley territory embraces all of the
States of Mississippi and Louisiana east of the Mis¬
sissippi Eiver, a part of Alabama, and the western parts
of Tennessee and Kentucky, and is defined in the record
as the territory on and east of the Mississippi Eiver
from the Ohio Eiver to the Gulf of Mexico, on and west
of the Mobile & Ohio Eailroad, from Mobile, Ala., to
Jackson, Tenn., the Illinois Central to Milan, Tenn., the
Louisville & Nashville to Paris, Tenn., the Nashville,
Chattanooga & St. Louis Ey. to Paducah, Ky.
(Sheppard, pages 8113-8115.)
The traffic witnesses who dealt with the question
whether freight rates from this territory were made to
include charges for such services as are contemplated
by proposed Perishable Tariff No. 1, were Messrs. J. L.
Sheppard, assistant general freight agent of the Illinois
Central and Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Eailroads, and
IV. K. Vandiver, assistant general freight agent of the
Mobile & Ohio Eailroad. Both of these gentlemen have
had extensive experience in the traffic departments of
70
their respective companies, and both have made a special
investigation of that question for this proceeding.
(Sheppard, pages 8113-8115, Vandiver, pages
8147-8149.)
The general result of this investigation and of their
experience is that they cannot recall and were unable to
locate a single instance where, in the making of rates of
freight for transportation between or to or from points
in this territory, there Avas included in the rates any
amount to cover refrigeration or heating, or any of the
factors entering into such services, or that the freight
rates have been made to include any amounts for the
furnishing of refrigerator cars.
(Sheppard, page 8115; Vandiver, pages 8149,
8150.)
Mr. Sheppard testified that the rates on domestic fruits
and vegetables betAveen and from points on the Illinois
Central Railroad appear to have been regarded as the
key rates from the Mississippi Valley territory; and the
other lines operating in that section seem to have made
their rates from time to time the same as, or with rela¬
tion to, the adjustment from points on that railroad.
(Sheppard, page 8117.)
The records of the Illinois Central Railroad indicates
that the moAmment of domestic fruits and vegetables by
freight from points on its lines in the Mississippi Valley
began in the early eighties; that prior to the movement
by freight the shipments Avere handled by express; and
that the traffic Avas originally handled by freight in box,
stock or ventilator cars.
(Sheppard, pages 8117, 8118.)
As late as the year 1889 the bulk of the movement ap¬
pears to have been in the ordinary box or ventilator cars.
71
althougli the refrigerator cars later came to be used
almost exclusively, even for shipments under ventila¬
tion only.
(Sheppard, pages 8118, 8119, 8124, 8125.)
But the original commodity rates, upon which the
present charges are predicated, were established in 1888,
before the general use of refrigerator cars, and they ap¬
plied only on fruits and vegetables when in box, stock,
or ventilated cars (which last were ordinary box cars
equipped with screened doors and windows as well as
tight doors and windows). The tariffs also provided for
the furnishing of refrigerator cars, but limited the use
of such cars to shipments under refrigeration and pub¬
lished a separate charge over and above the freight rates
for supplying such refrigeration, which shows that the
original freight rates did not include any charges for re¬
frigeration or for any of. the special services incident
thereto.
(Sheppard, pages 8119, 8120, 8121, 8122.)
The tariffs of 1888 publishing commodity rates on
fruits and vegetables from Illinois Central stations to
northern markets were amended or reissued by tariffs of
1890 and 1894 which omitted the language confining the
application of the rates to shipments in box, stock, or
ventilated cars, only, but continued the provisions about
extra charges for furnishing refrigeration, and either
continued or reduced the former freight rates. Such re¬
ductions were made for competitive reasons only, and
because of lower rates published by other railroads in
the Mississippi Valley, and from points in Texas.
(Sheppard, pages 8123, 8124, 8126, 8127, 8128,
8129, Sheppard's Exhibit 1.)
72
The result was to reduce the rates on tomatoes, to il¬
lustrate, from Crystal Springs, Miss., to Chicago, 111.,
which are fairly representative points of origin and des¬
tination, from 76.5 to 60 cents per ICQ pounds, effective
April 21, 1890. This 60-cent rate remained in force, ex¬
cept for a temporary reduction in 1898, until 1900, when
it was reduced to 52 cents per 100 pounds in competition
Avith the rates and movement from Texas points, with
corresponding reductions from and to other points of
origin and destination.
(Sheppard, pages 8129, 8130, 8131, 8132.)
The 52-cent rate to Chicago from Crystal Springs and
related points remained in effect until 1917, when it was
made 55 cents per 100 pounds.
(Sheppard, page 8131.)
This 55-cent rate was issued as part of a general re¬
vision involving numerous reductions, as well as ad¬
vances and other changes, which the Illinois Central and
other Mississippi Valley lines found it necessary to make
in their fruit and vegetable tariffs because of the nu¬
merous inconsistencies, fourth section departures, and
general unsatisfactory condition, of the rates at that
time.
(Sheppard, pages 8133, 8134, 8135, 8136.)
The record shoAvs that it Avas formerly the practice
of the Illinois Central to make reductions in rates on
fruits and vegetables on account of low market prices
on particular articles, due to slumps in the market, over¬
production, and the like, and that it is apparent the rail¬
road Avas trying to show to the producers that it was will¬
ing to help in every way possible in order to develop the
industry; that frequently rates on one kind of vege¬
tables were reduced without regard to rates on other
73
kinds of vegetables; that they were also reduced from
one shipping point without regard to the rates from
another shipping point, and to one consuming point with¬
out regard to rates from another consuming point; that
like practices were followed by other roads in their ef¬
forts to encourage the industry on their lines ; with the
result that the Mississippi Valley lines finally had an ad¬
justment full of inconsistencies—fourth section depar¬
tures, etc.; that these inconsistencies caused many com¬
plaints from shippers ; and that the condition of the ad¬
justment was generally unsatisfactory to the shippers
as well as to the carriers.
(Sheppard, pages 8133, 8136, 8138.)
For these reasons, the Mississippi Valley lines pro¬
ceeded to realign the rates on fruits and vegetables
from that territory and the revised rates were filed with
the Commission in April and May, 1916. They were sus¬
pended under I. & S. 820, but subsequently approved, and
made effective.
(Sheppard, pages 8135, 8136.)
In making this general realignment of the rates it was
necessary, in order to obtain reasonable levels, and con¬
serve the revenues, to make some advances, but there
were also numerous reductions, and in many instances
the rates were left undisturbed, and no increases of ma¬
terial consequence were made. The result was substan¬
tially the maintenance of the former adjustment with the
inconsistencies eliminated.
(Sheppard, pages 8136, 8137, 8138.)
It is therefore evident that this revision was not made
for the purpose of adding the costs of handling the traf¬
fic in refrigerator cars to the carriers' freight rates, and
that no increases were made or intended to he made at
74
that time to cover the supplying of refrigerator cars, or
the expense of the services incident to the movement
of fruits and vegetables in refrigerator cars.
(Sheppard, pages 8136, 8137, 8138, 8140.)
There have been no changes in the rates on domestic
fruits and vegetables from the Mississippi Valley pro¬
ducing sections to the consuming destinations since rates
were approved by the Commission in I. & S. 820, except
the advances made under the Director General's General
Order No. 28, and there is of course no provision in that
order to the effect that the increases in rates for trans¬
portation were made to include the costs of refrigera¬
tion or of the services incident thereto.
(Sheppard, page 8138.)
The rates of the Mobile & Ohio, Louisville & Nash¬
ville E. E. south of Decatur, Ala., New Orleans & North¬
eastern E. E., Gulf, Mobile & Northern E, E., and other
roads in the Mississippi Valley territory are made the
same as or with relation to the rates of the Illinois Cen¬
tral, except that in a few instances the L. & N. and M. &
O. make their rates on ivatermelons with relation to the
rates from Georgia to Ohio Eiver crossings and points
beyond, and it follows that whatever is true of the rates
from the Illinois Central stations must he equally the
fact with respect to the rates published from stations on
these other railroads.
(Sheppard, pages 8139; Vandiver, pages 8147,
8148, 8149, 8150.)
It also follows from the foregoing synopsis of their
evidence that the careful study made by Messrs. Shep¬
pard and Vandiver of the rates on domestic fruits and
vegetables from the Mississippi Valley territory dei-
velops beyond doubt these facts:
75
1. That the movement by freight of domestic fruits
and vegetables was originally in ordinary equipment,
such as box, stock and ventilated box cars.
2. That the commodity rates were originally pub¬
lished to apply on shipments in this character of equip¬
ment.
3. That when the use of ordinary cars was discon¬
tinued and refrigerator cars used, no additions were
made to the rates to cover the increased cost.
4. That separate charges over and above the rates
for transportation for services incident to refrigeration
have heen made as long as commodity rates have been
in effect, and the cost of such services were not in¬
cluded in the cost of transportation.
5. That no increases have been made in the rates of
transportation to cover the cost of refrigeration, or serv¬
ices incident thereto, and the present rates for transpor¬
tation do not include any such charges for such services.
(Sheppard, pages 8116, 8117, 8140; Vandiver,
pages 8149, 8150.)
Eastern Territory.
c. f. a. tebritory.
Witness Arthur Patriarch:
Besides at Detroit—is assistant to federal manager of
Pere Marquette Eailroad—with the exception of four
years he has been in railway service since 1861 and until
the present time. For forty-four years he has been con¬
nected with the traffic department of the Pere Marquette
System. Prior to Pere Marquette service was connected
with Grand Trunk of Canada, Great Western Eailway
of Canada and the opening stations of Bay City Division
then called the Detroit and Bay City Eailroad in the
76
State of Michigan—has been familiar with traffic condi¬
tions in that section of Michigan served by P. M. R. R.
fortyfour years. Was present at the Convention in 1887
when Official Classification No. 1 was presented. His
participation was only in the acceptance and confirma¬
tion thereof. Does not know anything of his own knowl¬
edge of the elements that entered into the determina¬
tion of that Classification. (3359-60-61)
In the late sixties and early seventies territory now
known as West Michigan Fruit Belt was largely devoted
to forest products and as land was cleared it was found
to be adapted to growing peaches, pears, grapes and
small fruits, the location being influenced from surface
waters of Lake Michigan. Production increased rapidly,
most of the fruit finding market in Chicago. As the
forest disappeared the fruit region continued moving
north as far as Traverse Bay. Counties north of Mason
to Traverse Bay have proved ideal for growing cherries.
P. M. R. R. serves this territory principally. This rail¬
road came into existence in 1900 through consolidation
of a number of small lines. At that time it owned eight¬
een refrigerator ears used as pick-up cars for dairy
freight. In 1901 there was a large peach crop and re¬
frigerators in great numbers were called for to move
the crop and arrangements made with the Fruit Grow¬
ers Express to furnish the necessary cars and take
charge of the movement. The Fruit Growers Express
had a tariff charge for refrigeration in addition to
transportation and both charges were collected at desti¬
nation. Before this time fruit was largely sent to Chi¬
cago in ordinary box cars and some ventilated cars.
Great quantities reached Chicago and Milwaukee across
Lake Michigan by boat.
77
Potatoes.
This crop is large and goes everywhere as the market
directs. Up to about 1905 all shipments were made in
ordinary box cars and when weather became too cold
the cars were lined and stoves were placed therein with
men accompanying the shipments to keep the fires go¬
ing. That was before the P. M. R. E. was asked to fur¬
nish refrigerator cars, and not having any, large shippers
made arrangements to rent them from car companies.
The railroad received them and placed them as directed
by the shippers. As time went on the demand grew and
the railroad was asked to arrange for some cars at a
rental of $5 per car. Up to the present time P. M. E.
E. has been able to take care of the business as more
shippers continue to use the lined box cars.
The refrigerator cars were rented by the shipper di¬
rect. Nearly all dealers have frost-proof warehouses
and regulate their shipments. (3363)
Apples.
This fruit always took the ordinary box car and was
not shipped if weather became unreliable. Nearly the
whole crop to go would be out before severe frost ap¬
peared.
Berries.
Berries take refrigerators now going to distant markets
and are handled under same condition as peaches.
Vegetables.
Vegetables are shipped in ventilated box and stock
cars and go where the market directs.
The P. M. E. E. is now called upon for refrigerators
78
for canned goods, vinegar and other commodities that
have always heen transported in box cars. The P. M.
R. R. has not acquired any refrigerator equipment for
many reasons, principally the cost of such cars and the
fact that they have use for a very limited period. The
rate of transport does not contemplate furnishing more
than the ordinary box car. A21 exhaustive investigation
was made of the entire subject a feAV years ago and it
was proved that the P. M. did not have the traíEc to war¬
rant such an investment and that such special transpor¬
tation when demanded should have to be paid for in
addition to the rate of transportation and such cars as
were required could he obtained from car companies. All
shipments of perishable nature were receipted for at
"owiier's risk" and all cars loaded on sidetracks of
owners were receipted for at "shippers count," in con¬
formity with the rules then printed on all shipping hills.
Competition and method of doing business years ago in¬
troduced many innovations in conducting transportation
that liave radically changed. In trying to build up a
traffic to take the place of forest products a very liberal
policy was carried on in an endeavor to obtain an indus¬
try, such as free locations, free buildings and ware¬
houses, and many other features, to get something
started, which are foreign to the functions of the com¬
mon carrier. In later years the country developed, cities,
towns and villages grew, so these features passed away
and now service is the one important factor connected
with railway transportation and has to he paid for to
he properly maintained to protect the business interests
of the country. (3364-65)
Refrigeration is a very valuable accessory to the
groAvers and dealers in perishable commodities. It in¬
sures the condition of the article, thereby giving him the
benefit of obtaining the maximum price, and the carrier
79
should not be held responsible for the condition of the
article when reasonable service has been rendered.
With reference to shipments of potatoes where cars
are lined and stoves placed in the car, this was all done
by the shipper. It has not been and still is not the prac¬
tice to furnish any refrigerator service or any insulated
car service for shipment of perishable commodities.
Such equipment is furnished by arrangement with pri¬
vate line facilities and is made by the shipper. |5 is
the charge for the use of refrigerator or insulator cars.
That is the present charge
"Witness James "Webster:
Lives in Chicago—is freight traffic manager New York
Central Lines West; been connected with the traffic busi¬
ness of the New York Central Lines West for ten years;
has had 37 years' experience in traffic matters in C. F. A.
territory; experience dates back to 1882 in traffic work.
(3369-70-71) At that time and for some time afterwards
he was assistant rate clerk and rate clerk in the traffic
department of the Nickel Plate Eailroad. In capacity
of rate clerk he came more or less in contact with the
general movement of freight over the road from 1882
until approximately 1890.
Speaking of the Lake Erie territory, along the south
shore of Lake Erie there was more or less fruit, largely
apples and vegetables, potatoes and some onions moved
from that territory. During that period the movement
was altogether in ordinary box cars and was of a sea¬
sonable nature. Apples were shipped almost as soon
as picked, the potatoes as soon as they were dug, or they
were held over during the winter and there was more or
less movement during the spring of the year. Apples
were shipped in bulk.
80
Witness does not think they ever had an application
to furnish refrigerator cars for that particular traffic
originating at those stations along what they called
Lake Erie section of the road, and the use of refrigera¬
tor car was confined at that time to shipments of
dressed beef, packing-house products and dairy. They
were seldom thought of outside of those highly perish¬
able articles. Some fish moved from the ports of Lake
Erie and to the best of his recollection (3372) fish was
shipped in ordinary box cars, and if there was any icing
done at all the ice was put in the cars with the fish or in
the packages.
Beginning 1890 and during the nineties grape vine¬
yards began to take the place of the apple orchards on a
very large scale. Grapes first moved by express. Were
looked upon as very largely express freight. Production
increased so fast that prices were brought down and
shippers began to look for cheaper transportation. They
began first with movement in less than carloads hut in
good round shipments, in local freight trains to nearby
points in ordinary cars. This was followed by what they
considered something unusual—a request for cars in
which to load grapes in carload quantities. This move¬
ment was not large at first hut rapidly increased, at
first to nearby points and then to markets further away,
hut still local to the road, such as Chicago. Still produc¬
tion was in advance of the demand and caused growers
to look for wider and additional markets. Ventilated
cars suggested themselves to the carriers and to the
shippers. Following the period during which ordinary
box cars were used there was supplied a line of venti¬
lated cars. They were nothing more or less than an or¬
dinary box car improvised with ventilators in the doors
and in the ends of the cars, just slats running up and
down, stationary, from the upper part of the door to
81
the upper part of the end of the car. The Nickel Plate
put 500 of their ordinary box cars through the shops
and had them fitted with these ventilators and put them
into the grape trade. At that time they thought that
was the very best class of car for this particular traffic,
but the growers found they still had a surplus of grapes
on their hands that caused them to go to the uttermost
ends of the country almost, to find a market, and when
they began to ship longer distances the demand for re¬
frigerator cars arose. In the course of five or six years
traffic that began with ordinary box cars developed into
one requiring refrigerator cars almost exclusively with¬
out any change in the rates. The refrigerator car be¬
came a recognized instrument in the movement of this
traffic in about 1898 and 1899. The development of the
box car traffic, then the ventilator car traffic to the refrig¬
erator car traffic was made indirectly necessary by the in¬
creased production of the grapes and the necessity for
the grower finding more distant markets. That involved
long hauls and when long hauls were involved they found
the grapes would carry better in refrigerator cars. It
was that condition of affairs that forced the refrigerator
cars on the Nickel Plate Eoad. It was also found that
when shipping in ordinary cars the grapes not only had
to move promptly but be disposed of promptly, and in¬
stances would arise sometimes when it was perhaps dif¬
ficult to dispose of a car of grapes immediately, and to
hold them over in an ordinary car meant almost the loss
of the grapes, whereas if they were shipped in ventilated
cars they kept better than in ordinary box cars. Again,
when shipped in refrigerator cars, they could be kept
longer in emergencies than if they were shipped in ven¬
tilated cars. The carrier only received the published
rates on the traffic, the same as it did receive when the
grapes moved in ordinary box cars. The owner of the
82
grapes got the benefit which accrued from the use of re¬
frigerator cars. (3373-74-75.)
Tlxere Avas very active competition for this traffic be¬
tween the Xickle Plate and the Old Lake Shore Railroad.
There was some adjustment of competition in the use of
the refrigerator ear. Both roads were anxious to satisfy
the shippers Avith a view of getting a fair share of the
traffic, but it Avas not altogether competition. If one road
undertook to furnish refrigerator cars the other would
have to or it could not expect to get its fair share of
the grapes. To that extent competition entered into the
furnishing of refrigerator cars. During the time they
Avere moving grapes in refrigerator cars more or less
demand sprung up for the movement of apples in re¬
frigerator cars. Grape vineyards have largely taken
the place of apple orchards and the apple traffic along
that part of the country AAms not very large by 1890 to
1899. There was ahvays more or less movement, how¬
ever, and frequently Ave Avould furnish perhaps a hun¬
dred or so cars for apples at the end of the grape ship¬
ping season. Outside of using the refrigerator cars
AA'hich had been left over in the territory, no special ef¬
fort A\*as made to furnish refrigerator cars for apple
shipments.
Potato shipments originating in that part of the terri¬
tory Avere not very large. Onion shipments amounted to
considerable and the use of refrigerator cars on the
shipments of onions depended largely on the season in
Avhich they Avere shipped. If a demand sprung up during
cold Aveather for onions somewhere they would attempt
to ship them and in that case they Avould want a refriger¬
ator car.
Cabbage Avas another item of traffic Avhich amounted to
considerable volume. It Avas shipped in stock cars and
83
box cars and sometimes in refrigerator cars, bnt very
seldom, only in case of some special lot for a special
mai'ket. During the period between 1890 and 1900 Nickel
Plate bandied more or less potato traffic, what they called
overhead traffic, as an overhead movement. We would
get it in the West and haul it to the East. Sometimes
we would get potatoes in the East and haul them to the
West but if they moved in cold weather they were usually
loaded in ordinary cars supplied with stoves and accom¬
panied by an attendant. The shipper supplied the stoves.
From 1900 the demand for refrigerator cars in which
to load other commodities began to grow. Condensed
milk was one commodity that demanded refrigerator
cars. Cheese was another. There were others along that
part of the line but there were not many other commodi¬
ties that originated thére. In witness ' experience, taking
the traffic as a whole, the demand for refrigerator cars
for loading commodities that before that time had not
required refrigerator service increased considerably.
As the increase in the demand for refrigerator cars de¬
veloped the subject of whether extra compensation should
be charged for the use of the cars came up and has been
before the roads in the C. F. A. territory, particularly
the roads the witness has been with since 1911. (3376-
77-78)
The general idea seemed to be that refrigerator serv¬
ice, that is, \ise of refrigerator car for refrigeration
without ice, was a superior service and cost the carrier
more and on that account some compensation should ac¬
crue to the carrier. As to the question of the cost of
furnishing them, refrigerator cars cost more than the
common car and it was thought that the carrier should
receive more compensation for that additional cost.
I would say as to the ice of course, there is some
84
traffic for which we furnish ice free, hut there was al¬
ways some traffic for which the shipper paid for the ice.
It was supposed that the rate at which the railroad
charged the shipper for the ice (not for the haul) com¬
pensated the carriers fairly well for that feature of the
service. The traffic on which the shipper paid for the
ice included dressed beef, packing-house products, any
freight below third class, taking a lower rate than third
class, that was carried under refrigeration.
As to the third, class and above the carrier has as a
rule furnished the ice except in the case of small fruit.
In his capacity as official of the New York Central, wit¬
ness has been active in promoting a separate charge for
accessorial service such as the furnishing of refriger¬
ator cars and the furnishing of full refrigeration. He
has been active in this direction since 1911. It came up
then in an official way; traffic officials in C. P. A. terri¬
tory, even before that time had talked over the question
informally as to making a charge when refrigerator
cars were furnislied. It suggested itself in this way,—
the grape crop had to be moved within a month and a
half or two months. It was very difficult to supply a
sufficient number of refrigerator cars to take care of
them. A road like the Nickel Plate, without any refrig¬
erator cars had either to borrow or hire refrigerator
cars to take care of the traffic. Arrangements were
usually made with the Armour Eefrigerator Car Line
to supply the cars. This arrangement contemplated pay¬
ment of a price per car in addition to mileage, etc., etc.,
and having to pay that price, it suggested itself to the
railroad officials that perhaps it was something the ship¬
per should take care of or should pay on account of the
better service receHed in refrigerator cars. (3379-80-
81-82)
85
The witness has looked over Proposed Protective Taritf
No. 1 and given it more or less consideration, although
not familiar with all of the regulations contained. It is
the witness' opinion that the proposed $5 rental charge
for a dry refrigerator car should be put in force for the
reason that the refrigerator car furnishes a superior serv¬
ice and costs the carriers more to render, and on that ac¬
count the carriers should have compensation. Witness
is in favor of a stated refrigeration charge as proposed
in the tariff as against a charge for refrigeration in¬
cluded in the freight rate, particularly as to freight that
loads in ordinary box cars and refrigerator cars inter¬
changeably. He does not know how the railroad is go¬
ing to get compensation for the superior service for pro¬
tection unless a separate charge is made.
By putting it in the classification or advancing the rat¬
ing in the classification, you would naturally, advance it
on the movement, both in ordinary as well as refrigerator
cars, but he thinks the best way would be to make a sepa¬
rate charge when loaded in refrigeration cars. The
classification rating should be a normal rating—the rat¬
ing that applies in ordinary cars, and when the refrig¬
erator car is used an extra charge should be made to ap¬
ply to traffic in that case. As to different commodities,
some of which never move in refrigerator cars and those
which require refrigeration; some of the articles would
never move under refrigeration. They want a refriger¬
ator car for the protection it might afford but it is not
necessary to go to the length of furnishing ice. Other
commodities again may move in ordinary cars, may move
in refrigerator cars without ice, and may move in re¬
frigerator cars with ice under refrigeration, depending
very largely on the season of the year and the conditions
generally. The actual outcome of an attempt to increase
the ratings or the rates to cover refrigeration costs would
86
be to impose that increase upon articles in the same
classes that never move under refrigeration and which
are not of a perishable nature. If you increase the rat¬
ing in the classification you would expect that to apply
on freight when loaded in an ordinary car as well as
on freight when loaded in a refrigerator car. It is a mat¬
ter of history that Eockyford cantaloupes began to he
grown in 1885. They started to ship them to Chicago
in 1894. In 1897 they began to ship them through to
New York. Witness mentions this as showing how the
fruit shippers reach out for markets when the produc¬
tion of their commodity justifies it. At the beginning
we thought we were shipping grapes a long distance and
taking a great risk in sending them from Chautauqua
County, New York, to Chicago. In the course of a few
years we shipiDcd Concord grapes from Chautauqua
County to the Pacific Coast.
The use of refrigerator cars has made a wider dis¬
tribution of fruits and vegetables possible, and I may
say it has made possible an almost country-wide distri¬
bution of fruits and vegetables. Without the use of a
refrigerator car the shipments of fresh grapes from
Chautauqua County would not have been possible. (3385-
86) When the orchards along the Nickel Plate began to
deteriorate and the large sliipments therefrom ceased the
Nickle Plate was not very much concerned with the loss
of the tonnage involved, as the New York Central east
would be. The apple territory of New York State is al¬
most immediately east of Buffalo. Yffien you get east,
while the apple crop was quite an item of traffic, it was
not so important as it was to the New York Central Lines
east of Buffalo. ^V^hile this is true there was a substan¬
tial production of apples along the line of the Nickel
Plate in the 1880's. (3387)
87
They hardly realized at the time the grapes were
planted, that the vineyards would produce the freight
traffic that they did ultimately. It was never thought
that in a stretch of line 200 miles in length that two roads
Avould ship over 5,000 cars in the space of a month and
a half or tAvo months, Avhich was the result in some of
the heaAÙer grape shipping seasons.
In ansAver to the question as to whether profit did not
also accrue to the railroad from the use of refrigerator
cars for grapes, Avitness replied that he could not see
wherein any profit accrued to the railroad company, be¬
cause they had to go out and borroAV or hire refriger¬
ator cars, and when they hired these cars they paid some¬
thing for their hire. (3388) Witness' recollection is
that the rate charged the shipper for the use of a dry
refrigerator car ran from $5 to $10 per car. There
Avas more or less competition betAveen the two roads,
namely, the Nickel Plate and the Old Lake Shore in the
handling of this grape traffic. In ansAver to the question
whether they would not have competed for this busi¬
ness unless it was profitable, Avitness replied that he
Avould not say that altogether, but he presumed they
made some profit out of the traffic.
Witness is familiar Avith the development of the peach
traffic in the Port Clinton district but did not know
the exact date Avhen the first carload movement of grapes
and peaches started out of the territory. (3389) He
Avould say that it was from 1895 to 1900, somewhere along
there. It was' 1897, in the nineties, but he thinks 1895
Avould be nearer the time. The first peach movement
out of the territory in carloads was sometime betAveen
1895 and 1900. He did not believe it started until after
1895.
From 1882 until 1910 or afterAvards the tendency of
88
railroad rates Avas downAvard. In reply to the question
that if the ratings of any commodity remained stationary
AA'hile the tendency of tlie rates Avas doAvnAvard, Avould it
be the Avitness' opinion that there Avas some reason for
keeping the ratings at the old level, the Avitness replied
that there Avas this reason,—the carriers needed the
money and they did not Avant to make any reductions un¬
less it AAms absolutely necessary, unless there was some
good reason for a reduction. They tried to maintain
the rates on a normal level.
On grapes into Chicago the Nickel Plate frequently
made second morning delivery. At the present time wit¬
ness does not think that any better time is made. It
might be better on a specified traffic of that kind if sec¬
ond morning delivery could still be made at Chicago out
of eastern Ohio territory.
In 1910 AAutness came with the New York Central.
Without any record at hand, witness expressed the opin¬
ion that first morning delivery could be made to Cleve¬
land from Port Clinton. Cars were picked up in the
eAmning and Avould go to Cleveland through the night.
Unless the yards Avere congested in some way they would
be placed in the team track if they Avere wanted for the
next morning. With regard to present conditions of
yard congestion as interfering AAuth second morning de¬
livery to Cincinnati, witness stated that generally the
movement through Toledo is very much improved over
Avhat it Avas four or five years ago, and if the cross-
examiner referred to Cleveland, the freight terminal
there is equal to anything in the country. Witness thinks
it AAmuld be possible to ship grapes from Ohio territory
into Chicago under ventilation to-day and handle them
Avith fairly good success. Such transportation required
prompt handling of cars and prompt disposal after they
89
reached destination, a great deal more so than if they
were forwarded in refrigerator cars. If witness was
called upon to decide a rating he would take into consid¬
eration all features in connection with the traffic before
reaching a decision. (3391-92-94)
Condensed milk first began to require refrigerator
cars or insulated cars in about 1900 or soon after that.
Prior to that it moved in ordinary cars, as a rule box
cars. Prior to 1900 there was some movement of Bor¬
den's condensed milk over the Nickel Plate Kailroad.
He thinks Borden had some cars of their own but is not
absolutely sure about it. Has handled quite a lot of
Carnation milk on his line. To best of witness' knowl¬
edge shippers consider it necessary to ship condensed
milk in refrigerator cars the year around. As to cross-
examiner's question as to whether witness considered
condensed milk in refrigerator cars a desirable traffic
under present rates, witness replied, we are hauling it
every day; we are not refusing it, but are not soliciting
it at the present time. Answering the question candidly,
the witness stated that while they were anxious to get
the tonnage, if they were giving, a service such as is
afforded in refrigerator cars they thought they should
receive compensation for that service. Answering the
question in another way, they were glad to get the traffic,
did not consider it undesirable, do not consider condensed
milk a highly perishable article ; considers it a traffic that
would be liable to danger by frost. (3396-97)
In answer to a question as to whether frequent delays
on New York Central of potato shipments during cold
weather had been taken into consideration in making
ratings, witness replied that delays are liable to take
place on the best of roads, but did not understand the
question as to rate making. There were no delays last
90
winter, but there were the previous winter. As to the
question of unreasonable delay of perishable fruit in
cold weather, witness stated that he would term that as
unavoidable delay instead of unreasonable delay.
As to loading of perishable freight, like potatoes, in
the winter time, or if it were known that those potatoes
were going to be delayed, it would not be economy to load
in ordinary box cars. It is desirable in winter that such
freight be loaded in refrigerator cars, or if loaded in
box cars protection in some way from the frost should
be given. (3400)
From the standpoint of loss and damage claims, wit¬
ness could not answer whether it would be money ahead
to allow all perishable freight to be loaded in refrigerator
cars for protection against freezing, because if he
handled the freight with due diligence, did the best they
could under the conditions or circumstances in which the
freight is transported, the carrier is not responsible and
does not hold itself to be responsible in those cases. It
is difficult sometimes to place the responsibility and evi¬
dence is perhaps frequently against the carriers, but even
in that case, Avitness Avould not say that the carrier
should, regardless of the rate, demand that potatoes be
always shipped in refrigerator cars or always furnish
refrigerator cars for potatoes without any compensa¬
tion. As to Avhether potatoes are delayed on eastern
lines and freight claims are actually paid for freezing,
Avitness Avas unAvilling to admit that property is fre¬
quently delayed on the NeAV York Central Kailroad. Pota¬
toes shipped in box cars are more liable to freeze than
Avhen shipped in refrigerator cars. To the extent that the
road may be negligent and responsible for the claims,
it Avould be better for freight to be shipped in refrig¬
erator cars. Poes not think the railroads Avould be money
91
in pocket by having such business move in refrigerator
cars rather than box cars, for if by furnishing refrig¬
erator ears a precedent is established by Avhich the car¬
rier is expected to furnish refrigerator cars Avithout com¬
pensation for every kind of traffic that might come up,
there Avould be imposed upon the carrier the necessity
of providing a much more expensive car without giving
them any compensation whatever for that car. Has
never looked into the question of the relative number of
claims on potatoes shipped in box cars, and on those
shipped in refrigerator cars. (3402)
Freight claims are an important factor to be consid¬
ered in determining Avhether commodities should move
in box or refrigerator cars, but it is just as important
for the shipper to consider and co-operate Avith the car¬
rier in arrangement by AAdiich proper cars will be fur¬
nished and before that can be done the proper com¬
pensation must be proAÛded for the carriers. The only
difference betAveen the shipper and the carrier is one of
reasonable rate. The shipper Avants the potatoes car¬
ried in refrigerator cars at the ordinary rate. The car¬
rier Avants potatoes carried in the refrigerator car at
the refrigerator rate. (3403)
Tonnage in dairy products has increased since 1882,
a gradual increase, and there has been an increase in
the length of haul of dairy products and fruits and vege¬
tables. The carrying capacity of a car has been in¬
creased very much and the lading of the car has also
increased, and the railroads are noAV hauling more than
double the number of cars in a train. Witness could
not say whether there had been an increase or decrease
in the claims for damage to dairy products, although
damage claims haAm been very heavy. In a general way
there has been an improA^ement in the preparation and
92
packing of shipments of perishable freight. The heavier
loading of cars and greater tonnage of trains has tended
to reduce the cost of transportation, but the compensa¬
tions in that respect are offset by heavier locomotives
required to haul heavier trains, heavier rails to carry
the locomotives and wear and tear on those more ex¬
pensive facilities, so that it is not all in the profit side
of the ledger. The aim of the railroad people is that
these increased loadings, etc., should tend to increase
their profits. If it was not thought to be economical they
would not buy heavier engines or run longer trains.
It was in 1911 that the question of making a separate
charge for the use of refrigerator cars came before the
raibvay people officially. Prior to that time more or less
consideration had been given to the subject informally.
With regard to officials, witness referred to railroad offi¬
cials in C. F. A. territory which included Pennsylvania
as well as NeAV York Central. (3405)
This charge for the use of refrigerator cars had ref¬
erence to the use in transportation of carload freight,
and not in relation to 1. c. 1. The consideration in rela¬
tion to carload freight would have excluded dairy be¬
cause until the 1st of August, 1919, dairy had no carload
rating. It was an any-quantity rate. Witness is speak¬
ing about the rental of a car. Merchants Despatch was
a New York Central institution and operated over its
line.
Toward the latter part of the operation of the Mer¬
chants Despatch it furnished the cars and solicited the
business but the New York Central did the icing and
actual handling of the refrigerator business. This pre¬
vailed from somewhere along 1907 or 1908 until Mer¬
chants Despatch went out of business. (3407)'
There were a good many fish people along the south
93
shore of Lake Erie in the early days. They first began
to use refrigerator cars some time after 1900.
Witness considers the refrigerator car the safest one
in which to ship fruits and vegetables. As to the ques¬
tion of whether he could move a shipment of vegetables
safely in a box car for any distance, witness replied
that with some vegetables, yes, perhaps others, no. It
would depend a good deal on the season of the year.
Berries are very highly perishable. Did not think they
should be shipped at any time of the year except in re¬
frigerator cars.
A refrigerator car is the proper one for small fruits,
is the safest one in which to transport vegetables and
fruits generally. In the last few years it has become the
rule of shippers to ask for refrigerator cars in which
to load fruits and vegetables. Witness could not say
that that had been the rule since 1905 and 1906 as there
are a great many exceptions to-day.
Cabbage, for instance, which is moved in stock cars
and in box cars in large volume. Witness thinks it was
the rule to require refrigerator cars, however, for celery,
lettuce, tomatoes, and berries,—they should be handled
in a refrigerator car. It has been the normal practice
since 1906 to load tomatoes in a refrigerator car and
celery and lettuce, although witness has had no experi¬
ence in furnishing cars for that particular traffic, namely,
celery and lettuce, but not for cabbage and potatoes.
Have handled a great many potatoes in ordinary ears
at certain seasons of the year.
94
basteen tkunk line tekeitory.
"Witness "W. A. Fleming:
Is trainmaster, Delaware Division, Pennsylvania Eail-
road. Delaware Division is located on the Delaware
peninsula and runs into the Maryland peninsula, the east¬
ern shore of Maryland. Has been trainmaster on this
division for past three years—prior to that was assistant
trainmaster and train despatcher. Has been employed
on the Delaware Division since 1883—is familiar with
the transportation of commodities from the Delaware
Division since that time. "iVhen witness went to Dela¬
ware Division in 1883, there were some fruits moving,
principally berries and peaches. They were then shipped
in ventilated box cars to nearby markets such as Balti¬
more, Wilmington, Chester, Philadelphia, New York and
to some Neiv England points, principally Boston, hut
only under favorable conditions was it possible to de¬
liver perishable freight in good condition to New England
markets.
In 1890 the California Fruit Transportation Company
sent its refrigerator cars and felt that such shipments
were more or less experimental. Only 12 or 15 cars
moved out during the season of May 15th to September
1st. The following season, 1891, the advantage of these
cars were better known and their uses increased to fifty
cars during the season.
In 1893 the California Fruit Transportation Company
transferred its interest to Swift & Co., who continued to
operate this equipment to Delaware Peninsula.
This same year another private car line appeared,
called the Fruit Growers Express, and these lines oper¬
ated the only refrigerator cars in the peninsula until
1906. Kcfrigerator cars have largely displaced the use
of ventilated box cars to New York and entirely so to
Nev' England. The use of refrigerator cars had made it
possible to reach other and more distant markets. Both
lines assessed and collected from the shipper direct
charges varying from |50 to |100 per car for the use of
the car and the ice furnished. The railroad company
had nothing whatever to do with this arrangement. It
was an arrangement between the shipper and the private
car lines.
The shipper arranged with the private car line for the
placement of the cars and for the payment for the use of
the cars and ice. The Fruit Growers Express cars wero
withdrawn from the Delaware Peninsula after the close
of the season of 1906 and those formerly of the California
Fruit Transportation Company Avere withdrawn for the
season of 1909. (6097-98-99-6100)
In the years following the appearance of the refrig¬
erator cars, namely, from 1901, all the available markets
were extended and the perishable business on the Dela¬
ware Peninsula was increased. In 1906 the Pennsylvania
Railroad System refrigerator cars were supplied. Be¬
tween 1891 and 1906 Avhen private car lines operated ex¬
clusively there were several seasons when there was a
shortage of refrigerator cars, the private lines either not
having properly figured the number required, or were
unable to provide a sufficient number. The Railroad Com¬
pany supplemented this supply Avith a sufficient number
of system-owned refrigerator cars to take care of the
demand.
Since the introduction of railroad-OA\med refrigerators
an increasing number of cars has been required and
since 1909 railroad-owned cars haAm practically replaced
private refrigerator cars. When the railroad-OAvned re
frigerator cars surplanted the private line cars no charge
96
was made for the use of the car. The railroad did not,
however, furnish ice. This the shipper furnished and put
it into the car at its own expense. The railroads super¬
vised the icing to the extent of knowing that the ice bunk¬
ers were filled to capacity before the shipment was ac¬
cepted for movement. The general practice was to place
approximately five tons in the bunkers for precooling the
car and taking care of the loading, and approximately
two tons additional for reieing after loading and before
the car moved. That is the practice to-day. (6101-02)
Cross-examiner's understanding that if F. G. E. fur¬
nished cars it furnished them with hunkers filled with ice
is correct. The F. G. E. made a charge of from $80 to
$100 for the use of the car and the icing. This practice
was continued during the period when the F. G. E. oper¬
ated in that territory up until 1906.
While witness is not certain as to whether the charge
included re-icing, it is his opinion that it did. These
charges for cars and icing were paid directly to F. G. E.
people. It is the present practice for shippers to furnish
their own icing in cars supplied by the railroad. The fig¬
ures of $80 and $100 per car were obtained from his con¬
versations with the managers of the private car lines.
They told the railroad representatives the charge that
they assessed for the use of their cars. These conversa¬
tions took place contemporaneously with the transactions.
Mr. Younger's understanding that they put approxi¬
mately five tons of ice in the bunkers in 1909 is correct,
also in 1910. The supervision by railroads was only as to
cars furnished by the railroad. (6103-04-05-06)
Witness has talked with shippers who furnished their
own ice and they said that it required approximately two
tons to re-ice the car before movement began. Witness
did not say that railroad supervised icing to the extent
97
of seeing that five tons was pnt in initially, but he did
say that the railroad supervised it to the extent of seeing
that the bunkers were filled.
Witness understands that the same charge was made
by the railroads when refrigerator car was furnished as
before. No additional charge was made for the use of
the car. Witness thinks that the reason for the change
from private car line cars to railroad-owned cars was
because the private car lines assessed the shippers a
charge for the use of their cars, whereas the railroad
company did not assess such charge. From the railroad
standpoint the reason for railroad owned refrig¬
erator cars was to supplement the private ear lines which
had on several occasions come near falling down on fill¬
ing their requirements to meet the shippers' demands
for cars.
Witness R. R. Blydenbuegh :
The Pennsylvania Railroad has never furnished ice
free for the transportation of fruits or vegetables from
points on its line. The shipper either ices the car or
pays the price at the initial point. The taritf provides
that if the carrier furnished the ice the charge will he
at the cost at the point of icing at the time of icing. P. R.
R. G. 0. I. C. C. 7146 is the present tariff.
Rule 6, page 7, is as follows :
"If the railroad is requested to furnish ice and
salt at points of shipment or destination, or at points
in transit other than at re-icing stations shown in
paragraph ' P ' which are the re-icing stations below,
the same will be charged at the current price there¬
for at said point, including labor." (6370)
A¥hen the use of the refrigerator cars first began they
were used for dairy products eastbound. (6371)
AVhen the Official Classification rule to the effect that
98
the carrier may furnish ice was first published, the
P. E. E. issued an exception to the classification, stating
that it would not furnish ice unless specific tariffs were
issued to cover. This was for the reason that the P. E. E.
did not believe in furnishing ice at the freight rate and
therefore would only do so in case of a specific tariff be¬
ing issued. The first tariff to this effect was I. C. C.
G-2786, August 28, 1906, containing the following provi¬
sion:
"It is permissible under Eule 12 of the Official
Classification for railroad companies to furnish ice
and salt when requested for the protection of prop¬
erty not classified lower than third class, either car¬
loads or less than carloads in refrigerator cars, in
lots of 10,000 pounds and over, but the Pennsylvania
Eailroad, including the Northern Central Eailroad,
Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Eailroad
Company, and West Jersey and Seashore Eailroad
Company, Avill not furnish or participate in the cost
of furnishing ice or salt or both for any shipments
not covered by tariffs providing that rates for the
transportation of such property between designated
points include the cost of ice and salt." (6372-3)
In July, 1907, the tariff was changed to make an ex¬
ception of butter, cheese and eggs in straight or mixed
carloads at 10,000 lbs. This exception was made because
competing carriers had already established the practice
of furnishing ice for such shipments and the Pennsyl¬
vania Eailroad followed suit. The tariff was subse¬
quently amended making the minimum 15,000 lbs. for
shipments of butter, eggs and cheese. (6373) On July 1,
1913, the rule was changed in 0. 0. I. C. C. 4141 to read :
"Ice and salt will be furnished for shipments of
butter, cheese and eggs in straight or mixed lots,
15,000 lbs. and over, for one destination." (6347)
This rule was continued in effect until February 23,
1915, when it was canceled and reference made to the
refrigeration tariff, G. 0. I. C. C. 3819, for the rules cov-
99
ering sucli shipments under which a charge was made for
furnishing ice and salt.
On August 1, 1919, Supplement 17 to G'. 0. 8325 con¬
tained the following provision :
"Ice and salt will he furnished for shipments of
butter, cheese and eggs in straight or mixed lots of
15,000 lbs. and over for one destination when charged
at less than carload rates; also on cheese in straight
lots of 15,000 lbs. and over."
The expression "when charged at less than carload
rates" was used because of the change in the classifica¬
tion on that date establishing a carload minimum on the
commodities for which no ice was furnished. (6376)
When the use of a refrigerator car for fruits and vege¬
tables began the refrigerator cars were furnished only to
the extent that they were available in the district in
which they were to be loaded. There was no attempt at
that time to furnish the cars. They started because they
were there and they would get a load hack and that of
course grew until the road did furnish them for the traf¬
fic. The initial practice was to furnish refrigerator cars
for the use of fruits and vegetables in order to utilize
what would otherwise he empty equipment. To-day the
volume of business moves to Jersey City, a run of 10 to
12 hours on which there is no necessity for ice and it is
carried in box car. (6377)
In the rates on traffic originating in the Delaware Pe¬
ninsula, going back to 1907, there has been no increase
on perishable freight other than the general increases of
5 per cent, 15 per cent and 25 per cent. (6379)
Witness W. S. Kallman:
Is assistant freight traffic manager of New York
Central Railroad. Mr. Kallman has been actively
connected with the Official Classification Commit-
100
tee since 1889, first as chief clerk, then as sec¬
retary and as a member from 1908 to 1915. During
his thirty years since 1889 he has been in constant con¬
tact with the Avork of the committee. He corroborates
the testimony of Mr. D. T. Laweence, given at Chicago
relating to the history of the classification of perishable
freight. (6324)
Kallman Exhibit No. 1 shows the history of the class
rates between New York and Chicago from 1880 to date,
and from Buffalo to New York from 1886 to date. It
shows the several classifications which govern the rates
and shows that the whole course and history of the rates
was downward until the adoption of the Official Classifi¬
cation in 1887. It continued, with one exception of a few
weeks in 1888, on the same level from 1887 to January
15, 1915, when the five per cent increase was authorized
by the Interstate Commerce Commission. (6324) In
1888 there was an effort made to increase the three lower
classes, but it failed and the rates were restored in two
months. The only increases in these class rates have
been the general increases of five per cent, fifteen per
cent and twenty-five per cent.
Perishable commodities moving throughout the Trunk
Line territory generally move on class rates and the
rates on these commodities have been decreased since
1880. In fixing or considering the classification of per¬
ishable commodities the fact that they move either under
refrigeration or in refrigerator cars was not given con¬
sideration in determining the rate. (6325) The only
consideration given in the classification to the use of re¬
frigerator cars was the minimum weight. Where it was
known that a perishable commodity was largely shipped
in refrigerator cars, and it was known that refrigerator
cars had not the same cubic capacity as standard box
cars, the minimiim weights were sometimes made lower
101
tliaii they would have been for commodities which riioved
entirely in box cars. But so far as the charges were con¬
cerned the nature of the equipment was not considered.
In the early days of the Official Classification the refrig¬
erator cars were just creeping into use for the transpor¬
tation of freight other than fresh meats and the classifi¬
cation could not have been predicated upon the use of
refrigerator cars because it was well known that not one
of the commodities, except fresh meats and the articles
shipped with fresh meats, were shipped exclusively in
refrigerator cars. The classification had to be predi¬
cated upon the basic equipment used, which was box cars.
(6326)
Witness Edwin H. Croly:
Is assistant general freight agent. New York
Central, located at Buffalo. Been with New York
Central in western part of New York State for
45 years—all this time has been with New York Cen¬
tral and its fast freight lines, known as Merchants De¬
spatch Transportation—is familiar during most of that
time with the transportation of perishable products in
western New York.
Perishable products, dairy products, have moved al¬
ways since he could remember; butter, cheese and eggs
from western and central New York. Western New York
commenced to move considerable fruits and vegetables
along in 1872,1873 or 1874, about that time. Other com¬
modities were apples, cabbage and potatoes. At that
time practically the only fruits shipped from that terri¬
tory were apples. There were no potatoes then. At
that time these commodities moved to New York, to
Cleveland, Indianapolis and Chicago. The greater por¬
tion moved to New York. In the late '70s a substantial
portion went west. Apples were then shipped in box cars
102
and stock cars, all of them. There were no refrigerator
cars used then. Apples were shipped in the fall of the
year, during or soon after the harvesting, sometimes
quite late in the winter. What witness said about apples
was equally true with respect to vegetable shipments
moving from that territory at the time.
From 1874 until 1892 witness was agent of the Mer¬
chants Despatch Transportation Company. Its function
was to transport fast freight entirely. It was not a rail¬
road. It had some few cars. The majority of freight was
carried in cars of the railroads. Merchants Despatch
had nothing to do with making of rates on the traffic.
It never established or published or fixed the rates. The
first refrigerator car came into use in that part of the
country for the shipment of these perishable commodities
sometime along in the '80s. The Merchants Despatch
Eefrigerator cars first came on the line in 1878 or 1879,
about that time, but there were only a few of them and
they were used for dairy traffic from the west to the
eastern seaboard. Sometime in the latter part or the
middle of the eighties they began to use some refrigera¬
tor cars for loading fruit to the west on account of the
cars which brought dairy products to the east going back
empty, but this use was restricted to certain points only,
where dairy traffic originated for eastbound movement.
Such refrigerator cars as were then used for perishables
were required to be moved to points of destination where
they would receive a refrigerator traffic load. (6291-2-
3-4-5-6)
Cariers did not undertake to furnish refrigerator cars
but the shippers asked for them in the beginning. There
were certain times when they were short of equipment
for westbound traffic and some refrigerator cars were
available going back empty, and they were turned over
for use of the friiif fracle. Tliere wore frequently times
103
when refrigerator cars were requested but not furnished.
They were refused in a large number of cases. (6297-8)
The practice of requesting these cars developed after
the shippers had used them. Some shippers then com¬
menced to ask for them and they were furnished to the
extent of their availability. At that time there were but
few of the cars available and not near enough to carry
the amount of traffic otfered.
Witness still refers to the latter part of the '80s. Ship¬
pers did not make much effort to get refrigerator cars
except in extremely cold weather. They were not used
for shipments moving under ice at that time. They were
merely used dry. They did not get peaches in any quan¬
tity in western New York until sometime after 1910. Some
plums and some peaches were raised prior to that date
but not in very large volume. They moved principally in
short-haul territory and went in box cars. Witness does
not think refrigerator cars were furnished for the traffic
prior to 1910. At the time the peach traffic originated it
moved by express before it began to move by freight.
Peaches by any means of transportation began to move
in that territory approximately about 1910 or a little
prior to that time. Witness was agent of Merchants De¬
spatch until 1892. After that he was division freight
agent at Buffalo; that was in 1898. At that time there
were no shipments of peaches by freight. Soon after
that the few that came out of western New York into
Buffalo and Eochester came in box cars fitted with shelves
and moved by freight. The peach movement may have
begun two or three years earlier than 1910. The ship¬
ment of peaches in box cars has not continued since that
time. They began to be handled by express sometime
before 1910 and moved exclusively by express for a con¬
siderable period, probably before 1910, and it may have
been as early as 1907 or 1908. They moved by express
104
in considerable quantities up to about 1913 or 1914, when
they were turned over to the railroad. Prior to 1913 or
1914 peaches were not moving by freight at all but en¬
tirely by express. In 1913 or 1914 they began to move
by freight in refrigerator cars under ice and that condi¬
tion has remained to the present.
Cabbage has moved for a good many years. That
traffic goes back as far as apples, practically the same,
along in the latter part of the eighties. (6300-6303) It
moved in stock cars all the time Avitness was located at
Eochester. Witness would not say that it never moved
in refrigerator ears, but as a rule it went in stock cars.
Along in the nineties when Avitness Avent to Eochester,—
1892,—cabbage began to move and for some years after-
Avards moved in some refrigerator cars.
The proportion moving in refrigerator cars was small.
When cabbage first began to be loaded in refrigerator
cas considerable criticism Avas met with from various
railroads on account of the odor cabbage left in the car,
and spoiled it for other purposes, and their use was re¬
stricted, in fact prohibited, Avith the exception of some
old obsolete cars that had been abandoned for dairy
freight. Use of refrigerator cars for cabbage rendered
them unfit for food products, such as dairy freight. It
is still the practice, with an occasional exception, not to
use for loading cabbage a refrigerator car that is used
for moving other food products. Celery began to move
when witness went to Buffalo, then in only small quanti¬
ties at first, and not in much volume until the past few
years. It moved by freight and in refrigerator cars. All
celery traffic in refrigerator cars is carload traffic. There
might be some less-than-carloads to a short-haul point,
but that would not be refrigerated.
Tomatoes moved in stock cars largely, some box cars
105
in "svhieli the doors are fastened open for ventilation.
Grapes moved in refrigerator cars, a portion of them
under ice, hut a considerable portion without ice. The
larger portion of grapes moved without ice. They moved
in the fall of the year, late fall.
Taking the western New York perishable products as
a whole, and the proportion that moves in box cars and
the proportion moving in refrigerator cars of late years,
the largest proportion moves in refrigerator cars, mostly
in dry cars. There is, however, still a substantial por¬
tion of apples moving to short-haul territory in box cars.
The proportion, however, is small at the present time.
The largest proportion moves in dry refrigerator cars.
Witness does not think it has been the custom to ship
dry, smoked or salted meats iu box cars, although some,
not a great volume of dry and salted meats have moved
in box cars. (6310-11) Lard is shipped in box cars.
There are cold storage warehouses in western New
York. The first one appeared in the latter part of the
eighties at Eochester. They have developed into a large
number. They are used for apples principally, some
pears. The object of holding these fruits in cold stor^
age is for the purpose of getting a better market during
the latter part of the season and to avoid a glut of the
market during the harvest season. (6312) The use of
cold storage plants has changed the time of the year
when those commodities move. Formerly all the fruit
was moved out of the territory during the harvesting
season when box cars could be used. The delay of the
fruits in cold storage has caused them to he moved at a
later time in. the year when a refrigerator car is neces¬
sary. Apples and pears principally can be kept in cold
storage and marketed in the late season. Certain varie¬
ties of pears can he kept all winter. The early varieties
106
Avould not keep. Storage of pears during -winter is done
to a considerable extent. They are shipped during the'
■winter to the large markets, using refrigerator cars. Ex¬
amining the list of commodities mentioned in item 16 of
the proposed tariff, -witness stated that he did not think
it Avas the custom to ship these items in box cars, Avith
the exception that grease, talloAv and canned goods are
shipped in box cars; is not familiar Avith the shipment
of hog hair and bristels. As to the rest of the items, Avit-
ness did not knoAv AA'hether they do or do not move in
box cars; is not familiar Avith those items.
If the Avitness had the responsibility of getting such
cars to Buffalo in safe condition he Avould not confine
icing to one ton or a ton and a half, but Avould fill the
bunker and take that precaution to protect the car.
If such a car moved out of cold storage to Buffalo the
initial icing Avould be sufficient. (6318-19)
Cold storage plants are operated by the shippers, usu¬
ally incorporated companies. A large number of ship¬
pers are stockholders in the cold storage plants. Under
the regular schedule for a car of apples from Albion to
Buffalo they Avould leaA'e Albion in the eAmning and arrive
at Buffalo in the early morning at 2 or 3 o'clock, placed
on delivery track that morning. Such a car Avould not
need refrigeration at Buffalo if delivery Avas promptly
taken. It should be iced out of cold storage. Apples
cannot be moved out of cold storage for any distance
AAuthout being put in a refrigerator car or insulated car.
They ordinarily require that equipment. Apples moving
out of cold storage are a great deal more susceptible
than apples coming from the orchard. They Avill fall
doAvn a great deal quicker. Under the tariffs, consignee
has forty-eight hours in Avhich to unload a car Avithout
liaAung to pay demurrage. There should therefore be
107
sufficient ice in the car to protect the shipment during
that forty-eight hours. The susceptibility of cold storage
apples to injury is due to the sweating of the apple when
brought into a normal temperature.
In the early days the use of refrigerator cars was con¬
fined mostly to dairy traffic and packing-house products,
and not until later on and gradually, the use of refrig¬
erator cars for fruits and vegetables developed. Coming
down to the present time the proportions have changed
so that at present there is a preponderant movement of
refrigerator cars of fruits and vegetables. The New
York Central encourages farmers and growers of west¬
ern New York in every possible way to increase the pro¬
duction of fruits and vegetables. Its representatives
were about the country giving instructions, encourage¬
ment and advice. The cause of the development of the
refrigerator car was the eastbound dairy traffic from the
West, and as that volume increased more refrigeimtor
cars were built which became available in the East îoy
westbound perishable movement. Witness does not think
that the New York Central added to its refrigerator
equipment for the purpose of encouraging the production
of perishable products in western New York. (6307-08)
Witness during his experience did not think he ever
heard of fresh meats and packing-house products being
handled in box cars. This traffic was handled in refrig¬
erator cars from the time it originated. He thinks the
shipment of dressed meats for long distances was not
possible except by refrigerator cars. (6310)
Prior to the time of refrigerator cars cattle Avere car¬
ried east alive and slaughtered there.
There is a substantial movement of fruits and vege¬
tables from New York points in box cars. Quite a good
many shipments of apples go to short-haul territory—a
ioà
good many out of western New York to Buffalo for lake
shipment during the fall. The only other fruits and vege¬
tables moving in box cars at the present time are potatoes
and tomatoes, the latter going in box or stock cars.
Witness remembers the early passenger cars operating
between Eochester and Buffalo in 1870, '71 and '72. Wit¬
ness does not know whether there is any choice between
the type of cars, whether the better cars go to the fruits
and vegetables or to the dairy products.
Witness is quite familiar with the way perishables are
handled in box cars in western New York. There are
storages at Albion, 50 miles from Buffalo, fig-ured by
Avay of Lockport Junction across to Tonawanda. A ship¬
ment from storage in Albion for local delivery at Buffalo
could go in a dry car. (6311-15-16) If the weather was a
little warm the amount of ice necessary to put in the car
would under present practice depend someAvhat upon
what the owner thought. If the weather Avas warm such
a car would require some ice, but witness does not know
amount necessary to protect the shipment. Peaches are
not kept in storage to any extent. They have experi¬
mented with it for tAVO or three years, putting a few cars
into storage for a few weeks or few days, but the experi¬
ment was not very successful. It is not done to any great
extent. It is common practice to take the peaches from
the field in the neighborhood of Albion and hold them for
a few days. In such case Avitness Avould put some ice in
the car of a shipment to Buffalo, but does not know how
much. That Avould depend upon the condition of the
fruit, whether it was ripe or not, and on the weather.
Sometimes it requires a full bunker. (6318)
New York Central has no Avarehouses for handling of
potatoes in western NeAV York. (6321)
109
new england territory.
AYitness Lucius H. Kentfield:
General freight agent, New York, New Haven
& Hartford Eailroad, testified that the fruit and
vegetable traffic of New England dates back to
about 1903, when the growers of small fruits, par¬
ticularly peaches, in Connecticut, commenced to make
inquiries of the railroads for facilities to market their
products. (6476) The through business is of small vol¬
ume. (6476) The vegetable traffic is short-haul. It has
its origin in Connecticut and in Khode Island. For a
great many years there has been a development of the
cranberry business from the cranberry bogs of Cape Cod
in Massachusetts. This requires the use of dry refrig¬
erator cars.
The principal markets of fruit and vegetables other
than cranberries are in New England, principally Bos--
ton. The traffic moves from origin to destination over
night in ventilated cars or in ventilated refrigerator cars.
(6477) The New England traffic does not seek the New
York market. The principal reason for this is that the
New York market does not yield as good returns to the
shipper as the New England markets. At Boston and
Providence the prices prevailing are better than the New
England grower would receive in New York. Further¬
more, the New York market requires deliveries by the
railroads at the places where the freight is disposed of
at about one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. The
New Haven terminals are on the east side of the city and
the principal receivers are on the west side and ^he traffic
therefore would have to be moved by a special car float
from the New Haven terminal at Harlem Eiver to the
y^est side. This is expensive to the shippers and they
110
have therefore disposed of their products in the New
England markets. (6478)
Traffic in Connecticut began in the season of 1902. The
New Haven at that time owned no refrigerator cars so
it made arrangements with the California Fruit Trans¬
portation Company to furnish the cars after conference
with the shippers as to the number of cars required and
how they desired the cars fixed up to take care of the
goods. (6479) The California Fruit Transportation
Company agreed to. furnish cars with shelves for which
they imposed a charge of $12.50 per ear for each loaded
trip, regardless, of whether the destination was on the
New Haven or on a connecting line. That charge was in
addition to the freight rate and the shipper did the icing
and was responsible for it.
The shipper paid the freight charge, an additional
icing expense, and a charge of $12.50 to the car owner
for the use of the car. The railroad collected the car
rental charge and made returns to the car company. It
kept no part of the $12.50. (6480)
At the end of that season the car company withdrew
from the arrangement because they claimed it was un¬
profitable. They had a lot of cars standing around and
the shippers found that they did not need refrigerator
cars. (6481) The peaches Avere shipped during Au¬
gust and September to points in New England. They
were shipped in baskets covered Avith netting in an or¬
dinary box ear Avith a carload minimum of 6,000 lbs.
The cars Avere not shelved. There Avere no commodity
rates on peaches and they moved on class rates. (6481)
The service Avas expedited Avhether in box cars, in
refrigerator cars, or in ventilated cars. From Connec¬
ticut to Boston, a distance of 165 or 170 miles, cars Avould
be loaded in the afternoon between 4 and 6 o'clock and
Ill
arrive in Boston about 1 o'clock in the morning where
they were ready for delivery to the owner at 6 o'clock
in the morning as required by the trade. That require¬
ment is in effect to-day. In Providence, the delivery of
such freight is required at 5 o'clock in the morning.
(6482) The reason for this early delivery is that the
trathc is not all consumed at these large centers but is
shipped in the early passenger trains by express service
to interior New England points. It applies also to
Springfield and "Worcester. The service of the New
Haven from the fruit producing points to any point on
its lines is an overnight service. Icing service is there¬
fore not required for these distances. (6483) To points
on connecting lines for distances of 200 miles or more re¬
frigerator cars are used.
In connection with the peach traffic in Connecticut, the
arrangement of 1902 prevailed until 1905 when the Cali¬
fornia Fruit Transportation Company declined to fur¬
nish refrigerator cars. An arrangement Avas made with
the Armour Company to furnish K. C. F. E. refrigera¬
tor cars and in 1905, 100 of these cars Avere furnished at
a charge of $20 per car in addition to the freight rate,
the shipper continuing to do his OAAn icing and to be re¬
sponsible for it. (6483-4) In 1905 there a\-as an over-
supply of cars. 100 of these cars Avere not used. In
1906 the supply Avas reduced to 20.
In 1909 the use of private refrigerator cars Avas done
away Avith entirely. The Noav Haven Eailroad shelved
a number of refrigerator cars Avhich were provided at
a charge of $15.00 per car. This figure was established
after an arrangement Avith the shippers and the figure
was satisfactory to them. (6485) Four tiers of shelv¬
ing were put in the cars. 5,000 or 6,000 lbs. could be
loaded on the car floor and Avhen the cars were shelved
112
at least 15,000 lbs. of peaches could be loaded in the car.
As a rule the peaches were loaded on the floor and on
the first and second shelves. The bulk of the peaches
moved in these cars upon which there Avas a minimum of
10,000 lbs. This arrangement continued until 1913.
(6486) In the largest season, there Avere 1,500 cars of
peaches, the bulk of which moved in shelved refrigera¬
tor cars and the rest moAmd in ordinary box cars.
A basket of Connecticut peaches weighs about 25 lbs.,
including the Aveight of the basket. (6487) In 1913
some box cars Avere shehmd and fixed so that they could
be ventilated. For such a car the carrier charged $10
Avhich applied Avhether they Avere destined to a point on
the NeAV Haven or on a connection. (6487-8) The $15
charge for shelved refrigerator cars continued in effect
and is still in force AAÛth apparent satisfaction to the
groAvers. (6488) This is covered by Tariff I. C. C. N. Y.
k H. & H., F.-1174, effective August 11, 1913. (6488)
At the present time no free icing aa'hatever is done by the
carriers in NeAV England. (6488)
During the time aa'hen the Official Classification provi¬
sion in respect of icing shipments contained the word
"may," the NeAV Haven Eailroad took this provision to
be optional and insisted that the charge for any icing
service performed by the New Haven Eailroad should be
charged against the freight and such charges have been
made. (6489) All roads in Ncav England treated the
subject the same as the NeAV Haven. (6489) The max¬
imum distance of haul of perishable freight in New Eng¬
land Avould be 175 miles. (6489) A representative aver¬
age distance Avould be about 75 or 80 miles. (6490)
Cranberries move in dry refrigerator cars and go all
over New England. 25 per cent of the crop is marketed
east of the Hudson Eiver and 75 per cent, west. The
113
crop this year is estimated at 400,000 barrels. They
move in the fall months. A barrel of cranberries weighs
115 lbs. and they load 220 to 240 barrels to the car.
(6490) The cranberry business antedates the witness'
memory. Originally there Avere no refrigerator cars and
the cranberries moved in box cars. The principal mar¬
ket was in NeAv England. More recently the markets
have been more widely distributed.
When refrigerator cars began to come into New Eng¬
land from the West there AAmre ordinarily no load to be
found for the cars. There is alAA'ays a vast amount of
empty equipment of practical^ all kinds, and loads can¬
not alAA'ays be found for ordinary box cars moving west.
80 per cent of the movement Avest consists of empty cars.
(6491-2) If loads for these refrigerator cars going west
could be found it AA'as thought to be an economical thing
to do. Therefore refrigerator cars Avere placed for the
cranberry groAA'ers in the Cape Cod district a great many
years ago. More recently the keen competition of the
lines AA'est of the Hudson Elver for the traffic resulted in
those carriers agreeing AAÛth the groAA'ers to furnish re-
frigei-ator cars. The LackaAvanna and the Pennsylvania
Eailroads AA'ere very active in that field. (6493) All of
the railroads AA'ere. The NeAA' Haven carried out the
wishes of the shippers as to the particular type of re¬
frigerator car to be placed. (6494)
The freight rate was made on the basis of the use of
the car wliich AAms being used at the time the ratings
AA'ere made and the introduction of the use of refrigera¬
tor cars has been a matter of competition. The cars
Avere moving West empty and the New Haven would
eitlier have to place a refrigerator car or a box car and
it thought that to use the refrigerator car for this traf¬
fic was the right thing to do. (6494) The New England
114
class rates were raised in 1903, 3c on the first three
classes and Ic on the last three classes. This applied on
all traffic in New England whether it moved in box cars
or refrigerator cars. (6495) These rates remained in
effect np to the time of the 5 Per Cent Case. (6494) The
New England lines did not participate in the 5 Per Cent
Case because of the New England rate readjustment
which was at that time taking place in New England.
(6496) So far as the New England adjustment was con¬
cerned "no consideration at all was given by the rail¬
roads as to the feature as to what character of equip¬
ment was used in moving the freight. (6497) No con¬
sideration was given as to whether the freight moved in
refrigerator cars, tank cars, ventilated cars, box cars,
or what not. (6498)
The proper way to make icing charges is upon the
stated price as proposed in this tarilf. The principle is
correct. (6499)
Kentfield was not a member of the committee to con¬
struct the tarilf. In principle it is proper to make a sep¬
arate charge for the furnishing of a dry refrigerator car.
(6500) For the carriers to undertake to publish tariffs
on the per ton basis is all Avrong and leads to all kinds
of controversies not only with fruit and vegetable ship¬
pers, but all kinds of shippers, and the railroad cannot
collect its money. The shipper does not know when the
shipment leaves its point of origin, Avhat the charges are
going to be Avhen it reaches its destination. Exigencies
arise and things must be done, and then Avhen you come
to collect the icing charges there is a dispute between the
railroad and the consignee, and it all bids for ill feeling.
If the charge is stated at the point of origin, the shipper
knows and the railroad knoAvs and the consignee knows,
and you remove all those controversies. (6520)
115
The witness was a member of the Oificial Classification
Committee for years and concurs in Kallman's testimony
to the effect that in making the classification it was not
taken into consideration whether the traffic moved in a
refrigerator car or in a box car. The rating was made
on a basis of transportation in a box car, regardless of
the contents of the car. (6525-6) If it requires refrig¬
eration, it should start in the basis of maximum refrig¬
eration at the point of origin. (6527) The shipper
should have nothing to say about the amount of ice in
the bunkers. If the railroad is going to publish a tariff
and furnish refrigeration, the shipper tenders the rail-
I .ad company his goods and that is the end of it. The
railroad will determine how the refrigeration shall be
done. The shipper is only interested in the proper car¬
riage of his goods, and that the lawful rate shall be paid
tl : reon, whether it is refrigeration or anything else.
If the shipper wants refrigeration all he needs to do is
to state on his shipping order that he wants refrigera¬
tion. The shipper is not interested whether the bunkers
are half full or all full; that is for the carrier to do,
the shipper well knowing that on a distance of ninety
miles with expedited service, it is not necessary to re¬
frigerate that property. (6429) However, if the ship¬
per has in mind that he may, at destination, reconsign
that car somewhere else where it would require refrig¬
eration, that is another matter. On a car originating at
Rochester and unloading at Buffalo there would be no
necessity for ice. (6539) The shipper has the right to
elect if he wishes refrigeration. If he does not state re¬
frigeration on his shipping order he would get an ordi¬
nary box car, or ventilated car. (6530)
The ba sis for making the tariff should be maximum
icing at point of origin regardless of the distance hauled.
The shipper has the option of either sending it under re-
116
í'rigeration or sending it under ventilation. (6532)
There is no necessity for icing on an overnight
service of short hauls from 10 to 230 miles. (6533) This
is true in New England where it is just as hot in summer
and cold in winter as anywhere else. (6533)
It takes a certain amount of meltage to cool a car suf¬
ficiently to preserve a given commodity. It is the melt¬
ing of the ice that creates or prodnces the refrigeration.
F or the purpose of proper refrigeration the temperature
of the car must be right, regardless of the haul, and the
difference in the distance Avould be refiected in the num¬
ber of re-icings or the amount of ice necessary at each
re-icing. For this reason there should be maximum re¬
frigeration in the first instance regardless of the dis¬
tance in all cases where refrigeration is deemed neces¬
sary. (6536) If the refrigeration rate should be based
on the season of the year then on the same theory, a
higher transportation rate should be charged in winter
than in summer because of the weather obstacles to
transportation, and you might even proceed as far as
charging less for a downhill haul than for an uphill haul.
(6536) If you could not get 5 tons of ice into a refrig¬
erator car it might not be fair to construct a tariff upon
the basis of 5 tons initial icing. (6537) If the refrig¬
erator car bunker capacity is not 5 tons there is merit
in saying that 5 tons should not be charged for. The
sliipper should not pay for a ton of ice which is not ac¬
tually furnished. (6538-9) Perhaps the smaller capac¬
ity of the ice bunkers would require more replenishing
than the large ice bunkers for the same distance, Avhere
the distance is sufficiently long to bring in the question
of re-icing. (6540) There is no proposal at the present
time to discontinue tlie present arrangement to furnish
shelved cars at the present rate of |15 per car. (6544)
117
Under tlie present tariff the minimnm is 10,000 lbs. of
peaches. The shipper pays the 1. c. 1. rate nntil he
reaches a point Avhere the carload rate and the carload
minimnm would make a less charge than the actual weight
and the 1. c. 1. rate.
The use of slatted door box cars has resulted in pil¬
ferage claims directly attributable to the use of slatted
doors. (6545) The New Haven does not attempt to re¬
strict its liability growing out of such pilferage.
In the days of the old slaughter houses in New Eng¬
land, fresh meat moved from all the slaughter house dis¬
tricts back into the country in box cars throughout the
year. (6546) If the shippers thought that the service
of the railroad was such that they could not afford to
take the chances of getting their goods to market in
prime condition they sent it by express in passenger
cars and it moved in passenger cars without refrigera¬
tion for a great many years, and does still. (6546) It
is an expedited service and does not require refrigera¬
tion. Sometimes half a carload of quarters of beef, or
practically a full carload, Avould go from a point like
New Haven to Hartford. The beef would be brought
down in the morning by special arrangement with the
shippers, the cars opened at 4 o'clock, and it would be
in Hartford along about 8 o'clock in the morning. No
freight rate ever included the movement of goods in re¬
frigerator cars originally. (6547)
The New Haven always charged extra for its icing on
dairy products regardless of the rule in the Official
Classification. This applies on everything. The New
Haven does not participate in any of the claims in the
West. That is taken care of by the Western Lines.
(6550) The New Haven Eailroad imposes the charges.
It does not ice anything free. (6550) It does not par-
118
ticipate in free ice on dairy products or anything else.
(6553)
The traffic in frozen and fresh fish is a more or less
steady traffic throngh the year except for the fluctuation
in production during the Avinter months. (6554) It is
shipped in iced containers, almost invariably in either
scheduled refrigerator cars or box cars. (6555) It has
])een A^ery satisfactory from the standpoint of loss and
damage claims. (6555)
The fact that all outbound perishable freight from Ncav
England is carried under a separate charge, in addition
to the haulage rate for both refrigerator and heater
(called in Ncav England "AAmrm") car service is indi¬
cated by reference to the folloAving tariffs:
Refrigerator Car Service.
Boston Maine Railroad Tariff (I. C. C. 1800, Item 358).
Boston Maine Railroad Tariff (I. C. C. 102-A, Item
194).
Canadian Pacific Raihvay Tariff (I. C. C. E-1938, Items
152-153-154).
Central Vermont RailA\^ay Tariff (I. C. C. A-3972).
Refrigeration of Oysters.
Ncav York Central Railroad Tariff I. C. C. (N. Y. C.
No. 5945—Rule 3).
NeAV l^ork, Ncav Haven & Hartford Railroad Tariff
No. F-2297, Rnle 12, Classification 42.
(This tariff Avas sustained in Clias. Platts v. Neiv- York,
Neiv Haven é Hartford Railroad Company, 43 I. C. C.,
504.)
119
Heater (Warm) Car Service.
Bangor & Aroostock Kailroad Tariff I. C. C. 1407.
Boston & Maine Railroad Tariff I. C. C. A-1347.
Boston & Maine Railroad Tariff I. C. C. A-1705.
Canadian Pacific Railway Tariff I. C. C. E-1938—Item
148.
Maine Central Railroad Tariff I. C. C. C-2913.
It is true, however, that on inbound shipments of cer¬
tain classes of freight into New England territory from
connecting trunk line roads, the New England carriers
participate proportionately in the cost of furnishing re¬
frigeration service in cases where the trunk line connec¬
tion absorbs the cost of such service, and the New Eng¬
land roads have published authority for such absorptions
in their own tariffs.
This practice, however, is due to competition on the
border line separating the New England and Trunk Line
territory and to a desire to effect a wider distribution
of perishable commodities coming from various other
Official Classification points and beyond, and desiring to
reach New England markets.
The history of the Official Classification ratings and
rates as well as the development of the measure of the
rates in C. F. A. territory is contained in the testimony
of Mr. D. T. Lawrence and Mr. P. C. Spbague. The tes¬
timony of these witnesses should be considered in con¬
nection with Rule 25, but because of its important rela¬
tion to the 1. c. 1. rate in C. F. A. territory, it has been
set forth in the discussion of Section 6 of the proposed
tariff, and to avoid repetition is not set forth in this part
of the brief.
120
Western Territory.
Me. H. C. Bush^ testified as follows (575) :
My name is H. C. Bush. I am a member of the West¬
ern Classification Committee. Prior to the formation of
the present permanent committee I was a member from
3901 until 1913, by reason of my position as traffic man¬
ager of a member line. Since January 1, 1914, when the
permanent committee Avas organized, I have been a mem¬
ber.
I have been in the railroad business forty-eight years
(576), practically all that time in traffic department;
three years as a station agent under the operating de¬
partment. Latterly in traffic department of Atlantic &
Pacific East Freight Line, in San Francisco; general
agent of the freight department and later general freight
agent of the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad. In 1900 I be¬
came traffic manager of the Colorado Midland Railroad
with headquarters at Denver. For about two months I
was traffic manager of the Idaho & Washington Northern
Railroad with headquarters at Spokane. About the time
that road Avas sold I Avas elected member of the present
classification committee.
The Western Classification Committee covers ratings
on various commodities nioving in the western part of
the United States, of aaRícIi California, Arizona and
Ne\mda are a part.
I haAm made some investigation to determine what the
Western Classification shoAvs Avith reference to the rat¬
ings on fruits and vegetables moving from California,
Arizona and Nevada (577), as to whether or not the rat¬
ings proAuded contemplated serA'ice of refrigeration or
protection from heat or cold; the best I could, consid-
121
ering tlie almost prehistoric data of Classification No. 1.
The classification ratings of freight requiring protec¬
tion against heat or cold were not established on a basis
high enough to cover such protection. No such protec¬
tion Avas contemplated, other than that which could be
afforded by the equipment ordinarily in use.
Western Classification No. 1 became effective April 1,
1887, superseding Joint Western Classification No. 14.
Rules 4 and 5 of Classification No. 1 provide the ship¬
per the option of assuming the risk on perishables at
the standard rating (578) or of putting the responsibil¬
ity on the carrier at one class higher. (These rules were
read into the record.)
Rule No. 10 of Western Classification No. 1 provides,
under the title "Stoves in Cars," that during cold
AA^eather, when perishable property is liable to be dam¬
aged by frost, a pass may be given to one person who
may be in charge of and accompanying shipments of one
or more carloads of green fruits, potatoes, or other vege¬
tables, Avhen a stove is used for the protection of such
property from freezing. No return passes to be given
and none given to persons in charge of trees and shrub¬
bery. Method of connecting stove prescribed and stoves
and lumber used in fitting up the car were to be returned
at one-half fourth-class rates. (579)
This rule is in the nature of a concession, as it per¬
mits the shipper to provide his OAvn protection against
frost. If the carriers had expected to provide the pro¬
tection, this rule Avould not have been necessary.
On page 20 of Classification No. 1, it is stated that
"Ice furnished by shippers for preservation of
freight loaded in refrigerator cars not to exceed
3,000 lbs., free."
122
On page 7, the item of beer carries this provision
(580) :
"Shippers may load 3,000 lbs. of ice for preserva¬
tive; excess to be charged same as beer."
These entries make it clear that the shipper was in
all cases required to supply the preservative.
Eatings in Classification No. 1 do not indicate that
perishables were rated high enough in comparison with
certain nonperishables to justify unusual expense in pro¬
tection. I have prepared an exhibit which I would like
to file, showing a few comparisons.
(Copies of exhibit distributed.)
Perishable ratings shown in left-hand column are not
high for the service of transportation only.
Eating on green fruit of 15 per cent less than third
class, Avould be about equal to fourth class on dried fruit,
which requires no protection. Fresh fish, carloads, rated
at fourth class, while edible nuts, requiring no protec¬
tion, were rated at third class, carloads.
It tvould he contrary to classification principles to
provide ratings to include refrigeratioyi hy carrier, and
exactly the same ratings udiere no refrigeration is fur¬
nished or required.
The AVestern Classification applies in all territory west
of the Mississippi Eiver, and from the Canadian border
(581) to the Gulf of Mexico, where there are found the
extremes of climatic variations. AVinter service in Mon¬
tana and in southern Texas is subject to the same rat¬
ings.
Eggs, cheese and some classes of fruit and vegetables
may, at certain seasons, move in box cars for reasonable
distances with safety. If the classification included pro¬
tection in other seasons, surely the box car charge would
be too high.
123
The same is true of Avinter vegetables, like potatoes.
Melons all take the same rating; yet, Avater melons gen¬
erally have no other protection than that afforded by
the ordinary stock car; AAdiile cantaloupes, honey-deAV
melons and casabas in practically all cases require re¬
frigeration.
The classification is not a proper place to carry
charges for special services, tvhich, beside sivitching, de¬
murrage and storage, reconsigning charges, etc., may
include refrigeration or ventilated services, ivhen same
involves special charge.
The classification ivas so constructed as to leave the
(582) carriers free to puhlish and file tariffs covering
these charges. Eules 29, 30 and 31 of Western Classifi¬
cation No. 55, I. C. C. No. 13, Avere first published in
Western Classification No. 51, I. C. C. No. 8. Eule No.
29 treats of refrigeration of freight, in carloads. Eule
No. 30 treats of freight in heated cars, in carloads. Eule
30 has most of the features of Eule 10, Avhich I have
quoted.
Eule 31 treats of less carload ratings on freight requir¬
ing protection against heat or cold. These three rules
Avere recommended in 1910 by the Committee on Uniform
Classification, in order to make clear the fact that classi¬
fication ratings do not cover this accessorial service and
has been the classification since 1913.
Classification No. 51 Avas suspended by the Interstate
Commerce Commission, Avhich Avas heard under I. & S.
Docket No. 76. Eule 29 A\'as not attacked. Eule 30 A\ms
attacked because it proposed to eliminate the provision
for returning lumber and stoves at one-half fourth class.
This feature the Commission concluded should be rein¬
stated. Eule 31 was attacked, but the (583) Commission
124
permitted it to go into etïect. (See Opinion No. 2110,
25 I. C. C. No. 497.)
Rules 29 and 31 became effective with Classification
No. 51, I. C. C. No. 8, February 14, 1913.
Supplement No. 6 to Western Classification No. 51 put
into effect amended Rule No. 30; that is, restoring the
privilege of returning lumber and stoves at one-half
fourth class; and this became effective November 1, 1913.
The ratings in Classification No. 51 were not disturbed
by these rules, as they might have been had the ratings
formerly included a service which it was proposed to
withdraw.
(Bush Exhibit No. 1, offered in evidence and identified,
was received in evidence, and thereupon marked "Bush
Exhibit No. 1, received in evidence July 10, 1919," and
attached to transcript.)
Cross-Examination.
I can't speak for the commodity tariffs, applying from
the Pacific Coast to eastern destinations under any of the
Countiss (584) tariffs made with reference to the class
rates thereon, as I haven't made a study of it.
The Classification Committee has nothing whatever to
do with rates or tariffs.
My understanding is that any commodity tariff or ex¬
ception to the classification supersedes classification, so
far as the traffic covered by that taritf is concerned. I
do not know of any commodity rates which, when pub¬
lished, taking the commodity out of the classification,
that were fixed upon a basis of a percentage of the class
rates that would have been applicable to that commodity
had the commodity rate not been published.
At the time the Western Classification No. 1 was pub-
125
lished (585), in 1887, there was a considerable move¬
ment of green fruit and vegetables—grapes, apples,
pears, plums, oranges, lemons, potatoes, etc., from Cali¬
fornia; that is regular carload shipments were made
from California to eastern destructions. I could not
even estimate the number of cars of oranges that moved
in 1887. I have no definite information. A hundred
cars (586) I would call an appreciable movement, from
one shipper at one time, or a season.
I made the observation as to the rating on fresh fish
at fourth class in Western Classification No. 1, as com¬
pared with third class on edible nuts, to show that fresh
fish, if it was intended to provide, in addition to trans¬
portation, ice protection, would he very much too low.
The only thing I had in mind was to see what, if any
(588), evidence I could find that the ratings on the per¬
ishable commodities were high enough to justify furnish¬
ing, in addition to transportation, the protection against
the elements which might be necessary.
I don't think we would necessarily establish a rating
on a dead commodity with relation to a perishable com¬
modity with which the nonperishahle commodity might
not come in competition.
I have conscientiously gone through the classification
and (589) the records to see if I could find out whether,
' in making the ratings in Classification No. 1, they in¬
cluded or did not include protection against heat or cold;
, and I have been able to find nothing in the classification
on that subject other than the rides which I have quoted,
which all seem to be in the direction of the shipper fur¬
nishing his. own protection.
. The Classification Committee had nothing to do with
. the making of the rates that move the commodities.
126
The class rates governed all characters of traffic. (590)
The rates are not fixed with a view to first class, for
instance, to cover perishables alone, or dead freight
alone. It covers all classes of traffic rated first class by
the classification. Of course, I can't tell what the man
has in mind when he makes a commodity tariff.
If the men who made the rates on commodities that
moved from the Pacific Coast made them with a view
to including any accessorial service, the fact of the pro¬
visions of the Western Classification would have nothing
to do with Avhat the man had in mind, unless that tariff
carried no rules and the Western Classification did and
that tariff was made subject to the rules of the Western
Classification.
Me. Gr. W. Luce testified as follows :
Direct Examination.
My name is G. W. Luce. I am freight traffic manager.
Southern Pacific Company, Pacific System; am located
at San Francisco. I have been in the railroad business
since 1875, located at San Francisco and Los Angeles in
California all the time.
I have made an investigation for the purpose of testi¬
fying in this case with reference to the history of the
movement (598) perishable commodities from this ter¬
ritory, including my own personal experience, as well as
information derived from other sources.
The first cultivated trees were planted in 1849 and in
1857 the fruit was so plentiful the swine were fattened
on it, because the population on the coast was not suffi¬
cient to absorb it. It remained that way until 1869
Avhcn the first overland railroad was completed. Ship¬
ment locally, before the through service, was simply the
127
ordinary box car. That type of car carried all the fruit
from California to the extent that the railroads were
built at that time, until about three or four years before
the through roads were completed, and in those days the
fruit was handled in what was known as combination
stock and box cars, which had ventilators on both sides
and ends and were supplied with two doors, one a grating
door and the other solid, so that the car could be easily
turned into a tight car for the transportation of ordi¬
nary merchandise. In 1869 three carloads of deciduous
fruit was shipped to the eastern market. In 1886 the
California Fruit Growers Union was established to
handle deciduous fruit in northern California. (599)
The tonnage in those three cars shipped in 1869 was
ten tons to each car, the minimum in those days. The
year the California Fruit Growers Union was organized
they shipped the first train of ventilated fruit cars with
deciduous fruit. East; that train consisted of fifteen car¬
loads. In 1884 the markets of Chicago, Pittsburgh, New
York, Pennsylvania, were open to California deciduous
fruits. In 1886 Boston took its first carload and in 1888
it received 100 carloads and in 1889 150 carloads; all
handled in what were called ventilator cars, except pos¬
sibly in 1888 and '89 there was a small percentage han¬
dled in refrigerator cars.
In the making of the freight rates for this fruit, as
well as other perishable traffic, nothing except the mere
transportation of fruit from point of origin to destina¬
tion was considered. No accessorial service, no switch
engine service, to and from industries, or the loading and
unloading of the fruit. It was simply the bare transpor¬
tation.
Witness read Circular No. 7, March 1, 1895, issued by
(600) the Southern Pacific Company, which provides that
128
the local freight tariffs apply only when property is
loaded in ordinary cars; that refrigerator cars or com¬
bined refrigerator and ventilated cars should be used
in local traffic only for freight which required and was
carried under ice; to be used for other freight only at
company's convenience and under orders from proper
officer.
It also provides that when refrigerator cars or combined
refrigerator and ventilated cars are used for local freight
carried under ice, 25 per cent addition will be charged,
and minimum weight will be 24,000 pounds, etc., and
states that refrigerator cars containing deciduous fruits
are not iced (601) by the company; that owners of re¬
frigerator cars or combined refrigerator and ventilated
cars carrying deciduous fruits must assume responsi¬
bility for icing and general attention to the refrigera¬
tion of the cars. It is also stated as follows :
"The Southern Pacific Company does not under¬
take the refrigeration of fruit or vegetables during
transportation over its lines.
Kefrigerator cars containing fruit or vegetables
are not iced by this company, whether in its through
or local traffic, and such shipments should be made
only by arrangement with and under the supervision
of refrigerator car companies having traffic con¬
tracts for operation of their cars on this company's
lines, under which contracts they relieve this com¬
pany from responsibility for icing or other attention
to refrigeration of the cars."
Similar instructions were issued, found in General
Freight (603) Department Circular 2836, October 31,
1891, which was a reissue of Circulars 2611 and 2821 of
previous date. I could not locate copies of those early
circulars.
Amendment No. 2, Circular General Freight Depart¬
ment 47, being Amendment No. 2 to I. C. C. No. 2370 to
129
Circular No. G. F. D. 47, dated December 18, 1905, read
in evidence by witness. This Amendment No. 2 provides
for use of refrigerator or combined ventilator cars for
local freight carried under ice, for which 125 per cent of
the rate applying on same shipments in ordinary cars
will be charged, with minimum of 24,000 pounds, etc :
"These rates do not include charge for icing and
care of refrigeration of freight in transit. Eefrig-
eration being a special (604) service separate and
distinct from transportation, the charge made for
refrigeration is in addition to the transportation
rate named herein."
I think it well to explain regarding what is known as
schedule refrigerator service, so far as the Southern
Pacific Company is concerned. We have a few schedule
cars in service, and one particular car I have in mind is
that moving between San Francisco, Sacramento and
Tonopah-Goldfield district. This carries less than car¬
load freight under refrigeration and at the expense of
the Southern Pacific Company, which is a departure
from our general rules, just referred to. That situation
was forced by the line leading from Los Angeles into
that section, moving the perishable freight in passenger
trains; and in order to protect our business we were
forced to place in the refrigeration service free of cost
to the shipper from San Francisco-Sacramento to Tono-
pah and Goldfield, in Nevada. Similar service was in¬
augurated (605) about 1916 from Los Angeles to Bakers-
field. The rate of transportation for that service was
not increased. The Santa Fe when it had its line open
to that section inaugurated similar service to the ship¬
pers from Chicago to California, which was met by the
Southern Pacific on both carload and less than carload
business, for which transportation charges were not in¬
creased.
130
So far as carload traffic in that situation, the absorp¬
tion of (606) cost of icing was discontinued and a charge
was made for re-icing refrigerated cars west of the Mis¬
souri Eiver for $15—charging the shipper $15. It was
afterwards changed to $25. The shipper iced the car in¬
itially at his own expense ; and it always occurred to me
that that $25 was extremely low. I can supply the date
when the change was made from $15 to $25 later, hut
haven't it with me now.
We also handled peddler cars, handling fresh meats
and packing-house products. The shippers, however, fur¬
nished the icing and re-icing, if any is necessary. It is
done at their expense, but we do handle perishable cars
and that is in addition to the rate—those charges. (607)
The making of the easthound rates on the through
traffic was made absolutely within my own knowledge,
without any reference whatever to any other service
than transporting the property from start to finish.
After 1869, when the Overland Eoad was completed,
the veintilated fruit car was constructed; that is, a dif¬
ferent fruit car than I have explained. It was a car
equipped with passenger trucks, a Miller platform, and
the old hand brake, and those cars were placed in what
we call an expedited service.
In 1888 they constructed what is known by a great
many people, at least, as double shutter ventilator for
freight train service, and they carried and carry to-day
fruit and vegetables, but consigned usually to the short
runs in near-by territory. At the time I speak of having
the passenger fruit cars and the fruit ventilator cars for
expedited service and the ventilated fruit cars for freight
train service, we had three sets of rates in.
The first rate on deciduous fruit was published Sep-
lál
tember 1, 1869. By freight to Omaha, $800 per car of
10 tons ; to Chicago, $900 ; by passenger train to Omaha,
$1,100; to Chicago, $1,200. (608)
. That movement of fruit from 1870 to 1883 amounted
to 75 cars; but in 1883 there was moved 961 cars; in
1885, 2,269 ; and in 1918, 27,421 carloads.
No fruit was shipped in 1885 under refrigeration; it
was all by ventilator car.
The fruit had to be picked comparatively green and it
ripened en route.
In 1888 Mr. Thomas, through the C. B. Hutchins Com¬
pany, of Chicago, got together a car line with the Gr. B.
Hutchins patent (609), came to California, and the
Southern Pacific Company made a contract with them to
furnish cars for refrigeration. It was understood always
that for the refrigeration the shipper would be charged
in addition to the freight rate. At the same time we
prohibited those refrigerator cars, on account of the
great weight in comparison with our fruit cars and the
haulage of ice, to be placed in our expedited fruit
freight trains. They had to go on the ordinary freight,
the fruit being protected, unless they desired to pay the
passenger train rate.
We made a similar contract June 6, 1892, with the
Goodell people, the California Fruit Transportation Com¬
pany. They paid us 25 per cent in addition to our pro¬
portion of freight rates for carrying their heavy cars in
our trains. In any train that we ran, they paid us, in
addition to the freight rate, 25 per cent of whatever class
of service was rendered the cars; in addition to collect¬
ing from the shipper for the use of the car.
In 1893 we entered into contract with the Continental
Fruit Express, which was renewed in 1897. In that they
132
agreed to maintain the established refrigerator rates of
the other refrigerator (610) companies Avith whom we
had contracts. They made their contracts with indi¬
vidual shipping firms.
In all those subsequent contracts the same provision
was made Avith reference to payment to the Southern
Pacific of 25 per cent of the transportation charge by
the refrigerator car (611) company and that they would
provide the ice and attend to the icing and re-icing in
transit, and would charge shippers a reasonable com¬
pensation for doing that work.
In 1895 we made a contract AAuth the Santa Fe Fruit
and Eefrigerator line, Avhich Avas reneAved in 1897, with
the same provisions with reference to the 25 per cent
pajTuent to the Southern Pacific Company, in addition
to freight rate for hauling their cars in our trains, and
agreeing to charge shippers reasonable compensation for
the refrigeration.
In 1895 contract Avas entered into with Armour and
Company, an excerpt from Avhich is read into the testi¬
mony. The contract was dated February 27, 1895, under
which Armour and Company agreed to furnish not less
than 300 refrigerator cars for transportation of fruits
and vegetables from California to points east. That
company also agreed to pay said Southern Pacific Com¬
pany a sum equal to (612) twenty-five per cent of its
regular charges on the contents of said cars, "which sum
shall be in addition to the regular transportation
charge" against the freight and collected of shipper or
consignee, as the case may be; and stipulation was made
that the Armour Company would put in force and main¬
tain rates for refrigeration, specifying the amounts to
A-arious points (613), Avhen forwarded in freight trains;
|25 to be added when forwarded by passenger train
133
service. After various other consideration enumerated
this contract provides':
"In consideration of the foregoing, the second
party (Southern Pacific Company) agrees (614)—
First, to haul said cars of the first party in all
its regular trains, it being understood, however, that
said cars shall not be hauled in expedited or fast
fruit trains.
Second, to charge the shipper or consignee of the
fruit in said cars the regular rates current at the
time of shipment for the kind of service given,
whether by freight, passenger or expedited train."
In 1902 we made another contract with the Armour
Car Line, which permitted them to furnish all the cars
operated on our line for the care of deciduous and citrus
fruits and vegetables, but not including potatoes and
onions; car line to provide ice and charge shippers a
reasonable compensation. (615)
Similar contracts were made with- other companies,
containing similar provisions.
In 1900 or 1901, Armour Cars and Continental Fruit
Express, which were the only lines having contracts at
that time, published joint tariff covering refrigeration
in addition to freight rates. The tariff was not changed
until August 27, 1906. These companies also published
refrigeration tariff covering business locally, and în ad¬
dition to the local freight rates.
The tariffs of refrigerator car lines expired August
27, 1906, because of the Hepburn Act, becoming effective
August 29, 1906. Thereafter the Southern Pacific pub¬
lished a refrigerator tariff, and its first refrigerator tar¬
iff was effective on the 28th of August, 1906. That cov¬
ered both through and local business.
I have a statement of freight rates on deciduous fruit
and it will be seen by it that as the industry grew and
134
developed the rates were reduced. It will also be noted
that after 1900 passenger train rates were not in effect,
the service then being rendered by a freight schedule
and had improved sufficiently to (616) take care of the
needs. Shippers did not desire to pay the charges for
passenger train service.
The rate on deciduous fruit, carload movement, from
California to points shown, rates in cents per 100
pounds, minimum weight 10 tons in 1895, 12 tons 1911,
to date 13 tons.
The rate varied from 1869 to Missouri Eiver, via pas¬
senger train, $5.50 and by freight train $4 to rates in
1900 of $2.50 (617) by passenger train and $1.25 freight
train to Chicago; to New York, passenger train, $2.60;
freight train, $1.40; movement, 6,018 cars.
Fromi 1910 there was no passenger train rate; freight
rates to New York varied from $1.40 in 1910 to $1.44 in
1918; movement in 1918 being total of 27,421 cars
The rate in 1889 to Chicago in expedited freight trains
of not less than 10 cars, was $400 per car, of 10 tons.
The last rate read for 1918, $1.44 (to Missouri Eiver,
Chicago and New York) is a blanket rate for the entire
country and all of these fruit people understand that.
(618)
The citrus fruit movement commenced in 1882 or '3.
The equipment first used was the combination box and
stock car, as I have described; then the ventilated fruit
car; not the passenger fruit car, but the ordinary fruit
car for freight train service. That was the only equip¬
ment that handled fruit until 1886 or 1887. In those two
years the refrigerator car for the transportation of citrus
fruit was simply a protection against cold in winter.
The ventilated fruit car was the only equipment used
135
for transporting fruit in the summer. The fruit ship¬
ments were made in regular freight trains. Occasionally
at that time special freight trains were made up, accord¬
ing to the number of cars offered and they were given
better service by running special than being placed in the
regular or* ordinary freight train.
I may say that refrigerator cars were forced into use
in southern California by the Santa Fe when they en¬
tered Los Angeles in 1885. They controlled or owned
some few cars. The Southern Pacific did not own any
cars at that time, but called upon its connections, the
Union .Pacific, North Western, Milwaukee and other
(619) Iowa lines to contribute their cars for that service
in Avinter, in competition with the Santa Pe, and they
furnished the cars—a miscellaneous lot of car, different
kinds of patents. In those days people were content
with any car painted "Eefrigerator car"; no claim.
They are largely used for protection against cold in the
winter months.
In 1887 the first cars were put under refrigeration.
Our contracts with the refrigerator lines, the Continen¬
tal Fruit Express and the Armour Car Lines, carried
with them the stated refrigeration charges and, as was
intimated here, at times they were departed from. They
did make allowances at times. They did it in trying to
wrest the business away from each other.
Citrus fruit was handled about the same as deciduous
fruit (620) after 1887, though at a lower charge for the
refrigeration than the deciduous fruit. The rates on
citrus fruit varied. As the industry developed, the rates
were reduced, and I will read a table of the rates, which,
however, is not as long as the other one. Eates are
shown thereon on citrus fruits from 1882 to date, with
136
the movement in carloads from California to eastern
destinations. Eates in cents per hundred pounds.
In 1882 the rate to the Missouri Eiver was $1.50. No
rates east of Chicago. The rate to Chicago was $1.75.
The movement was 4,500 carloads.
From 1885 to 1918 the rate to New York varied from
$2, with movement of 1,700 cars, to rate to Missouri
Eiver, Chicago and New York, in 1918, of $1.44, and the
movement of 22,533 cars.
From May, 1902, to June 24, 1918, the rate on lemons
was $1, New York and west. (621)
June 25, 1918, the rate was made $1.25.
That blanket rate was first initiated in 1907: "Well,
wait a minute. There was a blanket rate in 1890 of
$1.25." And we have had a blanket rate practically ever
since then.
The movement of cars in 1918 as against in 1907
29,820 cars, was because the crop of 1918 was only a 50
per cent crop caused by climatic conditions.
In making the rates on vegetables, there was no other
factor or problem considered except the mere transpor¬
tation of the traffic from point of origin to destination.
The handling was about the same; first in combination
box cars and stock cars, and second in the ventilated fruit
cars, and the refrigerators.
Freight charges were lower on deciduous fruit because
of the competition Avith vegetables met with in the East.
Not quite the same competition existing so far as decidu¬
ous fruit was concerned. (622) There Avas competition
Avith Florida on citrus fruit and on some vegetables.
Southern California shipped the first carload of citrus
fruit to New York in 1888, aaIiUc Florida shipped her
first carload to Ncav York in 1889.
137
Refrigeration rates on vegetables bave always been
charged in addition to the freight rates.
The rates upon the melon traffic have been those ap¬
plying upon vegetables and melons have been handled
the same as vegetables, except the eastern business gen¬
erally has been handled under refrigeration and in re¬
frigerator cars. The refrigeration of this traffic was
never considered in any particular in making the rates.
Rates on apples lower than on deciduous fruits, be¬
cause of competition in the East. Rate likewise was
made only having in mind transportation in ordinary box
cars.
In 1889, '90 and '91 apples moved locally in box cars,
or (623) combination box cars and ventilator cars. Dur¬
ing those years they moved to the eastern destinations
in ventilated fruit cars, and commencing in 1893 to some
extent in refrigerator cars for protection from the cold.
The refrigeration of apples commenced in 1895, to a
slight extent.
In 1905 they moved under regular car-line contracts,
at regular refrigeration rates. Since 1907, apples have
moved in refrigerator cars, for protection against cold
in winter and by refrigeration against the heat in sum¬
mer.
For some time potatoes and onions took the same rate
as vegetables, but on account of competition in the East,
the rates were reduced lower than the regular vegetable
rates. No refrigeration whatever considered in making
the rates.
For years we did not move this traffic locally other
than in box cars. Through eastern shipments were made
in combination box cars and stock cars and ventilated
fruit cars. In later years refrigerators were used to
138
protect against the cold, and for the past year or two
have moved nnder ice. Potatoes and onions I am speak¬
ing of. (624) Some of onr contracts with the refriger¬
ator lines exempted them from even supplying refrig¬
erator cars for potatoes and onions, and our instructions
to our refrigerator company furnishing the cars is not
to furnish refrigerator cars for potatoes and onions un¬
less they have a bountiful supply and can take care of
all citrus fruits and vegetables which particularly re¬
quire refrigeration, and which cannot be stored like po¬
tatoes and wait for movement in the proper course. In
the use of refrigerator equipment for protection I think
there should be some charge made. Eefrigerator cars
were not used in the potato business until probably the
past two years, and that was simply to protect against
shrinkage to the potato. Por this protection against the
shrinkage of the commodity that is sold by the 100
pounds, I think some charge should be made, to offset
the expense of the carrier in hauling that heavy car and
also for the expense of the refrigerator people in fur¬
nishing a facility such as that, in order that the shipper
may benefit. I do not know what would be the proper
charge, however.
Referring to items in Rule 40 of the proposed tariff,
all the items mentioned in that rule were not moved in
this district,—from this section. Some of them moved—
hut so far as the Southern Pacific is concerned, we never
made a rate having any regard to refrigeration or ac¬
cessorial service, and the reading of Circular No. 7 indi¬
cates that conclusively. (625)
In the last ten years I have watched the traffic flow to
and from the different sections and it has become the
practice of the shipper to call for refrigerator cars ; puts
canned goods, wine and leather in refrigerator cars to
139
prevent freezing. I think a proper charge should be
made against burdening the carrier in the first place
with carrying these heavy cars instead of the ordinary
box cars, and also the burden on the refrigerator car
lines of furnishing this expensive equipment. There is
another commodity, walnuts. For forty years that I
know of, they have never been transported in any kind
of a car other than the ordinary box car. In the past
year they have been calling for refrigerators. Walnuts
run from 12 to 25 or 30 cents a pound and they do this
to prevent shrinkage. So why shouldn't they pay? It
seems to me there is only one side to the question. (626)
They do not want to refrigerate the walnuts; they
simply do it to protect them from outside heat.
We naturally from the start have had a schedule of
class rates, and ive have departed from class rates at
times, hut o^ily to meet certain conditions, weather or
market competition. We make the rate with a view to
meeting competition; we do not care what kind of a car
it is in. We meet that competition hy making the rate
ivithout any regard to the equipment, except that it is
all based on the ordinary box car. If they want refrig¬
erator movement, they must pay according to the rules
of the tariff. (627)
That is on the same theory that if a man wants to ride
in a Pullman car, he has to pay in addition to the regular
coach rate.
As to fourth class and class O on fruit, I will tell you
how I made it.
For years we made special rates on freight that re¬
quired special treatment, that would not move by class
rate. We reissued those rates every year, so as to cut
out the unused rates. Those rates were registered in a
140
book in various places, important stations, and that was
a large amount of detail work.
As assistant general freight agent I caused to he com¬
piled the tonnage for two years of fruit and vege¬
tables and found the fourth class applied to less than
carload tonnage that would give about the same revenue
as the special rates; and class 0 was the classification
that would give about the same revenue on the carload
tonnage. (628) From that I caused to he published
what was known as Fruit and Vegetable Commodity Tar¬
iff, naming the rates from important points, specific
rates; then making an exception to the Western Classifi¬
cation, providing for this fourth class on less than car¬
load and class C on carloads, to points to which the com¬
modity rates did not apply, but on the same basis.
As to the westbound business, transcontinental rates.
Those rates were made without any reference to anything
except the bare transportation in ordinary box cars, hav¬
ing in mind the sea competition which leveled all rates
west of New York.
Any perishable freight moving, up to this time, was
iced by the shipper, or at his expense. There was very
little less than carload perishable freight moved between
the East and the West, excepting at a certain time which
I will mention. This traffic consisted of seed oyster,
cheese, frozen poultry, eggs, butter.
When the Santa Fe entered California in 1885 and
northern California in 1900, they proceeded to make or
furnish free refrigeration (629), and we were naturally
compelled to protect ourselves, to perform the same serv¬
ice free. That went both via Ogden and El Paso. As I
explained, that practice was followed until the |15 charge
was placed in, and then increased to $25.
141
Cross-Examination.
The first orchard was in Santa Clara, near San Jose,
about 1792. They were growing peaches, apricots and
plums. I think that orchard is still bearing.
The combination stock and box car came into use on
the Southern Pacific as soon as the road was started
and put in operation; used locally in California and out¬
side of California to the extent that the lines were com¬
pleted. (630)
In 1869 the first transcontinental line was completed
and the combination stock and box car had been used on
the line of the Southern Pacific prior to that time. Also
had box cars and flat cars at that time.
When the first movement of fruit took place from Cali¬
fornia to eastern destinations—Missouri Kiver east—
these combination stock and box cars wdth ventilators in
them were the best equipment they had for the purpose.
(631) AVhatever rate applied at that time included the
use of that kind of equipment.
Improvements have been made in the different classes
of equipment since that time. Eliminating for the mo¬
ment refrigerator cars, no change has been made in the
rates on the commodities to take care of the new or
changed form of equipment. The refrigerator car was
the outgroAvth of the needs and necessities of the perish¬
able freight traffic. (632)
The Southern Pacific Company first assumed responsi¬
bility of furnishing refrigerator cars for perishable
freight traffic at the effective date of the Hepburn Act,
August 28, 1906. Prior to that time we contracted for
the refrigerator cars, either with the car company fur¬
nishing them to us, or permitting the car company to
142
operate them—they merely operated the cars on our line,
assuming the responsibility for furnishing of the ears.
We did not change the rate to the shipper by reason
of the use of the refrigerator cars ; the refrigerator com¬
panies paid us on the basis of their contracts for our
hauling fruit in refrigerator cars.
The contracts were the same as the Armour contracts.
Armour & Company did not offer us more than we had
been getting out of the Hutchins Company (634) ; hut in
the last contract we made with Armour, in 1902, we
bound that company to furnish all the cars, instead of
having half a dozen companies furnishing 200, 300 or
400 each; we could handle the business better under one
company.
The freight rate remained the same as it was when
we commenced to use the refrigerator cars ; and the com¬
panies paid us the proportion of the earnings, or on the
basis of twenty cents per hundred, as the case might be,
and were obliged to furnish all of the refrigeration, ice,
and the cars, and to furnish the shippers a reasonable
charge for the refrigeration service.
In 1906, after the passage of the Hepburn Bill, the
Southern Pacific assumed the responsibility of furnish¬
ing the refrigerator cars and the icing.
The rates published prior to that time on different
kinds of (635) fruits did not provide for the use of re¬
frigerator cars. It did not cost the shipper any more for
the mere transporting it from point of origin to destina¬
tion than the transportation charge.
I am familiar with the historical facts surrounding the
provisions of the Hepburn Bill Avhich cast the obligation
upon the carriers of furnishing refrigeration. Complaint
was made by the shipping public against these private
143
lines furnishing the refrigeration and were not under
control.
After the passage of the Hephurn Bill the Southern
Pacific printed its first tariff which covered refrigera¬
tion. That tariff was in addition to the freight rates
which Avere in effect at that time. The line-haul rates
remained the same, unless reduced. (636)
The publie shipped in refrigerators, we handled at the
freight rate, so far as the transporting of the fruit, and
in addition we Avere paid for the handling of those ex¬
tremely heavy cars 25 per cent.
It would be very difficult for me to state what was the
difference hetAveen our published refrigeration charges
in 1906, after the passage of the Hephurn Bill, and what
the private car companies have been collecting and in¬
cluding what they had paid to the Southern Pacific; hut
I must assume, so far as the published tariffs just pre¬
vious to August 29, 1906, that the rates undoubtedly
were checked out of one tariff into another and would
he virtually the same rates for the refrigeration; and
AA^e made the same refrigeration charge that the car lines
had made. At or prior thereto the car companies had
paid us something like 25 per cent above the line-haul
rate. (637)
I think it is correct that after we had published these
refrigeration charges we made no change in our line-haul
rate other than deductions.
The compensation for the hauling of the car of that
character probably AA'ent into the account, the full 25 per
cent., in the shape of the straight refrigerator rates; but
it Avas in addition to the regular freight rate.
I remember the case of Arlington Heights Fruit Asso¬
ciation, and others against the Southern Pacific and oth¬
ers before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Docket
144
Nó. 3,000. I undoubtedly bad sometbing to do witb tbe
direction of tbe testimony of tbe Southern Pacific Com¬
pany in tbat proceeding. (638)
I do not recall tbat in defending tbe line-baul rate on
oranges from tbe Pacific Coast to all tbe blanketed terri¬
tory east tbe Soutbern Pacific claimed tbat tbe rate in¬
cluded tbe use of tbe special refrigerator equipment. I
don't believe it was ever stated.
I do not recall tbat witnesses on tbe stand and tbe
counsel for tbe Soutbern Pacific insisted tbat one of tbe
elements of cost in bandling tbat business was tbat tbe
rate included tbe use of tbat more expensive kind of
equipment, tbe refrigerator car. You appreciate tbat
tbe 25 per cent tbat we charged in addition—tbat is, for
bandling fruit in refrigerator cars—above tbe rate when
loaded in box ears, did not apply on tbe citrus fruit, be¬
cause of tbe Santa Pe competition here where tbey came
in. Tbey offered a refrigerator service, but tbat service
was simply a protection against cold in winter; and tbe
Soutbern Pacific met tbat service for competitive reasons.
(639)
As to Case No. 3000, I don't know tbat tbe Soutbern
Pacific representatives at tbe bearing also claimed tbat
tbe $1.15 rate on oranges also covered tbe cost of trans¬
porting tbe ice when tbe shipments moved under refrig¬
eration, but it is certain tbat we bad to pay for tbe ice
and bad to carry tbe car.
In tbat same case there was another branch involving
refrigeration charges from tbe Pacific Coast. I don't
recall precisely (640), but it would be tbe natural thing
to do, in defending the existing refrigeration charges to
show, as an element of cost of tbe refrigeration, tbe kind
and character of equipment required in tbe business. I
don't recall tbat tbe representatives of tbe Soutbern Pa-
145
cific also claimed that the cost of transporting the ice
should he included in the refrigeration charge, because
otherwise shippers moving the quantity under ventila¬
tion would likewise he paying for hauling the ice in the
line-haul rate. Of course, the testimony speaks for itself.
If I had known you wanted this information, I certainly
would have made a study of it. I knew what I wanted
and I produced it. (641)
I can say that after the time the Santa Fe Eailway
built its line to southern California, we have made no
charge for hauling* the ice or hauling the refrigerators
in the line-haul rates applying on citrus fruits. Since
the passage of the Cullom Bill it was not necessary for
the carriers to publish any additional charges for sep¬
arate services they wanted to exact; until the Hepburn
Act it did not include refrigeration. It was never consid¬
ered until the Hepburn Act that the carriers must pub¬
lish all separate services, whatever they might have been.
The orange rate was reduced from $1.25 to $1.15 in
1907. At that time we made no provision for an addi¬
tional charge for the (643) use of the refrigerator car in
the mere transportation; we would have had to publish
such an additional charge.
The lemon rate was reduced from $1.25 to $1.00 in
1902 first for a season, then in 1904 for the next season,
and continued until June 24, 1918. The carriers sought
to increase that to $1.15 sometime in July, 1909. During
that time lemons moved in refrigerator cars (644) to a
large extent, so continued to move after August 28, 1906.
Following that there was no change made in our line-haul
rates or any additional charge for the use of refrigerator
cars in the transportation of lemons.
The refrigeration charges which the Southern Pacific
146
published after August 28, 1906, applied alike to lemons
and oranges.
I believe that ivhere an industry is of such a character
that it requires some special equi^rtnent and derives bene¬
fits f rom it that the industry shoidd pay the bill. I don't
believe that the expense of that spjecial industry should
be thrown upon the carrier or upon the car line whose
particular business it is to protect the freight from cold
or heat, or under refrigeration. (654)
As to canned goods being shipped in refrigerator cars,
I have my views on that situation. Canned goods are
commodities that can be stored and do not spoil. Fruit
and vegetables must be shipped in order to preserve and
market them. There is no necessity in a short space of
forty-five or sixty days for those to be shipped and use
these heavy refrigerator cars for that purpose, taking
them away from the perishable traffic that requires the
use of those cars. If they Avant to protect themselves
and insist on shipping during the period of extreme cold
weather, they should pay for the privilege.
Redirect Examination.
It is my opinion, from my experience and knowledge
of the entire situation, that in making these rates the
only thing that teas taken into consideration îvas the bare
transportation of these commodities in ordinary box car
equipment, in the first instance.
I am very strong in the belief that the service shoidd
be paid for irhen these commodities are transported un¬
der refrigeration, or are transported in a refrigerator
car without refrigeration. 1 believe the value of the serv¬
ice to the shipper, whether it be simply for protection
against cold, shoidd be paid for. A person shoidd not
call upon the carrier for the hauling of extremely heavy
147
ca,rs, nor upon the car lines for furnishing such a car as
a refrigerator car, without compensation. (656)
Recross Examination.
I think it is right that the railroad should be paid for
every service that it performs. That principle is all
right. (657)
The rates on oranges as they were published on and
after August 28, 1906, as well as lemons, did not include
a charge for the use of the refrigerator car. (658)
AYheu we published that tariff we didn't think of mak¬
ing a charge for the haul of this heavy car, but we have
it in mind now, because of the increased cost of living,
of doing business, and I believe that the person who
uses the facility should pay, if it is of value for him to
use. (659)
Mr. A. M. Reinhardt testified as follows :
Direct Examination,
My name is A. M. Reinhardt. I am assistant general
freight agent, (660) A. T. & S. F. Railroad. I have been
in the railroad business about twenty-four years; in the
operating department until 1906 and (661) after that in
the traffic department. I have been located in California
during this time of my railroad employment, always in
the employ of the Santa Fe.
I have made some investigation and study for the
purpose of testifying in this case concerning the history
of the refrigerator car movement on the Santa Fe Rail¬
road since its entry into California. (662)
The Santa Fe entered California as a through trans¬
continental line,—1885 into southern California and 1900
into San Francisco It found the Southern Pacific al-
148
ready in the field and naturally had to meet severe com¬
petition with that line. As a result of this competition
each line was constantly striving to render better service
than the other and in devising improved equipment for
the proper transportation of the fruit and vegetable traf¬
fic, which at that time was in its infancy, and which rap¬
idly grew afterward.
The first cars in service for the handling of this traffic
(663) were ventilated fruit cars. They were usually
loaded returning westbound.
About the beginning of 1888 ventilated refrigerator
cars were introduced into southern California for carry¬
ing citrus fruit. The first of these in service were known
as Tiffany patent with zinc icing tanks of about 4,000 lbs.
of ice capacity. Ventilation was secured by small venti¬
lators in ends of cars. The Southern Pacific at this time
were using the Goodell patent, and California Fruit
Transportation Kefrigerator cars with overhead ice
tanks. The Tiffany cars were used for two seasons and
at the end of the second season the Santa Fe put into
service what was known as the Wiekes patent refrigera¬
tor car, which had been found to be a better refrigerator
and ventilator car than the Tiffany. (664) Finally the
Santa Fe was obliged in order to satisfy the demand of
the shippers and by competition of its competitors to
make arrangements with the Continental Fruit Express,
the Fruit Growers Express and the Santa Fe Fruit and
Refrigerator Line to supply it with sufficient of the latest
improved cars and 500 of the Wiekes type were taken
out of service.
The refrigerator car lines were paid by Santa Fe on
mileage basis and retained the refrigeration charge. It
was concluded by President Ripley that as contracts with
149
refrigerator car lines expired they would not be renewed
and Santa Fe Avonld furnish its own cars.
In 1901 these contracts expired and the Santa Fe pur¬
chased (665) from Santa Fe Fruit and Refrigerator Line
all the modern cars it had and built a sufficient number to
take care of its traffic.
The Santa Fe Refrigerator Despatch Company was or¬
ganized in July, 1902, as a subsidiary corporation to the
Santa Fe, to handle the refrigeration business on the
Santa Fe system. It owned no equipment, the cars and
ice plants being owned by the Santa Fe System, the cars
being leased to the S. F. R. D. and the ice being furnished
to it under contract.
The refrigerator car lines were paid upon a mileage
basis and retained the refrigeration charges,—a stated
refrigeration charge paid by the shipper for the refrig¬
eration service—the same amounts mentioned by Mr.
Luce in his testimony; the only difference being, so far
as the Santa Fe was concerned, the Santa Fe paid the
car line a mileage,—^made an allowance in the form of
car mileage. (666)
The schedule refrigerator cars are handled at the reg¬
ular (667) less carload rates applicable to such traffic,
whether moving in these cars or in other cars. Refrig¬
eration is furnished by the railroad company free. The
origin of this practice was in the neighborhood of Kan¬
sas City to take care of butter, eggs, fresh fruits and
vegetables, distributed from Kansas City to interior
points in Kansas.
The freight rates themselves and the classification an¬
tedated moving the traffic in these schedule cars under
refrigeration and the refrigeration service was not con¬
templated when, the rates were originally made. (668)
Prior to the establishment of this service the only
150
method of transportation was by express at rates at least
150 per cent of the freight rates. This traffic moved at
the class rates which were made prior to the establish¬
ment of the service and therefore did not contemplate
the refrigeration service. Eeductions have been made in
all of these class rates; not only from Chicago to San
Francisco and to Los Angeles, hut from California to
Arizona and New Mexico. (669)
Fruit and vegetables in these schedule cars from Cali¬
fornia to Arizona are now moving on commodity rates
which are the same less carloads as the fourth class and
carloads as Class C, which were in effect prior to July 1,
1913, increased by General Order No. 28. These class
rates were reduced on that date and to prevent reductions
on this traffic commodity rates were established continu¬
ing the rates formerly paid. (670)
This traffic moves on class rates fixed by the California
Railroad Commission several years before this service
was established.
There is a provision in Santa Fe refrigeration tariffs
for special or individual cars to take care of cases where
shippers otfer perishable freight in quantities provided
by rule, but are not able to avail themselves of the sched¬
uled cars.
Most of the tonnage handled in these schedided cars
takes fourth-class rates, while the average rate on dead
freight handled in box cars is slightly higher than third
class, udth result that for a given tonnage greater reve¬
nue accrues for traffic handled in box cars than for like
amounts in schedule refrigerator cars; more net revenue
from the box car handling account less tare weight of
car,.refrigerator cars averaging about 10,000 lbs. more
than ordinary cars; more loading space; in addition to
which we handle about 9,000 lbs. of ice in bunkers of re¬
frigerator car, which adds expense for supervision. (671)
151
A car when bunkers are filled will hold nine and some¬
times ten thousand pounds, but making an allowance for
some meltage, I would say that the average is about 8,000
lbs.
Gross-Examination.
In my statement read here, I dealt largely with the his¬
tory of the use of the refrigerator car on the Santa Fe
Eailway, and the only rates were the rates applicable to
this so-called schedule or 1. c. 1. refrigerator cars.
I know that the rates were made before we put on that
service, and consequently it is natural to assume that it
did not contemplate anything like that. When we did put
the car on and did not change the rates, we gave some¬
thing to the shipper. (672)
When we came into the field, finding such conditions
existing, we had to meet the conditions, put the refrig¬
erator cars in service. My information regarding the
advent of the refrigerator car in California I think the
same as Mr. Luce's understanding. I did not hear him
make the statement that it was the Santa Fe's offering
refrigerator cars to shippers that forced the Southern
Pacific to put them at the disposal of the shippers.
AVe are operating out of Los Angeles eastbound twelve
scheduled refrigerator cars a week (675) ; some weeks
there may be less, occasionally there will be more, de¬
pending on the tonnage and the season of the year, in
the summer generally more than in the winter time. The
loading of these twelve cars varies from an average of
about 11,000 lbs. to as high as 20,000 per car. I have not
compiled the data to see what is the average earnings
per car on those twelve cars.
We operate dead freight merchandise cars, Los An¬
geles to Albuquerque, every other day, depending on the
volume of the tonnage (676), average of tonnage of dead
152
freight, to the best of my recollection, runs in excess of
12,000 lbs. per car, some cases as high as 25,000 or 30,000
lbs. per car. These cars go in what is known as the Al¬
buquerque territory, both west and east. I have not the
figures with me and cannot state what is the average earn¬
ing per car of dead freight merchandise.
Mr. H. E. Stiul testified as follows :
Direct Examination.
My name is H. E. Still. I am general freight agent.
Northern Pacific Eailroad; am in my thirty-ninth year of
continuous service with the Northern Pacific Eailroad;
have been employed exclusively in the freight depart¬
ment, located in St. Paul, Chicago, North Dakota, Glen-
dive, Montana, Valley City, North Dakota, and now in
Tacoma. I have been located at Tacoma, it will be six
years the first of next December. Since I came to the
coast I have been designated as general western freight
agent until within the last six months; my title was
changed to that of general freight agent. (1292)
In a general way I am familiar with the developement
of the industry of growing fruit and vegetables in Ore¬
gon, Washington and Idaho, and with the early history
of the transportation of these commodities referred to,
and am familiar with the basis upon w^hich the rates for
the transportation were made, from the time the com¬
modities began to move in any perceptible amount until
the present time. (1293)
The fruit shipping districts in the Northwest are lo¬
cated in Oregon and Washington, including the Yakima
Valley and others in Washington, where berries are raised
in large quantities. (1294) The Yakima fruit-growing
district is the largest producing district of those that I
have named, and that district is served by the Northern
153
Pacific and O. W. K. & N. Company. For a number of
years it was served exclusively by tbe Northern Pacific.
Last year the fruit shipments out of the Yakima Valley
totaled somewhere near ten thousand carloads. Our rec¬
ords show that the first carload of fruit that moved from
the Yakima Valley was in the year 1892—that is, that
moved for any distance outside of the state. That was
a car of mixed fruit loaded and shipped from North
Yakima to Butte Montana. This car moved under re¬
frigeration.
The first car of berries from the Puyallup and Sumner
District was also shipped to Butte in 1901.
Due to inexperience of shippers in putting up fruit for
shipment, both these cars reached destination in bad con¬
dition, the fruit deteriorated. (1295)
Since the movement of these two cars there has been
a very rapid development of the fruit industry, as indi¬
cated by last year's shipments.
At first the markets open to the growers in the Yakima
Valley were largely to the Sound Country and to eastern
Washington. The rates were made largely with a view
to helping the shippers find profitable markets. About
this time the markets of Minnesota and North Dakota as
to apples, which constituted the largest tonnage of freight
from the Yakima District, came largely from eastern
points of production, or from Missouri and other states
south of Minnesota, and moved largely in the early fall
by lakes to the lake port of Duluth, and moved to their
destinations in box cars. As the demand grew, it became
necessary to protect (1296) those shipments from early
frosts and to the extent that refrigerator cars were avail¬
able they were used in that service.
I recall that lake boats reached Duluth some seasons so
late that cold weather had become so intense that the ap-
154
pies were frozen while tliey were being taken from the
boat to tbe warebonses, tbat is, tbe dock bouses of tbe
railroads, and large claims for damage resulted thereby,
which tbe carriers denied responsibility for, as they were
frozen before they were delivered to tbe rail carrier. I
believe this is important in a study of tbe development
of tbe fruit industry in tbe west. Tbe apples from tbe
east were put up in barrels, as tbe producer was in tbe
habit of putting them up; tbe western grower put tbe
fruit in boxes, weighing approximately sixty pounds,
selected fruit, for size and appearance, to attract atten¬
tion of tbe consumer, and in tbat way, through tbe efforts
of tbe grower and tbe fruit handler and by favorable
rates made by tbe carriers, tbat traffic continued to grow.
(1297) until it reached Chicago and then tbe Atlantic
Seaboard. A very low rate was made early in tbe season
from tbe Yakima Valley to tbe Sound cities and Portland
to take care of fruits tbat would not'stand transportation
for long distances or was too ripe for market in other
sections, and tbat enabled tbe grower to move a large
quantity of tbe apples to tbe coast.
Tariffs providing tbe rate for tbe movement of fruit to
tbe coast, from Yakima to Seattle and Tacoma, were pub¬
lished June 29,1892, N. P. No. 1959 (no I. C. C. number)
of thirty cents per hundredweight ; June, 1897, in I. C. C.
Tariff B-127, reduced to (1298) twenty-four cents; Jan¬
uary 24, 1902, it was rediiced to twenty cents in N. P.-
I. C. C. Tariff B-320. Tbat rate was advanced under
General Order 28, June 25tb, last, in N. P.-I. C. C. Tariff
5727, so tbat notwithstanding tbat advance of twenty-five
per cent, tbe rate to-day is five cents per hundredweight
lower from Yakima to Seattle and Tacoma than it was
when tbe thirty-cent rate was established in 1892, in
order to help tbe growers market their apples on tbe
Coast. Order 28 rates went into effect Juno 25, 1918.
155
I am informed by those familiar with the handling of
traffic at that time that in 1892 the fruit moved in box
ears, or in refrigerator cars, or insulated cars, without
further protection from heat or cold, just that which the
car afforded. (1299) In moving fruit from the interior
of Washington to the coast, except in very severe weather
in the wmter, it is not necessary to protect from cold by
heated cars; rarely such cars are used, even in moving
potatoes. Occasionally they do when the weather is se¬
vere on the east side of the mountains, up in the neigh¬
borhood of Ellensburg, through which the Yakima Valley
fruit must move over the Northern Pacific in reaching
the Sound.
The earliest tariff I have record of, providing rates for
these commodities from this territory to eastern des¬
tinations, is N. P. Tariff 1966, no I. C. C. number, dated
July 25, 1892, providing a rate of eighty-three and a half
cents per hundredweight on green fruit to Butte, Mon¬
tant; one dollar to Bismarck, North Dakota; one dollar
twelve and a half cents to St. Paul ; one dollar twenty-five
cents to Chicago and St. Louis, and one dollar fifty cents
to New York City.
The present rate is that increased under Order 28, one
dollar four and a half cents to Butte, one dollar twenty-
five cents to Bismarck, one dollar forty and a half to St.
Paul, one dollar fifty-six and a half to Chicago, St. Louis,
and New York City. (1300)
The rate to-day on apples is covered by N. P.-I. C. C.
Tariff 5790, to Butte, eighty-one and a half cents; to Bis¬
marck, ninety-four ; to St. Paul, a dollar six and a half ;
Chicago, St. L ouis and New York, one dollar twenty-five
cents. The first tariff on apples I have record of was
published March 26,1896, N. P. 3709, no I. C. C. number,
sixty-five cents to Butte, increasing to one dollar to New
York City. (1301) These rates were made entirely with
156
a vieAV to enabling the grower to market his crop, ignor¬
ing certain expenses that were necessary in order to safe¬
guard and protect his shipments from point of origin to
destination. I refer to the Protective Service.
The first tariff I have record of, or any knowledge con¬
cerning, that provided a charge for Protective Service,
either refrigeration or heating, is one published July 22,
1896. That was a joint tariff between the Northern Pa¬
cific and 0. E. & N. Company and it bore the 0. E. & N.-
I. C. C. No. 125. It provided an icing charge of five dol¬
lars per ton for the first icing, with a minimum charge of
ten dollars, which was charged to the shipper, subsequent
icings assumed by the carriers. That tariff did not show
any specific territory; was applicable on shipments mov¬
ing locally in Washington or to eastern destinations and
only on green fruit. (1302)
February 16, 1913, in N. P. 11757, I. C. C. B-354, the
charge was made five dollars, with a minimum of twenty-
five dollars for first icing charged to shippers, subsequent
icing to be assumed by carriers. That was made to apply
on green fruit and on fresh and frozen fish.
July 10, 1904, in N. P.-I. C. C. H-2323, the cost of ice
was made twenty-five dollars minimum first icing, to be
charged to shipper, subsequent icings to be assumed by
carrier, and that applied from all North Coast terminals
and intermediate points to eastern destinations. There
have been numerous changes since then.
That was on through traffic. There was a tariff pub¬
lished showing icing charges applicable between points
in the States of (1303) Washington, Oregon and Idaho;
the first published September 28, 1896, Northern Pacific
20, 0. E. & N.-I. C. C. No. 153, provided a first icing
charge of five dollars a ton, with a minimum of ten dol¬
lars, charged to shippers, subsequent icings assumed by
carriers.
157
February 16,1903, I. C. C. Tariff B-354, the first icing
charge of five dollars per ton, with a minimum of twenty-
five dollars, charge to shippers, subsequent icings as¬
sumed by carriers.
May 15, 1905, I. C. C. A-2597, was published, establish¬
ing a minimum cost of the ice of twenty-five dollars ; this
included any re-icing necessary in the territory.
August 1,1914,1. C. C. 5577, thirty dollars per car cov¬
ering all icing and re-icing from point of origin to des¬
tination, except where car delayed by shipper, and that
tariff is still in effect.
Heater car charges from this territory to eastern points
were first established in Transcontinental Tariff 25-B,
Countiss I. C. C. 1002, effective December 19,1914. (1304)
Rates between Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana
were first established November 8, 1915, in P. C. Tariff
25-C, Countiss' I. C. C. 1014.
I want to correct what I said about reductions in the
charge since those tariffs were first published, make it
advances—the rate to Iowa points from Wasihngton is
twenty-four dollars, whereas in the original tariff it was
twenty. To Kansas there has been a reduction from
twenty-five to twenty-four; to Missouri an advance from
twenty to twenty-four dollars, presumably because the
original rates were inadequate to cover the cost of serv¬
ice. I had nothing to do with the making of those rates ;
don't know what factors were used in determining the
present rates, or the necessity for the changes. I have
simply expressed my opinion.
I had no personal part in making the transportation
charges on fruit from the Coast. (1305) At that time I
was located on the east end of the line and, while I had
more or less to do with the rate-making policy on that
end of the line, the rates were made by higher officials
158
than I was at the time they were made. In a general
way I have a knowledge of the making of them, why they
were done, because I kept posted as to all rate changes.
I had occasion to make an investigation with reference
to the making of these rates in a case tried before the
Commission last fall on complaint of the State Service
Commissions of Idaho, Washington and Oregon, and Mr.
Baird, our general freight agent, who has been with the
company nearly as long as I have and has more or less
to do with those rates, stated that they were made in or¬
der to encourage the marketing of the fruit raised in this
section of the country, they then being in competition
with the Washington producers who had been shipping
fruit for many years (1306) ; by rate comparison, which
is largely the method that piost railroads use in making
rates to-day and for a number of years past, it was found
that the rates published at the time I have given the dates
of their publication was with a view to accomplishing
what I have indicated; represented rates that in the judg¬
ment of the traffic officials authorizing them were as low
as they could possibly be made without unduly burdening
the traffic of the road with expenses that should be borne
by the producers. The carriers assumed what was in
reason their share of the burden.
The rates were made as. all other rates were made, that
is, to cover the service of moving fruit from the point
of origin to its final destination under normal conditions.
(1307)
There had been a tariff provision covering a carge for
this additional or accessorial service to either protect
■from heat or cold since 1896, and perhaps prior to that
time. The rates that were made originally for transpor¬
tation of those commodities did not contemplate any ac¬
cessorial service whatever. (1308)
159
A comparison of tlie rates between representative
points on perishable commodities moving from this terri¬
tory with rates on nonperishable commodities subject to
the same classification shows that on apples from Yakima
to St. Panl we have a rate of a dollar six and a half
cents; the same rate applies on canned goods, oth^ than
canned salmon, that rate from Seattle being eighty-seven
and a half cents a hundred, but that rate was made lower
than the apple rate to enable the shipper to meet the fish
situation on the Atlantic Coast, or the water competition
from the Coast through the canal.
The comparison would be better shown on local traffic
in this territory, because that is what is largely under
consideration here. We have a rate on fresh fruit from
Seattle to Spokane of fifty cents that would take care
of berries from the Spokane,—or from the Puyallup and
Sumner district, taking under the Western Classifica¬
tion a third-class rating, whereas on dried fruit coming
up (1309) from California by water it is rated fourth
class, with a sixty-five-cent rate. Canned fruit, rice and
syrup, from the Coast to Seattle, take fifth-class rate,
fifty-four cents except on syrup, which is sixty-two and
a half cents. Those are a few of the items that are rated
loAver than the fruit, which take a higher rate than the
special rating made on the perishable commodities.
Our road provided a charge for the use of an insu¬
lated or a refrigerator car. During the period Decem¬
ber, 1914, to November 8, 1915, in Countiss' I. C. C.
1002, provision Avas made in connection with northern
route for a charge of five dollars where refrigerator or
other insulated cars were furnished upon shippers' or¬
der.
It applied when necessary to use those cars during the
period October 15th to April 15th of each year. It was
160
only in effect, hoAvever, during the period named, be¬
cause in order to meet competitive conditions it Avas
found necessary to cancel the charges. (1310) Where
Ave Avere in competition Avith lines A\'ho had not estab¬
lished a similar charge. My opinion is that a refrigera¬
tor car, an insulated car, should always have been
charged for at some fígu^re over and above that of a box
car or any other class of equipment than a high-priced,
heavy, special refrigerating equipment, and that conten¬
tion first arose over the abuse of the use of refrigerat¬
ing cars in tnoving potatoes in Minnesota and North
Dakota. (1311) 1 think this chcirge should be applied
■ivithout exception as to all classes of freight moved in
refrigerator cars, and I think the charge should be even
greater than that contemplated, because I see no justice
in charging five dollars for using a refrigerator car be¬
tween a point in one state or ivithin a distance of two
to three hundred miles and making no greater charge
for that car in a distance of two or three thousand miles.
I should say that the charge should be graduated,
based on the distance or on the time occupied in moving
it from one part of the country to the other; I think five
dollars should be the minimum charge. That'charge had
a precedent in the State of Maine. We used that in
making the initial charge for the use of a refrigerator
car in moving potatoes.
It has been the practice of the Northern Pacific Kail-
road for many years to move 1. c. 1. perishable freight
over certain parts of the line under a schedule service.
Certain days of the Aveek iced cars are furnished for load¬
ing perishable freight and moving it under schedule to
different destinations on the line. There is a schedule
applying from eastern terminals to different destina¬
tions as far AA^est as the Pacific Coast. (1312) There is
no such service from the Coast east. There is none on
161
the Coast west of the Cascades, because weather condi¬
tions make it unnecessary. There is a limited schedule
of service of refrigerated cars for moving 1. c. 1. freight
in eastern Washington, where, during the summer
months, the temperature gets very high, and for that
reason the schedule has been established on which the
regular class rates are applied on less carload perish¬
able commodities.
When these rates ivere made this service, protective
service, for the classification ivas not considered. That
traffic moves entirely on class rates, rates established in
the classification. I happened to be on the Western
Classification Committee for ten years ; I voted in favor
of Rule 31 of the present classification, and Tmoiv abso¬
lutely and positively that in making rates on less car¬
load perishable commodities no consideration was given
to the service that ivns necessary. It was the fair rat¬
ing on the commodity itself. The movement of these
commodities on the Northern Pacific is by virtue of an
exception to the classification; Rule 31 of the classifica¬
tion provides that less than carload or any other quan¬
tity ratings will not apply (1313) on freight requiring
protection against heat or cold and carried under refrig¬
eration, or in refrigerator or lined cars, heater or heated
cars, or cars otherwise especially equipped for such pro¬
tection, except uJider conditions which the carriers' tariff
provided, and that rule was proposed in the classifica¬
tion not as a new classification condition, but in order
to make it clear that the Western Classification ratings
did not include any service of that kind; it was decided
to publish it. I voted in favor of it ; immediately on my
return from the classification meeting, the same as other
representatives of different lines did, an exception was
made to it in this way. This is the rule that appears in
N. P. Tariff I. C. C. 5727, between Coast and interior
162
points in "Washington, Oregon and Idaho: "The less-
than-carload or any-quantity rating set forth in Western
Classification named on title page will be applied on ship¬
ments transported under refrigeration in refrigerator
ears, lined cars, heated cars, or cars other\y^ise specifi¬
cally equipped for protection against heat or cold, as
well as on shipments transported in ordinary cars";
I understand it is a rule that appears in the tariff of all
other lines operating in this territory.
The exception was made in the classification in this
way because the tariff of the individual lines parties to
the Western Classification had no provision for charg¬
ing any part of the expense for icing those cars to the
traffic. (1314) Until the tariffs of the carriers could
provide a basis for charging for protection against heat
on less carload perishable freight we had to have a rule
that would permit its moving at classification rates. For
months thereafter the carriers were striving to find the
basis for making the charge. These refrigerator cars
containing less carload freight, moving on schedule, often
go out very lightly loaded; I know of instances where
cars have moved across the continent with less than a
ton of freight in it, so that ten per cent added to the
existing 1. c. 1. freight (1315) would not have paid, Avith
the total freight charge, the cost of icing that car.
I think that the committee who has got up this tariff
comes as near solving the problem as any of the sugges¬
tions made in any of the conferences Avhich I attended.
I understand that the Canadian Pacific have a tariff
provision whereby ten per cent is added to the tariff rate
to help cover this cost of refrigeration, but where the
tonnage varies so greatly an additional rate that would
actually cover tlie cost of the service would in some cases
be overburdensome to the traffic; therefore, we have got
163
to work on a theory that will average the return. I saw
the tariff for the first time in the last thirty days.
That is the reason for the rule in the merchandise
tariff that seemingly confiicts with the classification.
(1316)
1 -Jinow of numerous instances where the cost of re¬
frigeration largely exceeds the total revenue of the fruit
carried in these cars. I believe if a statement was made
showing a sufficient number of cars moved and tonnage
and earnings, with the cost of icing, it would show that
it would range from forty to seventy-five per cent of the
cost of furnishing the protective service.
I have merely glanced over the proposed 1. c. 1. charges
in this tariff No. 1. I see it provides a rate per hun¬
dredweight within states, other rates for interstate
movements. I would say that they are, in my opinion,
entirely , too low to cover the cost of service, and yet I
don't know what to suggest that would be fair to the
shipper and fair to the carrier. As I have indicated,
any percentage addition to the rate that would make it
possible for the carrier to receive a return on these
peddler cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight would be unduly
burdensome to the shipper. (1317) I can say, however,
from my experience and knowledge of the subject, that
what is proposed is very reasonable.
Redirect Examination.
I have one statement here that would throw some light
on what the proportion of the empty to the loaded mile¬
age of refrigerator cars is (1332), and that is a car
movement passing Paradise, Montana, westbound, of
box, stock, open cars, and refrigerator cars, during the
month of December, 1918, and that was when refrigera¬
tor cars were moving west largely for eastbound loading
164
of fruit. There were one hundred and sixty-one loaded
refrigerator cars and one thousand two hundred and
seventy-five empties. During the same month there were
two thousand two hundred and forty-nine loaded box
cars and one thousand five hundred and thirty-seven
empty box cars, which shows a great disparity in the
westbound refrigerator loads as compared with the box
car load.
I then took August, 1918, as another representative
month, when the soft fruit is moving east, and it showed
that passing Paradise, Montana, which is the eastern
end of the Coast operating (1333) district, there were
two hundred and eighty-nine refrigerators under load
and one thousand three hundred and twenty-one empty.
Box car movement was two thousand two hundred and
forty-five loads, one thousand one hundred and eighty-
nine empty. It has been the situation for years that our
eastbound tonnage is very largely in excess of our west¬
bound. Necessary to move empty cars west nearly every
season of the year, and that movement of refrigerator
cars empty is very much greater during all months of
the year than box or any other class of equipment.
Recross Examination.
A comparison of the number of empties of refrigera¬
tors with empty stock cars shows, during December,
1918, there were stock cars moving west, fifty, under load
and seventy empties ; that, of course, is not a very good
month. August shows fifty-three stock cars moving
under load, two hundred and three empty. During Au¬
gust flat cars and gondolas were nine hundred and fifty-
nine loads and two thousand seventy-four empty. It
is not very often we get much westbound loading for an
empty flat or stock car. (1335)
165
Now shippers of onions to eastern destinations and
of import oil in barrels ask for refrigerator cars.
J. A. Eeeves, testified as follows :
Direct Examination.
My name is J. A. Eeeves. I am general freight agent
of the Oregon Short Line Eailroad; have been connected
with the freight department of the Oregon Short Line
Eailroad about twenty-five years.
I was present and heard the testimony of Mr. H. E.
Still all the way through. I should say that Mr. Still's
testimony in general correctly describes our methods.
(1338)
I am familiar with the manner in which the transpor¬
tation charges for these commodities were made orig¬
inally.. (1339) There is no difference between the way
they were made on the Oregon Short Line from the way
they were made on the Northern Pacific, as testified to
by Mr. Still; practically the same plan was followed.
The rate was made purely for the transportation of the
commodities. At that time the transportation charges
provided for the transportation of the commodities in
ordinary box car equipment.
1 am the same Mr. Reeves ivho testified in the pro¬
ceeding before the Commission hnoivn as I. é S. Docket
No. 841, at Boise. I recall testifying ivith reference to
this same projwsition. I remember distinctly that I tes¬
tified on my direct examination that (1340), from, my
knowledge and experience, the transportation charges
for the transportation of these perishable commodities
included only the bare item of transportation and that
the service of either refrigeration or the heating service
was not given consideration in ma.king the rate.
166
Q. And on your cross-examination you were interro¬
gated with reference to this subject, and it appears that
you have given the impression from your cross-examina¬
tion that at least the haulage of the ice in the refrigera¬
tor car and the extra switching service was compensated
for in the freight charge.
A. Yes, sir.
Upon reconsidering my testimony in that case, I see
that what might be termed a distinct conflict between my
answers on cross-examination and my answers in direct
examination, and when I say, as I think I did, that the
freight rate included the switching and the hauling of
the ice in the car I did not state Avhat I had in mind
clearly. I must have been laboring under misapprehen¬
sion, because these two items of cost of refrigeration
have always been considered as purely refrigeration
items, or items rather of refrigeration costs and that
they should be charged for separately.
The service performed on these rates th^t were orig¬
inally (1341) provided did not give refrigerator service.
Our first rates, the first movement of fruit to any great
extent, or any noticeable extent, was back in Idaho in
about 1893 or 1894, and at that time the movement was
not extensive, nor were the hauls extensive. It was con¬
fined to what might be termed local business; nearby
points Avithin the state.
At that time the freight rates were made without any
consideration of refrigeration service, because we had
no refrigeration service in those days. That came later.
The freight rate did not contemplate the haulage of ice
and these switching charges when the rates were orig¬
inally made, because the fact was there Avasn't any of
that commodity moved under refrigeration when the
rates were made.
167
I think Mr. Still's testimony fnlly covers the condi¬
tions on our line. (1342)
Feed Wilde, Je., testihed as follows :
Dirext Examination,
My name is Fred Wilde, Jr. I am freight traffic man¬
ager of the Denver & Eio Glrande ßailroad; it will be
twenty years the fifteenth of the coming August that I
have occupied that position; have been in the railroad
business about thirty-nine years, always in the traffic
department. (1832)
I began in the railroad business in Milwaukee, Wis¬
consin (1833), with the Milwaukee & St. Paul Eailroad;
went from there to Des Moines, Iowa, with the Wabash
and two small lines that have since been consolidated
with the Milwaukee & St. Paul. From there I came to
Denver.
In my experience here in Denver I have had occasion
to study the transportation of perishable shipments.
The largest fruit growing territory in Colorado is in
what we call the western slope of Colorado, in the Grand
Valley and the Gunnison Valley; extends over a terri¬
tory of about 72 miles in length. The potato traffic orig¬
inates largely in the northern Colorado district, in the
vicinity of Greeley, and in the Western Slope, the Eagle
Valley and the Carbondale district (that is south of
Glenwood Springs) and in the San Luis Valley.
I am familiar with the history of the rate adjustments
with reference to the transportation of these various
commodities in this territory. I have a memorandum
here that I would like to read into the record. (1834)
Prior to 1897 the fruit production was not more than
sufficient to take care of our state consumption. In that
168
year about twenty-five cars of fruit were produced more
than a market could be found for at home and it became
necessary to look to other than our home markets for
an outlet. At that time the Denver & Eio Grande Eail-
road had a contract with the American Eefrigerator
Transit Company to supply such refrigerator cars as
were necessary to care for this perishable freight traffic,
which contract ran until March, 1904. Other refrigera¬
tor lines were not prohibited from operating on the
line. As a matter of fact, while there was more or less
movement of fruit by freight, the greater portion of it
moved by express, and at that time the railroad com¬
pany owned its own express company and constructed a
number of ventilator fruit cars, which were operated on
its passenger trains and in which the fruit was trans¬
ported.
The fruit and potato industry has developed until dur¬
ing the season just closed the Denver & Eio Grande
Company moved out of its stations 12,358 carloads of
these commodities by freight, and in 1904 we contracted
with the Armour car lines for the use of their cars.
This contract was renewed annually until early in 1913
when it was canceled. (1835) We made another con¬
tract with the A. E. T. Company, which is still in effect,
although during the last shipping season we looked to
the car service section of the United States Eailroad
Administration for our refrigerator car supply. As a
consequence, we used last year cars of various owner-
sliip. Trainload after trainload was brought to us empty
from Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois. Our order
to the car service section Avas for approximately 11,000
cars. That cared for the traffic reasonably well, but it
it doubtful whether any one of the cars furnished reached
the line more than twice during the season. This merely
goes to show what an enormous number of cars are re-
169
quired to care for this traffic. Few railroads could af¬
ford an investment sufficient to supply themselves with
refrigerator equipment to properly care for this traffic
during the short shipping season; therefore they rely
upon the refrigerator car lines as does our company.
About 300 cars will satisfactorily take care of our owm
local perishable package freight during the year.
Prior to 1906 the refrigerator car lines published their
own tariffs. (1836) Upon the passage of the Hepburn
Bill ill August, 1906, it became incumbent upon the rail¬
roads to publish in their tariffs the refrigerator charges.
In every case there was and there is now a provision in
the tariff to the effect that such charges were and are
in addition to the freight charges published in the tariffs
on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and
the various state commissions.
In my years of service, I have never heard it claimed
that the refrigeration charges were not in addition to the
charges for freight transportation and, further, I have
never heard objections to the practice. There have been,
to be sure, complaints of the amount of the refrigera¬
tion charges, but not as to the practice of making a spe¬
cial charge for such service.
It is well perhaps to make mention of some of the ex¬
penses that go with the supplying of a great number
of refrigerator cars for fruit and vegetable loading.
During the winter months the ice houses must be filled
to capacity, and this is done in many instances at great
cost. The ice has to be transported in many cases miles
from the ice ponds to the ice houses. Frequently we can
only take from the ice houses about fifty per cent of the
amount of ice placed therein; the remainder melting.
(1837)
It is necessary to ascertain in advance the volume of
170
the prospective crop, the period during which it will
move; gather and prepare refrigerator cars in the ter¬
ritory from which the shipments are to move; locate,
haul them and prepare to handle the traffic. We begin
weeks ahead of the actual movement of the traffic to as¬
semble cars at various points on the line so as to have
them on hand for quick delivery when needed. The as¬
sembling of cars begins in July. During one season we
paid approximately $16,000 car rental during July for
refrigerator cars that Avere lying idle at one place and
another along our line awaiting the maturing of the fruit
crop. Fully 90 per cent of the refrigerator cars we
use in the transportation of our fruit and vegetable
crops moA^e from the Colorado common points to the load¬
ing points empty and, of course, on which Ave receive no
revenue. On the other hand, we are required to pay
per (1838) diem or mileage, in addition to which there
is the cost of moving the empty ear to the loading point.
Last season our company originated more than 2,000
loads of refrigerated fruits; average loading between
thirteen and fourteen tons. The average A. E. T. car
in use on our line Aveighs 50,500 lbs., or 25¿ tons. We
must always prepare cars for the maximum movement,
rather than the minimum. (1839)
It is not so many years ago that great quantities of
potatoes and vegetables were shipped in box and stock
cars; but the situation has changed, and refrigerator
cars are demanded at the beginning of the season. Some
of the early potatoes move under the refrigeration.
These are a feAv reasons why it seems to me proper to
increase the refrigeration rates to a living basis and to
exact a charge for the use of refrigerator cars for the
movement of potatoes, A^egetables or any other property
that does not move under stated charges for refrigera¬
tion or other special service.
171
From my personal knoroledge and the information I
have been able to obtain during my experience, I can sag
that the accessorial services of refrigeration were never
included in the freight rate tvhen the freight rate ivas
originally made. (1840) As far back as 1906 we have
regularly published tariffs carrying the specification I
have mentioned, that the charge for refrigeration was in
addition to the transportation charge.
I think the $5 per car charge for use of the refrigera¬
tor car Avhen not moved under refrigeration or other pro¬
tective service, or protection against heat, is reasonable
as a minimum. I don't believe that the carriers would
be justified in exacting a $5 charge for a short haul and
make the same charge for a long haul across the coun¬
try. I believe we would be perfectly justified in making
a charge commensurate with the service. That has al¬
ways been my view of the matter. From the standpoint
of a traffic official it is my view that the proposed charge
of $5 is at least reasonable as a minimum charge.
I have made inquiry to ascertain the facts with refer¬
ence to the movement of our 1. c. 1. commodities in these
peddler or scheduled cars. (1841) I had our agent at
Denver prepare a statement shoAving the tonnage of our
scheduled cars out of Denver for the last week. I thinlc
it is fairly representative of the entire period. It shows
that on the 15th, 17th and 19th days of July our sched¬
uled cars. No. 10-C—that is the Denver-Pueblo car—the
first day out it had 1,670 pounds of perishable tonnage,
the revenue on ivhich was $6.69 ; cost of ice in the bunk¬
ers in Denver on that car ivas $5.15.
The second car contained 3,355 pounds on which the
freight earnings were $15.99; charge for refrigeration
was the same figure. (1842) That is based on price of
$1.90 a ton in the ice house and 68 cents per ton for
172
taking it from the ice house and placing it in the bunk¬
ers of the cars.
The third ear contained 3,000 lbs. of perishable freight
on which our freight revenue is $10.53; the charge for
ice in the car for refrigeration Avas $5.16.
There AA'ere six scheduled cars (this is daily service,
except Sunday). Those six cars contained from 3,160
minimum to 8,793 lbs. maximum of perishable freight.
They moved betAveen Denver, Colorado Springs and Man¬
itou. The freight earnings on those cars Avere $7.09 to
$34.61. Price for refrigerating car, or cost, rather, of
refrigerating those cars at DenA^er AAms $5.16 per car.
There Avere fiA'e cars traAmlling under schedule 12-C.
That car carries perishable freight for points Avest of
Salida and it is necessary to ice the car at Denver, re-ice
it at Pueblo and again at Salida. The contents of the
Denver car are transferred at Pueblo to the Pueblo car,
and the Pueblo car is transferred at Salida to the Salida
car. The cost of refrigerating at Denver is $5.16 per
car; at Pueblo $6.06; at Salida $11.12; making $22.34 per
car. The cars contained from 2,733 to 24,000 lbs. of
perishable freight, on AA'hich our freight earnings were
from $49.85 to $95.49 per car. (1843)
That statement coA'ers our perishable refrigerator car
tonnage out of Denver for the Aveek just past.
The basis of the cost of icing includes the cutting of
the ice (the most of it from Palmer Lake, owned by this
company), and the labor in connection therewith, the
transportation to Denver, placing it in the ice house at
Denver, and the labor in taking the ice from the ice
house at Denver and putting it in the bunker of the re¬
frigerator cars. Those are the only items we have used
to make up this cost of ice.
I used to be familiar AA'itli the provisions in the West-
173
ern Classification Avitfi reference to the movements of
perishables and h c. 1. lots, but I haven't made a study
of it recently.
It is my understanding that the Western Classifica¬
tion has (1844), since the first one that was published,
made no provision for anything except the transporta¬
tion charge ; and the additional service shall he provided
for by the individual lines.
I have never been able to ascertain how it came about
that the individual lines made an exception to the classi¬
fication provision in providing this service without ex¬
pense. I think it is fair to assume, however, that some
one line originated the scheme and every other line got
into line as fast as they could ;—a case of competition.
The original rates tvere predicated on ordinary move¬
ment of commodities of that character in box car equip¬
ment; not in any of these more expensive special cars.
When I was employed in the general freight office of
Avhat is noAv the Colorado & Southern Eailroad we had
no refrigerator cars whatever (1845), every pound of
fruit and perishable commodities that we carried Avere
in an ordinary car. The refrigerator movement, both
1. c. 1. and carlots, is a groAAdh of later years.
There was no interest or depreciation AAdiatever figured
in the ice costs I mentioned a moment ago ; or shrink¬
age. We put in 10,000 tons of ice at Delta, Colorado,
and AA'e only took out 5,000 tons, shoAving that there Avas
5,000 tons lost in meltage, etc. The cost is just as much
to put in 10,000 tons as to take out the 5,000 tons; cost
us $10,000 to put in the 10,000 tons of ice.
The items I mentioned specifically are the only ones
taken into consideration in arriving at the ice cost,
174
Cross-Examination.
To the best of my knoivledge, the accessorial costs of
the protective services were never considered in mak¬
ing the freight rates, both carloads and less than car¬
loads. Those rates have been fixed upon the ordinary
considerations of fixing reasonable rates applying upon
commodities, both nonperishable and perishable. I have
made many a rate and have never yet nor have I known
anybody else to take into consideration what you might
term accessorial services. (1846)
Feaistk p. Eymaït, called as a witness, testified as follows :
Direct Examination.
My name is Frank P. Eyman. I am assistant traffic
manager of the Chicago & North Western Railway Com¬
pany. I have been in the employ of the Chicago & North
Western Railway Company thirty-nine years. Prior to
that I was for a short time with the Baltimore & Ohio
and the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad. (2581)
For thirty-seven years I have been in the traffic de¬
partment of the North Western. (2582)'
I have made an investigation and study with reference
to the transportation of perishable commodities in this
territory—Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and the
states in which the Chicago & North Western operates—
with reference to determining whether or not the trans¬
portation charges when originally made contemplated
any protective service. I have' prepared a short state¬
ment, Avhich I think Avill cover the ground :
"A study of the early history of classification,
rates and service in effect on the Chicago & North
Western Railway, because of the most active com¬
petitive influences, is typical of that of all other
175
railroads in Western Trunk Line territory and dem¬
onstrates that the ratings and rates covering the
charges for the transportation of perishable com¬
modities were made Avith the sole object in vieAv of
providing remuneration for the mere transportation
of such commodities and did not contemplate re¬
muneration for any accessorial services, such as
protection from heat in the summer and cold in the
winter. That this is true is proven by the fact that
these perishable commodities were transported for
many years prior to the time that the refrigerator
car became a vehicle of transportation in the terri¬
tory west of Chicago. (2583)
The earliest classification of the North Western
Railway, a copy of Avhich aa^ have been able to lo¬
cate, became etfective October 1, 1875. This classi¬
fication applied betAA'een Chicago, Illinois, and all
stations in Illinois and loAAm, as well as locally in
the State of Illinois.
I AAull introduce as my Exhibit No. 1 a photograph
of this classification."
(Document received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No.
1, Witness Eyman," and is forAAmrded hereAvith.)
Page No. 1 of this exhibit is the Chicago & North West¬
ern Railway revised classification, effective October 1,
1875, and applies betAAmen all stations in Illinois and
loAva, except where otherAA'ise provided, and also betAveen
stations locally in the State of Illinois.
Page No. 2 is the Wisconsin classification, revised to
January 20, 1879. I aauII say in passing that in this
original classification the rates were published on one
side of the sheet and the classification on the other side,
hut in photographing aa'O had to make a separate sheet,
so we shoAv the rates on one sheet and the classification
on another sheet. (2584)
I Avill introduce as my Exhibit No. 1 a photograph of
this classification, and Avonld particularly call attention
to the fact that most of the perishable articles are sub-
176
ject to owners' risk, and further that they are, generally
speaking, rated as high or higher than in the current
^Vestern Classification.
At this time there Avere four numbered classes and
four lettered classes. In addition thereto, there were
commodity rates on Avheat, other grain and mill stutfs,
flour and cornmeal, etc.
The scale of rates from Chicago to Clinton, Iowa, was:
First class, 55 cents;
Second class, 45 cents.
Third class, 45 cents ;
Fourth class, 27 cents;
Class A, $50.20 per car; class B, $43.90 per car; class
C, $33.10 per car; class D, $28.80 per car; each car being
of 20,000 lbs.
Wisconsin Classification of 1879 has also been photo¬
graphed in its entirety, including the rates that were
published in connection therewith, which is covered by
pages 2 and 3 of my Exhibit No. 1. The great majority
of the perishable items are made subject to owners'
risk. (2585.) In these early days each tariff contained
a complete classification in connection therewith.
The earliest joint classification of which Ave have been
able to locate a copy Avas that AA'hich took effect June 17,
1878, being "EcAdsed Joint Classification adopted by the
Chicago & North Western Eailway; Chicago, Burlington
& Quincy Railway; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail-
AA'ay; Chicago, IMihvaukee & St. Paul Railway, and the
Illinois Central R. R."
A circular issued by the general freight agent of the
North AVestern Raihvay June 15, 1878, advised that this
classification apidicd on all business betAveen Chicago
and stations on this line in loAva and Illinois and also all
177
sliipiuents made locally between all stations situated in
the State of Illinois.
In this classification, consisting of fifteen pages, double
columns, the ratings are largely the same as those shown
in my Exhibit No. 1, and the perishable items contin¬
ued to be, very generally speaking, subject to owners'
risk, and there was to some items added the phrase,
"Owner's risk of freezing and fermenting." (2586)
Particular attention is called to the item: "The fol¬
lowing regulations will govern shipments of carload
freight: first, freight will be charged at 20,000 lbs., al¬
though the car contained less; second, all cars will be
correctly weighed and freight charged upon all excess
up to 24,000 lbs. at proportionate rate; all excess over
24,000 lbs. will be charged double proportionate rates."
I have prepared another exhibit, which I have marked
"Exhibit No. 2."
(Eeceived in evidence as "Exhibit No. 2, Witness Ey-
man.")
Pages 1 and 2 is a comparison of the ratings in the
classiiication of 1875 with the classifications in the West¬
ern Classification on various perishables, and shows that,
generally speaking, the ratings in 1875 were as high or
higher than those in effect to-day, and the rates them¬
selves were very much higher. Page 3 is a similar com¬
parison of interstate Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and
Minnesota (2587) classifications of 1876 with the ratings
for similar articles to-day, and shows the same general
result.
Classification ratings that have been shown were in
effect at a time wlien the North Western Kailway did
not have or operate on its line any refrigerator car
equipment.
178
The first refrigerator cars OAvned by the Chicago and
North Western Eaihvay Avere bnilt in 1882, and they then
had but fifteen of this type of cars and apparently they
AA^ere built largely for experimental purposes on the line
of this company for the reason that no further purchases
AA'cre made until 1886. In 1886 action Avas taken by the
board of directors or the executive committee providing
for 100 refrigerator cars. In 1890 this company had but
140 refrigerator cars, and they did not possess 1,000 of
these cars until 1903.
Prior to and to a very large extent saihsequent to 1886
perishable freight ivas being tram^sported by the Chicago
and North Western Railway in ordinary box car equip¬
ment, and from 1886 the change from transportation by
a box car equipment to refrigerator cars was gradual,
the perishables moving part of the time in box cars cmd
part (2588) of the time in refrigerator car equipment,
the demand for refrigerator service developing more and
more as time went on.
Potato movement for many years Avas exclusively a
box car moAmment, the crop moving shortly after har¬
vested ; to-day more than fifty per cent of the entire crop
moAms in refrigerator equipment.
In Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan,
as Avell as in other sections of the Western Trunk Line
territory, there are a number of commodity rates on
fruit, vegetables, cheese, potatoes, cabbage and berries,
most of them being in effect for a great many years. It
is clear, however, that if the class rates on these com¬
modities in the territory wore made to cover the cost of
transportation in ordinary cars and did not contemplate
any special or accessorial service, that the commodity
rates did not include this extra service, but were the
result of competition between the carriers or commuai-
179
ties, and for many years after the original establishment
of these rates the freight was handled largely, if not
wholly, in ordinary box ears.
When the line of commodity rates on potatoes and
cabbages were (2589) originally established from potato
producing points in Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsida
of Michigan to Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., there was no
movement in refrigerator cars. The potatoes moved
largely in the summer time, when they did not need any
protection, and if shipped during the cold season the
shipper was required to line the cars and furnish the
stove for heating purposes, and a man in attendance.
That is proven by the rules that we carried back in 1890
for returning stoves and lining with shipments of pota¬
toes.
Cabbage was shipped largely in stock cars and ship¬
ments of either of these commodities in refrigerator cars,
if there was any, were confined to cars Avhich might be
furnished in lieu of orders for common box cars or
stock cars.
Commodity rates are in effect on cheese from the
cheese producing points in Wisconsin to Chicago and
Milwaukee, both on carload and less-than-carload ship¬
ments, and when these rates were established the move¬
ment both to the concentrating point and from the con¬
centrating point was in box cars. Within the last few
years the demand for refrigerator cars has grown so
that at the present time practically all of this movement
to the market is in refrigerator cars, the movement on
the concentration rates from manufacturing points to
points of concentration still being a box car movement.
(2590)
There are commodity rates in effect from Chicago and
Milwaukee on mixed carloads of fruits and vegetables
180
to points in the Fox Eiver territory and the iron and
copper countries, made originally in competition with
boat transportation on tlie lake and between markets.
The same circumstances and conditions surround the
establishment of these commodity rates as the class rates
and other commodity rates throughout the territory;
that is, the movement was contemplated as being in com¬
mon box cars and the traffic men iii considering the es¬
tablishment of rates did not have in mind an extraordi¬
nary existence of the refrigerator and heater service;
movement was contemplated as being in common box
cars at owners' risk of freezing and fermentation, and
the traffic men in considering the establishment of rates
did not or could not liave had in mind the service of re¬
frigeration and heating, inasmuch as the rates antedate
the time when the roads were equipped with refrigera¬
tor cars. As the service changed from a box car service
to service in refrigerator cars (2591) no advances were
made in the rates, as is clearly indicated by the fact that
the tendency of rates has been downward, as the annual
reports of the carriers will show a gradual reduction in
the returns xjer ton per mile on traffic handled.
The history of the North Western Eailway with re¬
gard to refrigerator cars is not different from that of
other railroads.
In 1890 there were owned by all railroads in the United
"States 3,398 refrigerator cars out of a total freight
equipment of 1,001,970 cars. In 1919 the railroads owned
55,289 refrigerator cars out of a total freight equipment
of 2,731,846 cars. The refrigerator cars owned by the
United States railroads had increased 16.27 times the
refrigerator cars owned in 1890, whereas the freight
e(]uipment in the same time has increased 2.57 times. Au-
thorities for tiiese figures are I'oor's Manual for 1890,
181
and for January 1, 1919, the Official Eailway Equipment
Register.
There are many railroads in the United States to-day
which do not own any refrigerator ears, many are prom¬
inent railroads. (2592) (List given of twenty such rail¬
roads.)
That the freight rates did not contémplate such a serv¬
ice (2593) is shoK-u bg the fact that as the business grad¬
ually changed from a box car service to a refrigerator
car service, there were no advances made in the classi¬
fication ratings or in the rates themselves.
In so far as the rates are concerned, they have been
gradually reduced, both the class rates themselves and
in instances where commodity rates have been estab-
lislied, they have been, generally speaking, lower than
the class rates.
This service has been given as a gratuity, brought
about by competitive influences and for the purpose of
developing luider markets and extending the distribidion
of perishable commodities.
The nature of the movement on manj^ of the commodi¬
ties changed very materially as time progressed. Pota¬
toes originally moved as harvested; later large ware¬
houses were established and the movement took place
not at the time of harvesting, but during a season when
higher prices prevailed, as a result of which the carriers
were required to transport a far larger proportion of
the crop after cold weather had developed than was re¬
quired at earlier periods.
The holding of the crops in warehouses in the coun¬
try inures to the benefit of the parties so holding, as
they obtain much greater (2594) prices and they should,
therefore, be required to pay a charge for a service,
whether it be for refrigeration or protection from cold,
182
the result of which service enables them to make distri¬
bution over a much greater period of time and over a
much more extensive territory of marketing.
Mr. J. Ogden Armour in his book entitled, "The
Packer, the Private Car and the People," states that the
principal fruit growing district of the United States in
1899 shipped under refrigeration only 9,164 carloads of
fruit and that the same district in 1905 shipped under
refrigeration 42,982 cars.
That clearly protection from heat or cold was not con¬
templated in the rates is further shown, in addition to
the fact that these articles were subject to owner's risk,
by specific rules exempting the carrier from damage by
heat or cold (2595), copies of which rules are shown on
pages 4, 5 and 6 of my Exhibit No. 2. They are Eules
4, 5 and 6; they are put in as pages in the exhibit.
The purpose of this exhibit is to show that as the re¬
frigerator came into service there was no similar change
made, or changes made in the ratings in the classifica¬
tion, at the time the refrigerator cars were put into play.
That is indicated by the pages shown in my Exhibit
No. 2. (2596)
(Exhibits 1 and 2 received in evidence.)
Cross-Examination.
The classifications have been changed from time to
time, both up and down, but the exhibits which I have
introduced here show plainly they were not changed on
account of the change in the service that was given.
Some of the ratings in the classification in 1875 and
1879, in accordance with Exhibit 1, were higher than the
ratings now. In a few instances the ratings were lower
than they are now. The only important commodities
that I can think of now where the ratings were advanced
183
are butter and eggs. I think the old ratings were fourth
class in carloads, and the ratings now are third class j
but the mere fact that those ratings were changed
(2597) before the refrigerator car came into use shows
clearly it was not done on account of the change in the
service, but for other reasons.
There are a great many changes that have taken place
since the year 1879, in the poultry, butter, eggs and dairy
industries. (2603) My idea about that is that so far as
the assumption of these damage claims and the condi¬
tion in which the products is being handled is concerned,
that grew up as a matter of actual competition between
the carriers, and that is what has changed it. Of course,
the precooling of ears does have a tendency to send the
product to market in better condition. (2604)
There have been very many essential changes in the
character of the traffic, both as to packing, as to tonnage,
as to ratio of carload to 1. c. 1. movement, and as to dam¬
age claims in the last 25 or 30 years ; but you must take
into consideration the percentage of damage claims now
existing. For instance, the percentage of damage claims
on eggs for the last five years, I believe, has been heavier
than ever before in the history of the road; that is, the
percentage of claims to revenue.
In 1875, the first tariff provided "Poultry, dressed,
owner's risk, prepaid, first class."
We don't require prepayment of freight now, nor carry
it at owner's risk. (2605) The classification is now
third class, dropped to third class. You will have to ask
a classification man why it was dropped to third class.
(2606)
There are a great many factors in classification that
are considered: bulk, risk, value and all those things.
184
But it was not considered at all in making the changes
in classificatinii that they Avere mo\dng in refrigerator
cars.
I do not think the fact that the butter was moving
partly in refrigerator cars and partly in box cars had
any influence whatever in any of the changes made in
ratings. (2607) It could not, for this reason, because
the rate Avas higher in those days than it is now; that
is, the rating Avas.higher, and of course the movement in
refrigerator cars, AA'hich was a more expensive service,
Avould not have a tendency to reduce that rating. It
Avould have a tendency to increase the rating.
There are changes in classification day by day, right
along. You can take up the classification and go through
it, and then take up the next one, and you will find hun¬
dreds of changes in the classification. It is impossible
for any one man to sit doAA'n and say just what brought
about all the changes in classification in that length of
time. There are many, many factors that enter into a
change in a classification. But the point that I xvas try¬
ing to Jjring out in my exhibit ivas that in the original
making of the rate (2608), refrigerator service could not
have been in mind, because there mere no refrigerators,
and the fact the ratings to-day are generally as low or
loicer than they were then indicates that there was at
no time any consideration given to the changed condi¬
tions in handling these commodities. If the original rat¬
ing for box car service continues, to my mind, it is evi¬
dent there ivas no consideration given to the change in
ratings at the time the refrigerator service urns estab¬
lished.
I think the installation of refrigerator car service is
an aid to the development of perishable traffic; but the
traffic in potatoes, cabbages and cheese, all those things
185
were fully developed before we were ever called upon
to furnish refrigerator car service for them. (2609)
There has been an increase in tonnage because there
has been an increase in the mileage of the railroads.
They have reached out to all corners of the country and,
as they have gone into these undeveloped territories,
they certainly expected there would be some business,-
and that is what has contributed to the growth of the
business.
So far as our territory is concerned, I am perfectly
safe in saying that the refrigerator car has not been a
factor at all in the development of the potato business
or the cabbage business. It has not been much of a fac¬
tor in the dairy business, because this business was de¬
veloped—take the cheese business in Wisconsin ten years
ago. That was the second state in the Union handling
cheese, and that cheese was not at that time handled in
refrigerator cars. (2610)
In speaking of our road's reaching out into new terri¬
tories, I mean both the extension of the branches within
the states and reaching out into new states ; the develop¬
ment and opening up of new territories, either in new
states or in old states.
We offer special expedited service for all freight, just
the same as every other line of traffic.
I do not know of any tariff in existence west of the
Mississipi Eiver which imposes a separate charge for
icing perishables, 1. c. 1. I knoAV of less than carload tar¬
iffs in the east which provide for a special service for
refrigeration and for heating. Beyond the Mississippi
I do not think there is. (2611) I say that is the reason,
because this competition out here in this territory has
been so fierce that we have not made the charge tvhen
we ought to have made it.
186
I do not know of any tariff requiring pay for the use
of a refrigerator car on 1. c. 1. traffic.
When the minimum on those articles (2619), elimi¬
nating perishables for the moment, was increased we did
not necessarily change the rates, because the rates have
been changed; reduced very greatly.
As fruits, vegetables and other perishables began to
go longer distances (2621), there was some propaganda
to induce the carriers to use refrigerator cars ; that prop¬
aganda was competition just the same. I think the same
reasons that brought about the 50-foot furniture car,
or the large car which is the exception to the general
standard—the same rule of competition brought about
the situation as to refrigerator cars. (2622) Considera¬
tion was given and claim made that the refrigerator car
to handle vegetables in would be more attractive to the
shipper ; the traffic men Avould argue that with these re¬
frigerator cars he would have more attractive service for
the shipper and that he would get the business and some¬
body else could not get it. There was not any thought in
his mind that this expensive refrigerator service would
not be entitled to higher rates. (2623)
As a traffic man I did have something to do with it.
We believed we could give better service to the shipper.
(2624)
I think others put refrigerator cars into service from
1886 to 1890, and from 1890 on it may be said that the
refrigerator car in this territory had come to stay. Dur¬
ing all that period from 1890 to the present time we
have made changes, either voluntarily or by order of
some tribunal in the rates upon articles that move in
refrigerator cars. I ihinlc the men responsible for volun¬
teering reductions in rates on perishables gave no con-
187
sideration ivliatever to the fact that the service was being
performed in a refrigerator car. (2625)
They reduced those rates as a matter of competition.
We handled that in exactly the same manner that we
handled other freight. We made no distinction as be¬
tween refrigerator stuff or perishable stuff or other
stuff.
The growth of the use of refrigerators was very grad¬
ual and as time went on it increased. I would say, if I
may be permitted, I was local agent at Milwaukee for
ten years, and during that time we handled thousands
and thousands of cars of vegetables, potatoes, cabbages
and everything else of that kind and, excepting a few
cars of sweet potatoes that originated down in New
Jersey, I cannot remember of a single car that ever came
in in a refrigerator (2626) car; that was from 1887 to
1896. Since 1896 the use of refrigerator cars has in¬
creased from time to time; but I have some shipping
tickets here that show that even now on fruits and vege¬
tables the shippers seem to desire box-ear movements;
for onions, potatoes, pears and melons ; right now, from
Chicago to Houghton, Michigan, and other destinations
(2627) ; each one of these tickets bears the notation on
it "box car service"; "Ship in common cars." I will
take a representative shipment. One from Chicago to
Neenah, Wisconsin, 15 cases of melons; to Oshkosh, Wis.,
21 eases of pears, 1,050 lbs., etc. All marked on the
ticket "Box car service." The running time is about 48
hours from here to Neenah. It gets up there at night.
(2628)
There is a scheduled refrigerator car service between
these points on certain days only; evidently this party
wanted to ship on days when we had no refrigerator
service; was willing to take the chance.
188
Since 1900 a small percentage of perishables would not
move in refrigerator cars. (2629)
The Classification Committee make only the ratings.
(2630) The commodity rates are the rates which the
traffic men themselves on each railroad make; they would
make the commodity rates ; they would make class rates
but not the classes. (2631)
In considering the voluntary making of reduc¬
tions in commodity rates that Avere then moving in re¬
frigerator cars, there Avas not taken into account at the
time of the reduction the fact that the refrigerator car
would have to be used. The only thing that was taken
into consideration was competition and what would he
necessary to do to meet that competition. (2633)
There are quite a number of commodities in this tariff
that Avere carried at OAvner's risk in 1875, that are not
carried at OAAUier's risk noAV. To my mind that is con¬
clusive evidence that the proAÛding of the refrigerator
service Avas not done to protect the carrier against (2661)
claims for loss and damage, but AAms on account of the
competitwe features and at the insistence of the ship¬
pers, because oAAmer's risk means when it is spoiled on
account of box cars, that that is at the owner's risk and
not the carrier's risk. The carriers did not undertake
to insure that property arriAÚng at destination in the
condition in AAffiich it Avas shipped at that time at all. It
is a fact, though, that other commodities were carried
in the same manner, commodities other than perishable
commodities. The classification itself and the rule on
page 5 of my Exhibit No. 2 of the tariff, AAdiich is part
of the classification, did provide that that was trans¬
ported at owner's risk.
If I Avere considering the establishment of commodity
rates on ])crishable traffic, I would consider that the busi-
189
ness moved (2662) in refrigerator equipment. If the
transaction stood by itself, and there was nothing" else
to take into consideration, I certainly should take into
consideration in arriving at the rate, that this -was a
perishable commodity and would have to he transprted
in refrigerator cars; but, as I have stated, and as I
stated to Mr. Lamb, that is not the way these commodity
rates were made. These commodity rates in the past
were made because of competitive influences, which did
not permit them to take such circumstances into consid¬
eration.
Redirect Examination.
The concentration rule in Wisconsin was originally put
into effect in January, 1901. (2671)
H. H. Holcomb testified as follows:
Direct Examination,
My name is H. H. Holcomb. (2682)
I am assistant freight traffic manager, C. B. & Q. Kail-
road. (2683) I have been connected with the 0. B. & Q.
Railroad for thirty years ; never employed by any other
railroad. I have been the entire thirty years with the
traffic department. I started to work in the local freight
office in Chicago. The first ten years I was in the local
freight office in the Chicago yards. The last twenty
years the general freight department, with the excep¬
tion of five years I spent in Omaha as general freight
agent of the line west. I have been here (Chicago) since
that time.
I have made some study and investigation as to
whether or not the transportation charges on perishable
commodities, such as we have under consideration in this
190
proposed tariff, include the accessorial service of protec¬
tion against heat and cold.
I heard the testimony of Mr. F. P. Eyman yesterday.
(2684.)
I know about the handling of apples and potatoes in
Chicago during the time I was employed here in the
yards for ten years.
I might explain that I was located in the Hawthorne
yard, which is the breakup yard of the Burlington Eail-
road—all freight, from all points reached by that line;
all set out there; the road engines cut off and the freight
is classified; deliveries made direct to eastern and also
to western connections. During the early '90's apples
moved in box cars and in stock cars. There were some
refrigerator cars, of course, at that time. Dairy freight,
as I recall, practically all moved in the line cars. That
is, in Star Union Line, M. D. T., Erie Dispatch and New
York Dispatch cars.
As far as my information goes, I am ready to verify
what Mr. Eyman stated with respect to those commod¬
ities. (2685) I want to supplement Mr. Eyman's testi¬
mony as to the situation in what is known as Western
Trunk Line territory west of the Missouri Eiver. That
might he described as the territory north of the Kansas-
Oklahoma state line; west of the Missouri Eiver and
east of the Colorado Common point territory.
I have prepared a statement which I will submit to
show the existing situation in this territory with respect
to the movement of fruits, vegetables, melons, and other
perishable freight, using the C. B. & Q. as fairly typical
of conditions in that territory.
The territory is altogether agricultural and the orig¬
inated tonnage requiring protected service is immaterial
191
as compared with the total tonnage. Northern Nebraska,
however, does grow potatoes and the seasonal movement
from the territory is quite large. Southern Nebraska
and northeastern Kansas are horticultural sections and
produce apples which are marketed not only locally in
the territory but also in Chicago, St. Louis and in the
east. There are, of course, a good many specific com¬
modity rates carried which have been established from
time to time on other vegetables and fruits and on other
freight requiring protected service. I will undertake to
discuss the rate situation as regards these various com¬
modities. (2686)
Potatoes.
For years the lines serving this territory carried as a
general provision rules which made wheat distance rates
applicable on potatoes. Keference to B. & M., G. F. 0.
2528,1. C. C. 1071, effective April 25, 1900, shows that it
provides for the application of wheat rates from stations
on the C. B. & Q. west of the Missouri Eiver to Kansas
City, and of distance tariff rates on grain on eastbound
shipments of potatoes subject to the Western Classifica¬
tion and class rates as a maximum. This, as stated, was
a general provision and wheat rates are in effect gener¬
ally on potatoes in that territory at the present time.
There are, however, commodity rates published from
what is called the Sand Hills country in northern Ne¬
braska, and our investigation indicates that in 1891 a 25-
cent rate was established from Crawford and surround¬
ing territory to Omaha which remained in effect until
1902 when a rate of 20 cents was made effective from all
stations as far west as Crawford, including Crawford.
These rates were continued in effect until reduced 15 per
cent under the Aldrich Bill—legislative action—effective
192
July 5, 1907, M'liicli resulted in the blanket application
of rate of 17 cents to Omaha, this remaining in effect
until the advance made under Order 28 of June 25, 1918.
These rates were established, understanding that the
movement Avould (2687) be made in box or stock cars,
the movement of potatoes from this territory not requir¬
ing refrigerators, box cars being used largely, under
present conditions, to take care of the movement.
During this time the classification rules in effect, and
as in effect to-day, carried the customary rule providing
for free transportation of an attendant in charge of
potatoes during cold weather and for the free return of
stoves and linings used in the car, the shipper himself
equipping the car with the stoves and linings. It may be
stated positively, therefore, that the rates as originally
established presumed that refrigerator cars would not
be demanded and required in moving this particular
traffic. In this connection it might be pertinent to refer
to the decision of the Nebraska Commission in their
Order in Application No. 3312, permitting the assess¬
ment of an extra charge of |5 per car per trip for the
Tise of insulated cars, in which we find the following:
"The principal commodity affected is potatoes,
which move in considerable quantities from the
northwestern part of the state," and "Were it not
for the fact that rates on potatoes from this terri¬
tory are comparatively Ioav, the discrimination
shown to exist against shippers using box cars should
be removed by substantial reduction in the rates."
Further :
"The rates Avere established at a time when the
production of potatoes was very small in this state
and Avere made for the purpose of encouraging pro¬
duction. " (2688)
The Commission therefore wore of the opinion that the
rates applied on this commodity were not of a nature
193
that would justify other than transportation in common
cars and not sufficiently high to justify the shippers de¬
manding refrigerator cars to protect the loading.
Apples.
As stated, apples are grown and shipped from south¬
eastern Nebraska and northeastern Kansas. Our inves¬
tigation of the situation indicates thaj; class B rates were
originally applied to this traffic locally in the territory,
it being the opinion that this basis was necessary to move
the tonnage and the early movement was altogether a
box car movement. Apples were then, and are now,
moved largely in bulk, the better grades only being mar¬
keted in packages ; in fact, it is only in quite recent years
that the growers have organized and have undertaken to
market their product against existing competition from
other producing territories. The rates carried on inter¬
state traffic at present are practically all on the fifth-
class basis, there being, however, some few commodity
interstate rates applied on cull apples which move to
vinegar plants, such movement being altogether in box
or stock cars. The present rates on apples and other
fruit, intrastate in Nebraska, were established under
Formal Complaint No. 210, known as the Corbin case,
in 1912 (2689), the Nebraska Commission in their report
and order stating:
"While there was insufficient data submitted to
determine accurately the extent and trend of the
empty car movement, the Commission is clearly of
the opinion that during the period of the year dur¬
ing which fruit would move from southeastern Ne¬
braska, the empty car movement would be from the
east to the west, particularly in eastern and central
Nebraska. Under such conditions, a lowering of
rates on any given commodity which would increase
the westbound loading is admittedly good practice.
194
even if the rates in and of themselves were not com¬
pensatory."
The order also provided for the transportation of care¬
takers, heaters, stoves and linings, all of which clearly
indicates that box car loading was in the minds of the
Commissioners in prescribing the rates. The question
of the probable necessity for refrigerator car loading did
not have specific consideration. It may be stated for
the record that the movement of these apples from this
territory is largely protected by box cars, although there
is a growing demand for the use of refrigerator cars,
particularly to protect the movement to Missouri Biver
markets, St. Louis, St. Paul and Chicago.
As a matter of information, in regard to the rates on
these apples, the order of the Commission prescribed
rates on bulk apples (2690) between points in Nebraska
slightly lower than the class C rates made applicable by
the Nebraska Commission under subsequent order pre¬
scribing class rates for state application, and somewhat
lower than class D rates under the so-called Clark scale,
which was later promulgated by the Interstate Com¬
merce Commission as reasonable for application in that
territory.
Melons.
Trans-Missouri Circular Letter 1-A, effective April 23,
1901, provided for the application of flaxseed rates with
class C rates as maximum, minimum weight 20,000
lbs., for local application in Kansas and Nebraska and
interstate application between points in Kansas and Ne¬
braska and between points in Kansas and Missouri. W.
T. L. Circular 17, effective March 11, 1917, provides for
the application of flaxseed rates, minimum weight 20,000
lbs., locally in Nebraska, and interstate between points
195
in Kansas and Nebraska and between points in Kansas
and Missouri. Between points in Kansas wheat rates
are now applicable. There is little, if any, local move¬
ment of melons in this territory and such movement as
exists is in stock cars.
Beer.
There are some commodity rates carried on beer
which are now applicable on cereal beverages, such rate
established as against the rates in effect from St. Louis,
Chicago and Milwaukee (2691), and the general condi¬
tions surrounding such traffic were undoubtedly those
governing the movement from these other points. Trans-
Missouri Circular Letter 1-A, effective in 1901, carried
a previous provision making an allowance of 3,000 lbs.
for ice, transportation of this amount free, all ice in
excess of 3,000 lbs. to be charged for on the basis of the
carload rate on ice, it being the practice to make ship¬
ments of beer in ordinary cars, with ice in the car with
the beer.
Aside from the specific adjustments heretofore referred
to, commodity rates are carried to cover specific move¬
ments altogether local in their application. There are
some commodity rates on green corn carried to canning
points, the movement being either in stock cars or open
cars. There are numerous rates carried in the south¬
eastern part of Nebraska on cull apples to the vinegar
plants, box cars being used. Vegetable rates were es¬
tablished some years ago to apply from the irrigated
sections in the North Platte valley to Omaha and Kansas
City with the intent of developing the industry; the
movement, which was largely of cabbage, being in stock
cars.
I have secured from our car department a statement
196
showing the freight equipment owned by the C. B. & Q.
for the years 1890 to the present. As of June 30, 1890,
the C. B. & Q. owned 338 refriegrator cars out of a total
of 27,086. January 1, 1905, we had 1,037 refrigerator
cars out of a total of 46,620. (2692) January 1, 1919,
we had 2,777 refrigerator cars out of a total of 70,073.
The C. B. & Q. owned in 1919 2,777 refrigerator cars;
that includes no private car line cars. (2707)
Redirect Examination.
I think that the ratings and the rates on both dairy
products (2710) and these perishable commodities gener¬
ally ivere higher, as a general proposition, in the olden
time than they are at the present time; prior to that time
the refrigerator car became used.
My information and knoivledge are the same as Mr.
Eyman's, (2711) that those ratings ivere made and the
rates were made prior to the time there tvere any refrig¬
erator cars in existence; and that the situation as it exists
to-day was brought about very largely by competition.
I have had something to do with the making of com¬
modity rates on fruits and vegetables in the territory
reached by the Burlington Koad. They have been changed
some from time to time; the competition of the carriers
largely produced the rates on fruits and vegetables ; there
are various causes. There have been decisions of the
various commissions, state and interstate, that have
forced changes. (2714)
In making changes of that kind the chief thing taken
into account ivas the competition, perhaps from other
sections, and the desire on the part of the traffic man to
establish a basis that woidd market his particular stuff
in competition with stuff originating in some other terri¬
tory.
197
We had 338 refrigerator cars, I think, in 1890. We
built them right straight along. We were forced to do
that.
C. A. Laiiey testified as follows :
Direct Examination.
My name is C. A. Lahey ; my business is general freight
agent of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Eailroad;
have been connected with the Chicago, Milwaukee & St.
Paul Eailroad about twelve years, in the freight traffic
department during all of that period. (2725)
I have made an investigation and study of the records
and tariffs of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul with
reference to determining whether or not the accessorial
service of protection against heat and cold for the trans¬
portation of perishable commodities was included in the
transportation charge, as originally made.
I have prepared a statement that is based upon my per¬
sonal observation and experience, and an examination
of the historical records of the Milwaukee Eoad, which I
think will best exemplify the idea that I have, and if I
may, I Avill read that statement. (2726)
Personal experience and observation, together with an
examination of the history associated with the group of
perishable traffic proves that in the beginning no consid¬
eration was given to the special characteristics of this
business in a then existing freight rate structure; to the
contrary, the tariffs of the carriers in this section of the
country provided rates that Avere applied to traffic in
the same manner that such rates were applied to traffic
not of a quality that was susceptible to decay and dete¬
rioration.
The refrigerator equipment, as we now know it, dif-
198
fered in construction from equipment intended to serve
the same purpose upon its introduction to the railroad
business. The cars designed to preserve in transporta¬
tion so-called perishable products came into use in this
territory in 1882, at which time the rates then in effect
were applied to the transportation of perishable freight,
no particular attempt being made to create generally
higher rates for the additional service; hut recognition
was given to the fact that this class of business was sub¬
ject to conditions that were not present in the handling in
transportation of ordinary freight (2727), and this is
evidenced by the fact that the current tariffs and classifi¬
cations made it an obligation upon the part of the shipper,
consignee or OAvner of the property to assume the liability
for loss occurring from the inherent nature of the freight.
In 1876 a document, described as the Chicago Union
Classification, and applied.to the business of the Milwau¬
kee Eoad, among other things contained the following
provision :
"When reduced rates are given on account of own¬
ers assuming the risk, shippers must state on ship¬
ping orders whether freight is to be transported at
owner's risk; when this is omitted freight will he
charged at higher rates and forwarded at carrier's
risk."
By this and similar rules, distinction was made between
perishable freight and other types of traffic. And what
is said with respect to this period is equally true of the
period of time preceding the introduction of the refrig¬
erator equipment in the transportation history.
It will perhaps not be disputed that the rates, independ¬
ent of their relation to classification ratings, were in the
early days much higher than those now in effect, and
commodity rates, particularly, with respect to perishable
freight, were unknovm. Practically all of this traffic was
classified in the then existing classifications, and in many
199
cases ratings were higher than those now in effect, but
in all cases the rates themselves were much higher. (2728)
One of the exceptions to the classification was potatoes,
which generally in this territory Avere subject to the
wheat rates when loaded in sacks and to an arbitrary of
tAvo cents above the wheat rate when loaded in bulk ; but
as a general rule, commodity rates on perishable traffic
Avere unknoAvn, and the class rates, as stated, were applied
to the traffic, and were, of course, much higher than the
rates now in effect, but in the evolution of our rate struc¬
ture the tendency has been to loAver rates, and this car¬
ried with it the publication from time to time of special
commodity rates on most perishable freight that are to¬
day below the class rates and the latter much lower than
the class rates of the earlier days.
As an example of this situation, in 1875 the first-class
rate between Chicago and the ÏAAÛn Cities was $1, with
corresponding rates for other classes, this rate being
reduced to 75 cents in 1878, and subsequently to the 60-
cent scale, Avhich was in effect until advanced under pro¬
vision of General Order 28.
But during that period the class rate ceased to be any
material factor in the transportation of perishable prod¬
ucts, so that we have a condition which supports the view
that not only are the class rates materially lower than
formerly, but the commodity rates are less than the exist¬
ing class rates and are applied to a very largely increased
business, and incidentally a business that produces a very
largely increased expense. (2729)
In 1888 the Western Freight Association, after giving
consideration to practices which were growing in their
application to perishable traffic, decided that much of the
expense being assumed by the carriers for the protection
of the property, properly belong to the shipper, and no-
200
tice Avas given that on and after December 20, 1888, the
roads parties to that association Avonld not furnish gratu¬
itously ice for shipments of fresh meats or other perish¬
able products transported in refrigerator cars, but where
ice was furnished by the carriers upon request from ship¬
per, a charge of not less than 20 cents per 100 lbs. would
be made;—that date was December 20, 1888;—that fur¬
ther indicating the vicAv of traffic men that this class of
traffic was distinguishable from ordinary freight, and
consequently subject to different rules and regulations.
In recent years the necessity of according special treat¬
ment to specialized traffic has become apparent, not only
from the fact that most of the important roads through¬
out the country have established separate departments
to handle this business, but have organized forces to in¬
sure its being properly supervised (2730), all of which
is an added expense to the cost of conducting business
and the increase in the traffic has been very great, and
in many of the districts having to do with this subject
generally and with the rates applicable to the business.
I can say from personal contact wdth it that no time
until the last fcAv years have we ever considered the
service apart from the rates; in other words, no consid¬
eration ivhatever ivas given in our rates to the fact that
this perishable and highly specialized business occupied
a different position in transportation matters than or¬
dinary freight, and it is my belief that this is the judg¬
ment of railroad men generally, and I Icnoiv it to be from
my personal contact with the business during the past
ten years, and that the rates were not designed to include
the special services and the special types of equipment,
and the many attendant practices that are not applicable
to other classes of freight. But we have during recent
years come to a full realization of the fact that these
matters should bo given very serious consideration, and
201
aside from the changes that have preceded the tariff
under consideration in this proceeding, it is my under¬
standing that the proposed rules, regulations and rates
are designed to give effect fo the Judgment of trans¬
portation men, and in my opinion the principle upon
Avhich the tariff is founded is correct and Justified (2731)
Redirect Examination.
Q. In answer to Mr. Lamb's question, I understood
you to say that in making these rates, in your experience,
on these perishable commodities the service performed
Avas taken into consideration in making the rate.
A. I do not understand that I made any such ansAA'er
as that to anybody, because it is contrary to my convic¬
tion and contrary to my knowledge.
Q. What do you mean?
A. I thought I said to somebody—whether Mr. Lamb
or somebody else—that when the rates were made,
whether they were applied to perishable traffic or some
other kind or traffic, they included aa'hatever serAuce was
given to the business, but that no definite consideration
had been given in the making of these rates to the spe¬
cialized service that was given to perishable traffic. If
that is not what I said, that is AA'hat I intended to say.
(2756)
J. C. Mangham, general freight agent of the San Antonio
& Aransas Pass Eailroad Company, testified in behalf
of the Director General and the carriers substantially
as follows:
I began my railroad service with the Southern Pacific
Railway in New Orleans in 1885. Went to the San An¬
tonio & Aransas Pass Eailroad, San Antonio, Texas, in
1889, and have been local freight agent, chief rate clerk.
202
chief clerk, assistant to general freight agent and gen¬
eral freight agent for that company, having at least
thirty years experience in the traffic departments of
Texas railroads. (8167) ' I have been intimately asso¬
ciated with the perishable freight business in Texas since
December, 1890, when I went into the general freight of¬
fice of the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Eailroad, and
have likewise had a voice in the making of rates on such
commodities. In the late '80s and early '90s, traffic in
the middle southwest, of perishables, was in its infancy
and the Aransas Pass Eailroad Company thought that it
could convert a cow section into a No. 1-A vegetable sec¬
tion by making low missionary rates which were calcu¬
lated to bring farmers into that section and transform
it into a farming section instead of a cattle-raising
region. Perishable freight at first moved in 1. c. 1. quan¬
tities by express, as there was no special equipment at
that time for handling the business. (8169) In 1895,
our road changed 200 ordinary box cars into ventilators
by placing ventilators at the end of the cars, and screens,
which cars served our purpose for a number of years.
As the business developed, we purchased 100 ventilator
cars in 1897 and in 1905 we purchased 50 refrigerator
cars ; in 1909 we purchased 500 new ventilators and in
1909 we purchased 1,000 new ventilators, which consti¬
tutes our present equipment. Sometime before we pur¬
chased our first ventilators, about 1906, the Missouri,
Kansas & Texas Eailway Company purchased 550 ven¬
tilators and put them in this south Texas service. Old
ventilators have supplied the trade from our line and
connections to the southwest and such refrigerators as
have been contracted for from time to time with different
car lines to take care of our ice business. (8169) The
freight rates which were made on carloads of melons,
fruits and vegetables from our section of the State of
203
Texas, do not contemplate the use of other than ordinary
equipment and the rates were not based on any acces¬
sorial service (considerations at that time. Our first con¬
tract with private car lines to supply refrigerator cars,
was made in 1894 with the American Eefylgerator Tran¬
sit Company, which contemplated that we pay the A. R.
T. Co. 10 per cent of our proportion of the through rate
for their service involved in the handling of this traffic.
My investigation shows that we paid the A. E. T. Co. for
three years following 1894, only $408 for their services,
which would mean about 150 iced cars during the three-
year period. (8170) The first movements of this per¬
ishable freight, as I have said, were in 1. c. 1. lots, then
it moved in ordinary cars, then in ventilators and, as
the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad was working in
close connection with us in the use of ventilator cars, it
created a competitive situation with the InternatiorLal &
Great Northern Railroad, which caused that company
to meet our ventilator proposition with refrigerator cars ;
as they had no ventilator cars, they were compelled to
use refrigerator cars as ventilator cars to meet our com¬
petition in the Laredo onion field. (8171) It was our
competition that forced the I. & G. N. R. R. to put refrig¬
erator cars in the Laredo field against rates that were
built strictly on the ordinary service. (8172) The first
refrigerator publication that was made on our road was
in 1901 by our Circular No. 664-8, which reads as fol¬
lows :
"No refrigerator car belonging to any line or pri¬
vate car company can be used for perishable freight
unless moving under ice at rates named in the sub¬
joined scale, which rates will be collected for the ac¬
count of the Kansas City Fruit Express, regard¬
less of the car used. When refrigeration is not re¬
quired, our home ventilators or other suitable equip¬
ment will he furnished."
204
That circular letter simply put in printed form rules
that had theretofore been in existence regarding this
service. In 1900, we made a contract with the Armour
Car Line Company for use of its refrigerator cars which
lasted for twelve years. We then made a contract with
the Pacific Fruit Express Company which ran from June,
1912, to December, 1912. I prepared a statement show¬
ing the actual shipments originating at points on the
San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railroad from the period
of 1898 to 1919, which shows that, during that period,
we handled 22,991 cars of i^erishahles, of which only 2,497
cars were iced, that is, the percentage of iced ears to the
total originating, was 11 per cent. (8173) The Kansas
City Fruit Express was a branch of the Armour Car
Line. Since 1913, Ave have had no contract Avith other
lines, but have used refrigerator cars that came onto
our line and picked them up as we could get them. The
situation regarding the perishable fruit that I have de¬
scribed on our road, is typical, generally, of the other
roads in Texas. (8174)
Cross-Examination.
Cabbage, onions, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, toma¬
toes, mixed vegetables, cucumbers, lettuce, cantaloupes,
Avater melons, grapes, pears, peaches and citrus fruits
are produced on our line. Of these, tomatoes, mixed
vegetables, cucumbers, cantaloupes, grapes, pears,
peaches, citrus fruits and some cabbage moved under
ice. The bulk of the perishable freight consisted of ar¬
ticles that did not require refrigeration, as a general
rule. Most of it moved under Amntilation. So far as
refrigeration is concerned, it has not cut down the claims
against the carriers for spoilage in transit. (8177) As
the refrigerator traffic developed, it meant more traffic
for tlie carriers. (8178) The only factor considered
205
in the building of freight rates in the earl^^ days, was to
make a rate that Avould get the traffic or put the terri¬
tory under the plow. Eates were also made to meet com¬
petition from the Mississippi Valley and the Georgia
district. We did not consider whether the rates were
remunerative or not, but Avere infiuenced more in getting
the traffic and causing people to come into Texas and
placing the acreage under the plow. (8179)
C. C. P. Eausch, assistant freight traffic manager of the
Missouri Pacific Eailroad Company, testified on behalf
of the Director G-eneral and the carriers, substantially
as follows :
I have had about thirty years railroad experience in
the traffic department of tl;e Missouri Pacific Eailroad
and its allied companies in the capacity of office boy,
clerk, rate clerk, tariff clerk, chief tariff clerk, chief clerk,
general freight office, assistant general freight agent
from 1906 to 1915—then made general freight agent and
afterwards assistant freight traffic manager in 1917.
During Federal control, September, 1918, to January,
1919, was also assistant freight traffic manager of the
St. Louis Southwestern Eailroad and Louisiana & Ar¬
kansas Eailroad, all of which lines are located iff Mis¬
souri, Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, prin¬
cipally west of the Mississippi Eiver, south of St. Louis,
in what is generally known as Southwestern territory.
(8181) My connection with the traffic department in
this long period of years brought me in very close con¬
tact with rates on perishable commodities, in fact, I had
a hand in making the rate adjustments on these com¬
modities on the lines running south from St. Louis, in
Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, known as
the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Eailway. The
making of rates of that line was under my own personal
206
supervision. (8181) I made an investigation in the
handling of perishable freights on our lines in these states
and the rates applicable thereto from the records of our
companies on numerous occasions, as incidental to my
work in the various positions held by me and also in re¬
spect to my duties in connection with the Interstate
Commerce work of those lines, over which I have direct
supervision, and as a result of my investigation and per¬
sonal knowledge of the facts and particularly in the in¬
vestigation made in pursuance of my duty as assistant
to the traffic assistant for the Regional Director of the
SouthAvestern Region, in connection with this case on the
eight or ten lines in the Southwestern territory, whose
tariffs and records I have had examined for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the rates on perishable freight,
covering transportation charges only, and not accessorial
charges, such as refrigeration, heating, etc., and found
that they cover transportation charges only and not the
accessorial serAÛces and that the tariffs further provide
charges for accessorial service will be in addition to the
freight rates as provided either in committee publica¬
tions or individual lines' tariffs, and that we could find
nothing in the tariffs or records to indicate that the
freight rate provided on any of the commodities requir¬
ing refrigeration, etc., were originally predicated upon
the use of refrigeration or insulated cars. In other
words, the freight rates covered transportation only,
Avhieh means haulage only, and that the so-called pro-
tectlA'e service, such as refrigeration, heating or cooling,
Avas and is a separate and distinct service from the mat¬
ter of haulage and should be gwen absolutely separate
consideration. (8184)
In I. & S. Docket 555, Avhich was the Western Advance
Rate Docket, the Commission went into the rates on
fruits and vegetables from Texas to interstate points
207
and its holding- Avas largely predicated on the matter of
competition. They were missionary rates made to bnild
np the traffic and create tonnage in a territory AV'hich
Avas adapted to frnit and vegetable groAAdng, hut was not
being used for that purpose. (8185) In I. & S. Docket
820, AA'hich was a suspension of proposed increased rates
on fruits and A^egetables from points in Louisiana, Ar¬
kansas and Oklahoma to Nortlwestern and Eastern mar¬
kets, the committee charged A\dth the defense of said
proposed rates, traced back the records of the rates in¬
volved for a long period of time, A\dth the vieAV to ascer¬
taining the controlling or underljdng reasons for such
rates. The reasons constituüng the basis for the revi¬
sions proposed to be made in that case Avere the folloAv-
ing;
1. Uniformity in commodity groupings.
2. Uniformity in rates.
3. Uniformity in origin groupings.
4. Eealignment of rates and destination territory,
eliminating the inconsistencies which now exist.
5. Elimination of fourth section violations.
6. Bringing out the point that the proposed rates
were made to take care of the 5 per cent advance north
of the Ohio River.
7. Explanation of chanaes in minimum weights.
8. Changes in estimated weights.
9. Uniformity in general.
10. A showing of the several classification ratings,
what is Western, Southern, and Official, on the various
kinds of fruits and vegetables.
11. The matter of establishing a grouping on a more
scientific basis than heretofore existing, the purpose be¬
ing to reduce the number of groups.
208
12. Establishing what was considered a proper rela¬
tionship between the various kinds of fruits and vege¬
tables.
13. Matter of decided increase in values in the vari¬
ous commodities predicated on Chicago and New Orleans
markets as representative.
■14. Particular extraordinary or peculiar conditions
existing along the lines of roads.
15. Expedited service, general and specific.
16. Empty car movement, all traffic, in general and
specific as to these commodities.
17. High or increased cost of loading.
18. Eevenue miles compared with train miles, in gen¬
eral and specific.
19. Eevenue weight compared with dead weight, gen¬
eral and specific.
20. Comparison of revenue per car on fruits and vege¬
tables with car earnings on other freight.
21. Comparison of earnings per car mile, particularly
on jjotatoes and other vegetables loading in about 24,000
lbs., compared to other commodities such as Avheat 80,000
lbs., canned goods 44,000 lbs., soap 36,000 lbs., lard 34,-
000 lbs. Also other fruit and vegetables their loading
light as compared to heavier loading commodities.
22. Matter of loss and damage on fresh fruits and
vegetables compared with that on other commodities,
that is, compared with such commodities as live stock,
mill products, oil, cotton, coal, lumber, etc., for a period
of years, understanding being that shippers at least will
contend that the high percentage of claims on fruits and
vegetables, live stock, grain, etc., is due substantially as
follows :
209
On fruits and vegetables :
1. Defective equipment.
2. Rough handling.
3. Delays.
4. Improper refrigeration and ventilation.
Account of live stock:
1. Rough hardling.
2. Delays.
Account of grain:
Defective equipment.
23. Matter of carriers' representatives collecting
from all available sources information prior to the time
the fruit and vegetable crops are ready to be shipped
which will enable the carriers to estimate the acreage of
production, the probable production itself, the volume of
traffic, to know the character of equipment to be fur¬
nished and the number of cars to be supplied so as to be
able to arrange the necessary train service and many
other things necessary to move the various crops.
24. Study of weather conditions previous to and dur¬
ing the time of planting and production, of the approxi¬
mate number of acres planted, of what such acreage
should produce as compared with previous years, figur¬
ing against the variations of climatic influences that tend
to effect the increase or decrease in the volume of pro¬
duction.
25. Experience from year to year shows that the crops
will appear in the best possible condition and remain
that way up to the shipping season, when suddenly in¬
sects, rain, heat or cold weather will change the whole
situation. On the other hand, weather conditions sud¬
denly mature the crops ahead of expectations; and the
volume of production may he so great that the shipper
declines to ship after cars have been ordered. Rapid ma¬
turing of crops makes an unusual demand for cars, or
210
if the cars have not reached their storage place strenuous
efforts are made to locate and rush such additional equip¬
ment as is necessary to tahe care of the tonnage at par¬
ticular points of production.
25. Diversion in transit is an important matter plac¬
ing upon the carriers heavy additional expenses and
causes additional liability, the latter is shown in claims
on every conceivable ground. Cars are diverted as many
as three or four times and it is not unusual that recon-
signment orders are received on the same shipments
from both the consignor and consignee.
27. Matter of shippers requiring tracing and daily
wire reports as to the location of their cars in transit.
28. Construction of special sidetracks, loading sheds,
and other facilities which cost considerable money, and
that in most of the cases such special facilities are not
used except during the shipping season.
29. Comparison of commodity rates proposed with
rates approved by the Interstate Commerce Commissios
in I. & S. Docket 555 from Texas, for practically similar
hauls in point of mileage and direction the traffic would
move.
30. Comparison of commodity rates, with correspond¬
ing class rates.
31. Comparison of commodity rates on vegetables,
particularly as proposed to be advanced with the rates
made or approved by the Interstate Commerce Commis¬
sion for practically similar distances in other territories.
32. Broadly it should be the contention of the rail¬
roads that their rates are too low as the fruit and vege¬
table traffic is a particularly expensive one to handle,
being a seasonable traffic, that is only in large volume
while it lasts and one which, of course, is of a perishable
nature and one which must be handled expeditiously.
211
33. Data covering the actual movement of commodi¬
ties from Arkansas and Louisiana during representative
months of the year, the average loading per car is as
follows as compared to other commodities moving freely
in the territory, with much higher average weights;
Com modity : Average loading per car {pounds)
Cabbage, 28,050
Onions, 25,600
Potatoes, 28,265
Tomatoes, 23,200
Water melons, 26,820
Cantaloupes, 24,65^0
Apples, 26,860
Peaches, 21,330
Strawberries, 17,345
Other berries, 17,000
(8187-8193)
The St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Eailway,
which is now a part of the Missouri Pacific System, was
constructed between the years 1858 and 1905. That line
did not have refrigeration service until May, 1881, when
it, the Missouri Pacific Eailroad and the Wabash Eail-
road incorporated the American Eefrigeration Transit
Company, which started operation with something less
than one hundred cars. The record of the first month's
business indicates that the revenue it received was some¬
where between $150 and |200 and its expenses were very
much in excess of that, about $4,000, if I remember.
(8195) I could find nothing to indicate that the freight
rates were made taking into consideration any protec¬
tive service in the way of refrigerator cars, must less
as to any change made in the rates in the way of ad¬
vances later on, as the traffic assumed proportions and
the refrigerator car came into more common use. I have
traced the rates on peaches back on that line from
Clarksville, Ark., an important peach-producing point,
for twenty-four years, and find that from July, 1895, to
212
June 14, 1907, the rate remained at 40 cents per hundred
pounds, as shown by five different tariffs issued during
that period, and on June 1, 1908, the rate was advanced
to 44 cents, when the general advance Avas made in the
rates, class and commodity, betAveen St. Louis and Ar¬
kansas, Louisiana and Texas points, AA'hich Avere approved
by the Commission in I. C. C. Docket 1675, Bailroad
Commission of Texas v. A. T. & S. F. R. R. et al., 20 I.
C. C., 463, in Avhich the Commission said (8196) :
"That the advanced rates as a Avhole have not so
increased the revenues of the defendants as to make
them extortionate or to yield earnings that are un¬
duly large, as alleged; and that no grounds have
been shoAAm for any substantial disturbance of
them"
The rate continued at 44 cents until April, 1916, when
an attempt was made by the carriers to advance it to 47
cents, AA'hich Avas frustrated by the Commission's ruling
in I. & S. Docket 820, 43 I. C. C., 291, which caused a
reduction again to 44 cents, at AAdiich figure it remained
until the so-called 25 per cent advance of the Director
General, effective June 25, 1918. (8197)
From another representative and important peach-
raising district, in the southAvestern portion of the state,
on Avhat is knoAAm as the Prescott & NorthAvestern Bail-
road, an important point is Highland, Ark., the rate to
St. Louis, as far hack as I haAm been able to trace it, viz.,
June 14, 1907, is 50 cents per hundred. This rate Avas
adAmnced 4 cents on June 1, 1908, reduced to 49 cents
July 1, 1912, adA'ance proposed to 52 cents on April 15,
1916, hut, on account of the I. & S. 820 ruling, was re¬
duced to 49 cents in the next tariff and remained at that
rate until the general 25 per cent advance of June 25,
1918. (8197)
I have traced the strawberry rates for St. Louis hack
twenty-two years from Van Buren, Ark., district, or in
213
1897. The rate was 50 cents per hundred April, 1897,
and continued through issues of said tariff at that figure,
until May 5, 1902, when it was advanced 9 cents to 59
cents. This advance was brought about by protest on
the part of the shippers that they could not conveniently
load as much as 20,000 pounds in an average refrigerator
car, as the minimum was reduced to 17,000 pounds, the
rate was increased. This rate continued in effect until
April, 1916, through several reissues of tariffs, when an
attempt to advance to 65 cents was made, but, as it was
not sustained by the Commission's ruling in I. & S. 820,
it was again reduced to 59 cents and remained at that
figure until the so-called 25 per cent advance took place
June 25, 1918. (8199)
I have traced back the strawberry rates from Jud-
sonia. Ark., to St. Louis, to 1899, at which time it was
35 cents per hundred, at which figure it remained for
twelve years until 1912, when it was made 45 cents, owing
to a regrouping of the points of origin, in order to make
the rate conform with producing points on the Frisco to
the North and the Van Buren district to the West. An
attempt was made to, advance this rate to 55 cents on
April 15, 1916, which proved futile, and the former rate
of 45 cents was restored on May 15, 1917, and so re¬
mained until General Order No. 28 became effective, on
June 25, 1918. In all of these changes, as nearly as I
can locate what the record discloses, the underlying rea¬
sons were many of those previously described and the
record discloses none of the primary reasons being based
on use of the refrigerator car, its operation, service, etc.
In fact, from the rate study as given, it would appear that
quite a few reductions were made and certainly no traffic
man would willingly make reductions in his rates Avith
the idea in mind that the refrigerator service was be¬
coming more and more superior and expensive. (8201)
214
Cross-Exmnination.
All of the ton-mile figur.es I showed in my exhibit, I
figured out myself, or had it done under my supervision.
Those were earnings per ton mile and not cost per ton
mile, as it is not usual for traffic men to figure the cost
per ton mile. (8206) I do not know what the cost would
be as a basis for making any particular rate. I could not
tell you what all the factors are that go to make up rates,
but, if I was asked the reason why these rates were orig¬
inally made, I Avould say one was a matter of competition
and the other was a matter of building up some traffic.
There is an endless number of reasons why rates should
be made in the future. It is not a generally recognized
principle with traffic men, in figuring rates, that they give
consideration to a minimum figure that represents the
cost. That is not usually given much consideration. Not
as much, possibly, as it should he, and the question of
value and risk in the past has been quite often just
brushed aside. I have not attempted to testify to the
cost. My testimony is not directed particularly to intra¬
state rate adjustments. A lot of the reasons I have men¬
tioned concerning interstate adjustments would control
as well in intrastate adjustments. (8213)
A. M. Hogsett, assistant general freight agent of the so-
called Lancaster Lines in Texas, testified in behalf of
the Director General and the carriers, as follows :
The Lancaster Lines consist of the Texas & Pacific,
Houston & Brazos Valley, Trans-Mississippi Terminal,
International & Great Northern, IVeatherford, Mineral
AVells & Great Western, Galveston, Houston & Hender¬
son, Denison & Pacific Suburban, Gulf, Texas & AVestern
and Port AVorth Belt Eailroads.
I began my railroad experience at Fort AVorth as local
215
freight station agent for the Houston & Texas Central
Eailroad in 1898. Was afterwards yard clerk, bill clerk,
revising clerk of the Chicago, Eock Island & Glulf Eail¬
road at Fort Worth and was afterwards promoted to
chief rate clerk. In September, 1911, became assistant
general freight agent of the International & Great North¬
ern Eailroad, Avas made general freight agent in May,
1915. In September, 1918, under the consolidation and
reorganization of carriers by the Eailroad Administra¬
tion, I was made assistant general freight agent of the
International & Great Northern, Galveston, Houston «fe
Henderson and other lines. In June, 1919, I was moved
to Dallas, to become assistant general freight agent of
the Lancaster Lines, handling Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission cases. All of my experience has practically been
in Texas and in connection with Texas and Louisiana
lines. As chief rate clerk and chief clerk, I had much to
do with making freight rates in the Southwest and as
assistant general freight and general freight agent, I had
control and jurisdiction over freight rates in which the
International & Great Northern Eailroad was interested
and that meant incidentally all related rates made or pro¬
vided in that territory by other lines. (8217) My own
personal experience gave me certain familiarity with the
traffic and the rates in that territory and the reasons
which influenced their making, and I can briefly state that
I concur in Mr. Mangham's statement as to the unusual
features controlling rates in that territory, which are
typical of Texas lines generally. The rates in Louisiana
west of the Mississippi Eiver were advanced and sus¬
pended in I. «fe S. Docket 820, 43 I. C. C., 291. As Mr.
Eausch has discussed the facts connected with the ad¬
vance in that proceeding and Mr. Sheppard has covered
the situation Avith respect to the rates east of the Mis¬
sissippi Eiver, it will not be necessary for me to say
216
anything about that. New Orleans is a so-called key-
point rate for the east of the Mississippi River and west
of the Mississippi River territory. The New Orleans
rate is the key-point rate because most of the traffic
moves from that point north. 48 per cent, or 2,128 cars,
of the total movement from Louisiana, was from points
east of the Mississippi River; 33 per cent, or 1,752 cars,
Avas from points west of the Mississippi River,
Avhile 27 per cent, or 1,452 cars, moved from
New Orleans. (Witness here gives detail of these
movements. (8220) I make this comparison to
show that there is a Avide variety of fruit, melons
and vegetables shipped from Noav Orleans, from which
point the so-called key-point rate is made. As compared
to this, I have set up the volume of the movement west
of the Mississippi River, shoAving that as late as 1918,
the movement was confined to potatoes, vegetables, only
11 cars of vegetables, and a feAV cars of onions. There
may be as much as ten cars of potatoes shipped from
points in the vicinity of Shreveport or south thereof, on
the Kansas City Southern, or in the vicinity of Mansfield,
La., which is on the Texas & Pacific, as well. In the re¬
adjustment of the rates nnder I. & S. Docket 820, the
lines AAmst of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, used
the potato rate as the basic rate, that covering the ma¬
jority of the movement. The carriei's felt that the rate
on potatoes was too Ioav, such rates having been estab¬
lished as missionary rates for the purpose of creating a
market for potatoes as a neAV industry in Louisiana, such
potatoes moving to points of destination in competition
Avith potatoes produced at a great many producing points
scattered throughout the United States, all of which has
the effect of making the potato rate simply a missionary
rate, which will come nearer describing it than anything
else I know of. (8224)
217
In I. & S. Docket 820, the advanced rates from Louisi¬
ana Avere approved by the Commission, and in justifica¬
tion of such rates, a primary showing was by compari¬
son with the rates on other moving commodities not re¬
quiring special transportation service, and particularly
connnodities moving in ordinary equipment and the Com¬
mission gave that as a specific reason for sustaining the
rate. (8224) With respect to the rates from Texas on
fruits, melons and vegetables, I was witness for the
southwestern lines with respect to those rates. The
situation was this : The southwestern lines were in need
of more revenue, and filed a number of advances in rates
on various commodities including fruits, melons and
vegetables. The necessity for this increased revenue
and the circumstances and conditions in justification for
the increased rates are of record in that proceeding. I
knoAV that before the increases on fruits, melons and
vegetables were made, such rates did not include any
revenue for any service connected with refrigeration.
The increases were arbitrarily made over the then-exist¬
ing rates and were made without regard to refrigeration.
This was clearly shown in the hearing of I. & S. Docket
555 at Chicago, on the subject of Fruits, Melons and
Vegetables, where the protestants against the increase
endeavored to have the Commission consider the aggre¬
gate charge, consisting of the freight rate plus the re¬
frigeration charge, and it was there pointed out that the
tariffs under suspension contained the freight rate only,
there being no refrigeration rate involved in that pro¬
ceeding. (8225)
218
Cross-Examination.
The increased rates were determined on before this
I. & S. proceeding was ever thought of. The rates, in
other words, were determined upon by the lines at in¬
terest in connection with the general proposition that
they needed more revenue, and they made an arbitrary
increase in the freight rate without regard to refrigera¬
tion. That applied not only to tlje perishable, but to all
the other rates. When these rates were suspended, all
that was done by the carriers was to lay before the Com¬
mission in that I. & S. proceeding, a portrait of the situ¬
ation. It was simply to illuminate, in an argumentative
way, to throw in everything that was possible, but the
proof of the increase itself, was by comparison with the
rates on other traffic moving in ordinary equipment, and
by comparison with rates on like traffic for similar dis¬
tances from other producing points in the United States
to common points of consumption. The increased rate
was decided upon long before the I. & S. proceeding and
it was not made with reference to cost of service or any¬
thing else. I do not know what the cost of service is.
(8227) Between Texas points and Shreveport, and be¬
tween Texas points, there is a scale of freight rates and
also, separately, a scale of refrigeration rates. The
freight rates fixed in the Shreveport case do not include
any part of refrigeration or accessorial service. The
Texas lines asked the Texas Commission for an advance
in the refrigeration rates between points in Texas.
(8230) Originally, in Texas, the rates made by the Texas
Commission did not include refrigeration service or, at
least, there is no record that I have ever been able to
locate, or anyone else that I have ever come in contact
with, which shows that the Texas Commission did con¬
sider that their rates included that cliaracter of service.
219
The only thing we do know about it is that when the use
of refrigerator cars began in Texas, the private car lines
made their own refrigeration rates. That was the sub¬
ject of the hearing by the Texas Commission and they
then fixed separate and apart from the freight rates, a
scale of refrigeration rates that were approximately $15
a car less than the rates that had been initially put in
by the private car lines. Those rates, to my knowledge,
in a great many instances, did not and do not pay the
cost of refrigeration service. (8230) I know, from my
experience, that the International & Great Northern Eail-
road on various shipments where that line has paid out
more money for ice alone for refrigeration under the
Texas Commission Eefrigeration Tariff than the stated
refrigeration charge collected.
Potatoes nearly all moved in stock cars ; onions in re¬
frigeration cars under ventilation; mixed vegetables in
refrigeration cars in 1916.
W. W. Miller, general freight agent of the Missouri,
Kansas & Texas Eailroad, testified in behalf of the
Director General and the carriers, substantially as fol¬
lows :
I began my railroad career in a local office in 1883.
Was rate clerk in the general freight office and chief
clerk until 1893 ; commercial agent at Kansas City until
1896 when I went to Ft. Worth as general live stock
agent ; then to Chicago as assistant general freight agent"
in 1900; to Kansas City as assistant general freight
agent in 1902; to St. Louis as assistant general freight
agent in 1908; was in the claim department for two or
three years and accounting department for a couple of
years; was made general freight agent in 1915 or 1916.
My experience for fifteen years Avas with solicitation and
220
for tlie last five years and from 1889 to 1893 with the
rates. I am familiar generally with the proposed perish¬
able protective tariff No. 1, under consideration here,
and my testimony Avill deal entirely with the exceptions
to Western Classification governing traffic originating
at or destined to points in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisi¬
ana and Texas, covering the commodities included in
item No. 15 of the proposed tariff upon which the excep¬
tions provide rating description, minimum weight or
other regulations differing from those shown in the
Western Classification. (Witness here describes the
three classification exceptions in the Southwest). (8239)
Prior to the publication of the exceptions in the pres¬
ent form, for account of all carriers, they were published
by the individual railroads. The exceptions were made
to fit the development of traffic in the southwest, the in¬
dustrial and jobbing development requiring special con¬
sideration on the part of the railroads in the way of
commodity ratings, commodity mixtures, minimum
weight, etc., differing from the Western Classification
ratings, rules and reg-ulations. I have prepared exhibits
to show the commodities included in the exceptions also
the Western Classification rating, minimum weights and
the reason, as far as possible, for the exception. In the
preparation of this information, I have traced the de¬
velopment of the exceptions back to the date when some
were originally made effective and have shown the in¬
formation on exhibits. (8240) (Witness here introduced
said exhibits, being Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, witness Miller,
(8241) Witness here explained some of the exhibits by
reading therefrom, as shown on record pages 8242, 8243
and 8244.)
221
Feed C. Dumbeck, traffic assistant, St. Louis & San Fran¬
cisco Eailroad, located at St. Louis, testified in behalf
of the Director General and carriers, substantially as
follows ;
I have been connected with the freight traffic depart¬
ment of the St. Louis & San Francisco Eailroad off and
on for twenty-five years, except about four years, and
had a great deal to do with the making of rates on the
various producing sections traversed by the road I rep¬
resent, the St. Louis & San Francisco Eailroad, which
originates considerable perishable freight traffic, and
have made an investigation of the record of that com¬
pany which, in connection with my personal observation
and experience, enables me to say whether or not the
question of the expense of the accessorial service inci¬
dent to the movement of perishable freight traffic was
taken into consideration by the carriers in making their
freight rates on that traffic. My first association with
the St. Louis & San Francisco dates back to 1884 and
since that time, I have had to do more or less with the
adjustment of rates on fruits and vegetables and other
perishable freight originating on that line in Missouri,
Kansas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Shipments of apples,
peaches and strawberries from that territory are of con¬
siderable magnitude but, outside of a limited movement
of potatoes from Central Arkansas territory, vegetables
are not grown generally for commercial purposes. Ap¬
ples were grown in considerable quantities in northwest¬
ern Arkansas and southwestern Missouri, as far back as
1885, before railroads were built into that section and in
1900, when transportation facilities were established,
the development of the apple industry was very rapid,
approximating, as far back as 1900, about 5,000 cars per
annum from St. Louis and San Francisco territory alone.
222
(8299) There were, as far back as 1898, a few shipments
made from Missouri for export, and they moved in re¬
frigerator cars to Boston. Such apples as moved longer
distances and on which expedited service was desired in
the early days of the apple industry, were shipped by ex¬
press, but, as storage facilities were provided, the grow¬
ers held their apples for a better price and moved them
during the season when protection was necessary. (8300)
The adjustment of freight rates from the early begin¬
ning of the apple industry on the St. Louis & San Fran¬
cisco Eailway was solely made with a view to permit¬
ting them to be shipped into the consuming markets
against apple moving from other sections. This com¬
petition in the early days was from apples grown in the
southeastern and other states south of the Ohio Eiver
and in later years the competition, since our growers
have been holding their product, was from the apple
growers of New York, Ohio, Michigan and Colorado.
There was no notice taken wEen shipments began to be
made in refrigerator cars to the extent that freight
rates were increased in order to offset the increased cost
to the carriers incident to supplying this special class of
equipment, but the rates established a number of years
ago were, with a few occasional exceptions, continued up
to June 25, 1918, when they were advanced under Gen¬
eral Order No. 28. (8301)
It was my experience that any attempt made by the
carriers to increase èome of the very low rates that ap¬
plied on apples, was promptly and vigorously opposed
by the growers, on the ground that the competition which
they were forced to meet, would not permit an increase.
According to the date that I have before me, apple
rates from Frisco producing points to Chicago, St. Louis,
Kansas City and Memphis, which are representative
223
points of consumption, were substantially the same as
far back as 1902 to June 25, 1918, and from Arkansas
points of production, my data dates back to 1905, in which
year the rates were higher than they were even at any
time subsequent, except during 1916, during which year
we carried a 5c per hundred pound increase, but which
was subsequently reduced to the former rate, and the
level of rates, generally, for a period of 13 years was the
same until General Order No. 28. (8301)
There was no thought in the minds of traffic officials
when fixing rates on fruit, that they were to include
special or accessorial service, I think, as is evidenced by
the fact that the tariffs are silent on that point, just as
are the tariffs carrying rates on other classes of freight,
and we had right along a separate tariff in effect that
carried the various additional charges to be borne by
shippers, where perishable freight was transported un¬
der special conditions.
Strawberries were grown and shipped from central
western Arkansas and southwestern Missouri as early
as 1887, in a small way, being handled to consuming
markets by express. Several years later, the industry
had grown sufficient to permit shipments in carloads and
they moved in ventilated express cars by passenger
trains. About 1892, they first began to move from cen¬
tral western Arkansas points in refrigerator cars, which
were furnished by refrigerator car companies to the
shippers, the loading, stripping, bracing and icing being
furnished by the car companies and the cost thereof
paid by shippers. It is to be noted that right from the
beginning, shippers made their own negotiations and
contracts with the car company for the supplying of this
special equipment, and so far as the St. Louis & San
Francisco Railway is concerned, the railroad company
224
did not directly take charge of that branch of the service
until say about eight years ago, when, in order to relieve
the shippers from that responsibility, the carriers as¬
sumed it. Up to that time, the shippers of fruits and
other perishable freight arranged for their own equip¬
ment direct with the car company. This practice has
been followed from that and other berry-growing sec¬
tions ever since, excepting that in the last six or seven
years the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company
generally supplied the equipment and charged a stipu¬
lated sum as published in our tariffs, and which carried
the freight from points of origin to points of destina¬
tion.
Within the recollection of some of our older employees,
familiar with the movements of strawberries and other
fruits, no request has ever been made by the shippers
or the carriers to provide this extra service free. (8303)
From April, 1910, until June 25,1918, with the exception
of an advance of 6 cents per hundred pounds from the
Fort Smith, Ark., district, which was the result of a re¬
duction in the minimum weight that was maintained for
only one year, the rates to the principal points of con¬
sumption have been the same. Under General Order No.
28, they were increased 25 per cent. (8304)
The earliest movement of peaches, according to my
data, was from the Van Buren, Ark., district, as far back
as 1885, and from central Oklahoma about 1900. The
movement from Arkansas up to 1892 was by express in
small quantities, the same as apples and strawberries.
The total movement of peaches from St. Louis & San
Francisco territory in 1915, was approximately 2,200
cars, but it dwindled to 41 cars in 1918. The movement
in that section during 1918 was slightly less than in 1915.
The data that I have on the rates dates only as far back
225
as June, 1910, in which they were a few cents higher
than they were throughout the period up to June 25,
1918, Avith the exception of one year, 1916, when a three-
cent per hundred pound advance was made hut not main¬
tained. In the fixing of peach rates, the carriers had in
mind and were governed by competition which the ship¬
pers alleged they were forced to meet from other pro¬
ducing sections. (8305) There is but a slight move¬
ment of vegetables on the St. Louis & San Francisco
Eailroad and that is potatoes from the Van Buren, Ark.,
district. There is quite a large production of water
melons on the Frisco Eailway from southeast Missouri,
but we have no knoAvledge of there having been at any time
a movement in refrigerator cars. They invariably move
in slatted stock cars. The adjustment of rates on melons
and cantaloupes dates back quite a number of years and
it has ahvays been a very low basis, particularly so in the
State of Missouri, where the State Commission-fixed
rates are exceedingly Ioav and they have to some extent
their influence on interstate rates. In fixing rates on
fruits and vegetables, as far as my experience goes, the
carriers have always been governed by the claims set up
by shippers as to the competition they had to meet and
it has been my further experience that shippers have
always considered that any special or accessorial service
was something outside of the freight rate adjustment and
which they would have to take care of in addition to the
freight rate. (8306)
Cross Examination.
I have no data as to the 1919 movement of peaches
from Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. Am glad to
hoar that there has been an improvement in the volume
tlioroof. Do not think that we ever took into considera-
226
tion the cost of traffic when we were making these freight
rates, hnt have always bowed to the claims of the ship¬
pers as to what they had to have in order to market
their products. (8307)
Conclusion as to Bule 25.
The inevitable conclusions of fact which must be
reached after a consideration of this testimony of the
best informed traffic and classification men in the coun¬
try are that the freight rates were not originally made
to include compensation for special protective serv¬
ice of any kind; that such service was orig¬
inally furnished gratuitously for the purpose of foster¬
ing industry, developing traffic and meeting competition ;
that in most instances there have been no particular in¬
creases in the freight rates on perishable traffic, and that
where such rates have been increased such increases were
not based to any extent upon the special service. We be¬
lieve that we have established these facts in this record
by such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence as
to justify a specific finding by the Commission to this
effect, and we urge the Commission now to make such a
finding and thus set at rest this troublesome question.
Fortunately, we have been able in this proceeding to se¬
cure the history from men within whose memories the
perishable traffic began. Careful investigations of rec¬
ords have been made for the purpose of getting, all of the
facts. All of the shipping interests have likewise had
full opportunity to gather all available data upon the
question. Such a full record will not again be available.
In the course of time men with direct knowledge and in¬
formation Avill pass away and records will be lost. It
seems unnecessary that every proceeding relating to pro¬
tective service shall continue to involve this question
whether the service is covered by the freight rate.
227
Even if the justification for separately stating these
charges were not the legal requirement of Section 6 of
the act as elsewhere discussed herein, the Commission
should as a matter of fact find and as a matter of eco¬
nomic policy establish that the special protective services
of refrigeration, heating and insulation, as well as all
of the incidental services involved therein, are not cov¬
ered by the freight rates.
In the present state of the carriers' revenues there
cannot reasonably be any doubt that any increase in total
revenue which will result from this separate statement
is sorely needed and fully justified at this time. For this
reason there could not be a better time to settle the
propriety of separately treating these special services
and thus by establishing this principle now all cases in¬
volving these services in the future will be determinable
by the single issue whether the charge assessed for the
special service in question is proper, irrespective of the
multitude of considerations relating to the freight rate.
On the other hand, freight rates after such decision can¬
not be justified by pointing to any of these special serv¬
ices. Neither issue can depend upon the other and no
longer can the expense of these services be "suspended
in the air" {Deciduous Fruit Case, 32 I. C. C., 20) to be
used by either the shippers or carriers to support their
particular interest in a given proceeding.
RULE 35.
Paragraph (A) of this rule reads:
"Orders for cars desired for loading must be filed,
with reasonable advance notice, by shippers with the
originating carrier's agent and must be given in
writing (or if given orally or by telephone must be
confirmed in writing) and must specify the type of
car (refrigerator, ventilator, box, etc.) and charac¬
ter of carriers' service desired. (See Eule 80.)"
228
S J tipp ers' Vi ews.
Witness J. Curtis Robinson stated that he had no par¬
ticular objection to requiring orders to he in writing
for the kind of cars desired, but believed they should
not be required always to specify the character of pro¬
tective service providing that would prevent them from
using an alternative service, as sudden changes in the
weather might alter a shipper's intention and he might
desire to ship under refrigeration; that the shipped
should not be prevented from shipping in accordance
Avith his best judgment at the time the freight is tend¬
ered to the carrier for transportation; that if written
orders for cars are required, carriers ' agents should like-
AAÛse acknoAvledge receipt by signing a duplicate pre¬
sented by shipper, thereby acknoAvledging receipt of the
order, so tliat shippers might be able to tell what orders
are filed for cars, and if they are getting them in their
proper proportion. (Tr., 1617-18.)
Witness 0. W. Tong expressed the same idea as the
AA'itness, J. Curtis Robinson, Avdth regard to the car¬
riers' agents signing a duplicate of the order (Tr.,
4692-3) and objected to the phrase "specify the type of
car" desired, particularly during the period, October
15th to April 15th. (Tr., 4694-5.)
Witness M. C. Ragatz stated that he did not see AiRy
potato men should specify any type of car; that ship¬
pers are on record with the railroads that they desire
refrigerators the year round; that Rule 35 conflicts with
Rule 85. (Tr., 5072-3.)
Witness R. O'IIara stated that there had been no time
within his recollection Avhen he could call upon a carrier
for a car suitable for the transportation of beef and
obtain it from the carriers; that there is a provision in
the proposed tariff which states specifically that car-
229
riers do not obligate tliemselves to furnisb brine tank
cars; tbat this type of car is necessary for the transpor¬
tation of fresh meat, and that the packers have to pro¬
vide a car of somewhat pecidiar type for the transpor¬
tation of that commodity. (Tr., 6588.)
Witness IIeney W. Bohrevbxjkg stated that as an ice
shipper, he could not anticipate by more than twelve
hours his requirements in the matter of ordering cars ;
that this was due to the temperature, which would cause
his business to fluctuate 75 or 100 cars between days.
(Tr., 7046.)
Witness W. A. Schumacher stated that he thought
that in his business (that of handling bananas) the rule
would be unworkable, but that, if the railroads and the
Commission do not feel that they can change the rule,
he would accept it and do the best he could Avith it; that
he AA'ould like to see it modified. (Tr., 8502.)
Änsiver.
The carriers submit that in order that they may be
enabled to handle the business properly, and assisted
in preparing themselves to gWe the character of serAÙce
desired, they are justified in requiring some reasonable
and definite notices from shipper and that a tariff rule
covering this is desirable; the carriers further contend
that, as indicated in the rule, the cars can only be placed
in accordance with train schedules and other operating
conditions and that shippers have no right to demand
that cars be placed for loading at any specified time or
hour of the day. (See Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 8.)
230
RULE 35 (B).
This portion of the rule reads :
"Carriers not owning or operating special equip¬
ment such as brine tank refrigerator cars do not
hold themselves out as being in readiness to supply-
such equipment."
Shippers' Views.
Witness W. B. Edwards is of the opinion that this por¬
tion of the rule should be stricken from the record be¬
cause it is general in its nature, a slang phrase or collo¬
quial phrase: thinks the words "hold out" are uncer¬
tain; Avould permit discrimination. (Tr., 4511-12.)
Witness E. G. Phillips objects to wording "Carriers
not owning or operating special equipment, such as brine
tank refrigerator cars"; calls attention to the term "spe¬
cial equipment," Avhich he says is not limited to the illus¬
tration of brine tank cars ; he also understands that car¬
riers contend that all insulated equipment, as defined by
the rules, is special equipment; if so, and if this rule
should prevail, witness thinks it would enable some of
the lines owning no equipment, or very little, like the
Boston & Maine, Maine Central, Pere Marquette and
others, to escape providing it. (Tr., 9284.)
Ansioer.
The Avording of this portion of the rule, in order to
secure greater clarity, will be amended to read as shown
below :
"(B) Carriers not OAAming or operating brine
tank refrigerator cars or other special equipment,
do not hold themselves out as being in readiness to
supply such equipment."
The above modification is in accordance with the let¬
ter addressed to the examiner in behalf of carriers under
date of October 23, 1919, as shown in Appendix A.
231
RULE 40.
By Eule-40 of the tariff the carriers propose to charge
five dollars per car for the use of a refrigerator car or
fully insulated car when used for a shipment not mov¬
ing under a stated charge for protective service. Gen¬
erally speaking, this means that the charge will be as¬
sessed for a dry refrigerator car when used for
the transportation of the commodities specifically
enumerated in the rule. A five-dollar charge for
similar service has been considered by the Commis¬
sion in a number of cases and has been approved. See
Rental Charges for Insulated Cars, 31 I. C. C., 255 ;
Rules Governing the Transportation of Potatoes in Re¬
frigerator Equipment, 34 I. C. C., 255; North Pacific
Fruit Distributors v. N. P. Rg. Co. et aï., 40 I. C. C.,
191; Hale Halsell Grocery Co. v. M. K. S T, Ry. Co. et
al., 42 I. C. C., 491; Hale Halsell Grocery Co. v. M. K. &
T. Ry. Co. et al., 45 I. C. C-., 523; Northern Potato Traffic
Association v. C. S A. R. R. Co. et al., 44 I. 0. C., 426;
Gamble Robinson Conimission Co. v. A. B. R. Ry. Co.
et al., 50 I. C. C., 324.
The primary justification of this charge consists of
the following facts which the Commission has so often
recognized as to make it unnecessary to discuss them at
length :
Eefrigerator and fully insulated ears cost more than
box cars ; they deteriorate more rapidly and cost more to
repair and maintain; they have smaller carrying capac¬
ity and can only be used for certain kinds of freight;
they often cannot be loaded or unloaded at freight houses
because they have swinging doors instead of sliding
doors ; they involve greater empty mileage ; they require
expensive cleaning, and they are more expensive to haul
because of their heavier tare weight. See the carriers'
exhibits showing comparisons of equipment costs, ma-
232
terial costs, caí- dimensions and also testimony of L. S.
West (3031 et seq.).
Sprague Exhibit No. 1, page 14, shows a comparison
of. the earnings from the fifth-class rates for given dis¬
tances of the average gross weight of car and contents
of freight in box cars and in refrigeration cars. Includ¬
ing the $5 charge for refrigeration cars, the comparison
of revenue is as follows:
Gross Ton Revenue
Gross Ton Mile Revenue
Miles
Box
Refrig.
Box
Refrig.
100
$1.39
$1.29
13.9 m
12.9 m
200
1.85
1.69
9.25
8.45
300
2.13
1.92
7.10
6.40
400
2.59
2.08
5.18
5.20
500
Chicago
2.59
2.31
5.18
4.C2
912
to
4.16
3.65
4.56
4.00
New York
It was shown by the evidence herein that there are
many commodities which in their nature are not highly
perishable but Avhich are being shipped in increasing
quantities in refrigerator cars. By this means this equip¬
ment is being diverted from its use in highly perishable
traffic and the shortage of refrigerator cafs is being in¬
creasingly felt in the traffic for which they are necessary.
The commodities enumerated in paragraph (e) of Kule
40 are those which it is thought can be safely and prop¬
erly transported in ordinary cars, and Avhich ought,
therefore, properly to pay for the use of this expensive
special equipment. By this means, not only is the carrier
to some extent compensated for the special equipment,
bnt such cars will be more closely devoted to their proper
traffic. Certainly the conservation of this equipment is
a desirable purpose to be advanced.
It cannot be doubted that the use of refrigerator cars
is of greater value to the shipper than the ordinary cars,
and it is fair that he should pay a charge in addition to
the rate paid by the usual shipper in box cars.
233
Several of the shippers stated that they had no objec¬
tion to the assessment of a special charge for the use of
a refrigerator car. (McKinney, 752; Sherman, 865;
Keiser, 4441; Beckwith, 7013; Womer, 7204; Postlewaite,
7121; kluckerman, 7161; Maginnis, 7187; Fowler, 7390.)
It was urged by some shippers that as they frequently
rent private cars for which they pay directly to the own¬
ers, the proposed charge will result in a double expense
Avhich they should not be required to pay. (De Pass,
1442-4, 5548 ; Knocke, 5575.) In this respect the Commis¬
sion has said in Rules Governing the Transportation of
Potatoes in Refrigerator Equipment, 34 I. C. C., 255,
256:
"This charge [$5 rental charge], to avoid dis¬
crimination should be uniform and collected from
every shipper Avho has the use of a refrigerator car.
The duty of the carrier is to furnish the equipment.
If any carrier does not perform its duty in this re¬
spect, and a shipper puts into the carrier's service
one of his OAvn refrigerator cars, he may be entitled
to an allowance therefor. The amount of the allow¬
ance, hoAvever, must be fixed and specifically provided
for in the carrier's tariffs. There should he no dis¬
crimination hetiveen shippers using railroad, private
car line, or privately otrned refrigerator cars. * * *"
(Italics ours.)
Any doubt which might otherAvise exist as to the pro¬
priety of the list of commodities contained in this rule
has been removed by Avitness Berry avIio, as the repre¬
sentative of a large Avholesale grocery house, testified
as to each commodity and its requirements for protec¬
tive service (p. 9062 et seq.), shoAving that practically all
of the articles can ordinarily be transported in ordinary
equipment. "While the Avitness Avas of opinion that these
articles should for this reason be takcji from the list, his
testimony clearly shoAvs that the charge for special
equipment is proper. For as they are not highly per-
234
ishable and can be safely transported witbout requir¬
ing refrigerator cars, tbey should properly bear tbe
charge Avben such equipment is required. Such of them
as require refrigerator cars during only portions of tbe
year to protect them against extreme beat or cold should
properly bear tbe charge during such periods, for it can¬
not with reason be said that special equipment for a few
months is contemplated by tbe freight rate, which is
constant through the year. Even if it were so, it would
be an unfair arrangement which should be changed at
once.
Potatoes are alleged to require refrigerator cars
throughout the year. In some territories the charge is
already in effect, and has been approved by the Com¬
mission. In Maine Avhere the charge has been assessed
for years, the shippers are entirely satisfied. The Com¬
mission should not modify its approval of this charge
where it exists and should in view of the carriers' justi-'
fication approve a similar uniform charge throughout the
country.
The shippers of cranberries urge that the rule should
not be applied to that commodity. (Chaney, 6696 et seq.)
This is based on the view that the freight rates contem¬
plate refrigerator cars. It is said that cranberries must
move in refrigerator cars, and that as they originate
largely in eastern seaboard territory, they utilize equip¬
ment, which would otherwise move westbound empty.
It was admitted, however, that the traffic moved prior
to the time when refrigerator cars were furnished and
that the first shipments in refrigerator cars moved
eighteen years ago. Before that time they were handled
in box cars to near-by points of destination, and in win¬
ter these box cars were specially prepared against cold.
It docs not appear that the rates were ever consciously
235
made to include compensation for special equipment or
that they were increased when the refrigerator cars came
into use. The protesting witness stated that the cars
must be assembled by the carrier several days and some¬
times a week before loading and that they must be hauled
for distances up to thirty miles to the loading points.
He admitted that the refrigerator car has widened the
extent of the cranberry market, thus admitting the special
value of the use of these cars to the shippers. This testi¬
mony we believe fully justifies the special charge.
Apples move very largely in box cars. The fact that
some shippers prefer refrigerator cars would seem to jus¬
tify the special charge in such instances. One shipper
frankly admitted that the use of such a car is worth
five dollars to him. (Beckwith, 7013.)
For the shippers of fish it was clearly shown that there
was no objection to the charge per se. (Fowler, 7390.)
Fish will move just as safely in good box cars as in re¬
frigerator cars. (7441.) Pickled and smoked fish need
special equipment only in the hot months of the sum¬
mer. (7432.) These shippers allege that this charge
will be discriminatory against fish in favor of meat prod¬
ucts, but it was not shown that there is any similarity
of the conditions of transportation of the two kinds of
commodities, and in view of the propriety of the charge
per se it should be approved.
Ice was the subject of considerable testimony by ice
dealers throughout the country. This testimony discloses
their position to be that a higher charge is proper for the
use of a refrigerator car than for a box car, but that such
higher charge should be on a per ton and not per car
basis, as it now is in some territories, as prescribed by
the Commission. (7204, 7121, 7187, 7161.) Only 20 per cent
of the traffic of the members of the National Association
236
moves in insulated cars. (7203.) One important ice
dealer in the East said that only five per cent of his traffic
moves in other than box cars. (7060.) In the vicinity of
Chicago practically all the ice in the last two or three
years moved in box cars. (7170.) In Texas 75 per cent
or 80 per cent moves in standard refrigerator cars.
(7120) One witness said that a refrigerator car has
greater value to the shipper because the meltage is much
less than in a box car. Upon cross-examination he stated
that box car meltage is twice that of refrigerator car
meltage, so that if a given quantity of ice is shipped in a
refrigerator car there would be a saving of $54 on such
a shipment from Burlington, Iowa to Chicago. (7182)
Much of the opposition of these shippers was
based upon the misapprehension that the pro¬
posed $5 charge was to be superadded to the
per ton ditferential already in effect as a result of
the Commission's decision in Mountain Ice Co. v. T). L.
& TU. i?. R., 15 I. C. C., 305. It wms stated, however,
by the Administration that it Avas not intended to assess
such a double charge and that where a special charge is
noAv in effect on a per ton basis the charge proposed by
Rule 40 Avill not for the present be established. (7094)
In cases where no such charge is now etfective it is sub¬
mitted that no reason has been shown why the general
considerations underlying this charge should not equally
justify the charge upon shipments of ice. The service
is of greater value to the shipper and in view of the
widespread use of ordinary equipment the special charge
for special equipment is eminently fair and reasonable.
One of the general contentions of the shippers was that
the charge for the use of the car should vary with the
length of the haul. "We believe that the record proves
that in no event should the measure of the charge be less
than five dollars and it follows that if any variation
237
according to distance is to be made, it must be done by
increasing the charge progressively above five dollars on
a mileage basis.
For the reason that the Commission In the Matter of
Private Cars, 50 I. C. C., 677, reached the general con¬
clusion that a special charge should not be made in in¬
stances vhere the special equipment had so long been
used as to make it part of the general service contem¬
plated by the freight rate, but Avithout receding from
the position that the separate statement of such a special
charge is in any event proper, the carriers set forth
very fully the history of the perishable traffic through¬
out the countrj'. In the general discussion found in this
brief upon the subject of Eule 25, this history has been
set forth at length, as to all territories. While it Avould
have been more convenient to set forth such parts of this
history as relate directly to the furnishing of special
insulated equipment without ice in this portion of the
brief, it is believed that in the interest of conserving
space herein it is more desirable to make reference to the
other portions of the brief referred to.
Considering the history of this traffic, as a whole, and
also the testimony of the shippers relating to the com¬
modities listed in Rule 40, the conclusion cannot be
avoided that the carriers in establishing their freight
rates upon such commodities have not, in the past, con¬
sciously measured these rates with a view to securing
compensation for the use of special equipment whenever
it has been furnished. It clearly appears that freight
rates upon these commodities were in effect prior to the
time that the refrigerator car came into use. Practically
all of the commodities Avere transported, at least to
some extent in ordinary box cars at the inception of
the traffic. As to the more highly perishable of the com-
238
modities the use of box cars confined the transportation
to comparatively short distances. Box cars were then,
in some instances, especially fitted to atïord special pro¬
tection to the freight. They were either lined or ven¬
tilated or shelved. When the refrigerator car was de¬
vised in Official Classification territory its use was con¬
fined to the transportation of meat and dairy products.
Very gradually the shippers of other commodities re¬
quested the use of these refrigerator cars. At first the
carriers declined to furnish them. Then, in view of the
fact that these cars were moving empty in certain di¬
rections, they permitted the shippers to use these cars
for fruits and vegetables when such cars would other¬
wise move empty. In doing this the carriers made it
clear that they did not recognize any obligation to fur¬
nish the refrigerator equipment, but would do so only
where such cars were conveniently available. After one
carrier had begun to supply refrigerator cars, under
these circumstances, and thus gained the good will and
traffic of the shipper, it became a matter of competitive
necessity for other carriers to furnish the cars as well.
Such of the carriers as had no such equipment on their
rails were compelled by this competition to acquire
special equipment. The result of this gradual enlarging
of the use of the cars has been that they have to-day
come into general use in the transportation of many
commodities which were not originally expected to move
in other than ordinary equipment.
During all of this gradual process of development none
of the freight rates covering these commodities has been
increased with this fact in mind; indeed, as to many of
the commodities the rates, prior to the general advances
which have taken place within the last few years, were
steadily being reduced. The general advances proposed
by the carriers beginning, say with the Eastern and
239
Western Rate Advance Cases of 1910, and extending
tlirough the advance of General Order No. 28, effective
June 25, 1918, liave all been based upon the general needs
of the carriers for more revenue, and have not in any
case been founded upon the increasing use of special
equipment in any particular trafhc.
Practically none of the commodities named in this list
is transported exclusively in insulated or refrigerator
cars. All of them move in box cars to some extent,
either at certain seasons of the year or because insulated
cars are not always conveniently obtainable. IVfany of
the commodities ought never to use these special cars as
an economic proposition because they can just as safely
be moved in ordinary equipment. It is only because some
of the shippers express a preference for these cars that
the carriers in their zeal to retain good will have in
the past furnished them. It is earnestly believed that
this uneconomic use of such equipment should be dis¬
couraged, and that the shipper should be required to give
careful consideration to the question whether the necessi¬
ties of the traffic in reality justify the use of this equip¬
ment. Such consideration will only be given by the ship¬
pers when they are faced Avith the fact that a special car
means an additional charge.
RULES 45 AND 50.
(A) "Shippers or owners Avill be held solely re¬
sponsible for properly preparing their goods for
shipment, including packing, wrapi)ing, loading,
stowing and bracing; also for furnishing and install¬
ing temporary false floors or racks when needed to
permit of safe transportation."
This rule should properly be read in conjunction 'Avith
Rule 50, Avhich provides in substance tliat—
No allowance will be made to the shipper for the fur-
240
nisliiiig or installation of temporary false floors or racks
or other accessorial materials; that no charge will he
made for transp(n'ting false floors or floor racks fur¬
nished hy shipper Avhen used Avith perishable freight,
either in packages or in bulk (including so-called "piece-
freight"), nor for transporting racks, strips or braces
furnished hy shipper when used with carload shipments,
and the perishable freight in packages, but does provide
a freight charge for the transportation of strips, frames,
braces, etc., Avhen used with freight in hulk.
It also provides in substance that there will he no
freight charge for the return of permanent false floor
or floor racks, but that there will be a freight charge of
one-half of the fourth-class rate for the return, when
required hy the shipper, of temporary false floors or
floor racks.
Shippers' Vieivs.
Attorney "\V. E. Lamb wanted to know Avhat was the
ditference betAveen furnishing grain doors and false
floors. (Tr., 472.)
Witness Field Sherman, referring to Rules 45 and 50,
stated:
In order to keep Amgetahles from freezing in the a\dn-
tertime it is almost absolutely necessary to put in a false
floor of some sort to keep the commodities off the floor.
We have installed these at our OAvn expense up until
the present time, although there Avas a provision last
AAunter a\dioreby the Administration Avas either going to
furnish cars equipped Avith false floors or AA'as going
to alloAv us a certain amount for the installation of these
floor.s, hut this Avas later AvithdraAvn about February,
1919. That was C. S. 43, of November 15, 1918. (Tr.,
838-841.) The practice indicated by the circular was not
241
put into effect. The allowance of fifty cents per lineal
foot was insnfficient to construct a floor.
A false floor allows a better circulation of air and
prevents any cold air that might Avork its way through
the floor of the car or around the doors and vents from
coming in direct contact Avith the produce. (Tr., 841-2.)
In my judgment, the false floor should be an essential
part of the equipment of the refrigerator car. Some of
the refrigerator cars Avhich are furnished to the shippers
liaA'e these false floors. The Pacific Fruit Express Com¬
pany has quite a number. There is no difference in the
charges betAA^een the two classes of equipment. (Tr.,
842.) Prior to the issuance of C. S. 43, Ave installed these
false floors at our oaa'u expense in some cases. I do not
knoAV of any tariff in California providing an alloAAmnce
for these false floors; AAm neA'er supplied any that the
carriers paid us for. We huAm paid for all that we have
installed. (Tr., 858-9.)
Witness E. S. De Pass: The Carnation Milk Co. ob¬
jects to shippers being required to proAdde temporary
false floors at their expense on the ground that floor
racks are essential to alloAv circulation of air and should
be considered part of car. (Tr., 1443.)
Witness J. C. Robinson: It has been my opinion, and
is my judgment, that the rate for transportation has in
the past taken into consideration the so-called accessor¬
ial seiwice Avhich is noAV being charged for and aa^hich is
proposed to be cliarged for in Perishable Tariff No. 1.
(Tr., 1626.) Section 1 of the Act to.Regulate Commerce
makes it the duty of the carrier to furnish suitable equip¬
ment; that carriers should not insist that shippers do it.
(Tr., 1620-1621.)
Witness E. S'. Gill: Same objections as stated by J. C.
Robinson. (Tr., 1667.)
242
Witness O. W. Tong; Objection to this rule is directed
against paragraph A (of Eule 45), and particularly to
that part reading, "also for furnishing and installing
temporary false floors or racks, when needed to permit
of safe transportation"; that if the rule is going to be
clear a provision shonld be made that the' shipper is re¬
sponsible for the furnishing of these false floors and the
installation of them only when the business is moving
under "Shippers' Protective Service." (Tr., 4706-10.)
Witness J. H. Tench objected to Eule 45 (A) and of¬
fered the following amendment; "Shippers or owners
shall be required to load, stow and brace their goods for
shipment; also to furnish and install temporary false
floors or racks when needed to permit of safe transpor¬
tation." (Tr., 8075.) That this is a service that has
heretofore been performed by the carrier and included
in the rate, and falls within the rule laid down by the
Interstate Commerce Commission, that if now segre¬
gated for a separate charge, the rate should be reduced
accordingly. (Tr., 8076.) That the amendment pro¬
posed carries the elimination of that part of the rule
which says shippers or owners will be held solely re¬
sponsible for property; that they recognize that ship¬
pers are responsible for the proper preparation of their
freight for shipment without any rule on the subject, but
contend, however, that nothing should be put in a tariff
for a carrier's protection that is either the law or the
custom now; that they do, however, object to the incor¬
poration of words into this rule that may be construed
to give the carriers the right to say what constitutes
proper preparation or packing of freight for shipment.
(Tr., 8066-7.) That another objection is that the rule
may be construed as conflicting with the present law
governing the burden of proof in suits or claims. (Tr.,
8067.)
243
Witness W. A. Schumacher says: To make proper
deliveries of bananas either in the winter or summer,
false floors or floor racks are essential, and every car of
bananas from the Gulf ports for many years past have
been so equipped by the carriers as an integral part of
the car. Practically all these floor racks are built in
sections, as the railroads often remove them and use
cars for return loads of grain and package freight. Use
of racks began in 1892, before the Fruit Despatch Co.
was organized. In the East, where the roads are not so
progressive in this respect, it has not always been pos¬
sible to obtain floor racks ; hopes they will provide all
cars with floor racks, at least four inches in the clear for
proper ventilation and protection against cold. Where
bananas move a long distance into very cold climate and
double false floors are requested, has no objection to
paying for extra or temporary false floors.
For many years, carriers have supplied the door slats
necessary to prevent the bunches of bananas from fall¬
ing out, as bananas are loaded with the bunches standing
on end. They do this on all import freight. (Tr.,
8495-6.)
Witness E. O'Haea, referring to Eule 50-B, states:
Carrier's duty to fùrnish refrigerator car properly
cleaned and racked; carriers are inconsistent in agree¬
ing to pay for permanent racks which they call false
floors, and saying it is not their duty to furnish cars
that are properly racked. (Tr., 6633.) Éeferring to
Eule 50-C, says that it specifically provides that no
charge is to be made for transporting dunnage (named
in paragraph D), when used with perishable freight in
packages or in bulk, while the last paragraph provides
that no allowance will be made for the use of strips,
braces, frames or racks with carload freight. It is
244
rather difficult to reconcile the provisions of Rule 50
with the taritf provisions as set forth in Exhibit 3, of
which item 588 of Leland's Tariff, I. C. C. 1244, is typ¬
ical. (Tr., 6633.)
Referring to Rule 50-E, says: No economy in remov¬
ing racks from car going home empty in order to tender
racks to carrier in 1. c. 1. quantities for application of
one-half of fourth-class rate. Claims McPike has mis¬
stated fact in reference to assessment of freight charges,
and cites item 1035, Morris ' -Tariff I. C. C. 736, under
Avhich provision is made that no charge will be made
if the return of racks is treated as an integral part of
the car. Also cites Speiden's Rules, as shown in
McPike's Exhibit No. 3. tTr., 6633-4.)
Witness A. E. Helm, referring to Rule 50, subdivision
3 of paragraph C, asked that same be amended so as to
read: "No allowance will be made for the use of strips,
braces, frames or racks, other than floor or ventilation
racks, when used as such," and stated that the Lee Mer¬
cantile Co. requested it. (Tr., 2001-2.)
Witness R. G. Phillips objects to Rule 45, on ground
that these floor racks have been deflnitely recognized by
the Railroad Administration by mechanical circular No.
7, and C. S. 43, as being essential equipment of car, hence
thinks carriers are under obligation to furnish them.
Referring to Rule 50 (A) says be objects to with¬
drawal thereof on same ground of objection to existence
of Rule 45.
Referring to Rule 50 (C) says that if it is the inten¬
tion to charge for necessary bulklieading or false doors,
he desires to object because shipments of perishables in
bulk should not be discouraged.
245
Answer.
Witness McPike's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 12 cover this
subject very fully. To those exhibits we add :
The fundamental duty of the shipper to load his
carload shipments is so generally admitted and rm-
derstood that it should be unnecessary to make any
extensive citations of authorities. As the shipper
has the duty of loading carload freight, it follows
logically that he is responsible for the proper per¬
formance of that duty, including the use of adequate
methods of loading, so as to withstand the exigencies
of ordinary transportation and thus permit of the
safe movement of his freight. The shipper is like¬
wise responsible for any loss or damage arising from
his own failure or negligence in these respects. As
the shipper is responsible for proper loading of
carload freight, so likewise he is responsible for
making the lading secure for safe carriage. (14 I.
C. C., 154; 30 I. C. C., 542-543.)
The carriers submit that they are well within their
lawful rights as to the wording of Rule 45 and that, in¬
deed, the public interest is best served by the publication
of a uniform tariff rule of that character, thus clearly
reminding the shippers of the special duties and respon¬
sibility necessarily resting upon them in connection with
the proper and efficient loading of carload freight. The
word "secure" not only means to make the lading firm
or rigid so as to prevent shifting or falling, but it means
also the making or putting of the lading into such order
and condition as will make it reasonably free from harm
and safe for transportation. Webster defines the word
"secure" as follows:
"Free from fear, care or anxiety; not exposed to
danger; safe, as secure from foes; to relieve from
apprehension of, or exposure to danger; to guard,
protect, make safe; to put beyond hasard of losing
or of not receiving; to make fast; to close or confine
effectually; as, to secure a prisoner, a door, the
hatches of a ship." (See Webster's New Interna-
246
tional Dictionary, published by G. & C. Merriam Co.,
Springfield, Mass., 1917, page'1911.)
With regard to Attorney Lamb's inquiry, the witness
E. F. McPike stated that false floors might prevent a
loss due to the inherent nature of the goods, while grain
doors would prevent loss by leakage. (Tr., 474.)
The witness P. B. Beidelman stated that carriers fur¬
nished false floors when necessary on cars moving un¬
der "Carriers' Protective Service." (Tr., 1473.)
It may be stated that Rule 45 does not require shippers
to furnish temporary false floors or racks; simply that
they will be responsible for their furnishing and installa¬
tion Avhen needed to permit of safe transportation.
Our further answers to the objections made are :
First. That the various witnesses for the shippers are
confusing the term "temporary false floors or racks"
with the term "permanent false floors or racks"; that
a permanent false floor or rack is one that forms an in¬
tegral part of the car and is used in general service for
the traffic for which the car Avas designed; that a tem¬
porary false floor or rack is a floor or rack installed to
take care of a specific character of shipment, and in
many instances, for individual shipments, such floors or
racks being adopted therefor. That where either floors
or racks are permanent, and form an integral part of
the ear, the shippers of course do not bear the burden
of the expense, but where they are installed by the ship¬
per for the protection of his particular shipment, the
carriers cannot he expected to assume the burden of
such expense. Nor are the carriers required to do so
under the Commission's several decisions about portable
dunnage cited in McPike's Exhibit No. 11.
Second. That the carrier having furnished a type of
car which is adapted to the transportation of general
247
traffic, such as perishables, for which that particular type
of car was designed, it has fully complied with Section 1
of the Act to Kegmlate Commerce, and neither that sec¬
tion nor any other section of the act, compels the carrier
to furnish large numbers and varied types of cars to
take care of individual needs of individual shippers, or
of individual commodities.
In short, Eule 45 places upon the shipper the responsi¬
bility for furnishing and installing temporary false
floors or racks, but imposes upon him no obligation to do
so. Eule 50 provides that no allowance will he made to
the shipper for the furnishing or installation of such
temporary false floors or racks, or other accessorial ma¬
terials; that no charge will be made for transporting
false floors or floor racks furnished by shipper, when
used with perishable freight either in packages or in
bulk (including so-called "piece-freight"), nor for trans¬
porting racks, strips or braces furnished by shipper
when used with carload shipments of perishable freight
in packages, but does provide a freiglit charge for the
transportation of strips, frames, braces, etc., when used
with freight in bulk. Nor will there ' be any freight
charge for the return of permanent false floors or floor
racks, but a freight charge of one-half of the fourth-class
rate will be made for the return, when required by the
shipper, of temporary false floors or floor racks. For
the reasons given by Mr. McPike in his Exhibits 11 and
12, and those hereinabove stated, these all seem to us to
be entirely equitable and reasonable provisions.
BULE 55.
(A) When paper, straw, hay, excelsior, shavings,
manure or other materials of similar nature are used
for buffing or protecting the property, such mate¬
rials must be furnished by the shipper and at his
expense.
248
(B) No allowance will be made for the weight of
the material specified above and the transportation
charge therefor shall be at the rate applicable on
the freight which it accompanies.
Exceptions.
Hay or straw not exceeding 500 pounds furnished
by or at the expense of shipper when used in pack¬
ing (buffing) shipments of eggs will be carried free.
Shipper must specify on shipping order the actual
weight of the hay or straw used, otherwise no allow¬
ance will be made. In no ease shall weight of such
material be used in computing the minimum weight
of the freight shipped.
This rule will not apply to loading and stowing of
1. c. 1. shipments when such services are performed
by carriers.
S JI ippe rs ' V i eîvs.
AVitness J. Curtis Eobinson stated that he did not see
Avhy eggs should be favored and Avhy straw should be car¬
ried filled Avith eggs, and not in the case of fruits and
vegetables; that, if a shipper is compelled for his pro¬
tection to supplement the insulation of refrigerators in
any Avay, he should not be required to pay the freight
on such packing. (Tr., 1621-1622.)
AVitness A. E. Helm suggests amendment by inserting
after the word "eggs" the Avords "fruit or vegetables"
or "fruits and vegetables." (Tr., 2002-3.)
AVitness E. 0 'Haka states :
"AYhere the tariffs noAv specifically provide for
preservatwe alloAvance, such as ice, of 2,000 pounds,
Ave don't understand on what presumption this pro¬
vision is to be Aviped out on the theory that the
freight rates do not contemplate the transportation
of the preservative." (Tr., 6634.)
AVitness T. T). Guthrie claims rule Avould discriminate
in favor of eggs and against other commodities. (Tr.,
8408.)
249
"Witness R. Gr. Phillips asks for allowance of 500 lbs.
of bay, straw and shavings for protection of apples or
other fruits and vegetables, says that, as to apples,
has been absolutely necessary to make good for deficiency
in carriers' equipment, to prevent freezing at the bot¬
tom ; doors have to be packed ivitli it to prevent freezing
through badly fitting doors. (Tr., 9291-2.)
Answer.
The witness E. F. McPike has quite fully covered these
objections in his Exhibit No. 13. We need only supple¬
ment his discussion with the following testimony of the
witness C. E. Bell:
"There is one other statement I would like to
make, based upon Mr. Phillips' testimony last night,
in connection with the allowance of 500 lbs. of straw
in the shipments of eggs.
I desire to explain that that allowance was not
made where the straw is used as a protection against
cold, but Dr. Pennington and I have spent a year or
eighteen months working out storing and loading
specifications for eggs, with a view to eliminating
the great damage and breakage that has taken place.
These specifications call for the buffing at the ends
or in the middle of the car with straiv or with wooden
gates, and that straws is to be packed in tightly so
as to prevent a shifting of the load, because experi¬
ence has demonstrated the greatest breakage is due
to the shifting in transit.
So wm continued the 500-lb. allowance for eggs,
not for a preservative from heat or cold, but in or¬
der that we could get this rigid load which is neces¬
sary to carry eggs to destination. And I may men¬
tion that these new loading rules have just been pub¬
lished in the Official Classification and will very
shortly be published in both the Southern and West¬
ern Classifications.
Q. (By Examiner Marshall) That is purely a
dunnage proposition.
A. You might consider it more of a dunnage
proposition, Mr. Examiner, than a preservative
proposition." (Tr., 9411-9412. )
250
HULE 60.
(A) The charges for, or allowances in, weight of
ice or other preservatives placed in the same pack¬
age with the freight or in body of car will be as pro¬
vided in carriers' tariffs applicable. (See Item No.
13.)
(B) Carriers will not ice or re-ice individual
packages of freight.
Shippers' Views.
Objection was made by several fish dealers, namely,
G. P. Maggioni (Tr., 7820-7822, 7824, 7826, 7830) ; Thomas
W. Cakroll (Tr., 7831, 7832, 7833) ; H. R. Deeggors (Tr.,
7841 to 7843), on the assumption that the tariff prevented
the shipment of fish in hulk, hut when it was explained
that the tariff did not so provide their objections Avere
withdrawn.
The witness Kenneth Fowler objected to paragraph
A of the rule which perpetuates the present tariffs, in
some of which is the requirement that freight he paid
on the ice. (Tr., 7392.)
The witness G. P. Maggioni stated that he was satisfied
Avith the present practice. (Tr., 7824-6.)
The witness H. E. Deeggors stated :
"Under the present condition and present rates,
tariffs, I haven't the slightest objection." (Tr.,
7843.)
The witness Thomas W. Carroll, referring to Rule
60-B, said:
"We do not expect the carriers to put ice in the
packages for us." (Tr., 7837.)
Answer.
While the rule as framed leaves in effect the varying
tariffs dealing Avith the question of freight rates on the
ice, Avhon used as a preservative, it is the view of the
251
Administration that the subject should be further inves¬
tigated. In this connection, we quote from the testimony
of the witness C. E. Bell, as follows :
Cross-Examination by Mr. Fowler.
"Q. (By Mr. Fowler) In the examination of Mr.
McPike yesterday, I referred to Eule 60-A as in the
original draft and Eule 60-A as in the present draft,
and I understood you to say that, to some extent at
least, in the second draft your committee had yielded
somewhat to the arguments of the fish industry re¬
garding the application of that rule, weight of ice
in the packages; is that correct!
A. We took into consideration the protests of the
fish industry, the ale and beer or cereal beverage
industry, and others ; that we should not arbitrarily
discontinue the use of preservatives in the body of
the car, making no charge therefor.
We found that there were many hundred individ¬
ual tariffs, and that it was impossible to unify or
bring them all into one common publication with
one common purpose within the time that we had.
So we changed the rule so as to continue the status
quo until this investigation can be completed, and
determination reached as to what shall be adopted
for the future.
I also stated yesterday that Ave will not make any
change in the existing tariffs until we give the inter¬
ested shippers opportunity to present their views on
the subject.
Q. The present tariffs on the 1. c. 1. shipments of
fish quite generally provide for the freight rates to
be assessed on the total weight of ice preservatives
in the packages, do they not!
A. Some of them do and some of them do not.
Q. In what sections of the country do they not
apply!
A. I would have to refresh my memory from the
file, because it is impossible to carry all of that in
my head; but from the papers that I have received
and from an investigation that I made last year for
the Food Administration, at the instigation of Doc¬
tor Pennington and yourself, I found that quite a
252
number of tariffs in tlie country did authorize an
allowance for the ice in the package. (Tr., 5954-55.)
The Witness (continuing) : I know nothing about
the express taritfs, Mr. Fowler. I might add that I
think the rule as originally framed and submitted in
the first proof is sound in principle and should be
observed. The factor of not fixing the rule one way
or the other will leave certain sections of the country
paying on 1. c. 1. business the full freight rate on the
ice in the packages, and other sections of the coun¬
try not paying the full charges." (Tr., 5955-56.)
BULE 65.
No carrier is bound to transport the property by
any particular train or vessel or in time for any par¬
ticular market or otherwise than with reasonable
dispatch.
Agents are not authorized to sign any bill of lad¬
ing containing a guarantee to deliver goods at any
specified time.
Shippers' Views.
Witness J. CuBTis Eobinsok objects to elimination of
words, now appearing in uniform bill of lading, ''unless
by specific agreement endorsed on bill of lading," and
says :
"Loss of market is recognized as a legal basis of
claim for liability; that it has been constantly rec¬
ognized by the courts, the Food Administration, and
also by the priority and expedition service orders
of the Bailroad Administration ; that if this rule bo
permitted to remain in the tariff it would seem to
place perishables and nonperishables on the same
level and strawberries and pig iron would legally be
on an equal basis of movement." (Tr., 2493.)
Witness C. C. Burdick. In view of already high
freight rate in perishable fruit, there should be some
guaranty of schedule time for delivery of the products.
(Tr., 5470.)
Witness Kenneth Fowi.er. Does not believe rule prac-
253
tically states measure of carrier's responsibility; ques
tions raised by rule largely depend on facts surrounding
eacli case, which cannot be covered by any rule; appar¬
ently an attempt to add to Section 3 of the uniform bill
of lading, contrary to law; refers to right of specific en¬
dorsement on bill of lading. (Tr., 7419-21.)
Witness G. P. Maggioni. Fish being a highly perish¬
able foodstuff, it is necessary that it be moved with
promptness. Butes for fish are based on quick trans¬
portation and we do not believe that carriers should be
given the privilege of moving fish with the same dispatch
as other commodities which are not perishable and on
which the rates are much less. (Tr., 7822.)
Answer.
This rule is the subject of discussion by Mr. E. F. Mc-
Pike in his Exhibit No. 15.
The rule, as framed, will not prevent shippers from
obtaining redress for damage due to loss of market,
where such loss is due to negligent failure of carrier to
transport commodities with reasonable dispatch. The
rule does not attempt to define what constitutes "reason¬
able dispatch." It will still remain for the courts to de¬
cide what constitutes "reasonable dispatch," and it may
take into consideration the nature of the commodity, its
necessity for expedited service, and all of the factors
which the shipper's witnesses feel entitle their commodi¬
ties to special consideration.
The elimination of the words "unless by specific agree¬
ment endorsed on bill of lading" Avould seem to us to ef¬
fectually close the door to opportunity for discrimina¬
tion. It would prevent a carrier, or a carrier's complain¬
ant agent who desired to favor a particular shipper,
from making an agreement to transport a shipment in
time for a given market, well knowing that the agreement
254
could not be carried out. In short, carriers should not he
expected to do for one what they are not obligated to do
for all.
btjle 70.
Shippers' Views.
The witness J. Curtis Eobinson objected to this rule
on the ground that unless carriers have sufficient equip¬
ment to permit ventilation being given perishables which
require them, they should not be permitted to prevent
shippers from insisting on suitable equipment to permit
of ventilation through side door if desired, and at car¬
rier's risk. (Tr., 2493.)
The" witness 0. W. Toxg stated that shippers are some¬
times obliged to load cars which are not suitable for ven¬
tilation in the ordinary manner, and that there is no
means of ventilating such cars except through the side
doors. He also stated that when the cars are ventilated
through the side doors at divisional points or elsewhere,
there is no reason why the carrier should not assume
liability for pilferage and for the condition of the prop¬
erty. (Tr., 4711.)
The witness M. C. Kagatz stated that the carriers have
any number of what they call "vegetable cars," which
are not equipped with ventilation; that they are in the
nature of a box car, and if loaded in Minnesota and
shipped to New Orleans, Texas or Florida, the potatoes
when they strike the more moderate climates need venti¬
lation; that there is no way to ventilate except through
the doors ; that the carriers refuse to accept instructions
to ventilate these cars by cleating the doors open at cer¬
tain points. (Tr., 5082-5083.)
255
Ansioer.
It is a dangerous practice to give side-door ventilation
to refrigerator cars while in motion, because of the swing¬
ing doors which may cause injury to property or jeopar¬
dize life and limb. Further, the carriers do not consider
that they are called upon to give side-door ventilation to
care while standing on track.
It is further to be noted that prohibition of side-door
ventilation is restrict^ to refrigerator cars or other cars
equipped wdth hinged doors, and while in motion, and
that except when shipments a^e moving under refrigera¬
tion it shall be permissible for the shipper, owmer or con¬
signee or their representative, including caretaker in
actual charge of the car, if they should so elect, to give
side-door ventilation to such cars while they are standing
on track at divisional terminal, stop, hold or reconsigning
point or at destination.
It is the belief of the carriers that the permission to
shippers or owners to give side-door ventilation to such
cars at divisional terminals or other points as enumer¬
ated, should sufficiently take care of the requirements of
the shippers.
The carriers further believe that it is entirely reason¬
able that they should not assume liability for pilferage
or other damage due to the fact that side-door ventilation
is given by shipper or owner to such shipments at divi¬
sional terminals or the other points enumerated, because
it would be entirely impracticable for the carriers to
adequately police such shipments at such divisional term¬
inals or other enumerated points.
(See witness McPike's Exhibit No. 16, in which will be
found reference to carrier rules in various tariffs there
enumerated, relating to the subject matter in Eule No.
70.)
256
Attention is also called to the provisions of Eule 120,
from which it will appear that the restrictions imposed
by Rule 70 do not apply to stock or box cars.
BULE 75.
This rule provides for substitution of artificial heat
for shipments moving under refrigeration, and for the
substitution of refrigeration for artificial heat, the ship¬
per to assume "entire risk" of loss or damage by heat
or cold not the result of negligence by carriers." A
charge of ten dollars is provided for removal of ice from
bunkers, tanks or body of car when the former change is
made.
Shippers' Views.
Witness J. Curtis Robinson approves application of
rule, but thinks ten-dollar charge excessive, and would
not agree to such charge until same is shown to be rea¬
sonable. Calls attention to fact that charge is same re¬
gardless of size of bunker or amount of ice. Believes
right should also be given to change from artificial heat
to refrigeration at any point in transit and should not
be restricted to points only to which the tables of charges
in Section 5 apply.
All objections to paragraph C on the ground that it
seeks to limit carrier's liability; that when a shipper
places a shipment under protective service and agrees to
pay the carrier for such service, the carrier becomes an
insurer against frost and freezing or damage by smoke or
heat caused by the heaters ; that it is not a question of
whether the carrier is or is not negligent; that the car¬
rier is responsible for all such damage not the direct re¬
sult of negligence of the shipper; that paragraph C
should either be stricken out or materially amended.
(Tr., 2493.)
257
AVitness H. AV. Bishop :
Tri response to question by Mr. Young as to comments
witness Bishop had to make in regard to publication of
Knie 75, witness stated he believed he was correct in
stating it was put in primarily for the fruit jobbers in
the northwest; that the cars are required by tariffs now
in effect to be shipped either under standard refrigera¬
tion or under standard ventilation ; that no other instruc¬
tions are permitted to be placed on the bill of lading by
the California railroads, and they have specifically re¬
fused in writing to accept any other instructions; that
if the cars are shipped out under refrigeration they will
freeze by the time they reach the cold country; on the
other hand, if cars moved out of California under stand¬
ard ventilation, they were damaged in crossing the des¬
ert on account of the absence of refrigeration; that it
was because of that unprecedented condition that this
rule was evolved; that it recognizes that the only possible
way those goods can he transported is to remove the ice
when they enter the cold climate and from that point on
stand ready to protect with heat when necessary; that
he has seen many cars frozen but never yet seen a car
overheated; that of liability; that the charges have been
very materially increased. (Tr., 4336-4342.)
Answer.
This rule is covered by E. F. McPike's Exhibit No. 17,
except as to the charge for removing ice from bunkers.
AVith regard to this feature of the case, Merritt's Exhibit
No. 7 shows that the average cost per car of removing
ice from bunkers and applying heaters at Minnesota
Transfer, Minnesota, Northern Pacific Eailroad, was
$16.71, made up of the following items :
258
Cost of switcliing cars to and from ice house and
heater house $ 5.80
Two men, 8 hours each, removing ice at 43c per
hour 6.88
1 man, 1 hour, removing ice from track 43
Supervision 8 hours at 45c per hour 3.60
■ Total cost ■ $16.71
(Tr., 1161.)
The witness stated that the cost of switching was fig¬
ured on the basis of $7 per engine hour; that the ice
house and heater house were located quite a distance
from the train yard; that he figured 50 minutes for the
switch engine; that these cars were handled singly (Tr.,
1181) ; that it is not a frequent circumstance to have a
change of service of that character (Tr., 1182) ; the item
of supervision refers to the foreman of the crew ; he was
there on the job all the time for eight hours. It is a dan¬
gerous thing to take ice out of the tanks of the cars.
You have got to look out for the safety of men and
other people walking along the track. It is more dan¬
gerous to take it out than to put it in, and it is a good
deal more labor, too. (Tr., 1183.) A very small per¬
centage of the refrigerator cars on the Northern Pacific
Railroad lines are subject to this change of service;
thinks in the winter of 1918-1919 there was ice removed
from five cars. (Tr., 1185.) Carriers are willing to
change from refrigeration to heater service, but are not
willing to change from shipper's protection to carrier's
protection, because on a shipper's protection car the
shipper loads that himself while on a carrier's protection
car the carrier equips the car so that it will carry safely.
(Tr., 1185-6.) We use extra precautions in equipping
cars at our own expense by the use of lining and false
fioors, sacks and paper. (Tr., 1186-87.)
The witness P. B. Beidblman introduced his Exhibit
259
"8" showing that the average cost of removing ice from
bunkers was |7.09 per car. The time consumed in per¬
forming the work was based on actual work performed in
the winter of 1915 and 1916, but the rate of pay was
figured on the present rate of pay applicable to the class
of labor performing the work. We have not performed
this service at the Minneapolis station since the time the
work was done on the cars that I used. The records show
that these cars were handled one at a time; they were
all on different days. (Tr., 2180.)
The carriers submit further that this is a new rule
which they did not establish of their own initiative or
choice, but only in response to repeated demands of vari¬
ous shippers and on the urgent recommendation of the
United States Department of Agriculture. (See witness
McPike's Exhibit No. 17.)
The carriers are really opposed to furnishing this
service because they do not feel that it is practicable or
indeed possible to render safe and satisfactory services
in this connection, but when such special and extraordi¬
nary service is supplied, the carriers submit that it
should be done solely at owner's risk of loss or damage
by heat or cold, not the result of negligence by carriers.
As to rules of this kind about owner's risk, the carriers
desire here to make a further statement in order to avoid
unnecessary repetition and extensive discussion of sub¬
stantially the same principles in other rules containing
similar clauses providing for owner's risk. The carriers
believe that it will be generally admitted that they have
a right to prescribe reasonable conditions surrounding
the acceptance and handling of freight, especially per¬
ishable freight, owing to its peculiar and inherent na¬
ture. The carriers consider that they have a lawful
right to relieve themselves from liability for loss or dam-
260
age, the proximate cause of which may be some instruc¬
tions, acts or negligence on the part of shippers or the
inherent nature of the goods, because in such cases the
loss or damage is not caused by the carrier nor does it
result from negligence by the carrier. The carriers con¬
sider, therefore, that such tariff provisions of lim i ta firm
of liability do not violate either the common law or stat¬
utes, nor are they contrary to public policy, in view of
which the carriers contend that they clearly have a law¬
ful right to release themselves to the extent contem¬
plated by the tariff rules and other similar rules in the
proposed tariff as to owner's risk. The most satisfac¬
tory place to provide for such limitation of liability is
by specific rules in the proposed uniform tariff, rather
than to rely only upon the making of various and varying
notations upon the bills of lading, which the carriers also
consider that in such cases they would have the lawful
right to do. If, for example, in connection with Eule 75
the carriers were forced to declare, and to amend the
proposed rule accordingly, that they would not permit
any such change of special service in transit unless and
until the original bill of lading was submitted to them
for suitable endorsement as to owner's risk, serious de¬
lays to shipments of perishable food products might be
entailed, this being prevented by the uniform tariff rule
proposed. The carriers would submit furthermore that
such a radical change of special service in transit as au¬
thorized by Eule No. 75 amounts virtually to a change
in the character of the shipment, if not in its actual iden¬
tity and under such circumstances the carriers would be
justified in refusing to make any such changes of special
service in transit on any basis other than the full local
tariff freight rates into and out of the point where such
changes are made, thus constituting separate and inde-
261
pendent shipments. The carriers are not now attempt¬
ing to do this, but they certainly feel that they are clearly
entitled to the measure of protection and relief contem¬
plated by Eule No. 75 and that to insure such protection
and relief the proposed wording is essential. Unless the
carriers can thus he given such measure of protection
and relief, they have reason to fear that they will be sub¬
jected to unjust and improper claims for loss and dam¬
age arising in such cases from causes beyond their con¬
trol, because of the more or less general tendency of
many "courts to treat the carriers as being insurers of
freight without making any reasonable distinction as be¬
tween the inherent nature of perishable products as com¬
pared with those which are nonperishable.
BULE 76.
Shippers' Views.
Witness McPike, in response to questions by Mr.
Lamb, says that shipper gets a suitable car and in con¬
nection with his duty of properly loading carload
freight, the shipper prepares the car in accordance with
his own judgment. (Tr., 476-477.)
Answer.
The carriers direct attention to witness McPike's Ex¬
hibit No. 18.
As to the reasonableness of proposed charge of $5 per
car for transferring contents, the carriers would make
substantially the same answer as contained in their an¬
swer hereinafter under remarks pertaining to Eule No.
90 of proposed tariff.
262
BULES 80 AND 85.
(A) On carload shipments, shipper must declare in
writing in shipping orders and hills of lading, at loading
station, whether or not the shipments are tendered for
transportation under refrigeration, nonrefrigeration,
icing, ventilation; or under protective service against
cold.
Except as provided in Rules Nos. 105, 245, 250, 312 and
405 no detailed instructions from shipper as to protective
service will be accepted other than :
. (1) "Under Refrigeration" (If salt desired ship¬
per must specify percentage).
(2) "Under Standard Ventilation" (As speci¬
fied in Rule No. 85).
(3) "Keep all ventilators and/or hatches closed
and plugs in to final designation regardless of
weather." (See Note.)
(4) "Keep all ventilators and/or hatches open
and plugs out to final destination regardless of
weather." (See Note.)
"Note: Carriers will comply with such instruc¬
tions at owner's risk of loss or damage by heat or
cold not the result of negligence by carriers."
(5) "Common car service; owner's risk of heat
or cold."
(B) For protective service against cold, see Section
No. 5.
(C) When shipping orders and hills of lading con¬
tain notation relating to Carriers' Protective Service
against heat or cold, other than anthorized above, car¬
riers will refuse to accept shipments.
Shippers' Views.
Witness J. Curtis Robinson: We object to carriers
attempting to limit their liability. Elsewhere in this
tariff are specific charges for refrigeration which are
263
very high. It is evidently considered by carriers that
commodities can be properly protected. We have no as¬
surance as to what service "Under Eefrigeration" con¬
stitutes. A car might be "Under Eefrigeration" and not
be iced at all regular icing stations or in the case of de¬
lay, not be iced at emergency icing stations, and yet be
considered "Under Eefrigeration," although that re¬
frigeration might be very poor. We realize cars cannot
be iced where there are no facilities but there should be
an obligation on the part of the carriers to provide rea¬
sonable icing facilities at all necessary points and these
icing points should be published. We believe also that
there should be taken into consideration whether or not
carriers now having icing points sufficiently well spaced
to afford proper facilities before such a rule should be
published.
In the note under item 4, paragraph "A" appears
the statement that carriers will comply with instructions
at owner's risk not the result of negligence by carriers.
There are times when carriers might be responsible even
though the damage was directly caused by an act of God,
providing the carriers contributed to it.
The question also arises whether or not carriers failure
to furnish suitable equipment might be deemed an act of
negligence directly contributing to any damage which
might result. For instance, if the carriers furnished an
improper car which caused the damage or contributed
to the damage even though they complied with items 3
and 4, we believe the carrier would be liable regardless
of the following instructions. When carriers undertake
to transport perishables in ventilated cars we consider
they assume the duty to make all appliances available
for the safe transportation of goods and that when car¬
riers furnish refrigerator cars for the transportation of
264
perisliables they are liable for damages caused by de¬
fects in the car.
Subdivision 5 of Eule 80 we consider has no warrant
in law. We do not believe the carriers can consistently
absolve themselves from their oAvn negligence even
though a shipper uses a box car. In C. S. 43 the Railroad
Administration urged the use of box cars. We do not
believe the carrier has the legal right to force the load¬
ing of box cars by failing to furnish proper equipment
and thereafter attempt to limit liability by a provision
like item 5, paragraph "A," Rule 80 should permit of a
change from protective service to ventilation or refrig¬
eration in transit, or from refrigeration or ventilation
to protective service against cold. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness J. H. Tench ;
Q. Mr. Tench, will you please state our objections
to Rule 80 and 85?
A. If the carriers have the authority under the Act
to Regulate Commerce to prescribe such a rule as this,
we insist that the rule is too restrictive and should be
enlarged. We submit here part of the rule rewritten
containing such amendment as we think necessary before
the rule is adopted.
"Except as provided in Rules Nos. 105, 245, 250,
312 and 405, no detailed instruction from shipper as
to protective service will be accepted other than :
(1) Under refrigeration. (If salt desired, ship¬
per must specify percentage.)
(2) Under Standard Ventilation. (As specified
in Rule 85.)
(3) Under Special Ventilation. (As specified in
Rule 85.)
(4) Under Ventilation Shipper's Instructions.
.(As specified in Rule No. 85.)"
265
The argument in support of this amendment appears
in support of Eule 85.
Beginning with Standard Ventilation, we propose the
folloAving amendment :
"Ventilation (Standard).
(D) Ventilate as necessary.
Ventilation (Special).
(E) Put in hatch plugs, close hatches, and venti¬
lators when temperature falls to freezing (32 de¬
grees). Open hatches and ventilators and take out
hatch plugs immediately temperature rises above
freezing.
(P) Close ventilators when temperature falls to
freezing (32 degrees). Open ventilators immedi¬
ately the temperature rises above freezing.
Ventilation. (Shipper's instructions.)
(G) Keep all ventilators and hatches closed and
plugs in to final destination, regardless of weather.
(H) Keep all ventilators and hatches open and
plugs out to final destination, regardless of weather.
Protective Service Against Cold.
(I) For protective service against cold see Sec¬
tion 5.
One type of car ordered but another furnished.
(J) In cases where type of car ordered has not
been placed for loading but carrier places another
type of car, a notation must be made upon waybill
by agent at point of origin as follows: * *
car ordered, but * * * car furnished for car¬
rier's convenience.' "
Our objections to these rules as they appear in the
proposed tariff are that the rules fail to provide for ven¬
tilation under carriers protection, whereby the carrier
will be required to open and close ventilators, hatches
and plugs when necessary.
Textbooks and court decisions clearly define this as a
duty of the carriers. The rule limits the service to only
those kinds defined in it, and it certainly is improper to
relieve the carriers of this common law duty to deny to
266
the shipper his right to require the proper protection of
his shipment by the carrier while being transported.
There are a number of perishables that cannot he
transported in a temperature below 32 degrees without
damage, such as tomatoes, beets, lettuce and other com¬
modities, the names of which will he furnished if desired.
Carriers' waybilling rules noAV carry instructions that
require the closing of ventilators, hatches and plugs at
temperature as high as 40 degrees. A list of these way-
billing rules will be furnished for the record. It is doubt¬
ful if tomatoes can be safely transported in a temper¬
ature below 40 degrees.
We are objecting to (D) and (E) in Knie 85, which pro¬
vides for the putting in of hatch plugs and closing of
hatches and ventilators when temperature falls below
freezing. This service should be performed when tem¬
perature falls to freezing. Perishable freight that needs
protection from cold should never be exposed to a tem¬
perature of 32 degrees. Any damage due to freezing will
occur before this rule requires the closing of the plugs,
hatches and ventilators.
Eule 85 does not carry No. 4 under paragraph (A)
of Eule 80. This is evidently an error in printing, to
which we desire to direct attention.
The tariff here being considered is for the movement
of perishable freight. The tariff carries the designa¬
tion "Perishable Protective Tariff." The movement of
almost all perishable freight cannot be delayed but must
be forwarded immediately upon reaching that stage of
ripeness which requires marketing. Shipments of this
class of freight cannot delay its movement until car¬
riers may see fit to provide suitable equipment ordered
therefor. It is our contention that the carriers, since
offering to transport this freight, should hold themselves
267
in readiness to furnish equipment suitable for that pur¬
pose. In defending freight rates, the carriers ' witnesses
have testified that this is done at considerable expense
to the carrier.
In paragraph (H) of Eule 85 the carriers undertake to
transfer to the shipper the responsibility of loading a
car not suitable to his purpose when the carrier fails to
furnish a suitable car by having it appear in the way-
billing instructions that in such an instance the shipper
has elected to load a car of type other than one suitable
to his purpose. There is no element of election in any
such transaction. We insist on the modification of the
notation in accordance with our suggestion. (Tr., 8077-
81.)
Witness F. S. Keiser:
F. S. Keiser stated that it was impracticable to set
down a hard and fast rule as to shipping instructions
on account of varying weather conditions en route; that
the rule would put the shipper out of business. (Tr.,
4442-3.)
Witness 0. W. Tong:
0. W. Tong stated that under note "5" it is provided
that when common cars are used it is going to be at the
shipper's risk of heat or cold ; that it is not known what
the word "heat" means, whether artificial or natural;
that if the rates on potatoes were predicated as a box car
movement, the carriers certainly knew all the conditions
under which the business was moving, and that be could
see no reason why the carriers should now ask the ship¬
pers to assume the entire risk ; that a like rule was found
by the Commission to be in violation of the Cummins'
amendment. (Tr., 4712.)
268
Witness G. P. Maggioni:
Mr. Maggioni objects to the rule on the ground tbat
every shipper of fish tries to get refrigerator cars, hut
frequently is unable to do so, as the railroads are unable
to furnish them. (Tr., 7826.) W^hen carriers are re¬
quested to furnish refrigerator cars and cannot do so,
believe liability should be with carriers. (Tr., 7822-23.)
[It will be noted that Eule 85, which deals with way¬
bill notations, is closely related to Eule 80, and that the
shippers' witnesses have discussed the tAvo rules to¬
gether.]
HoAvever, certain specific objections were voiced by
some of the aa'itnesses to Eule 85. Those objections
Avere :
Witness Freeman Bradford :
The next rule is 85, paragraph H, reading: "In cases
where type of car ordered has not been placed, for load¬
ing, but shipper has elected to load another type of car
rather than to wait for the carrier to place the type of
car ordered, a notation must be made upon waybills
by agent at point of origin as folloAvs And then blank
lines and the form.
There is nothing in this rule to state how long the man
shall Avait for his car, or whether there is any obligation
on the part of the carriers to furnish the car the man
orders, and he might under this rule have to Avait three
months for the car, and his perishable commodities woidd
spoil, and if he did not want to Avait or let his stuff spoil
he then has the alternative of loading in a box car.
(Tr., 6999.)
269
Witness B. W. Edwards:
The words "at the shipper's request" shonld be
stricken out or at least worded in order to take care of
this situation: "If we at Bay Port, Mich., are attempt¬
ing to get a refrigerator car, and this is an example I
am giving now which will apply generally and illustrates
the situation—we notify the carrier that we want a re¬
frigerator car for shipment next Wednesday, and this
might be the previous Saturday, say. On next Wednes¬
day a refrigerator car is not there. However, our fish
are there and those fish have got to be moved. There
is nothing for us to do except to ship these in a box car,
provided we cannot get that refrigerator car. We go
to the agent for billing and the agent asks us to sign
that statement " car ordered, but car fur¬
nished at shipper's request."
Noav that is not at shipper's request. That is at ship¬
per's request under duress, if you want to put it that
way. It is because we have to do it, and the wording of
the rule as it reads now is just exactly the same under
that condition as if I had purposely and knowingly
and of my own accord gone to the agent and said, "I
don't want a refrigerator car. Please send me a box
car instead of a refrigerator car."
The two conditions are entirely dissimilar, and yet by
signing this statement it would he the same as though
we, ourselves, had made up our minds that we wanted
a box car. (Tr., 4516-17.)
The words "at shipper's request" should be stricken
out altogether. Probably for every one car that moves
where the shipper originally requested a refrigerator
and changed to a box car of his own volition, for every
one such car there would probably be hundreds where
he could not get the car he wanted and was compelled to
270
take the other car, and for that reason I think the rule
is not proper. It might be changed, or if it was changed,
it could be changed so it would read probably—
Q. (By Mr. "Westlake.) In other words, so it would
conform to the actual facts. A. Yes. It would have
to be changed so it would read, "At shipper's request,"
because the car which he originally ordered could not
be furnished by us, "or he was compelled to take this
car," have some shorter wording than that, or some way
that it could be done ; two rules ; one reading when he did
change of his own volition, and the other one when he
was compelled to take the other car.
Q. You would have to make that notation conform to
the different facts that would be applicable to each par¬
ticular instance, wouldn't you, Mr. Edwards? A. Yes.
If that was done, as far as I am concerned on that point,
it would be all right. All I am guarding against is the
principle of the duress end of it, that he does not sign
something which really does not express the fact. (Tr.,
4518-19.)
Whtness 0. W. Tong:
Witness Tong stated their objections to this rule were
a great deal like the objections made yesterday by Mr.
Edwards for the fish people; that where they order re¬
frigerator cars, box cars are furnished at the carriers'
convenience; that there is nothing in this rule to show
what they are going to get by the publication of the rule.
(Tr., 4714-15.) In response to question by Mr. Minard
that if the shii)per says, "I cannot wait for a refriger¬
ator car, give me a box car," isn't that car furnished
at his request, witness Tong replied; "I don't think so,
I think the box car is furnished at your convenience and
the shipper does not elect to load the box car at all."
(Tr., 4715.)
271
Witness J. Curtis Robinson:
We do not understand this paragraph and do not know
the reason for it or the necessity of having it in the
tariff. Apparently a shipper must forego shipping or
assume responsibility for any kind of a car carriers fur¬
nish. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness E. S. De Pass :
I object to paragraph H, Rule 85, page 11, for the
same reasons given by Mr. Edwards on August 15th and
Mr. Tong on August 16th. (Tr., 5556.)
Mr. Lamb asked witness McPike if he claimed that the
definite billing instructions as to the desired refrigera¬
tion, nonice or ventilation service would help to reduce
the claims for loss and damage on fresh fruits and vege¬
tables shoAvn in Mr. McPike's Exhibit No. 64, page 79,
printed pamphlet. The witness replied that particularly
in certain sections of the country where shipper's cost
of ice is in effect to-day, that is on basis of charges
per ton of ice as distinguished from stated refrigeration
charges for carload, it is very essential that definite bill¬
ing instructions about refrigeration, etc., desired in
transit, be given by the shippers and such instructions
when reasonable and definite would help to reduce the
claim hazard. (Tr., 498.)
Answer.
Both Rules 80 and 85 are covered by E. F. McPike's
Exhibits 19 and 20. Upon cross-examination by Attor¬
ney Lamb of the witness E. F. McPike, the latter said
that it was his understanding that carriers had univer¬
sally been admitted the right to prescribe reasonable
conditions surrounding acceptance and handling of
freight; that further under Section 1 of the Act to Reg-
272
ulate Commerce the carriers are to supply cars as well
as all other authorized instrumentalities of transporta¬
tion upon "reasonable request therefor." Mr. Lamb
suggested that cars are described as instrumentalities
and as transportation to Avhich the witness agreed, but
stated that Section 6 of the act goes on to segregate
many of the special services to be treated separately.
The witness in support of his contention that carriers
had the right to say upon what terms they would accept
the request of a shipper for service, cited the so-called
"New Haven case," by which he meant "Fruit & Pro-
uce Exchange," I. C. C. Docket, 6097; 33 I. C. C., 294-
296. (Tr., 477.)
RULE 90.
It is proposed to change this rule to read as fol¬
lows: "(A) Carriers are not obligated to transfer
perishable freight en route from box or other cars
into refrigerator or other fully insulated cars (see
Item No. 14) but when such transfer of carload
shipments is made (the refrigerator or other fully
insulated cars being available into which to make
such transfer), to protect the freight against heat
or cold, a charge of five dollars (|5) per car (see
Exception) for the service of transferring will be
made and added to the billing, and will accrue to
the carrier on whose rails the transfer is performed.
Exception.
When such transfer is made at points within the
Dominion of Canada the charge will be ten dollars
($10) instead of five dollars ($5) per car.
(B) The above charge will be made in addition
to the charge for the use of fully insulated car (see
Item No. 14) beyond point of transfer, as provided
in Knie No. 40.
(C) The provisions of paragraph (A) will not
apply on carload shipments of perishable freight
transported under shipper's instructions: 'Com-
273
mou Car Service; owner's risk of heat or cold.'
(See Eule No. 80.)"
The lirst paragraph of the rule, as revised, makes
plain that the carriers do not hold themselves out to
transfer freight from box cars into fully insulated cars
when fully insulated cars are not available.
Paragraph (C) of the new imle is intended to meet the
objection of shippers that under the rule as proposed in
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 carriers might transr
fer freight from box cars into refrigerator cars even
though the shipper desired box car service through to
destination at owner's risk of heat or cold. In this con¬
nection see witness Bell's testimony, pages 794 and 795
of transcript.
Ansiver.
Most of the objections to this rule Avere based upon
its original text, the shippers claiming that even though
the shipper endorsed upon the shipping order and bill
of lading the notation "common car service; owner's
risk of heat or cold" (see Knie SO, paragraph A-5), a
charge of $5 could be collected by the carriers under
Eule 90, even though the carrier disregarded the ship¬
per's instructions and transferred the lading to a refrig¬
erator car.
This objection, it will be noted, has been obAÛated by
paragraph (C) of the rule as amended.
Some objection was also made to the measure of the
charge of $5 in the United States and $10 in Canada
for making the transfer contemplated by this rule.
The witness P. B. Beidblman stated that according to
the figures of the Great Northern Eailroad the cost at
the present time of transferring carloads of oranges
and lemons is |13.20 per car and of potatoes a little
274
less than |4 per car, but that in neither of the figures
stated was switching expense included. (Tr., 2282-83.)
The Avitness detailed the operation and labor neces¬
sary to make the transfer. (Tr., 2301-02.)
The testimony of the witness H. E. Coverston upon
this subject will be found interesting. That testimony
is as follows :
Cars of perishable freight, moving from the South,
arriving at Cincinnati at certain periods of the year
are transferred from box or ventilated cars into refrig¬
erator cars for protection of the freight. This is done
from about the middle of November until about the mid¬
dle of March. (Tr., 3447-3448.) These cars are deliv¬
ered to the Big Four at its Mill Creek yard by the South¬
ern, L. & N. and Q. & C. The empty refrigerator cars,
and also the cars loaded Avith perishable freight, are
SAvitched to the bulk yard, which is adjacent to the Mill
Creek yard, where the cars are placed side by side, the
freight transferred, and the loaded refrigerator car
moved back to the Mill Creek yard and placed in a train.
The movement of the loaded box or ventilated cars from
the Mill Creek yard to the bulk yard costs $1.56 per car.
It is switched from the train and moved to the bulk
yard, where it is placed. The empty refrigerator car is
picked up Avherever found. If the empty refrigerator
is in the Mill Creek yard it costs 32c to get the car out
to the bulk yard and back to the Mill Creek yard, where
it is put in a cut for either one of the train yards. (Tr.,
The total expense involved in the switching of the cars
for the piirpose of the transfer of freight, that is, the
movement of the cars to the bidk yard and back to the
same place AAdiere the loaded car was originally, is $3.12.
This figure is obtained by the apifiication of the formula
275
introduced as Coverston Exhibit No. 1. This figure of
$3.12 represents the cost of the minimum switching
service involved in such transfer, but it only occurs when
the empty refrigerator happens to be in the Mill Creek
yard, or the same yard where the loaded box car or ven¬
tilated car is located. A very small percentage of the
empty refrigerators are, however, found in the Mill
Creek yard. (Tr., 3449.)
As a rule the empty refrigerators are found at the
Brighton Station, which is about four miles from the
Mill Creek yard. When, therefore, as in the large pro¬
portion of cases, the emj^ty refrigerator must be switched
from Brighton, the cost is $3.86, instead of .$3.12. (Tr.,
3448.) If the car has to be hauled from Kiverside yard,
which is about 2{- miles in another direction from the
Mill Creek yard, the cost is $3.56 per car. (Tr., 3449.)
Attention is also called to the testimony of the witness
W. T. Stevenson :
Stevenson Exhibit No. 1 shows the cost of making an
actual transfer at Cincinnati to be not less than $10.12
per car. This is based upon the handling cost of $7 per
car which is covered by a contract between the Big Four
and McCue. The switching expense of $3.12 per car is
the figure testified to by Mr. Coverston as covering the
movement if the empty car is found in the Mill Creek
yard. The McCue contract price of $7 covers the labor
of transferring from car to car if the two cars are placed
adjacent to each other. (Tr., 3901.) The proposed tariff
places a charge of $5 for this service which is shown
by the exhibit to cost not less than $10.12. (Tr., 3902.)
Under a similar contract at St. Louis, based upon cost
plus 10 per cent, the transfer service costs $10.40 on
lumber, $8.50 on grain, and $3.90 on baled cotton. (Tr.,
3904.) There is no transfer of perishable freight at
276
St. Louis. (Tr., 3905.) Cincinnati was selected by the
witness as the place to make this cost investigation be¬
cause it is where the service i's performed. There is no
other place where such service is performed in sufficient
quantity to justify an investigation. (Tr., 3907.)
In view therefore of the proposed amendment to the
rule, we feel that the objections of the shippers have been
fully satisfied; also that the proposed charge for mak¬
ing the transfer is more than reasonable.
Attention is also called to Witness McPike's Exhibit
No. 21 on this subject.
RULE 100.
Wherever sampling or inspection of perishable freight
in carloads is permitted the carriers do not assume any
liability for shortage of or loss or damage to the freight
by reason of such inspection.
If original packages, stowing or bracing are disturbed
by such sampling or inspection, then the party so samp¬
ling or inspecting must at his expense recooper, restow,
restrip and rebrace the load in the original condition
and remove all refuse from the car.
Shipments will not be entitled to nor receive recon-
signing or stopover privileges (where otherwise au¬
thorized by tariffs) unless or until they shall have been
placed in the condition outlined above.
Shippers' Views.
The witness J. Curtis Robinson stated: "Inspection
is a privilege which carriers have recognized and ac¬
quiesced in for years. We believe if they now say they
will be no longer responsible for any shortage, loss or
damage on cars hereafter inspected, it will be the means
of placing a distinct premium on unlawful and negligent
277
acts by carriers, employees, agents and by others. We
think this opens the doors to grave abuses.
We believe there should be added to the first para¬
graph after the word "Inspection," these words: "The
direct result of such inspection or sampling not due to
carrier's negligence."
Witness 0. W. Tong:
Objection made by witness Tong as to what is meant
by the words "by reason of such inspection" shown in
the first paragraph of the rule; that there should not be
any rule become effective which is going to exempt the
carrier from its full responsibility simply by reason of
the fact that the car is inspected; that if carriers do not
supervise the inspection certainly the shipper should not
be called on later to take care of the losses that may
occur through the negligence of the railroad, and it
would be negligence if they did not supervise the inspec¬
tion. (Tr., 4719-4720.)
Witness M. C. Eagatz:
Witness' objections to this rule were that it allows
carriers to go into every car; that the bags are slashed
and present an unsightly appearance. (Tr., XXVII,
5085.)
Witness objected particularly to the third paragraph
of Eule 100, which does not permit reconsigning when
the cars are not properly fixed up; that he was of the
opinion that the reconsigning feature should be elimi¬
nated entirely and also holding the shipper responsible
for shortages when the sampling or inspection is had.
(Tr., 5085-86.)
278
Ansiver.
This rule is the subject of Witness McPike's Exhibit
No. 23. In addition thereto, it may safely be stated
that the privilege of sampling or inspecting by consignee
is not a service contemplated by or included in the line-
haul rate; that this is an added service which the car¬
riers perform over and above the transportation service
and the carrier should not therefore be compelled to as¬
sume any liability for shortage of or for loss or dam¬
age to the freight by reason of such inspection.
It also seems to us that the carrier should not be
called upon to place the lading in the condition in which
it was before the sampling or inspecting occurred.
RULE 110.
This rule contains provisions governing the transpor¬
tation of caretakers with bananas in straight carloads or
in mixed carloads of cocoanuts.
This rule is the subject of Witness McPike's Exhibit
No. 25.
Shippers' Views.
Attorney Waterbury in his cross-examination of the
witness E. F. McPike suggested that caretakers should
accompany carload shipments of cantaloupes. (Tr., 520.)
Answer.
The witness E. F. McPike replied that the shipper was
protected by the fact that cantaloupes moved under stated
refrigeration charges and the carrier is consequently re¬
sponsible for any ensuing damage caused by it; that
bananas do not move under stated refrigeration charges.
(Tr., 534.)
Some modification of the wording of this Rule No. 110
is proposed now by the carriers as shown in the letter
279
in their behalf addressed to the examiner under date of.
October 23, 1919. (See Appendix A.)
RULE 115.
The carrier will not transmit over its wires nor as¬
sume the expense of transmitting over commercial tele¬
graph or telephone lines, shippers' instructions over
their signature and/or addressed to their caretakers in
charge of perishable freight.
If the shippers wish to give instructions in connection
with such shipments in transit, they should file such in¬
structions with the agent of the originating carrier for
transmission to the proper agent or representative of
the carrier.
(This rule is covered by Witness McPike's Exhibit No.
26).
Shippers' Viens.
Mr. Lamb questioned the provision of the rule re¬
quiring that if the shippers wish to give instructions in
connection with shipments in transit, such instructions
should be filed with the agent of originating carrier and
wanted to know what protection the shipper would have
in the event the agent failed to deliver the instructions.
Ansiuer.
Attorney Westlake stated that in his opinion the ship¬
per would have the protection which the law affords
him. (Tr., 480.)
RULE 120.
(A) When shippers of vegetables or fruits in car¬
loads load and forward stock cars, or box cars with side
door or doors open, freight will be transported solely
at owners' risk of loss or damage by heat or cold, not
280
the result of negligence by carriers. In such cases the
carriers will not be governed by any instructions with
respect to ventilation.
(B) If car doors are cleated open the following nota¬
tion must be placed on bill of lading and waybill :
"Side doors cleated open by shipper."
Exception: Precedence over this rule will be taken
by the provisions of Section No. 5 as same may respec¬
tively apply during the cold weather season between
October 15th and the following April 15th, inclusive.
Shippers' Vieivs.
Mr. Lamb raised some question about application of
Eule 120 in cases where shipper ordered a refrigerator
car but carrier furnished at its own convenience a stock
or box car for loading vegetables or fruits. (Tr., 479.)
Witness A. E. Helm asked that the rule be eliminated
on the ground that the Commission had condemned it as
being illegal. (Tr., 2006-07.)
Witness J. CuETis Robinson stated: "In the event
carriers do not have sufficient suitable equipment avail¬
able to furnish shipper with suitable equipment per¬
mitting necessary ventilation by use of standard devices,
we contend that in lieu of the furnishing of suitable
equipment demanded by the commodity carriers should
not be permitted to relieve themselves of responsibility
and pilferage if ventilation is provided through the side
doors. In other words, carriers frequently insist upon
stock cars being used for onions or potatoes and if freez¬
ing or heating or decay should result by reason of fur¬
nishing that kind of equipment instead of suitable venti¬
lated refrigerated cars, carriers should not be permitted
to absolve themselves from liability on the grounds that
the direct result of the freezing, heating or damage by
281
wet which might have resulted in decay, was not their
negligence by the result of an act of God. In other words,
they should be made liable for contributory negligence
in failing to furnish suitable equipment.
Carriers sometimes insist on the use of box cars from
the Northwest where it has been necessary to use box
cars or nothing. They could only be ventilated through
side doors. CS 43, revised issue January 30th states,
'Eailroads will supply refrigerator cars preferentially
as compared with box cars for the longer runs." We
consider this is an admission there is not sufficient equip-
fent to meet the needs of shippers of perishables and is
a distinct pressure to use box cars.
It would be unfair to impose the penalty on shipper of
assuming responsibility for pilferage, loss and damage
for heat or cold when the carriers are unable to comply
with the Act to Eegulate Commerce by furnishing proper
equipment. This rule should be stricken out. ' '
In response to Mr. Lamb's objection the witness, E. F.
McPike, admitted that perhaps some difficulty might arise
in such cases and by implied reference to his immediately
preceding testimony concerning Eule 90 indicated that
paragraph (h) of Eule 85 would afford a means for mak¬
ing some proper record of the facts as a basis for pos¬
sible readjustment. (Tr., 479.)
In response to the question from Mr. Tong as to why,
in view of the Commission's adverse decision under
Docket No. 10147, the carriers are now trying to re-estab¬
lish such a rule, the witness, E. F. McPike, explained:
"that the Eefrigeration Committee, when compiling the
new tariff, was of opinion that the Commission in its de¬
cision under Docket No. 10147 had placed its chief em¬
phasis upon or main objection against, the words 'pilfer¬
age and leakage' which were in a former tariff rule and
282
that, therefore, Jthe Eefrigeration Committee omitted
those ohjeetionahle words from Eule No. 120 in the new
tariff." (Tr., 2546.)
Witness McPike added that the Eefrigeration Commit¬
tee felt that the Commission, upon proper showing in
this present case. Docket 10664, would uphold the reason-
ahleness of Eule No. 120 and that, furthermore, in some
cases, the shippers might deliberately use hox cars for
the purpose of escaping the payment of the charge of f5
per car trip (provided under Eule No. 40), for use of
refrigerator or insulated cars, in which event the car¬
riers certainly should not be made liable for the conse¬
quent loss or damage by freezing. (Tr., 2546.)
Answer.
In addition to the testimony and explanation given by
carriers' witnesses as quoted above, the carriers' direct
attention to Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 27.
BULE 130.
Carriers furnishing protective services as provided
herein do not undertake to overcome the natural char¬
acteristics of perishable goods nor the inherent tendency
of such goods to deteriorate or decay, nor do the carriers
assume any liability for loss or damage resulting there¬
from.
Shippers' Views.
Witness J. CuETis Eobinson :
We think there is no necessity for this rule and that
it should he striken from the tariff. Any such rule would
only lead to dispute and litigation. It would seek to
create a new law. It is well known that placing perish¬
ables under ice, ventilation or heat does overcome their
natural tendency to deteriorate ; otherwise there would
283
be no need for such service. Proper refrigeration, venti¬
lation or beater service will overcome the natural tend¬
ency of shipments to deteriorate. Improper service will
not overcome it. The carriers undertake to perform
good service—not improper service. It seems to us, there
fore, that the wording of the rnling is contrary to the fact.
(Tr., 2493.)
Witness A. E. Helm :
A¥itness stated that shippers desired this rule stricken
out, reading as follows : "carriers furnishing protective
services as provided herein do not undertake to overcome
the natural characteristics of perishable goods not the in¬
herent tendency of such goods to deteriorate or decay,
nor do the carriers assume any liahility for loss or dam¬
age resulting therefrom." (Tr., 2009-10.)
Witness 0. W. Tong:
AVitness Tong objected to the incorporation of Knie
130 in the tariff; that the laws themselves will goverr
a proposition of this kind and it is not necessary to incor¬
porate any.such rule as this in the tariff. (Tr., XXVI,
4622.)
AVitness J. H. Teostch :
Q. Mr. Tench, will you please state our objection to
Rule 130. A. We are opposed to this rule and thin!)
it has no place in this tariff. AVe insist that nothing
should be put in the tariff for carriers' protection that
is the law now, nor anything that conflicts with the
law.
We had thought and still think that the purpose of
refrigeration is to overcome the natural characteristics
of perishable goods. The shippers use refrigeration at
least for that purpose and it does, when properly per-
284
formed, arrest the inherent tendency of such goods to de¬
teriorate or decay. We insist that the rule is in conflict
with the object and purpose of the tariff and with the
real effect of proper refrigeration, and that it is also
illegal.
In covering the matter of hazard, carriers' witnesses
have, we think, given sufficient testimony of the carriers'
liability under protective service to warrant the Com¬
mission in disapproving this rule, without any fnrther
testimony from any other source. The Commission's
attention is directed to pages 1420, 1421, 1422 of the rec¬
ord for some such testimony. (Tr., 8082.)
Answer.
We feel that little if anything need be added to the
discussion of this rule by Witness McPike in his Exhibit
No. 28, wherein it was pointed out that the Interstate
Commerce Commission itself has recognized the under¬
lying principle involved. The carriers admit that the use
of some special service, such as refrigeration for exam-
pie, may tend to retard the naturel tendency of perish¬
able goods to deteriorate or decay, but the carriers sub¬
mit that this is quite a different thing from expecting
them to overcome such natural characteristics of the
goods by means of refrigeration or any other service.
This principle was clearly recognized by the decision of
the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case cited in Wit¬
ness McPike's Exhibit No. 28. The carriers feel that it
is highly desirable to^ publish a uniform tariff rule of
this kind that the shippers may .thus be cautioned in ad¬
vance in making their shipments and encouraged to load
and forward their products in such good condition as
will enable them to stand the unavoidable exigencies of
ordinary transportation. It is hardly necessary for the
carriers to point out once again the fact that, as shown
285
under Item No. 20 paragraph (D), they are not at any
time attempting to escape their liabüity for negligence.
It is no new departure for rules of this general charac¬
ter to be published in carriers' tariffs; witness the fol¬
lowing extracts from various tariffs, old and new, to
which many other citations of similar nature could be
added :
"The cai'riers do not guarantee the condition of
perishable goods on arrival at destination. The car¬
riers in offering to furnish icing, refrigeration or
ventilation as special services on reasonable re¬
quest therefor, at tariff charges covering same, will
not undertake to overcome the natural characteris¬
tics of perishable goods, nor the inherent tendency
of such goods to deteriorate or decay. All perish¬
able freight, when accepted for transportation will
be transported solely at owner's risk of loss or dam¬
age by heat or cold not the direct result of the ac¬
tionable negligence of the carrier." (Atlantic Coast
Line K. K. Tariff I. C. C. A-4190, effective April
20, 1917, page 2, Section 1.)
"Transportation lines do not guarantee condition
of contents on arrival of cars at destination." (At¬
lantic Coast Line E. E. Tariff I. C. C. A-3852, Sup¬
plement No. 7, page 2, Note 6-A, Section P.)
"Carriers do not insure or guarantee against loss
or damage due to the inherent nature of the prop¬
erty." (A. T. & S. P. Ey. Tariff I. C. C. 7370, ef¬
fective May 15, 1916, page 17, Item No. 50.)
"Carriers do not insure or guarantee condition of
contents of car on arrival at destination." (South¬
ern Pacific Co. Tariff I. C. C. No. 3742, effective Oct.
15, 1915, page 11, Eule No. 55.)
"Carriers do not insure or guarantee against loss
or damage due to the inherent nature of the prop¬
erty." (Agent E. B. Boyd's I. C. C. No. A-832, ef¬
fective Feb. 1, 1918, page 10, Eule No. 50.)
"The condition of contents on arrival of cars at
destination is not guaranteed." (L. & N. E. E. Tariff
A-10586, effective June 11, 1909, page 3, Eule
No. 7.)
"Carriers do not insure or guarantee against
286
loss or damage due to the inherent nature of the
property." (Missouri Pacific Ry. Tariff I. C. C.
A-3115, effective Nov. 1, 1916, page 19, Item No. 50.)
"The Mobile & Ohio R. R. does not undertake to
guarantee condition of contents on arrival of cars
at destination." (M. & 0. R. R. Tariff I. C. C. A-358,
page 7, Item No. 4, Rule No. 6.)
"We do not undertake to guarantee condition of
contents on arrival of cars at destination." (C. I.
& L. Ry. Tariff I. C. C. No. 2157, effective June 8,
1909, page 2, Rule No. 5.)
"Carriers do not insure or guarantee against loss
or damage due to the inherent nature of the prop¬
erty." (St. L. & S. F. R, R. Tariff I. C. C. No.
6905, effective June 25, 1916, page 17, Item No. 4.)
"When cars are handled under refrigeration dur¬
ing the cold weather season in accordance with ship¬
per's instructions, carriers will not assume any
liability for loss or damage from freezing." (St.
L. & S. F. R. R. Tariff I. C. C. No. 6905, effective
June 25, 1916, page 19, Item No. 22.)
RULE 140.
When, on account of federal, state or municipal regu¬
lations, refrigerator, insulated or other cars must be dis¬
infected following unloading at destination it is the duty
of the consignee to perform such work at his expense and
in such cases also to clean the car and to remove any
refuse. If such service is performed by destination car¬
rier a separate charge of $2.50 per ear will be made and
collected from consignee and will accrue to such car¬
rier.
Shippers' Vietvs.
Witness J. Curtis Robinson :
It would seem to he just as reasonable to expect the
patrons of a street car, which had to be fumigated ac¬
count of the flu or for any other reason, to pay the hill.
If carriers have regulatory rules imposed upon them
287
by the acts of the federal, state or municipal laws, it
would seem unfair to try to pass that penalty on to its
patrons in a specific charge.
No provision is made for determining when the car¬
rier might be responsible for the condition of the car as
result of their negligent acts permitting the shipment to
be delayed or mishandled; thereby resulting in the car
containing refuse which would necessitate disinfecting.
(Tr., 2493.)
Witness E. O'Haea:
We do not know of any provision of the statute which
places upon the consignee the duty to clean cars at their
expense. As stated in our opening statement, we are
opposed to the entire provisions of Section 2 as ap¬
plied to animal and dairy products.
Witness Thomas W. Caeeolu:
Q. What is the condition of the car when it comes
in there? A. We wash them after we have taken out the
ice and the fish.
Q. In other words, every car that comes in which has
been loaded with fish in bulk has to be washed and cleaned
by you? A. Yes, sir, we have a track at the fish house,
we have a side track, and we wash with a hose, clean
out the car and deliver it. (Tr., 7835.)
The Witness (continuing) : We just turn the hose in
and sweep it out. That ordinarily takes 15 minutes. (Tr.,
7835.)
Q. What is the condition of a car when you receive
the fish in packages? A. Why, the same mess. Is that
what you want?
Q. That very well describes it. It is something of a
mess? A. Well, we wash the bottom. (Tr., 7836.)
288
Answer.
This rule is the subject of Witness McPike's Exhibit
No. 29.
With regard to the measure of the charge of $2.50' per
car, the evidence does not disclose any objection thereto.
However, we felt that some testimony should be pro¬
duced by the carriers on this point. Accordingly, there
was received in evidence Cooper Exhibit No. 1 showing
cost of disinfecting cars to he $8.08 per car. (Tr., 2795.)
Cooper's Exhibit No. 2 which was received in evidence
(Tr., 2796) shows the cost of cleaning refrigerator cars
to he $3.94 per car. (Tr., 2797.) These figures were
given to the witness, C. E. Cooper, by the Shop Super¬
intendent, Mr. J. W. Peters. (Tr., 2795-2798.)
The witness, J. W. Peters, stated that they took at
intervals during the different seasons the record of the
time it took to clean the cars, that is the heavy and light
cleaning separated, and arrived at their figures by aver¬
aging the total number of cars by the actual cost of labor
and material; that Cooper's Exhibit No. 1 covered heavy
cleaning, that is, cars loaded with commodities such as
potatoes, onions and cabbage ; a commodity that will rot
and a certain proportion of it left in the cars, which
means that these cars have got to be sent to what we
call the dump track, partially cleaned out and afterwards
put out on the regular washout tracks and disinfected
and thoroughly dried and cleaned. Referring to the item
"Loss on account of delay to car, three days—$3.00,"
the witness stated that it was necessary to delay the car
three days in order to get the smell out of the cars.
(Tr., 4869-4870.) These figures on here are actual rec¬
ords taken from the books of the G-rand Trunk (Western
Lines). Those are not estimated figures, hut I have aver¬
aged those over a certain period. (Tr., 4870.)
289
The witness arrived at the figures on Cooper's Exhibit
No. 2 in the same way as with respect to Exhibit No. 1
and the average expense of light cleaning all these cars,
including a switching charge of |2 per car, is $3.94. Those
are actual figures from our records with the exception
of fen per cent for supervision. That figure is handed
to US by the auditor of disbursements to use in our bills.
Thirty per cent for shop expense is the figure that has
been previously used by that company. (Tr., 4871.)
Twenty-five per cent for overhead expense is also used
by that company on its books in connection with other
classes of labor. (Tr., 4871-4872.)
Those are actual figures that we are always using on
our bills. (Tr., 4872.) I should judge about thirty
cars were used in computing our average for the heavy
cleaning and a like mimber for the light cleaning. AVe
have not anything on the exhibit showing those details
except on the light cleaning. (Tr., 4872.)
RULE 145.
Shipments Stored in Transit.
On shipments which are unloaded and stored in transit
on order of owner, charges for protective services as
shown in this tariff, or for use of car as provided in Eule
No. 40, will apply only up to point where shipments are
so stored.
AVhen shipments are taken from storage and refor-
warded, owner must specify character of service he de¬
sires from point of storage and additional charges, if
any, for such service or for use of car as provided in
Eule No. 40 from point of storage to new destination
will be made in accordance with this tariff as it applies
from point of storage. The service charge or charge
for use of ear as provided in Eule No. 40 to apply beyond
290
point of storage shall he the charge therefor in effect on
Shippers' Vietvs,
Mr. Lamb intimated that a double charge of $5 each for
use of refrigerator car into and out of storage point,
Avould in effect destroy the theory of "transit" that it
is a continuous shipment. (Tr., 480.)
Witness J. CuETis Robinson :
The rule may be right in principle, but in actually
working it out, it works an unreasonable hardship on
shippers. For illustration: If the refrigeration rate to
western New York is |90 and from western New York to
New York City $50, the party who stores a shipment in
transit would be compelled to pay a refrigeration charge
of |140 through to NeAV York City from point of origin.
In addition to this they would be penalized 5c per cwt.
in the freight rate for the privilege of storage in transit,
which amounts to $18.71 per car of 756 boxes of apples.
This amounts to an approximate penalty of $68.71 for
storage.
It must be remembered that the carriers get the ice
that is left in the ice bunkers Avhen the car arrives at
western New York which they can use for the next ship¬
ment outbound, so that to require a shipper to pay $50
for the short haul from western New York to New York
City on a shipment stored in transit, seems inequitable.
The same basis is charged on a shipment moving under
heater service up to point of storage and then using
heater service beyond point of storage. It seems to us
a fair basis would be instead of charging a stipulated
heater service beyond point of storage to ultimate desti¬
nation, that a through heater service charge from point
of origin to ultimate destination, plus some reasonable
291
penalty for the privilege of storage in transit would be
more equitable. (Tr., 2493.)
Mr. Tong objected against two charges, of |5 per car
per trip into and out of storage points. (Tr., 4548-49.)
He also contended that the factors of cost mentioned in
Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 30 in support of such
double charge had already been used by carrier in sup¬
port of another charge for the privilege of storing in
transit. (Tr. 4548-49.)
Witness 0. W. Tong :
Mr. Tong stated that they have a separate complaint
covering the application of a rental charge on business
that goes into storage and therefore would not go into
the details here, but cannot understand why the rule
should provide that the charge is going to be made for
rental in accordance with the date of the original ship¬
ment, nor can he understand what is meant by the words
"the service charge or charges for use of car as pro¬
vided under Rule No. 40, to apply beyond point of stor¬
age, shall be the charge therefor in effect on date of orig¬
inal shipment. (Tr., 4722-4724.)
Ansiver. .
Rule No. 145 is covered by Witness McPike's Exhibit
No. 30, and all that we have to add thereto is that in
response to Mr. Lamb's suggestion, hereinabove noted,
the witness McPike replied that so far as the special,
separate or segregated service is concerned, Mr. Lamb's
suggestion would not be true.
When cars come into a storage point under ventila¬
tion, refrigeration or protective service against cold
(where available), and move out of storage point under
any of those special services, the carriers submit that it
292
is obvious that they would be subjected to the same cost
for providing such service as is required out of storage
point as they would be from original loading point, thus
further demonstrating that at least so far as accessorial
services are involved the movements into and out of
storage point constitute two separate and distinct trans¬
actions.
SECTION TWO.
RULE 200 (C).
This subdivision of Eule 200, Avhich is a special rule
governing stated refrigeration charges under Section 2
of the tariff, reads as follows :
"Unless otherwise specifically provided herein,
when one or more commodities are loaded in car
with carload shipment under refrigeration, stated
refrigeration charges will be on basis of the highest
carload refrigeration charge applicable on any of
commodities in car."
Shippers' Views.
Witness H. W. Bishop :
The witness stated in these same vegetable cars, mov¬
ing out of southern California, it is quite customary and
usual for the jobbers in the small northwestern markets
to include a few crates of such commodities as casaba
melons or honey dew melons or even some item of fresh
fruit such as pomegranates and that the tariffs in effect
to-day permit at least of one of these commodities,
namely, casaba melons, to be included in a car of vege¬
tables at the vegetable rate; that the proposed tariff or
proposed rule means that the melon refrigeration
charges or deciduous fruit refrigeration charges will be
charged on the entire car because of those few crates
being included; that they ask that the tariff provide a
293
limited amount of these goods, say not to exceed one
ton, be permitted to be included in a vegetable car at
the vegetable icing rate. (Tr., 4343-44.)
In response to question by Attorney Westlake as to
what refrigeration rate they wanted to pay. Witness
Bishop replied at the lowest rated article. (Tr., 4344.)
On cross-examination of Witness Bishop by Attorney
Westlake as to his reasons why carrier should take in
these extra commodities up to a thousand pounds at the
refrigeration charge applicable on the lowest rated com¬
modity, witness replied he did not see why they should
pay $20 for refrigeration on six crates of melons. (Tr.,
4368-4370.)
Witness Ed. P. Byaks:
The refrigeration tariffs at present in effect provide
refrigeration rates ordinary on spread or mixed car¬
loads of perishable freight in conformity with the com¬
modity descriptions in the freight tariff as governing the
freight rate applicable thereto, whereas, the proposed is¬
sue in many cases provides commodity descriptions at
variance with tariff descriptions and proposes to make
still a greater charge in such cases. (Tr., 8458.)
Answer.
In giving refrigeration on mixed carloads of perish¬
able commodities, carriers are justified in assessing the
charge applicable to the highest rated article in the car.
First, because maximum refrigeration is required on
that commodity regardless of the amount shipped; sec¬
ond, it is a very difficult matter to fix any percentage that
should be allowed without working a discrimination ; and
third, should the carriers make an exception on melons
for example loaded with vegetables, the precedent would
294
be established, and this undoubtedly would result in de¬
mands for other mixtures throughout the country. This,
in the carriers' belief, is undesirable and not just to
them.
RULES 200 (D) AND 225.
Paragraph "D" of Eule 200 reads as follows:
"Stated refrigeration charges shown herein in¬
clude the services of icing and re-icing from point of
origin (except as may be otherwise provided in Eules
Nos. 215 and 225) to but not after arrival in the terminal
train yard serving the destination (without allowance
for free time.)
When on account of stop, hold, reconsigning or other
orders of shipper, owner or consignee or through their
failure to give necessary orders or instructions continu¬
ous road haul movement to terminal train yard serving
first billed and/or subsequent destination is not per¬
mitted, or when continuous movement from terminal train
yard serving such destinations to delivery track is not
permitted, additional charges for any re-icing will be
made as provided in Eule No. 225 of this section and in
Section No. 4."
The quoted portion of Eule 200 (D) must be read in
connection with Eule No. 225, which, because of its length,
we do not quote.
Shippers' Vietvs.
The witness, J. H. Tench, suggested that paragraph
"D" of Eule No. 200 should be amended to read as fol¬
lows :
"Stated refrigeration charges shown herein in¬
clude the service of icing and re-icing from point of
origin (except as may be otherwise provided in
Eules Nos. 215 and 225) to final destination and
295
until tendered to consignee for delivery." (Tr.,
8082.)
Q. You will please state our objections to Rule 225
and our objections thereto. A. We propose the follow¬
ing amendment for paragraph (D).
Charges for icing at intermediate stop, hold or recon-
signing point;
"(D) When ears are stopped or held at any in¬
termediate point or points between points of origin
and final destination on order of, or awaiting re-
consigning instructions from shipper, owner or con¬
signee, a charge will be made for all ice which may
be supplied at such intermediate stop or reconsign-
ing' point and collected in addition to all other
charges, except when point at which stopped or held
is an established icing station at which shipment
would have been re-iced in any event had car not
been stopped or held. Ice necessary to fill bunkers
upon arrival of car at such icing station will be in¬
cluded in the regular refrigeration charge from point
of origin to final destination."
The rule here proposed is the rule noAv in force and
we think a better rule than the one proposed in the new
tariff.
Witness T. D. Guthkie:
By referring to Section 2, paragraph D, of Rule No.
200, page 17, of proposed Perishable Protective Tariff
No. 1, it will be observed that refrigeration ceases upon
a car's arrival in the terminal train yard serving the
destination (without allowance for free time).
It is my understanding the rule contained in Cincin¬
nati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Circular No.
32, referred to is one generally observed by the carriers
throughout the South, and is proper.
Paragraph "D" of Rule No. 200 has the effect of can¬
celing such existing tariff provisions, and the icing or re-
296
frigeration of perishables would cease before actual or
constructive deliveries are accomplished, which, mani¬
festly, is improper, and it is an undersirable provision of
the tariff.
Before this tariff is approved for publication, the car¬
riers should be required to bring into the record the spe¬
cific tariffs to be canceled in full and the specific items
and classifications which would be canceled in part, as
contemplated by paragraph A, Item No. 20. (Tr., 2403-
05.)
Witness A. E. Helm:
Witness raised the point in regard to this paragraph
instead of the destination orders being in the hands of
the carrier before the arrival of the cars, that it be
changed to "twenty-four hours after the arrival of the
cars," but Attorney Westlake stated they would not
change it that way. (Tr., 2012-13.)
Witness G. E. Weldon:
Q. That refers to Eule 200-D. State what the prac¬
tice is at North Little Eock in icing cars after arrival
within the terminals'? A. I think that is caused by an
item carried here in the Missouri Pacific Tariff 4913-A,
I. C. C. A-3055, Item 45. The summary of it is that it
provides for an inspection of cars upon arrival at ter¬
minal and if the cars need re-icing they shall be re-iced
to the capacity before being delivered to the carrier. I
might add that during the past month there has been a
good deal of promiscuous icing going on over there on
account of a condition which arose on account of a claim
of one of the produce shippers in Little Eock—it was not
ourselves, however. This claim was caused by a car
being placed at the unloading platform with insufficient
ice and orders wont out that these cars must receive
297
proper attention but discretion should be used. The par¬
ties in charge of the icing over there or the inspectors,
I do not know really who it was—it was told to me by
the agent, Mr. Gross—issued these instructions and they
began the practice, I might say of looking in the cars
when they came into North Little Eock terminals, and
if there was just a slight amount of ice in there, say 300
pounds as a maximum, they did not take into considera¬
tion that there was ice enough in those cars to run them
to our unloading platform, providing we received the
proper service, but iced them to full capacity and when
those cars were placed to our platform they were chuck
full of ice. (Tr., 8440-41.)
The Witness (containing) : Under the terms of the tariff
that ice is billed against our company. Prior to the time
they started that method of icing cars at the North Little
Kock terminal I observed from time to time the average
quantity of ice that was in these cars.
It has been my practice to make a joint inspection with
the claim agent of the bunkers of the cars so that I
could satisfy myself as to the amount of ice contained
in the bunkers. It will run on a sliding scale from a
ton on down to nothing according to where the car re¬
ceived its last icing. (Tr., 8441.)
My estimate is not only based on my judgment but
that of the inspector that assisted me in the inspection
of those cars. The mileage scale gives North Little
Eock as three miles from Little Eock, just across the
river so that under ordinary operation of cars I should
say that they should be delivered on our sidetrack after
the arrival at North Little Eock. I would not want to say
that the necessity for this icing and re-icing at North
Little Eock was occasioned by any negligence on our
part. We are willing to pay the terminal re-icing at
298
North Little Rock when the car is detained in North Little
Rock terminals because of any delay or reason chargeable
to onr company. (Tr., 8442.)
Witness J. Curtis Robinson :
Objection is made particularly to the application of
Item D on the basis that it will serve to penalize shippers
frequently as a result of carriers' negligence. Carriers
frequently do not promptly transmit reconsigning or¬
ders. Diversion orders very many times are placed with
carriers' representatives in sufficient time to reach desti¬
nation and be placed in the hands of yard agents who
are to accomplish diversions prior to the arrival of cars
in terminal train yards serving such points. It would
be unfair to assess shipper for ice furnished at a stop,
hold or reconsigning point providing no more ice was
used to fill the bunkers than would have been used to
fill the bunkers if car had gone to some destination be¬
yond the stop, hold or reconsigning point. We consider
that 2,000 pounds is too small an amount for the car¬
riers to assume. If any amount like that is stipulated
carriers could alloAV cars to go into such points as Min¬
neapolis, Cheyenne or Omaha or even Chicago or any
other diversion point with the bunkers only two-thirds
full, just enough to probably protect the shipment until
arrival on the assumption that maybe the car might be
delivered at the diversion point instead of going beyond.
If then it took 4,000 or 5,000 or 6,000 pounds to fill the
bunkers, carriers, under this provision would only as¬
sume 2,000 pounds when they should legitimately as¬
sume all. We think preferably a rule Avhich would charge
the carriers with assuming the first re-icing or make the
sliipper assume the cost of all re-icing, except the first
at stop, hold or reconsigning point, with a further pro¬
vision that the carriers are expected to fill the bunkers
299
to capacity at each icing would be far more equitable
to the shipper.
Paragraph E, in Eule 225, is objected to on the same
grounds as paragraph D because under this rule car¬
riers can allow bunkers to go into terminal yards only
half full or with any amount of ice in them and charge
for all ice supplied. Certainly the stated refrigeration
charge should guarantee the car to be delivered in ter¬
minal train yard with sufficient ice in the bunkers to
guarantee proper protection to the shipment for forty^
eight hours. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness Fkeeman Bradfoed:
My next objection to the rules will be Eule 225-E, read¬
ing: "A charge (as provided in section No. 4) for all
ice supplied at the arrival of cars in the terminal train
yards, serving the destination, without allowance for free
time, will be made and collected from consignee in addi¬
tion to all other charges."
In this connection I Avill cite Buffalo as being repre¬
sentative of a number of points. The New York Central
on business from the West has its terminal yard at West
Seneca, which is approximately 4 miles from their Louisi¬
ana street team tracks, which has been designated as
the delivery tracks for the delivery of fresh fruit and
vegetables. We do not receive any notice of the arrival
of the car at West Seneca. The first notice we do re¬
ceive is the placement of the car on these team tracks,
and I maintain that the contract for carrier is not com¬
pleted until it is placed and we are notified. The same
thing applies as to the Pennsylvania and other roads in
Buffalo. (Tr., 6970.)
300
Cross-Examination.
Q. According to your understanding, if the carrier
iced the car of its own volition before the car Avas placed
they Avould charge you for the ice? A. Yes, the way
the tariff reads West Seneca is the terminal of the New
York Central, and that is what they Avould charge. (Tr.,
6977.)
Answer.
Kule No. 200, paragraph "D" provides in substance,
that the stated refrigeration charges include the services
of icing and re-icing from point of origin to, but not after
arrival in the terminal train yard serving the destina¬
tion, subject to certain additional charges for ice at
stop, hold or reconsigning points as provided in Rule No.
225, and at final destination as provided in rule last re¬
ferred to.
Attention is also directed to Witness McPike's Exhibit
No. 37, as well as the carriers' answer herein, concerning
Rule 225, Avhich is related to the above.
RULE 200 (E).
This rule reads:
"When shipments are loaded in refrigerator cars
without ice, and (after loading has been completed)
on instructions from shipper are subsequently placed
under refrigeration at any point, the charge for re¬
frigeration will be that applying from the point at
which the car is initially iced. Carriers, however,
Avill not assume any liability for loss or damage due
to absence of refrigeration before car reaches point
at which first placed under refrigeration."
Witness C. M. Hubek:
C. M. Hubor objected to this rule, his theory being
that a stated charge should not apply from the point at
301
Avhicli the car was iced, but that he should simply pay the
cost of the ice. (Tr., 8533-36.)
Answer.
If the principle of stated charges for refrigeration is
correct, and we believe that in another portion of this
brief we ha^'e satisfactorily demonstrated that it is,
there can be no possible objection to this paragraph of
Eule No. 200. In fact, the Avitness, Mr. T. H. Gorman,
stated that he had in mind the provision of the South¬
western Lines' Tariff which covered a similar situation;
that the rule in that tariff provides, at the present time,
that if a car moving under ventilation is placed under
ice at any point in transit, the full stated refrigeration
charge from point of origin to destination would apply.
(Tr., 8613.)
This principle has been upheld as reasonable by the
Interstate Commerce Commission. (See, for example,
44 I. C. C., 567; 37 I. C. C., 101.) See, also Witness Mc-
Pike's Exhibit No. 32, which points out the fact that the
old or current basis Avould result in higher charges than
contemplated by Paragraph (F) of Eule 200.
BULE 200 (G).
When shippers elect to tender freight loaded in cars
the bunkers, tanks or body of Avhich contain ice with in¬
structions: "Not under refrigeration, do not ice," or
Avith other notation of similar import (or Avhen shipper
neglects to give any instructions as to refrigeration)
such instructions Avill be ignored; full stated refrigera¬
tion charge provided in this section will be applied,
and such cars Avhen equipped with ice bunkers or ice tanks
will be given the necessary icing or re-icing.
302
Shippers' Views.
Some of tlie shippers objected to the wording of Para¬
graph "G" of Eule 200, upon the ground that even when
they desired their shipments transported under ventila¬
tion the carriers would tender the car in which ice was
contained in the bunkers or tanks, and that under the
wording of the rule full stated refrigeration charges
would be applied in accordance with Section 2 of the
tariff.
Among the shippers who so objected were J. H. Tench.
(Tr., 8082-85.) The California Citrus League, repre¬
sented by Attorney Lamb (Tr., 482), J. Curtis Eobinson
(Tr., 2493), G. E.'Weldon (Tr., 8445) and Mr. Vizard
(Tr., 8466).
Answer.
As heretofore stated in this brief, it is proposed to add
to Paragraph (G) the following:
"The provisions of this paragraph will not apply
in those instances where shipper orders a refriger¬
ator car and instructs that shipment be made under
ventilation and carrier furnishes a car, the bunkers
or tanks of which contain ice remaining over from
a previous shipment."
This proposed addition will, we believe, satisfactorily
meet the objections of the shippers.
RULE 200 (H).
When freight in packages containing ice is tendered for
shipment in refrigerator cars, such freight will be con¬
sidered as moving under refrigeration and the full stated
refrigeration charge provided in this section will be ap¬
plied. Carriers will not replenish ice in packages with
freight but necessary ice will be placed in bunkers or
tanks of such cars.
303
Shippers' Vieivs.
Witness Field Sheeman;
This Avitness stated that he had no objection to this
paragraph of Rnle 200, except that he w^as not satisfied
with the expression "necessary ice" therein contained,
stating that he thought it should be provided that the
bunkers or tanks should be kept full or partially full
of ice. (Tr., 848.)
AVitness J. Cuktis Robinson :
This rule seems to us unreasonable. It seems to re¬
quire the shipper to pay full refrigeration in addition to
the freight on the ice. The use of ice in packages re¬
duces carriers refrigeration expenses. If the shipper is
obliged to pay freight on the ice in packages he should
receive some adjustment and some reasonable allowance
in the refrigeration rate. On short haul business fre¬
quently no further icing is required than that contained
in packages and in those cases no refrigeration charge
should apply in addition to the freight.
Ans^ver.
Each case would be governed by the circumstances
surrounding the transportation of the given shipment,
and it would be for the courts to say whether or not
the carriers had complied with their obligation to supply
necessary ice.
It is further submitted that the stated refrigeration
charges are based upon average performance which gives
duo consideration to any reduction in the cost to the car¬
rier for performing the refrigeration service due to the
use of ice in packages.
It would not be practicable to divide the stated refrig¬
eration charges as between short-haul and long-haul busi-
304
iiess. What might be considered a short haul in cool
weather would he deemed a long haul in warm weather.
In the former case it might not he necessary to place any
ice in the bunkers, while in the latter case it would he
imperative to do so. Therefore, in the interests of uni¬
formity and practicability we think the rule should stand
as worded.
RULE 200 (I).
Carriers vdll not supply or place ice or salt in the body
of refrigerator cars equipped with ice bunkers or tanks.
Shippers' Vietvs.
Witness B. W. Edwards :
AVitness suggested that the following be added:
"Except in case of emergency and on specific re¬
quest from the shipper."
In support of the proposed amendment the witness
stated: "In the fish business such emergencies arise,
and when they arise they are very, very important to us.
Fish is different from most any other commodity in cer¬
tain respects. Kegardless of the ice in the bunkers there
must be ice actually touching the fish. For that reason
Ave ice all our boxes of fish right in the box. In addition
to that, on a great many cars of fish, especially those
going any particular distance, Ave place from a ton and
a half to three tons of ice on top of the boxes ; and that
is necessary in addition to the bunker icing in order
to properly protect the fish."
The witness gave a specific illustration of such an emer¬
gency on a car of fish moving from Okeechobee, E'lorida,
to St. Louis, Missouri. The car Avas lost by the railroad
bctAveen Montgomery and St. Louis, and many wires
were exchanged before the car Avas located and the ice
replenished. (Tr., 4521-23.)
305
Ansioer.
The carriers submit that it would be impossible for
them to make any attempt to place ice in the packages of
freight in the body of car ; the freight is so packed and
loaded that such service could not be rendered.
RULES 200 (K) AND (M).
Carriers merely desire to direct attention to the pro¬
posed modifications of Paragraph (K) and the addition
of Paragraph (M) as indicated in the letter addressed
to the examiner in their behalf under date of October
23, 1919, shown in Appendix A.
RULE 210.
(A) The carrier at its option and for its own conven¬
ience may permit the shipper or owner to perform the
icing at loading station and carrier will make allowance
therefor on basis of actual cost of ice supplied but not
exceeding the charge published in Section No. 4, sub¬
ject to supervision and control bj^ carrier, including veri¬
fication of shipper's records.
It shall not be permissible for the shipper to perform
this service except for the express convenience of and at
the specific request of the initial carrier.
(B) Shipments moving under this rule Avill also be
subject to the provisions of Rule No. 215.
Shippers' Vieios.
Witness Field Sherman :
Witness stated that he tliought that instead of the car¬
riers having the option of permitting the shippers to
assume the icing at loading stations, the shippers should
have the option of permitting the carriers to ice the cars,
and that the shippers should be allowed the cost of ice
306
plus a reasonable profit rather than the actual cost, but
that in no case should the cost to the carriers exceed the
charges published in Section No. 4. (Tr., 848-850.)
Witness Freeman Bradford:
The next is on Eule 210, which will probably relate
back to the stated charges on short-haul business. Our
experience in Butïalo on short-haul business from the
peach district is that a man can throw a couple of tons
of ice into a car that is loaded the night before and it
will be in Buffalo by noon, or not later than 2 o'clock
the next afternoon, and to put a minimum charge of $40
refrigeration on that car is absolutely unjust. It does
not need it.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) What were those two points,
the points between which you said the $40 charge was un¬
just? A. From points in the fruit district, Niagara
County and up through here to Buffalo. (Tr., 6969-70.)
Witness A. W. Kalb :
Objects to Eule No. 210. The rule should be at the
option of the shipper instead of at the option of the car¬
rier, for the reason that Section four gives shipper the
option of furnishing his own ice at the price of $4 per ton.
(Tr., 5507-08.)
AVitness C. A. Turnell:
Eule 210 gives the AVabash and Illinois Central Eail-
roads the option to either destroy the entire value of our
ice manufacturing plants, or take away practically all
the use we hoped to secure by the expenditure of money
in the erection of these i)lants. In other Avords, after all
tliese years of suffering for lack of railroad facilities, we
have arranged our oavu facilities, and now the Eailroad
Administration proposes to nullify our arrangements.
(Tr., 9484.)
307
Witness J. Curtis Robinson:
Rule 210 should be changed so as to allow the shipper
the option of performing the initial or re-icing service,
or both, at loading station, which privilege would in
many cases enable a shipper to prevent detention of car,
expedite loading and not subject shipper to the charges
as proposed under Rule 215, paragraph A and paragraph
C, which charges are exorbitant and impose an unneces¬
sary tax. It seems to us the most conservative method
of furnishing service should be considered. If the ship¬
per can perform the service quicker and cheaper than
the carrier he should be permitted to do so.
Answer.
We can do no better than quote from the testimony of
witness C. E. Bell relating to this subject. That testi¬
mony is as folloAvs:
"Q. (By Mr. Dow.) Well, I do not know that it is
necessary to go into a discussion of it, but what I had in
mind was this. I wanted to find out what the rules mean
in the first place, and as I interpret the rule, if a ship¬
per can and is permitted under the rule to initially ice his
car and he can do it at |2 per ton in the bunkers, he is
allowed the $2; his bare out-of-pocket cost without any
allowance for profit, hazard, supervision or any of those
things that he might be subjected to in the process of
putting ice in an ice house, and at the same time he would
be charged under the stated charges at the rate of |4
a ton, and I want to know if that is correct? A. That
is correct. When the carrier uses the factor of super¬
vision in its cost it is a supervision exercised by the car¬
rier. If a carrier contracts with a private party to per¬
form that service the cost as I interpret it would be not
only the cost of the ice, but it would be the labor of put-
308
ting the ice in the bunkers and supervision necessary on
the part of the man vho furnishes the ice, and therefore
he is entitled to charge for all of those factors in his
ice cost.
Q. He is entitled to make a fair profit, is he! A.
He is entitled to a return for every phase of the service
he performs until the ice is placed in the bunkers in ac¬
cordance with his agreement with the carrier.
If the $2 price to shipper includes reasonable compen¬
sation to himself for all that he had done in addition to
what he might call his out-of-pocket cost and the charge
was built on a $4 cost for initial icing and he puts 5 tons
of ice in the car and the charge Avas built based on 5 tons,
he Avould pay $20 for ice for Avhich the railroad would
allow him $10. (Tr., 6111.)
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) Now, Avill you proceed and
state AA'hy you think that is proper! A. Assuming that
all shippers in the same producing area could and would
perform additional icing at a fixed price of $2 or $3 or
AAdiateA^er figure may be the cost and AA'ould ice the bunk¬
ers in accordance Avith the carrier's instructions it might
be contended Avith some merit that tlie charge should
be based on the actual cost for the initial icing. The
carriers, hoAvever, cannot operate on any such assump¬
tion; first, because the shipper cannot be relied on to
furnish sufficient ice for his entire season's movement
he might not harvest enough ice, he might dispose of it
elseAvhere to better advantage; the ice house might be
destrojmd, tlie ice might melt through insufficient and in-
eificient protection ; there might be other causes beyond
the shipper's control Avhereby he could not carry out what
he expected to carry out at the beginning of the season.
Should the shi})per elect, he could decline to furnish the
ice and Avithout notice or warning to tlie carrier could de-
309
mand of the carrier that it siippl}^ the necessary ice for
his traffic and regardless of the cost to the carrier. A
shipper might he prepared to furnish ice at |2, another
shipper at |3 wliile a third shipper might not he in a posi¬
tion to furnish any ice whatsoever. And ice might cost
the carrier fd, assuming that shipper No. 1 and shipper
No. 2 could and would supply the ice at the figures I
have named, and three ditferent charges would be neces¬
sary from the same point. There would be an element, as
I see it, of indefensible discrimination, and especially if
the sliipper who must rely on the railroad ice at |4 were
a small grower in competition with shipper No. 1 who
was a large shipper and could furnish ice at $2. Multiply
this situation by the number of shipping points in a
given producing area and I think it would be apparent as
to the varying charges and room for resulting discrimi¬
nation.
The law places on the carrier the duty of furnishing
adequate refrigeration. It takes no cognizance of whether
the yield be great or small. In a given producing area
the carrier must necessarily anticipate the yield and ar¬
range for a supply of ice adequate to care for it. Mani¬
festly, it is the duty of the carrier to secure that ice as
cheaply as possible. When it has performed that obliga¬
tion and bases its charges accordingly, I do not think it
could seriously be contended that because one or a dozen
shippers can fuimish the small part of the total ice nec¬
essary, that the carrier should be forced to buy from
these shippers and give to them a refrigeration rate
loAver than is charged their neighbors, nor do I believe it
is to the interest of the carrier, or public policy that
these same shippers should be allowed to elect whether
or not they shall initially ice their own cars, being reim¬
bursed by the carrier, even if their price be lower than
the average price paid by the carrier for all the ice
310
needed in the same producing area. If such a contention
should be allowed the carrier could not anticipate the ice
needs of that area and would find itself with either a sur¬
plus or a shortage of ice, to say nothing of being unable
to compute a reasonable average cost.
I might add further that the charge might be—even
should the charge be based on $2 ice for a given shipper
or shippers or for a given season or seasons, there is
no assurance that these shippers can throughout any one
season or a number of seasons supply the ice at that fig¬
ure ; the carrier would have to supply the ice at whatever
it cost it at the time of movement instead of arranging
to get its ice as cheaply as it could during the harvesting
time. I cannot only imagine instances, but I know of in¬
stances where because of ice shortages and even after
the best estimates were made the carriers were compelled
through a maximum yield to transport ice hundreds and
even thousands of miles to care for the traffic.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) In support of your statement
that it was the obligation of the carrier to furnish the
service and that it must of necessity be permitted to do
so exclusively, you have in mind, have you not, Mr. Bell,
the Arlington Heights case among other things? A.
Not only the Arlington Heights case but Section 1 of the
act.
Q. And the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States to boot." (Tr., 6111-15.)
It will suffice to refer to the decision of the Commis¬
sion in the Arlington Heights case, 20 I. C. C., at, page
116 of which report it is stated;
"Both the courts and the Commission have decided
that carriers must, under such circumstances, be pre¬
pared to furnish reasonable refrigeration upon rea¬
sonable request. Now, if it is the duty of these de¬
fendants to furnish this refrigeration service, then
311
they may insist upon performing the entire service.
The shipper has no right to provide refrigeration
himself to-day and call npon the railroad company
for that service to-morrow. To permit such a course
is to demoralize the service of the defendants and
prevent them from discharging their duty with econ¬
omy and efficiency."
BULE 215.
This rule provides in substance that the stated charges
in Section No. 2 are conditioned on the understanding
that iced cars will be loaded within twenty-four hours
after they have been placed for loading, and that if de¬
layed longer than that an additional charge of $7.50 per
car per 24 hours, or fraction thereof, wdll be made;
that the detention charge shall be computed from the
time car is placed for loading to the time loading is
completed and written shipping instructions are deliv¬
ered to the carriers' agent or representative in charge.
Provision is also made that if the iced cars are delayed
by the shippers at loading station more than twenty-
four hours, the carriers will not be liable for any loss or
damage occurring through failure to re-ice such cars
at loading point and/or between loading point and first
regular re-icing station; also that carriers are not obli¬
gated to re-ice cars at loading station nor at any point
between loading station and first re-icing station, but in
the event such re-icing is performed and the empty car
is handled to icing plant for replenishing of ice a charge
of ,f 10 per car will be made for the movement from load-
ing point to the nearest available icing plant and back
to loading point ; except that when the movement is with¬
in the switching limits of loading station, the switching
or other published charge, if any, will be made, but in
the absence of a switching or other published charge
312
the carrier will be entitled to $5 per car for the ronnd
trip.
The rule also provides that during the process of load¬
ing, cars will not be moved to icing plant for replenish¬
ing of ice.
An exception is also made to the rule to the effect that
during the period May 1st to the following October 31st,
inclusive, at certain extremely warm sections of Cali¬
fornia and Nevada and at all points in Arizona, the
detention charge will be $10 per car per twenty-four
hours, or fraction thereof.
Shippers ' Vieivs.
Witness C. C. Burdick:
We object first to a charge of $7.50 a day demurrage,
feeling that a charge of $5 is quite sufficient. We also
object to not being allowed to re-ice cars during process
of loading. In some instances it is necessary to re-ice
cars during loading. This is due to labor conditions or
weather conditions sometimes, especially in regard to
berries. They carry a great amount of heat into a car,
and if it is not possible to finish loading the car dur¬
ing the first day, and it is necessary to finish on the sec¬
ond day, it becomes necessary, due to the amount of
heat that these berries carry into a car, that they be re-
iced before the loading is completed. (Tr., 5470-71.)
Witness Field Sherman :
Speaking with respect to item "A" of the rule, the
witness stated that he objected to the rule because he
had a good deal of trouble with Sunday service ; that if he
should want to load a car Monday with vegetables, and
the carriers have to send out an iced refrigerator car
for that purpose, the car would have to be sent out Sat-
313
iirday; that the car is set in Saturday night, and under
the rule he would have to pay for the car from Saturday
night np to the time the car was released ; that he should
not be charged with that; that that is the carrier's lia¬
bility on account of lack of service. (Tr., 850-852.)
The witness' objection to item "C" of Bule 215 is
that it is a raise in the rate. Witness thinks the present
tariff is high enough and should cover any detention
charge for meltage during the time the car is held. (Tr.,
853.)
Witness J. H. Tench:
Q. You Avill please state our objections to Eule 215,
and our proposed amendment thereto. A. W^e propose
a new rule on this subject, as follows:
"(A) Charges shown in this section are condi¬
tioned on the understanding that iced cars will be
loaded within twenty-four (24) hours after they have
been placed for loading.
When shipper delays iced car more than 24 hours
after such placement, an additional charge of $5
per car per 24 hours or fraction thereof will be
made. The detention charge shall be computed from
24 hours after the time car is placed for loading to
time loading is completed.
If under carriers' taritf applicable cars are per¬
mitted to be loaded at two or more stations, the de¬
tention charge shall be computed from 24 hours after
tlie time car is placed at initial loading station.
(B) When on account of delay in loading an iced
car it becomes necessary to re-ice such car, such car
will (on shipper's request, given or confirmed in
writing), bo handled to icing place for re-icing; a
charge of $10 Avill be made for the movement of such
car from loading point to the nearest available icing
plant and back to loading point, except that where
such movement is within the switching limits or
loading station the switching or other published
charge wijl be made, but in the absence of a switch¬
ing or other published charge, the charge shall be
314
$5 per car for the round trip. Carriers will comply
with such instructions at owner's risk of loss or dam¬
age not the result of negligence by carrier. The
charges will accrue to the carrier performing the
service.
Exception : During the period May 1st to the fol¬
lowing October 31st, inclusive, at points in the Im¬
perial Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and Coachelle Val¬
ley, Cal., Moapa Valley, Nev., as described in item
No. 10, also at all points in Arizona, the detention
charge will be |10 per car per 24 hours or fraction
thereof, subject otherwise to all conditions of this
rule."
The first amendment to paragraph (A) of the rule is
merely for the purpose of clarifying the rule so that
there can hereafter be no misinterpretation of the same.
In reading the report of previous hearings, it appears
that the objection we have attempted to clear up has
been made to the rule. If the carriers intend that the
rule should have the interpretation they insist should be
placed on it, there can be no objection to this change in
phraseology.
In defense of our reduction of the detention charge
from $7.50 to $5 we refer you to the carriers' proposal
in Section (D) of Eule 225 to absorb a re-icing charge
(which it should absorb entirely) up to but not exceed¬
ing 2,000 pounds. If such an absorption covers what the
carriers think is a reasonable amount of ice consumed
at any re-icing point, then such an amount is sufficient
to cover any meltage of ice caused to delayed cars.
It should not be amiss to call the Commission's atten¬
tion to the fact that most all delays do not exceed 6
hours, that the actual additional meltage of ice which
the charge is imposed to cover, is very little. If the car¬
rier desires to arrive at an average time which cars
are delayed, we would welcome an investigation along
that line.
315
There is another reason why the shippers we repre¬
sent should not be subjected to a $7.50 detention charge
and that is because almost all of our movement under
refrigeration is during the fall, winter or early spring
when there is little ice meltage and such delays as might
occur in Florida, cost the carriers very little additional.
The exception carried in the rule of a detention charge
of $10 per car in certain territory, demonstrates this
fact. As it is, Florida is penalized by a detention charge
that helps to pay for ice meltage in all the territory
where the principal movement under refrigeration is dur¬
ing the summer months. We think a universal rule on
this subject is unfair to us and we oppose any increase
above $5.
We have asked for the elimination of the requirement
contained in paragraph (A) of this rule that written
shipping instructions should be delivered to the carrier's
agent within the free time. Perishables alway move in
the first train after loading is completed and no shipper
ever delays a shipment by failing to give shipping in¬
structions in time for movement in the first train, but
shipping instructions cannot always be given as soon as
loading is completed. The shipper or organization han¬
dling the shipment does not know the destination of the
particular shipment until after the contents of the car
are known. A large part of these shipments are pur¬
chased at loading stations and the purchaser usually de¬
pends on the contents of the car. If the rule as proposed
is retained, the effect to the carriers will be that the
shipper in .order to protect himself against the deten¬
tion charge, will give written shipping instructions as
soon as or before the car is loaded, and this will only
]iocessitate tlio changing of the shipping instructions be¬
fore the car moves in many instances.
This rule makes no exceptions for delivering written
316
shipping- instructions Avhere shipments originate at blind
sidings and this is manifestly wrong, and is another rea¬
son why this clause should not appear in this rule.
AVe ask for the elimination of paragraph (B) of this
rule. Should the Commission modify paragraph (C)
in accordance with our request, paragraph (B) would
then have no place in the rule.
Paragraph (C) offers a service that is optional with
the carrier to perform or not perform as the carrier may
desire. The rule provides a charge for the service when
performed. It is our contention that where a service
can be performed and the carrier publishes a charge for
performing that service, that it should not be optional
with the carrier whether the service shall be performed
or not. Such a rule would permit of the rankest discrim¬
ination on the part of the carrier. Based on the principle
that where a carrier holds itself out to perform a serv¬
ice it must perform that service without discrimination
to all parties, we have rewritten this paragraph so as to
require the carrier to perform the service when neces¬
sary. In rewriting the rule we have retained the com¬
pensation carriers asked for the performance of the serv¬
ice.
In order to protect carriers against loss or damage,
where such cars have been moved after loading has be¬
gun, we have incorporated a provision in the rule pro¬
viding that cars will be so moved at owner's risk of loss
or damage not the result of negligence of carrier. It is
not an unusual practice for carriers to shift cars during
the process of loading and this shifting is done without
any material damage to the freight being loaded. A
groat many perishables moving under refrigeration from
Florida are shipped in crates and in such cases these
crates are stripped and braced as they are load(;d into the
317
car and will readily stand the shocks incident to ordi¬
nary switching or train movement. (Tr., 8085-9.)
AVitness J. Cuktis Eobinson :
AVe consider the charge of $7.50 for delay in excess of
twenty-four hours to cars under ice is excessive to the
extent that it exceeds $5. Paragraph C, Item 215. AVe
consider the charge of $10 for the movement from load¬
ing point to nearest available icing plant and back to
loading point is unfair charge because it does not specify
how great a service shall be performed for the specific
charge. Carriers would be getting $17.50 for the move¬
ment of a car from a point merely outside of switching
limits of any station if it were delayed only one-half of
an hour over twenty-four hours providing a shipper re¬
quested the car be iced after being spotted for loading.
(Tr., 2493.)
Anstver.
This rule is covered by AATtness McPike's Exhibit No.
35, to which the carriers now desire to add that they feel
that such a charge may rightfully include not only full
compensation for ice meltage account delay to such car
by shipper, but also an element of penalty against such
shipper in order to encourage the prompt loading of iced
cars when placed and to discourage the shipper from or¬
dering a number of iced cars in excess of his actual needs,
thereby not only depriving other shippers of the use of
such special equipment, but also tending to deplete the
available supply of ice.
As to paragraph (B) of llule 215 about nonliability
of carriers for loss or damage resulting from failure to
re-ice such a car at loading point or between loading
point and first regular icing station, the carriers feel
that this provision is so obviously reasonable and justi-
318
fiable as not to require any special citations of the au¬
thorities in support thereof, but in this connection they
believe that the following extracts from opinions ren¬
dered by the Texas courts serve to support and substan¬
tiate the principles on which that portion of the rule is
based:
"A carrier sent a car fully iced to a station not
an icing station for loading of perishable freight
by a shipper who unnecessarily delayed the car un¬
til the ice was too low to protect the freight. The
carrier, as soon as he reached the nearest icing sta¬
tion, filled the car with ice, and did not delay the
movement of the car. The freight when delivered
to the carriers was apparently sound, and when de¬
livered to the consignee at destination it was in a
defective condition. The consignor could have loaded
the car in 10 hours, but delayed it 34 hours. Held,
that the carrier was not guilty of actionable negli¬
gence, though the freight was delivered in apparent
good condition and on arrival at destination was in
bad condition."
"When appellants sent the car fully iced to Pitts¬
burgh, a small place where there was no icing sta¬
tion, they had fulfilled the duties incumbent upon
them, and, if appellee unnecessarily delayed the car
at Pittsburgh until the ice had melted below the
safety point, appellants cannot be held liable for
the results. Wright v. Railway (Ark.), 163 S. W.,
1151. The evidence in this case shows that the car
with its bunkers full of ice, was placed for loading,
in Pittsburg, at 1 o'clock p. m., on July 23rd, and
that appellee's agent finished loading it at 11 p. m.,
July 24th, 34 hours being consumed in loading. The
inference is that 10 hours were sufficient in which
to load the car, because the party who loaded the car
paid without murmuring a fine of $5 for detention
of the car for a day, under the demurrage rules of
the Texas Kailroad Commission. It was undisputed
that 35 baskets of peaches laid on the platform
at Pittsburg for a length of time before loading. It
is not contended that there was any delay on the
part of appellants in the transportation of the
319
peaches, and all the testimony tends to show that ap¬
pellants were diligent in keeping an abundance of
ice in the hunkers of the car." {Extracts from 174
Southwestern Reporter, page 714; St. Louis S South¬
western By. Co., et al. y. Grant. (No. 5425.) ; Court
of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, Feb. 24,
1915, rehearing denied March 24, 1915.)
BULE 220.
This rule reads as follows:
(A) When car- which has been iced upon order is
not used at point where car was to be loaded, the charge
for ice and/or salt, based on entire quantity supplied
car at initial icing (see Section No. 4), shall be collected
from party ordering the car.
(B) The charge for ice published in Section No. 4 ap¬
plying at point where car was to be loaded shall govern.
(C) When an iced car is ordered for loading at a
point on a line which does not publish a charge for ice
and/or salt, the charge shall be based on the quantity
of ice and/or salt supplied car initially at the price
published to apply at point where such materials were
furnished (see Section No. 4).
(D) The charges made under this rule will accrue
to the carrier furnishing the iced car.
Shippers' Views.
Witness Field Sherman :
Our objection to Rule 220, Item ''A" is that where an
iced car has been ordered and not used, all the ice is
charged up to the shipper under this rule. I think the
only charge against him should be the meltage between
the time the car was iced and the time it was placed at
some other point. Take a vegetable shipment—it might
320
be used on the next spur two or three miles away; we
can make disposition there ; the carriers are not ont any¬
thing. The meltage would not amount to 500 pounds;
there might be some arbitrary charge on that rather
than checking up the actual meltage. I do not suppose
Ave have over 40 or 50 cars during the year to which that
rule woidd be applicable, but it does occur. We usually
figure that our load vdll be ready for the car when it
arrives. (Tr., 856.)
Witness J. Curtis Eobinson:
Paragraph A: We believe some penalty is fair to be
charged in the event a shipper orders a car which is not
used by him but in the event carrier is able to substi¬
tute the furnishing of such a car to some other shipper,
Ave consider it would be unfair for the carrier to charge
the new shipper of the car full tariff as well as to charge
a penalty charge to the first shipper for the full cost
of the ice and salt furnished. There should be some
way of relieving the penalty from being so severe and
make it fair and equitable. We think a reasonable mini¬
mum uAmrage charge for meltage would be fair.
Item C presumes to stipulate a charge for ice and salt
used on a line not party to this tariff. We do not see
how any line which is not a party to this tariff can be
governed by the rules and regulations in a tariff to
AAdiich they are not a party and Avhich therefore is not
legally on file with the Commission as representing
charges to be assessed on their line.
Answer.
It Avould obviously be impracticable and burdensome
to base the charge for ice and/or salt suptdied a car
Avhich has been iced upon order and which has not been
used, upon the exact amount of meltage. In addition
321
it will be noted that the charge will not apply if the car
is used at the point where the car was to be loaded,
although not necessarily by the shipper who ordered it.
The carriers further feel that if there is any penalty pro¬
vided by Eule 220, the imposition of such penalty is
justified as a deterrent to shippers ordering cars iced
and then failing to use them. It must also be borne in
mind that an additional service must be performed by
the carrier in hauling the car to a point other than thai
at which it was originally intended to be loaded.
See also Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 36.
RULE 225.
Eule No. 225 provides that when cars are stopped or
held at any intermediate point between origin and final
destination on orders of, or awaiting reconsigning or
other instructions from shipper, owner or consignee; or
after arrival of the car in the terminal train yard serv¬
ing the destination and up to the time the car is in proc¬
ess of unloading on team tracks; or until car has been
placed on private or assigned siding, carriers will exam¬
ine bunkers or tanks daily, and when such cars require
additional ice, they will be re-iced to capacity.
Eule No. 225 further provides that unless written di¬
version orders are in the hands of carrier's agent at stop,
hold or reconsigning point, before arrival of cars in
terminal train yards serving such points, a charge (as
published in Section No. 4 of the tariff) will be made
for all ice supplied at such stop, hold or reconsigning
point, except that the carrier will absorb cost of first
re-icing up to, but not exceeding, two thousand pounds
of ice. That rule also provides that a charge (as pro¬
vided in Section No. 4)'will be made for all ice supplied
322
after arrival of cars in tlie terminal train yard serving
the destination without allowance for free time.
Answer.
The witness, G. H. Nelson, with respect to the re-
icing at stop, hold or reconsigning points, stated that
there would be no charge where the diversion order was
in the hands of the agent before the arrival of the car
because it would be a continuous movement, but that if
the diversion order was not in the hands of the agent
and the car was held because of that fact, then the car¬
rier would absorb the first re-icing up to, but not exceed¬
ing, two thousand pounds; that the average amount of
re-icing at stop, hold or reconsigning points was con¬
siderably less than that amount, (Tr., 861,)
In other words, the theory of the carriers is that if
the shipments are transported in the usual way as con¬
tinuous movements, the average amount of re-icing at
stop, hold or reconsigning points would be less than two
thousand pounds, and therefore that it is entirely fair
to charge the shipper for any ice in excess of that amount.
With regard to the charges for ice at destination after
arrival of shipments in the terminal train yard, the testi¬
mony is that shipments arrive at such terminal train
yards with the bunkers of cars ^ or practically full. In
other words, there is sufficient ice in the bunkers to pro¬
tect the shipment until delivery. The carriers therefore
feel that if it should become necessary to place any ad¬
ditional ice in the bunkers for the protection of the ship¬
ments, the burden or expense thereof should be borne
by the shippers.
The carriers desire also to direct attention to Witness
McPike's Exhibit No. 37, as well as their answer given
ill connection with Rule 200, paragraph (D), which is
related to the above.
323
BULE 230.
(A) When shippers instruct that cars under refrig¬
eration shall move from loading station to first re-icing
station with one or two ventilators open (which must be
on only one end of car), an extra charge of five dollars
(|5) per car will be made in addition to stated refrig¬
eration charges.
(B) If, supplemental to the service contemplated by
paragraph (A) above, shipper instructs that one or two
ventilators be left open (which must be on only one end of
car), beyond first re-icing station, a further charge of
five dollars (|5) per car will be made between each re-
icing station.
(C) Where service outlined in this rule is desired, a
notation must be made on bills of lading and waybill as
follows :
"Leave — (Number of, and whether front
or rear) ventilators open. Close same at
Shipper's instructions."
Shippers' Views.
Witness J. Curtis Eobinson :
There probably would be some slight meltage while the
ventilators were open but the saving to the carrier by
allowing the gases to escape we feel would more than
offset the slight meltage which might occur. In a catalog
known as Markets Docket 10 of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture Bureau of Markets issued in June, 1918,
page 15, reads;
"The practice of opening either the front or rear
ventilators of a refrigerator car during the first
night car is in transit has some adherents among
cantaloupe shippers. A few tests have been made
of the value of this practice, but the results ob-
324
taiiied are inconclusive. It can be definitely stated
that refrigeration is not hastened by this practice;
on the other hand, the admission of outside air dur¬
ing the night does not seem to raise the cantaloupe
temperatures or retard refrigeration." (Tr., 2493.)
Witness J. H. Tetstch:
Q. You will please state our objections to Eule 230
and our proposed amendment thereto. A. In both para¬
graphs (A) and (E) we ask for the elimination of the
words in parenthesis as follows:
"Which must be on only one end of car."
Shippers are now permitted to send shipments to first
regular re-icing station with one or more vents at each
end of the car open, by paying an additional charge of
$5 for the privilege. A great many shippers think the
privilege is of no advantage to shipments moving under
refrigeration, and never avail themselves of the use of
the privilege. But those shippers that take advantage
of the privilege offered, believe that it would be of no
value if a vent could not be opened at each end of the
car. The carriers so far as we know, have made no at¬
tempt to demonstrate that the service is as valuable in
one instance as in the other and until that is done, the
carrier should not be permitted by an arbitrary rule to
contract an established privilege. The shippers from
California have for years, enjoyed this privilege, with¬
out an additional charge, while the shippers from Florida
have during that period been penalized $5 per car for
the use of the privilege. The proposed rule, while re¬
taining the charge materially restricts the privilege.
We ask that the rule now in force be continued until
such time as it is established by proper tests, that the
service with vents on one end open, is as valuable as
with vents at both ends of the car open. (Tr., 8092-3.)
325
Answer.
The carriers have not much faith in the efficacy of the
special service contemplated by this rule, which was
published in deference to the wishes expressed by cer¬
tain shippers that the practice be authorized. The car¬
riers are of opinion that the opening of ventilators is
chiefly for the elimination of fruit or vegetable gases
in the top of the car and they believe that this can he
accomplished by opening only the ventilators on either
the front end or rear end of car, but by opening the ven¬
tilators at both ends of the car at one time the carriers
submit an excessive meltage of ice would occur without
any substantial benefit to the product shipped. (See also
Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 48.)
RULE 235.
Ice remaining in bunkers after arrival of car at final
destination is the property of the carrier.
Shippers' Vietvs.
No specific objection has been made by the shippers to
this rule, although there has been some reference to it.
Anstver.
The testimony of the witnesses for the carriers was to
the effect that salvage of ice in tanks amounts to very
little and could not be taken into consideration in naming
rates ; that generally speaking the ice remaining in bunk-
(>rs at the conclusion of a trip melts before the car again
moves out under load. The witness George H. Nelson
stated that a rule in the tariff permitting consignee use
of ice remaining in bunkers would delay the equipment.
(Tr., 1767.)
See also Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 89.
326
BULE 244.
This rule contains rules and charges relating to the
consolidation of fresh fruits, berries, melons and fresh
vegetables from California.
These rules and charges were incorporated in the tar¬
iff upon the express request of certain shippers in Cali¬
fornia interested therein. No attack has been made upon
the rule or charges but the carriers have voluntarily
submitted evidence in justification of the measure of the
charges shown therein. Witness George H. Nelson by his
Exhibit No. 9 covers a consolidated amount of both de¬
ciduous fruits and vegetables taking in representative
cars, one in January, one in February, eight in March,
four in June, two in August and nine in November. He
shows an average cost of ice of |10.65, ice haulage 70
cents, a charge for switching at 35 cents per switch, of
55 cents, and an estimated supervision cost of |1.50,
making the total items properly chargeable per car
$13.40. This is contrasted wdth a proposed refrigera¬
tion revenue of $15 per car, leaving a difference to cover
profit and hazard of $1.60.
The witness stated that the cost of ice was figured upon
the amount of ice supplied which would not have been
necessary had cars not moved into consolidation point;
in other words, the consolidated cars took 4,016 pounds
more ice than shipments moving straight through. (Tr.,
112.)
Exhibit No. 7 of the witness E. C. Dearborn shows the
average expense of handling part carload shipments un¬
der Eule 244 during July, August and September, 1918.
The first five part carloads moved each month during
July, August and September, 1918, between points in
the same group territory in northern California. Fif¬
teen cars are included in the exhibit. The average cost
327
per car was $13.55 as against the proposed charge in the
tariff of $15. The items going to make up the sum of
$13.55 are:
Cost of ice, at $2.89 per ton $8.47
Ice haulage 2.38
Switching .70
Supervision 2.00
Total cost $13.55
This leaves a margin of $1.45 to cover profit and haz¬
ard. (Tr., 255.)
RULE 245.
Rule No. 245 covers precooled and preiced citrus fruit
from California. It provides;
1st. For a charge covering cars completely loaded
and afterwards precooled by carrier and forwarded
without initial or transit icing.
2d. Charges when carload shipments of citrus
fruit have been precooled by the shipper in a regu¬
larly established precooling plant and loaded into a
car preiced by the shipper at the station where the
precooling plant is located, and forwarded under in¬
structions "Do not re-ice," and
3d. Charges covering carload shipments of citrus
fruit precooled and preiced by the carrier and for¬
warded under instructions from the shipper "Do not
re-ice."
_ 4th. Charges covering cases where on instruc¬
tions from the shipper, owner or consignee, a car
handled under the provision of this rule is iced or re-
iced before arrival in the terminal train yard serv¬
ing the final destination ; also where icing or re-icing
is performed after arrival of cars in such terminal
train yard.
5th. Charges covering a case where the shippers
shall place under "Standard Ventilation."
Shippers' Vieivs.
Witness Attorney W. E. Lamb :
Attorney Lamb, representing the California Citrus
League objected to paying on a precooled car from Cali¬
fornia put under regular refrigeration in Omaha, des¬
tined to New York City, the same full stated refrigera¬
tion charge applying on a car from Omaha proper to
New York City. He asked whether or not in the case
of a car from Omaha proper a "Stated Eefrigeration
Charge" would include the icing of the dry car. The
witness, E. F. McPike, who was under examination at the
time, answered "Yes." Mr. Lamb then asked if in the
case of a precooled shipment, we would pay the same
"Stated Eefrigeration Charge" even though the bunk¬
ers might be half full of ice and the car fully cooled. The
witness, E. F. McPike, replied "Yes." Mr. Lamb then
inquired whether or not the shipper of a precooled car
gets any credit under Eule No. 245 for any ice that might
have been in the car at Omaha. The witness, E. F.
McPike, replied "Not so far as that charge is concerned."
Witness C. C. Buedick :
We object to not being allowed to precool cars. The
différent associations have expressed their desire that
they be allowed this privilege. It seems it is rather
discrimination against this section of the country, espe¬
cially Michigan, inasmuch as citrus fruits are allowed
precooling. They think it is necessary, especially, to
precool peaches. They carry a great deal of heat into a
car, and if they move as soon as they are loaded they are
soft, and due to the rough roadbed they are shaken up
pretty badly. (Tr., 5471.)
The precooling to which the witness refers means al¬
lowing the car to stand after it is loaded.
329
There are no precooling plants in Michigan. (Tr.,
5487.)
Witness A. W. Ka.lb:
There is competition between citrus and deciduous
fruits. Kule provides for precooling and preicing of
citrus fruits from California, etc. This must necessarily
include all overhead charges which the carriers have been
contending for in addition to the cost of the ice. (Tr.,
5508.)
Ansiver.
Witness E. F. McPike:
On redirect examination of Witness McPike by Attor¬
ney Westlake, the witness stated that there would be a
reduction of charges rather than any increase of charges
under proposed Kule 245, as compared with rules for¬
merly in effect, because under the former rule where the,
shipper asked that the car be iced in transit or placed
under refrigeration, the full stated refrigeration charge
applied from point of origin to the ultimate destination.
AVitness thought that this was universally true in cases
of that kind under current tariffs. (Tr., 533-534.)
On recross examination by Mr. Lamb, AVitness McPike
stated that proposed Kule 245 in its entirety will result
in a reduction of what would be the gross charges if thé
rule in the current tariffs were on the contrary to be
applied, but he admitted that of course there would be
an increase in the stated refrigeration charge proper un¬
der the proposed new tariff. (Tr., 536-537.)
Mr. Lamb then asked if it was not the feeling of the
Kefrigeration Committee at AVashington "in the Febru¬
ary, 1919, conference with shippers that the current
tariff rule which provides that when a precooled car is
put under refrigeration in transit, the full stated re-
330
frigeration charge "will apply from point of origin, was an
unreasonable rule, but Witness McPike said be never
beard any member of the committee express that opinion
and be didn't think they bad any such idea in mind, but
the witness did not know the real underlying reason the
California lines may have bad in proposing the more lib¬
eral rule now contemplated. (Tr., 536-537.)
In support of the principle to which Mr. Lamb objects,
reference is made to the case of Camphell v. St. Louis
B. é M. Raihvuy Company, 44 I. C. C., 567, and the
case of Wattam et al. v. Northern Pacific Railroad Com¬
pany et al., 37 I. C. C., 101-102.
In support of the measure of the charges contained in
Eule 245, the witness, Geo. H. Nelson, submitted bis Ex¬
hibits Nos. 10 and 11. (Tr., 9091.) And the witness, E.
C. Dearborn, submitted bis Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9. (Tr.,
272.)
Nelson's Exhibit No. 10 is submitted in justification of
the proposed charges as compared with the present uni¬
form charge of $7.50 from California points to all desti¬
nations. The charges are justified by taking into con¬
sideration the following factors : Damage to refrigera¬
tion devices, $5; the haulage of an average weight of
9,000 pounds of ice in the bunkers at one cent per hun¬
dred pounds, per one hundred miles, the distance be¬
ing figured from a representative point (San Bernar¬
dino) on short line haulage, to representative destina¬
tions in the United States and Canada.
It will be noted that in nearly all instances, the pro¬
posed charges are either a little less than the cost to the
carriers of the service, or exceed that cost by a very
small margin.
In the original Arlington Heights case, the Commission
found $7.50 to be a reasonable charge for the service.
331
based upon the fact that on shipments precooled and pre-
iced by the shipper, a much heavier load of fruit was
transported than on shipments moving under standard
refrigeration; that a standard load of precooled and pre-
iced by shipper cars was seven tiers wide and two tiers
high, whereas under standard refrigeration, shipments
were six tiers Avide and two tiers high. The total charge
for the precooled, preiced by shipper cars on the basis of
the heavier loading was in excess of that on cars moving
under standard refrigeration at standard refrigeration
rate. Since this decision by the Commission, the standard
load for citrus fruit, whether precooled or preiced by the
shipper or moving under standard refrigeration as sup¬
plied by the carrier, is exactly the same. This is the
testimony in this proceeding of the shippers ' witness, E.
G. Dezell, and the witnesses for the carriers. This be¬
ing a fact, Ave feel that there is no reason why carriers
should not receive the additional compensation to which
they are entitled to cover damage to refrigeration devices
and the haulage of the average Aveight of ice.
Nelson's Exhibit No. 11 covers shipments precooled
and preiced by the carrier. It makes a comparison be-
tAveen the present uniform charge from California to all
destinations of $35 per car Avith proposed charges rang¬
ing from $27.50 per car (California intrastate) to the
maximum of $52.50 to certain eastern destinations and
points in Canada. It also contrasts Avith these figures
the total cost to the carriers for performing the services.
The factors used are—1st, the uniform figure of $5.15
representing the cost to the carriers of precooling cars ;
2d, cost of initial icing of five tons at $3 per ton at San
Bernardino; 3d, damage to refrigeration devices of $5;
4th, switching, 35c per car to and from the ice plant at
San Bernardino ; and 5th, haulage of an average weight
of ice of 6,000 pounds at one cent per hundred pounds
332
for one hundred miles for the average haul computed
by the short line haulage. It -will be again noted that the
cost of the carriers is either greater than the proposed
charge, or less by a comparatively small margin.
Dearborn's Exhibits 8 and 9 are made up on practi¬
cally the same basis. The average weight of ice in the
bunkers being the same, and the ice costs being figured
at $2.9859 against $3 used by Mr. Nelson. The results
reflected by these two exhibits closely approximate those
shown by Nelson's Exhibits 10 and 11.
The principle of this rule is more liberal to the ship¬
pers than that now in effect from California on ship¬
ments which require ice in transit, inasmuch as the pres¬
ent tariffs provide that in those cases the full stated re¬
frigeration charge from point of origin will apply, while
the present rule picks up the rate at the point where the
icing in transit is first performed.
There is no foundation for the witness, Burdick's state¬
ment that we should promulgate a similar rule for Mich¬
igan, as according to his own statement, there are no
precooling plants in Michigan. (Tr. 5487.)
The same observation maj^ be made with regard to the
objection of the witness A. W. Cowle so far as shipments
of deciduous fruits from Omaha are concerned.
See also Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 42.
In computing the ice haulage the witnesses Nelson
and Dearborn used an average weight of 9,000 pounds of
ice in bunkers, while the California Citrus League, rep¬
resented by Mr. Lamb, contended that this figure was
excessive. Mr. Dearborn arrived at his figure of 9,000
pounds average weight by using an average initial icing
by the shippers of 14,000 pounds and an average amount
of 4,000 pounds in the bunkers at destination. Taking
the maximum and the minimum we have 18,000 pounds.
333
which divided hy two gives 9,000 pounds as the average
amount of ice in the hunkers continuously.
The witness Nelson stated that the shipper usually iced
his cars to 12,000 or 12,500 pounds; that the average
amount of ice in the hunkers at destination is 6,000
pounds. Adding the 12,000 and the 6,000 pounds to¬
gether, and dividing by two gives us the average of
9,000 pounds of ice in the hunkers continually. Mr. Nel¬
son stated that he thought this was actually a little hit
low. (Tr., 117-118.)
The witness, E. A. Coons, connected with the Pacific
Fruit Express (concerning whose cars Mr. Dearborn was
testifying) testified that the average initial icing on pre-
cooled shipments by shippers is 13,800 pounds, that is,
46 blocks of ice at 300 pounds each. (Tr., 560.)
The witness E. G. Dezell (for the California Citrus
League) testified that a fair statement of the average
weight of the ice loaded by the shippers in S. P. E. D.
cars Avhere they preice the shipments would be about
12,500 pounds. (Tr., 921.) This is 500 pounds in excess
of the figure used hy Mr. Nelson.
The same witness testified that the average weight of
the ice loaded hy shippers in P. F. E. cars would he
somewhere between 13,000 and 13,800 pounds. (Tr., 922-
923.) Splitting the difference between those two figures
we have 13,400 pounds, which is 600 pounds less than
klr. Dearborn figured on. This would make a difference
of 300 pounds in tlie average amount of ice hauled in
tlie hunkers continuously. In other words, Mr. Dear-
horn's exhibit on sliipments precooled and preiced hy the
shippers would have to be corrected hy figuring the aver¬
age amount of ice in hunkers continuously at 8,700
pounds instead of 9,000 pounds. This, of course, would
make an almost negligible difference in the item for ice
334
haulage. It must further be taken into consideration
that both Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Nelson figured the ice
haulage on the average amount of ice in the bunkers
continuously by taking the amount originally placed in
the bunkers and adding it to the amount in the bunkers
at the furthest destination, to wit, New York, and then
dividing the result by two. Of course, all of such ship¬
ments do not go to New York, so that as to all points
west of there the average amount of ice in the bunkers
continuously would be greater than that figured for a
shipment destined to New York. This consideration will
more than offset any difference between the figures sub¬
mitted by Mr. Dearborn and Mr. Nelson on the one hand,
and the witnesses for the shippers on the other.
It was also the contention of the witnesses for the
shippers that the bunker damage item of $5 was exces¬
sive for shipments precooled and preiced by the shipper,
due to the admitted fact that more care is taken in plac¬
ing the ice in the bunkers at origin, and because of the
further fact that there are no reicings in transit. In
this connection it must be borne in mind that citrus
shipments are generally long-haul business, the aver¬
age for oranges being in the neighborhood of 2,500 miles
or more. Therefore, the maximum amount of damage,
other than that caused by initial icing and reicing in
transit, would result on these shipments. As elsewhere
shown in this brief in connection with our discussion of
bunker damage we have shown, we believe, that the $5
item is decidedly too small on the average, and if that
damage is to be graded according to distance, damage on
the long hauls Avould be far in excess of |o. Mr. Nelson
testified that in his opinion there was very little differ¬
ence between the damage to the bunkers of cars preiced
by shippers and those moving under standard refrigera¬
tion. (Tr., 116-117.)
335
And while Mr. A. M. Mortenson testified that he
thought there was not as much damage to hunkers of
cars preiced by the shipper as to those moving under
standard refrigei'ation, he also testified that he would
not be able to determine what that difference in damage
Avonld be in dollars and cents between the two methods.
(Tr., 876.)
In view of all of these considerations it does not seem
to us that the Commission can very well find that any
item less than |5 shonld be charged against shipments
precooled and preiced by the shipper. In this connection
the Commission has already approved an item of $5
for bunker damage to cars precooled and preiced by the
shipper.
Arlington Heights Case, 20 I. C. C., at page 120.
BULE 250.
Eule No. 250, which deals with precooled and preiced
cars of citrus fruit from Florida is practically a replica
of Eule No. 245 except that certain detention and switch¬
ing charges are therein provided for.
Shippers' Vieivs.
Witness E. D. Dow:
AVitness said that up to the present time there has
only been one first-class precooling plant established in
Florida; that the growers are awakening to the advan¬
tages of precooling, especially where citrus fruits and
vegetables are or should ho in transit only for four or
five days to market, and the. growers in the Winter
Haven section and Tildonville are erecting a precooling
ifiant which will probably cost $150,000. (Tr., 8940-41.)
336
Ansîver.
The record does not disclose any objections to Eule
No. 250 but the carriers felt that some explanation should
be made of the difference between Eule 250 and Eule 245
as to the method by which the charges shown in Eule
250 are fixed.
Accordingly, the witness, C. E. Bell, testified with re¬
spect to both of those matters. That testimony is as
follows :
C. E. Belu:
At the Atlanta hearing I stated I would later make
some statement with respect to the preeouling of citrus
fruits from Florida, as covered by Eule 250, pages 21 and
22 of the proposed tariff. (Tr., 9402.)
The essential difference as between this rule and Eule
245, Avhich covers California traffic, is that no charges are
provided from Florida on fruit precooled by the carriers ;
and this for the reason that the Florida carriers are
not equipped to and do not hold themselves out as being
able to perform this precooling service.
Section 6 of Eule 250 provides a detention charge of
$1 per car wffien carrier is called on to handle the car to
a precooling plant at a switching rate or at a rate less
than its local rate.
Section 6 of this rule also provides a charge of |2 per
car for switching service when carrier is called upon to
switch the loaded car from the loading track at any
initial point of shipment to a precooling plant at the
same point of shipment and within the switching limits
of the point of shipment.
The charges provided under Sections B and C of Eule
250 are not puldished in Eule 245 applicable to Cali¬
fornia traffic for the reason that the California carrier
337
is not called on to switch loaded cars to the precooling
plant as the fruit is first precooled and the carriers'
first service is to set the car for the loading of the fruit
at the precooling plant. (Tr., 9403.)
It is proper to state that with the exception of the
charges shown in paragraph F of Rule 250, the provi¬
sions of that rule are the same as are now in effect from
California, except for the differences in the language, and
the rule reflects the agreement made between the car¬
riers and the shippers at the time the precooling ar¬
rangement was established in 1914.
Referring now to the charges for precooling shown in
paragraph F of Rule 250, the present charge is $7.50 to
all territories, the same as the existing charge from
California. I may mention that the Florida arrange¬
ment was established after the California arrangement
was established and follows the same principle.
It is proposed to increase the California charges to
the basis of $7.50 for the first group, $12.50 for the sec¬
ond, $17.50 for the third, $22.50 for the fourth, $27.50
for the fifth, and $32.50 for the sixth group, as^ shown
on page 21 of the tariff, the proposed figures reflecting
ice haulage and damage to bunkers.
Mr. Dearborn and other witnesses who have testified
with respect to the California situation have thoroughly
explained the basis for the proposed charges from Cali¬
fornia.
The proposed charges from Florida have been arrived
at in like manner, and the destination groups of Florida
have been based on the same principle as the California
charges. (Tr., 9404.)
For example, between points in Florida the charge is
$7.50, the same as the charge between points in Cali¬
fornia. The $12.50 charge from Florida covers the south-
338
western states, just as the $12.50 charge from California
states in the same territory, i. e., Arizona, Idaho, Nevada,
Oregon and Utah.
The $17.50 charge applies to states in a group of ap¬
proximately the same distance as states in a group from
which the $17.50 charge from California applies.
Manifestly, tl]e traffic being of the same character and
with the same principle involved, it is proper to estab¬
lish precooling charges from Florida on the same basis
as from California on this traffic. (Tr., 9405.)
This Eule No. 250 was also discussed in Witness Mc-
Pike's Exhibit No. 44.
BULE 255.
This rule now contained in the proposed tariff covers
half-tank refrigeration service on citrus fruit from Flor¬
ida only.
Shippers' Views.
The objections to this rule were that the half-tank
refrigeration services should be re-established on apples
from Virginia points and on fruits from Michigan points
(where the half-tank refrigeration had previously been
furnished).
See testimony of C. C. Burdick (Tr., 5471-5472-5481-
5489.)
See testimony of E. D. Dow. (Tr., 7939.)
Answer.
As heretofore stated in this brief, witnesses for the
carriers stated in the record that half-tank refrigeration
charges would be re-established on apples from Virginia
points and on fruits from Michigan points (where half-
tank refrigeration had previously been furnished), sub-
339
ject to tlie provision that it would be furnished only when
such types of refrigerator cars are available that will
permit tlie half-tank refrigeration. In fact, half-tank
refrigeration service to the extent indicated has been put
into etfeet from Michigan. We are not yet prepared to
submit specific figures. (See letter in behalf of car¬
riers, addressed to the examiner, under date of October
23, 1919, shown in Appendix A.)
The witness, T. H. Goeman, of the American Eefrig-
erator Transit Company, testified that there was in force
a one-half tank rate of $20 assessed under D. & E. G.
Tariff 5706-E providing on page 8 under note "A" of the
tariff that when shippers furnish a release and no re-
icing is required or furnished, the refrigeration rate will
be $20; that this tariff applies only to intrastate move¬
ment. (Tr., 2984.) In furnishing one-half tank service
where the cars are not provided with one-half tanks or
the gates cannot be set in the middle of the tanks, then it
is the practice to fill the bunker in each end; that most
of the A. E. T. cars are not equipped with half-tank
refrigeration devices (Tr., 2985) and that a great deal
less than that are so equipped; that 15 or 20 years ago,
the A. E. T. did not have any of them equipped with
half-tank refrigeration; that under the proposed tariff,
the A. E. T. does not propose to give half-tank refrigera¬
tion. (Tr., 2986.)
One of the reasons for proposal to cancel the half-tank
refrigeration tariff is that the A. E. T. has less than fifty
per cent of its cars that can be adjusted to half-tank
refrigeration. Secondly, when a shipper orders a half-
tank car and one is not available, the A. E. T. has
to furnish him a full tank refrigeration; that this con¬
stitutes a discrimination against the shipper who is
paying for the full refrigeration service.
340
Another factor taken into consideration was that half-
tank service was not remunerative.
Upon the subject of half-tank refrigeration service gen¬
erally, we think it of interest to set forth the following
extract of the testimon}^ of the witness, J. B. Scott
(Manager of the Fruit Growers' Express) relating to
half-tank refrigeration :
Witness J. B. Scott:
Half Tank.
Has had considerable experience in handling Mich¬
igan business, both full and half tank.
With regard to whether it takes more or less re-icing
for half tanks than for full tanks in .Michigan territory,
witness' experience with re-icing in transit of shipments
moving under half-tank refrigeration is that the melt-
age is much greater than on the same commodities under
full tank refrigeration. This is a matter of record.
The witness thinks Mr. Ramsay has gotten out at
least one bulletin to that etfect, possibly more. Mr.
Ramsay is with the Department of Agriculture of the
United States Government. (Tr., 9246.)
The reason that the meltage is greater in half tanks
is because there is less quantity of ice to begin with—
and less tonnage to hold cold.
Another reason, is that the ice hunkers in F. G. E. cars
are so constructed that the ice grates are raised to a
halfway point Avhich elevates the ice and creates a greater
circulation. This results in a greater meltage. With
regard to Mr. French's criticism of the present relation¬
ship of half-tank rates as compared with their former
relationships to full tank rates, witness stated that pres¬
ent half-tank rates were based on 78 per cent of the
proposed full tank rates. This percentage was used in
341
establishing the Michigan half-tank rates, because it was
the percentage that the division traffic of the Kailroad
Administration—established in the case of half-tank rates
from Florida.
After hearing on Florida rates in Jacksonville in
March, 1919, the Eailroad Administration Division of
Traffic figured on a scientific basis Avhat percentage the
half-tank rates should bear to full tank rates, and decided
after such investigation that 78 per cent was proper
basis. (Tr., 9247.)
The Eailroad Administration established those half-
tank rates themselves, both for Florida and Michigan.
Scott and his organization had nothing to do with these
rates other than to concur in them and to show that in
their opinion they were fair. This is witness' present
opinion.
With respect to what Mr. French said regarding former
application of half-tank rates on grapes, apples and pears,
witness thinks Mr. French unintentionally incorrectly
stated that.
For years the half-tank service has been offered only
for shipments of apples, pears and grapes. All other
commodities moving under stated charges were allowed
the privilege only of full tank service. That is the pres¬
ent basis in the new tariff on the Pere Marquette, hut
the Michigan Central incorrectly published their tariffs
and applied the half-tank rates on all commodities. No
exception was taken to it for the peaches and other com¬
modities had practically all moved when the rates were
put in; fihat is, the commodities that ordinarily would
move under full tank. (Tr., 9248.)
The effect of putting them in on the date they did was
simply to extend the servi/îe only to commodities it was
originally intended for.
342
As to what extent the Michigan shippers have availed
themselves of half-tank refrigeration, witness stated
that they were anxious that shippers should avail them¬
selves of this service because the great preponderance
of the ice used in Michigan service came from St. Paul
was costing $7 per ton, f. o. b. St. Paul, plus freight
charges, shrinkage, handling and other incidental items
of cost.
Car line was very anxious to furnish as little full tank
service as possible, and urged Mr. "Wright and other mem¬
bers of the Eailroad Administration to jjut half-tank
rates in long before they did. Witness himself called
on Mr. Wright immediately prior to New York hearing
and urged him to put Michigan half-tank rates in, and
told him that car line had advocated the rates originally,
months before. (Tr., 9249.)
Mr. Wright said the Eailroad Administration was will¬
ing to put them in, hut Interstate Commerce Commission
would not let them. Witness urged Mr. Wright to take
the question up with Commission and see if he could not
get them to change their views. He said he did not feel
inclined to do so.
When these rates were put in effect, witness immedi¬
ately telephoned his Michigan representatives to put as
many car line men as they could spare in Michigan to
go to each shipping station and urge shippers to use
half-tank service. Michigan shippers had said in Chicago
that they wanted it, and now that it was open to them,
witness hoped they would use it to the fullest extent.
Witness called upon Mr. Coombs and told him of wit¬
ness' statement in Chicago, and of the ice situation, and
urged him to write each of the shippers to use half-tank
service. This Mr. Coombs did. Witness willing to intro¬
duce Mr. Coombs' letter. (Tr., 9250.)
343
The first night the half-tank privilege was in, the wit¬
ness' car line had ninety orders for placement on the
following day. There was not a single half-tank order
among them. The next night, they had 88 orders, of
which three were for half tanks. It has been running
just a little stronger since on the Pere Marquette.
To witness' knowledge, shippers on Michigan Central
in Benton Harbor territory have not ordered a single
half tank since the service was offered, and their busi¬
ness has averaged daily from 30 to 55 cars.
In the Lawton territory on Michigan Central, and the
K. L. S. & C., the situation is somewhat different. The
first night the half-tank service was offered, out of 28
cars ordered, 20 were for half tanks. Witness has not
subsequent performance, but immediately following Mr.'
Coombs' testimony, witness telephoned his Benton Har¬
bor representatives, asking them to wire him tonight the
exact number of cars witness' car line placed since half-
tank tariff became effective, and to date how many half
tanks have been used. This will give situation, as of six
o'clock tonight (October 3, 1919). (Tr., 9251.)
With regard to percentages of half-tank rates ap¬
plicable to apples, witness personally does not concur in
putting apples from Michigan on any lower basis from
grapes for the reason that witness' own experience shows
that apples require more ice than grapes do, and if wit¬
ness was to have any differential based on Michigan
situation, he would put apples on a higher rate than
grapes. Witness' experience is that either the apples
move only in warm weather under heavy icing or they
move under ventilation and without ice.
As long as the weather is warm, shippers call for car
line to furnish the service. When the weather turns cool,
commodities are moved under ventilation; generally
344
speaking, heaviest Michigan apple movement is from Au¬
gust loth to September 15th, and witness' ice meltage is
very very heavy, so that when half-tank rates were put
in, it was with the idea that they would be 78 per cent
of the fruit rate, and not 78 per cent of the apple rate.
That explains the difference which Mr. French brought
out. (Tr., 9252.)
Witness regrets that after all that was said about half-
tank service, the shippers did not really take advantage
of it when offered. It wonld have saved all concerned
a great deal of money, and we have given shippers a
lower rate of refrigeration which they said they wanted.
(Tr., 9253.)
Witness has spent quite a few days in Michigan during
the current season, and in initially icing the half-tank
shipments car line furnishes two and a half tons. Wit¬
ness was on the platform continuously when those cars
came back, and his observation was that re-icing ran as
low as 4,000 pounds, and as high as 4,600 pounds. In
other words, the bunkers were nearly dry., Witness al¬
ways refers to first icing as "initial icing." All snbse-
quent ice put in bunkers is termed "re-icing."
On shipments from Benton Harbor to Chicago, the re-
icing at Benton Harbor after the car is loaded wonld be
the only re-icing in transit. It is only 99 miles. Even
on a shipment originating at Benton Harbor proper (Tr.,
9254), the car would be initially iced at Benton Harbor,
sent to the loading track or the spur that the car is
loaded on at Benton Harbor. The grapes are put in,
the bill of lading taken out, and the car is then switched
to the icing station at Benton Harbor, where it is re-
iced and there pnt in a through train for Chicago. That
car has the initial and one re-icing. (Tr., 9255.)
Kegardless of point of destination, half-tank shipments
are re-iced at the same identical station that witness'
34ñ
car line re-ièe full tank shipments. There is no difference
in that respect. The only difference in the half-tank serv¬
ice over full tank service as far as icing is concerned is
that witness' car line starts initially with two and one-
half tons in the bunkers instead of 5. (Tr., 9256.)
After that the car is filled to capacity at all stations
in hotli cases, only the bunker is smaller because the
bottom has been raised halfway up. Half-tank service
simply means; two and one-half tons of ice less in the
first re-icing plus whatever ice is subsequently required.
Usually original icing is given near loading point on wit¬
ness' line in Michigan. (Tr., 9257.)
Between point of initial icing and point of loading
maximum distance would be say 50 to 60 miles. Cannot
have icing points all over the states at loading stations.
Must have central icing stations so as to do business
in an orderly way. One loading station might be a mile
from the icing station and in some cases it might be as
high as 60. The average distance would be about 15
miles. This distance would be a factor in the meltage
of the original icing to some extent, but there would be
very little difference for the reason that the various load¬
ing stations are all served, usually, by a given trade;
if they have fifty orders one night, and they are going to
stations from one to forty miles from the icing station,
the same train, generally speaking, will take all of the
cars and the same train in the reversed direction will
bring them all back, so that their time away from the
icing station would be, generally speaking, about the
same. Half-tank refrigeration would be an obvious econ¬
omy to witness' car line, because they are losing money
on both half and full tank refrigeration even at the pro¬
posed rate. It was merely a question as to (Tr., 9259)
which service would cause them to lose less.
There is merely the question of whether the car line
346
is going to pay more to perform the service than it gets
for it. Half-tank rates were filed in a Fifteenth Sec¬
tion application, and were approved by everybody ex¬
cept the Interstate Commerce Commission. (Tr., 9260.)
When the Fifteenth Section application was made it
contained both half-tank and full tank rates. The Fif¬
teenth Section Board did not approve the half-tank fea¬
ture, but they did authorize the publication of the full
tank rates. Witness' car line company told the Admin¬
istration and the Michigan Central Eailroad that unless
it was given reasonable compensation, it would not ex¬
tend its service to Michigan this year. (Tr., 9261.) Wit¬
ness' car line company did not state that unless those
rates were approved in proposed amount, the cars would
be withdrawn from service because the cars had not then
been put in service. Witness' car line said it could not
operate at current rates and asked the Administration
if it wanted Avitness' car line service to put in rates
which their committee had established. Witness' car line
also told Eailroad Administration, Interstate Commerce
Commission and Director Thelen that if the Commission,
after hearing on those rates, found that they were- not
reasonable, witness' company would grant reparation
down to the point where they were considered reasonable
(Tr., 9262), so that witness personally made a point that
shippers should be given a hearing and in absence of
hearing they were entitled to have the Commission pass
on rates. Therefore, as far as Avitness' company was con¬
cerned, it certainly acted in good faith throughout.
If the Commission does not approve the rates in this
proposed operation, AA^itness' company is on record to pay
back the money to Michigan lines, and the Michigan lines
are under agreement to return it to shippers. Witness
reasserts that the president of his car line company did
not state to Interstate Commerce Commission that unless
347
these new rates were approved, his cars would not he
permitted to go into Michigan. Witness knows this be¬
cause he did 99 per cent of the talking himself at all
the conferences. (Tr., 9263.) Mr. Ellis was there. Wit¬
ness was present and knows what was said, also denies
that witness' car line officers said "if you want our serv¬
ice, you will have to give us these rates." (Tr., 9264.)
The scientific study of the relation between half-tank
and full tank service was made by Mr. C. E. Bell of the
Division of Traffic Bailroad Administration. Witness
agreed with Mr. Bell's conclusion. (Tr., 9265.)
In reply to Mr. Dow's question at the morning session
as to the movement of half-tank refrigeration used in
Michigan, witness stated that out of 1,807 cars furnished
for fruits and vegetables under refrigeration in Michi¬
gan, the one-half tank rates were established September,
1919; 284 of these cars were 15 per cent moved under
one-half tank service. This information came from Mr.
Scott by telegram in response to his telephone request
earlier in the day, and reads as follows :
"Benton Harbor., Michigan, October 3, 1919.
J. B. Scott,
Care Examiner Marshall Interstate Commerce
Bearing,
Green Boom, Congress Hotel, Chicago, Illi¬
nois.
Since September fifteenth furnished Benton Har¬
bor territory fourteen hundred fifty seven cars of
which one handled fifty three half tanked since Sep¬
tember sixteenth furnished Lawton territory total
three hundred fifty cars of which hundred thirty one
half tanked.
Fruit Growers' Express."
(Tr., 9385.)
348
Principle of Stated Charges.
Considerable discussion developed during the progress
of the hearings as to the propriety of a stated refrig¬
eration charge, as against the cost of ice per ton hasis.
A stated charge may be said to be an all-inclusive charge,
containing in itself all of the factors tvhich should prop¬
erly be taken into consideration in arriving at a figure
which will properly compensate the carrier for the serv¬
ice rendered over and above that which relates to haul¬
age alone. Those factors include, first, cost of ice sup¬
plied initially and in transit; second, haulage of ice;
third, switching to and from icing platforms; fourth,
bunker damage, or damage to refrigeration devices;
fifth, supervision incident purely to refrigerated traffic;
and sixth, an item to cover profit and hazard. There are
other items such as special cleaning, incidental to refrig¬
eration service, and which might be considered in con¬
nection with the cost of such service to the carriers, but
those have not been used in this case in arriving at the
proposed charges in the tariff now before us. This stated
charge basis is opposed to the cost of ice per ton basis.
The latter basis is one where the carrier recieves only a
given sum varying with the station where furnished, set
forth in the tariff, for the amount of ice furnished. No ad¬
ditional factor—not even a profit on ice—is included. On
that basis, the carrier is engaged in the biasiness of selling
ice, without profit, and, in many instances, at a distinct
loss.
The stated charge basis has been heretofore applied
on the bulk of the traffic of carload shipments of fruits
(except bananas and cocoanuts), vegetables, berries and
melons originating in Sontheim and Southeastern;
Southwestern, Transcontinental, and other "West¬
ern territories ; also on similar traffic from producing dis-
349
tricts on certain railroads in southern Michigan and in
southern Indiana. It has also been applied on all other
perishable traffic, such as packing-house products and
dairy freight, originating in Arizona, California, Idaho,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington. In the proposed tariff
the stated charge basis has been made uniform in prin¬
ciple and extended to apply on fresh or crushed fruits,
vegetables, berries, melons and fruit juices (not bev¬
erages) throughout the United States, including similar
traffic originating at points in Official Classification ter¬
ritory, as a whole in which, with the exception of cer¬
tain points of origin in southern Michigan and southern
Indiana, shipments have not been handled on basis of
stated refrigeration charges, but up to the present time
the shippers have performed their own initial icing at
their own expense (when it suited their purposes to do
so), or have called upon the carriers to do so, and the
carriers have performed any re-icing necessary in transit
on basis of charge per ton of ice.
The advantages and benefits of stated refrigeration
charges, both in principle and in fact, are already clearly
of record before the Interstate Commerce Commission
in various cases, wherein the Commission has upheld
the propriety of such charges, and the factors relating
thereto, as well as the reasonableness of the charges
there involved. Among those cases are the following:
Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange, et al., v.
Southern Pacific Co., et al., 20 I. C. C., 106.
Railroad Commission of California v. Alabama
Great Southern R. R. Co., et al., 32 I. C. C., 17.
Refrigeration Charges on Fruits and Vege¬
tables, 29 I. C. C., 653.
Refrigeration Charges on the Kansas City
Southern Ry., 26 I. C. C., 617.
350
Melon Refrigeration Charges, 38 I. C. C., 62.
Montrose S Delta Counties, etc., v. R, R. Co.,
3á I. C. C., 400.
Williamson v. A. T. é S. F. Ry. Co., et al., 42
I. C. C., 11.
Mississippi R. R. Commission v. Few Orleans,
etc., 42 I. C. C., 574.
Roy Camphell v. St. Louis, Brownsville £ Mexico
Ry. Co., et al, 44 I. C. C., 567.
Unit Marketing System, et al., 48 I. C. C., 510.
Loretz, Pegram S Company v. Southern Pacific
Co., et al, 51 I. C. C., 158.
The fundamental reasons why stated refrigeration
arges are correct in principle are well stated by Mr.
, F. McPike, in his Exhibit No. 31, as follows:
1. Carriers should not he expected or required
to sell ice as a commodity since their only obliga¬
tion is to furnish refrigeration as a service.
2. The stated refrigeration charge places undi¬
vided responsibility on the carrier to perform and
give adequate and efficient refrigeration in transit
without restriction from the shipper.
3. The stated refrigeration charge permits con¬
servation of food products by minimizing wastage.
4. The stated refrigeration charge insures a
parity of routes as to the cost to the shipper for re¬
frigeration and equality between shipper and ship¬
ments.
5. A charge based only on cost of ice and labor
does not give the carrier compensation for the
various other factors which form a legitimate part
of the gross cost of furnishing refrigeration and
does not yield to the carrier a fair profit to which it
is entitled.
6. The stated refrigeration charge is known in
advance and is a convenience to the shipper in
enabling him to quote prices on his products.
7. The Interstate Commerce Commission itself
has stated that the public interest is served in a
351
more satisfactory manner when the carriers pro¬
vide in their tariffs for through refrigeration
charges, thus placing the carriers and shippers upon
a parity as regards the charges received and paid for
refrigeration and at the same time removing what¬
ever opportunity may exist for inequalities, irregu¬
larities or possible discrimination growing out of
the use of local icing charges per ton or per 100
pounds of ice. {Refrigeration charges on fruits and
vegetables from Colorado points to Kansas points,
I. & S. Docket No. 293, 29 I. C. C., 656.)
8. As was shown by the carriers' testimony. In
the Matter of Private Cars, I. C. C. Docket 4906, the
stated charge prevents discrimination or favoritism
and assures the most efficient service and is, there¬
fore better for all concerned than the per ton of ice
basis.
In support of the expressions of the Commission in de¬
cided cases, and in addition to Mr. McPike's testimony,
attention is called to the evidence of witnesses in this
proceeding, as follows :
W. S. Kallmax:
Assistant freight traffic manager. New York Central
Eailroad. Has been associated with the New York Cen¬
tral for 19 years and in the railroad business 36 years,
mostly in the traffic department. (Tr>, 6323.)
"The principle of a stated refrigeration charge is a
correct one to apply in connection with refrigerator car
traffic." (Tr., 6332.)
Lucius H. Kextuield :
General freight agent of the New York, New Haven
and Hartford Eailroad and Central New England Eail¬
road; has been connected with the traffic department of
the N. Y. N. H. & H. E. E. since 1886. (Tr., 6476.)
"I would say, without any reservation at all, as I look
at it, and as I have been at this case and have seen how
352
the thing worked out in other territories, that the proper
way to naake icing- charges is upon a stated price, as
proposed in this tariff. That is as to the principle. I
am not now discussing the rates. In principle that is all
right." (Tr., 6499.)
"For the carriers to undertake to publish tariffs on the
per ton basis is all wrong and leads to all kinds of con¬
troversies not only with fruit and vegetable shippers,
but all kinds of shippers, and the railroad cannot col¬
lect its money. The shipper does not know when the
shipment leaves its point of origin, what the charges are
going to be when it reaches its destination. Exigencies
arise and things must be done, and then when you come
to collect the icing charges there is a dispute between
the railroad and the consignee, and it all bids for ill
feeling. If the charge is stated at the point of origin,
the shipper knows, and the railroad knows, and the con¬
signee knows, and you remove all those controversies."
(Tr., 6520.)
C. E. Bell:
Assistant to director, division of traffic, U. S. E. E.
Administration. His railroad service had its inception
with the Southern Eailway in 1895; was commercial
agent for the Chicago, Indiana & Louisville Eailroad in
1899, chief clerk to the division freight ag-ent of the
Southern Eailway at Ealeigh, North Carolina; from 1901
to 1902, commercial agent of the Southern Eailway at
Savannah, Georgia; 1903 to 1906, inclusive, commercial
agent of the Southern Eailway at Augusta, Georgia;
1907 to 1910, inclusive, chief clerk in the general freight
department of the Southern Eailway, Atlanta, Georgia;
1911 to October 1, 1916, assistant general freight agent.
Southern Eailway, Atlanta, Georgia; October, 1916, to
353
January, 1918, general freight agent Southern Kailway
System, Washington, in charge of commerce department;
1918 to February 1, 1919, assistant manager of Inland
Traffic, U. S. Food Administration. In that position I
had entire charge of all matter pertaining to perishable
freight transportation; February 1, 1919, to date, in
present position. (Tr., 33 to 35.)
Was in touch -with perishable commodities while com¬
mercial agent in 1899 from 1901 to 1906 and from 1911 to
October 1, 1916. (Tr., 33 and 34.)
It was not only the view of the committee, but also the
view of the division of traffic, that a stated service should
be governed by a stated charge, and in those instances
where stated charges had not previously been operated,
the committee was directed to provide stated charges per
car. The committee was further directed that in for¬
mulating all stated charges to proceed on the principle
that a carrier is entitled to compensation for any service
performed by it, based on the cost, plus a reasonable
profit. This principle is in consonance with the law and
expressions of the Interstate Commerce Commission in
various defined cases. (Tr., 39-40.)
It. C. Dearbokït:
Has been with the Pacific Fruit Express Company
since October 1, 1907, in various clerical capacities, in
charge of icing record bureau, ice bill bureau, chief clerk
to superintendent of transportation, assistant superin¬
tendent of transportation, and now general agent; with
BTuit Growers' Express for four years previous to en¬
tering service of Pacific Fruit Express Co. (Tr., 251.)
I have made some study of the problems presented by
the tariff under consideration so far as refrigeration is
concerned. I have had a number of years in connection
354
with refrigeration service. I do not think there is any
question but that refrigeration charges should be on a
stated basis and not on the cost of ice per ton basis.
(Tr., 6170.)
Q. ll'ill you please give, in detail, your reasons for
that opinion? A. In the first place, I think it is essen¬
tial for the preservation of food products and the con¬
servation of food products, inasmuch as stated refrig¬
eration means maximum service, and maximum service
is necessary, generally speaking, to protect perishable
commodities, such as fruits and vegetables.
Secondly, I believe the service should pay for itself.
It is a service in addition to the line-haul rate, an acces¬
sorial service, commonly termed, and the cost of ice basis
is either operated at a loss or at practically cost of the
ice alone, nothing being allowed for the additional ele¬
ments and the additional service which the carriers have
to perform in connection with protection against the
heat.
Thirdly, I believe it prevents discrimination in two dif¬
ferent ways : Discrimination as between points in the
same territory and discriminaton as between points in
different territories.
At the present time between 80 and 90 per cent of the
entire refrigerated business, fruits and vegetables, in
the United States, moves under stated refrigeration
charges.
Take various commodities, such as apples or grapes,
peaches or pears, which move from different sections
of the country, and I believe that the individual ship¬
pers from the various sections are entitled to get and
to pay for the same class of service, one as against the
other ; and while it may be greater from a long-haul ter-
355
ritory than from a short-haul territory, it is all on the
same fundamental basis.
As to discrimination in the same territory or on ship¬
ments originating in the same territories, where you
have two or three lines operating in the originating sec¬
tion, one being the short line, and to a distance, say, 500
miles away it would require two re-icings after the ini¬
tial and the first re-icing at point of shipment, while on
the longer line, which is a competing line, it might re¬
quire three re-icings in addition to the initial and the
first re-icing, then you would have a situation, competi¬
tive conditions, and the long line would desire to meet the
actual cost of ice as supplied by the short line, which
would bring about a situation where the long line either
would not fill the bunkers to capacity, and you would not
get the service, or the long line would, to get part of that
business, absorb part of the cost of icing.
Then you have the third situation something along the
same lines, which has come to my attention, and which
I know has been in operation, that is, that you have a ter¬
ritory which is located within a very few miles on the
same railroad of a territory where they have stated re¬
frigeration charges, your first territory being under cost
of ice. Certain brokers have taken advantage of condi¬
tions of that kind, and in dealing with the farmers have
made arrangements with the farmers to protect their
shipments for so much a hundredweight from point of
origin to point of destination, basing their charges on
the charge which was in effect in the nearby territory as
a stated refrigeration charge and then ordering ice in
such quantities as they might see fit, leaving them a
profit on the railroad's service. In other words, the
actual cost of ice was $25 or $35 or $40, as against a
stated charge of $45 or $50 or $60, whatever it might
356
be, and this broker has made a profit on those farmers
in that territory on a service where he had nothing what¬
ever to do with it, except that he was acting as their
agent and was trying to get them, as they thought, high
prices and good markets, and things of that kind.
We also have another situation where you depend upon
shippers, or where shippers make the assertion that
they are in a position to furnish the ice for their own
products, rather than call upon the railroads to do so.
Shippers in some territories—I think this particularly
applies in New York and Ohio—have small lakes or
ponds near their places of business, and cut a certain
amount of their own ice. The carriers are obligated to
have sufficient ice to take care of the business. In other
Avords, the shippers can call upon the carriers, at any
time to furnish refrigerated cars, whether it be at cost
of ice or on a stated charge, and the carriers hold them¬
selves out as being in a position to furnish that service.
Take a situation such as we had brought into the testi¬
mony the other day at Port Clinton, Ohio, where the
shippers, or where a representative of the shippers, sec¬
retary of the association, was also secretary of the ice
company, and they put up a certain amount of ice which
it Avas contended Avas Avorth $2 a ton.
The 1919 ice season AAms extraordinary in some re¬
spects and in some territories, and ice has cost anywhere
from $2 to $12 or $15 a ton. This ice shipper is in a
position, if he has got this ice at $2 a ton, and the railroad
publishes a rate that they will supply it to them at |4
to go out and sell it for $8 or $10' or $12, and then call
upon the railroad to supply that ice to him at $4 a ton,
having sold it to' somebody else and made $6 or $7 or
$8 a ton, knoAA'ing that the railroad has to protect its busi¬
ness. He has a chance to work it either way. The rail-
357
road, knowing that in the past this man has generally
protected his own business, has not laid in the supply
of ice that they would naturally lay in, and they are put
in a hole. Then they have got to go out and pay ex¬
orbitant prices for ice to take care of his business.
Those are some of the reasons for stated refrigera¬
tion.
Q. There is also, is there not, Mr. Dearborn, where
the shipper moves his commodities on the cost of ice per
ton basis, a varying practice between the shippers as to
the amount of ice that is supplied to these various cars?
A. The shipper, generally speaking, does not have
much of an idea of what effect ice has upon a commodity
when moving in a car. They may feel, and a great many
of them feel, probably some of them know, but a great
many of them feel, that in certain instances two thou¬
sand or three thousand or four thousand pounds is suffi¬
cient. The weather is cool to-day, and the man orders a
car and says he wants 4,000 lbs. of ice, and he starts
the car out, and says to re-ice with a ton some place else,
and then to-morrow it turns hot. Especially is that true
along in September, when the temperature changes from
50 or 60 up to 75 or 80 or 90 degrees; that is, it runs
from 50 or 60 up as high as 90. Consequently, he has a
greater meltage of ice than he anticipated, and his fruit
turns soft. And some of them have been known to put
in claims on shipments of that kind, figuring that the
carrier might have delayed the car 4 or 5 hours, or if
they had a chance to get by with it in some way or other ;
and if the shipment is delayed a very short time by the
carrier, when if the shipments had been moving under
stated refrigeration charges no damage would possibly
have resulted, as he would have had maximum service,
the claim is presented and the carrier either has to pay
358
it or go to the expense of a great deal of work and a
possible laM'suit in declining to pay it.
Q. In other words, where the shipments were moving
nnder stated refrigeration charges, the carrier is in a
Letter position as the shipment moves to know what
amounts of ice should be supplied at the various points
en route 1
A. The carrier takes the position that he ices the cars
at all points en route to their maximum capacity, and
charges accordingly, and there is no chance of any slip
or anything of that kind.
Q. In other words, the shipper speculates in advance
when he gives his instructions as to what the conditions
of temperature are going to he after that shipment
actually starts to move?
A. That is true.
Q. But the carrier, as the car reaches the various ic¬
ing points, has its inspectors on hand at those points and
the bunkers are examined, and then the icing is per¬
formed according to the particular necessities which ex¬
ist at that point or at those points ? A. They are filled to
capacity at those regular stations, whether the indica¬
tions are that the temperature is going down or is go¬
ing up; it makes no difference. Maximum service pro¬
vides that the cars will be re-iced to capacity at all regu¬
lar icing stations ; and to the best of my knowledge that
is lived up to.
Q. Even two cars starting out from the same point
and traveling to the same destination, where the ship¬
pers are different, the icing instructions vary to a very
great extent, do they not, where the cars are moving on a
cost of ice per ton basis? A. I think so.
Q. That gives a sliiiiper a chance, does it not, to
359
speculate against his neighbor ; in other words, one ship¬
per may figure that he can get by with a lesser amount
of ice than his neighbor uses, and thereby, if the ship¬
ment does happen to get to destination in good condi¬
tion, to sell his article, for less than his neighbor can?
A. As I said previously, it alloAvs of a chance for dis¬
crimination as betAveen the cost of various commodities
moving from and' to the same particular points, yes.
It may not only alloAV it on their instructions to ice at
certain points Avith a certain amount, but even if they
move it A'ia different routes to the same points, and in¬
struct to re-ice to capacity at all points, there would be
a difference in cost. (Tr., 6171-78.)
The Witness (continuing) : There is also a divided re¬
sponsibility. (Tr., 6178.) The Committee made some
investigation with regard to the situation in New York
State as to the practices of the shippers under this cost
of ice per ton basis. It is pretty hard to say just Avhat
conclusion was reached from that investigation. They
found pretty nearly every practice in the Avorld prevail¬
ing in NeAv York State AAdien it came to handling perish¬
able products, not only by the shippers, but I regret to
say in some instances by the carriers. (Tr., 6178.)
Some of the practices of the shippers are, I think in
some instances, ears are ordered iced with a ton of ice
and sent out to loading stations filled to capacity with
the product, and come back dry, and possibly iced to ca¬
pacity and moved out Avith instructions to ice at certain
stations with a ton or two tons, or possibly to capacity,
and in a great many instances it was found that the car¬
riers supplied ice and never did put the charge for it
on the billing and some shippers would ice cars A\dth
3,000 or 4,000 pounds, and some Avith 5,000 or 6,000, and
some of them to capacity. There was pretty nearly any
360
condition that you would want to find that you could find
down there.
Q. Are there not some tariffs in this territory which
provide that the initial icing at a given station, for in¬
stance, shall be $4 a ton, and that the re-icing at that
station shall he |2.50 per ton!. A. I have not seen that
tariff. I have been informed that that is the fact, and
that is the reason they initially iced the car with 2,000
pounds, paying the $4 rate, and get really the full tank
icing at the $2.50 rate. (Tr., 6178-9.)
Q. (By Mr. "VVestlake.) In other words, under that
tariff, the shippers will put i,n one ton of ice, for which
he pays $4, and will send his car out to the loading point,
and possibly come back dry to this same station, and
then he will fill it to capacity at $2.50 per ton? A. That
is correct. Or he might order it iced to-day with 2,000
pounds and tell them to hold it until to-morrow, that be¬
ing the initial icing to-day, and to-morrow he will tell
them to put in 10,000 pounds, to fill it to capacity, which
he can get at $2.50 a ton; and then ship it out to his
icing station and put in his fruit and bring it back—
Q. Ship it out to the loading station, you mean? A.
Ship it out to the loading station, yes. (Tr., 6179-6180.)
E. W. Rice (direct examination) :
Lives in Chicago; connected Avith Hygienic Ice Com¬
pany; prior to that was general freight agent of the
American Refrigerator Transit Company at St. Louis
for nine years. Had charge of traffic and operation, han¬
dling perishable freight. (Tr., 7129.)
His company served various railroads, the principal
of which was the Wabash, Denver & Rio Grande, Inter¬
national Great Northern, Cotton Belt, Texas & Pacific,
Kansas City Southern, S. A. U. & S. Also had traffic
361
agreements with many eastern lines. Was a member of
the committee which prepared the proposed tariff and
worked out various charges and rules. Begau this work
iu a small committee early iu January, 1918, and con¬
tinued until May 1, 1919. (Tr., 7130.) Was engaged on
this proposed tariff for about one year and five months.
The original committee had been working on refrigera¬
tion in general for the past eight or nine years, but
on January 1, 1918 they started off with a view of
applying refrigeration charges generally, then about
April 1, 1918, there was a committee appointed by
the Eailroad Administration to take up the work and
carry it on until this time. Commencing about April,
1918, this committee, composed of railroad men and re¬
frigeration men from all over the United States, was
organized and brought together at Chicago. The com¬
mittee Avas divided in three sections, one for the terri¬
tory north of the Ohio and Potomac and east of the
Mississippi, another for the territory south of the Ohio
and east of the Mississippi, and another for the rest of
the country, largely west of the Mississippi. As stated
refrigeration charges had been applied generally from
all the territory Avest of the Mississippi south of the Ohio
and east of the Mississippi, it was only a question of
revising the charges and rules applying from that par¬
ticular territory, but in the territory north of the Ohio
and east of the Mississippi, AAÛth the exception of south¬
ern Illinois and part of Michigan and Maryland, some
of the territory covered by the Pennsylvania Eailroad
and possibly one or two other exceptions, the practice
and custom A\ms the so-called cost of ice basis. (Tr.,
7131.)
This committee developed the movement of various
commodities, fruits and vegetables for this territory, the
cost of ice, and attempted to work out the basis for a
362
large part of tlie territory based on tlieir experience in
connection Avitb other territories and the conditions as
they showed up. That was not a difhcnlt matter because
the relation of refrigeration to commodities that were
under consideration is practically the same in all ter¬
ritories. It is only a question of applying service in
other sections. Witness represented A. E. T. Company
seven seasons in New York, and was located in Buffalo-
Eochester territory. In addition to that he made visits
to New York during the time the committee was in ses¬
sion, for the purpose of investigating conditions in that
section in connection with this particular tariff. (Tr.,
7133.) With regard to the customs and practices of ship¬
pers in New York territory, working under the cost of
ice basis, witness found that the cost of ice basis ap¬
plied generally and that the business is handled in a
haphazard manner. Cars are supplied by carriers and
shippers do their own initial icing so far as they can
and the cars are billed to re-ice in transit in accordance
with their respective views of what they think the ship¬
ments will require, resulting in ambiguous and indefinite
arrangements and in varying charges to the shippers,
and a divided responsibility as between the carriers and
the shippers. Such condition always results, and the
shipper, so long as he can supply ice advantageously,
namely, at a lower cost than it is supplied by the rail¬
roads, will of course supply the ice. The railroad has
first got to anticipate the movement, must supply a maxi¬
mum amount of ice or have it ready, or have the lia¬
bility of supplying it, but it is only used when it is to the
advantage of the shipper to use it. At some shipping
points shippers will get their ice from their own supply
or through their own contracts so long as satisfactory
conditions prevail, and when that supply is exhausted
they then call upon the railroad for the iced cars, which
363
tlie railroad company lias to supply. The railroad has
to stand ready to supply that ice in eases where the ship¬
per does not supply it or cannot supply it. It also results
that while the railroad may have the ice on hand, if the
shipper happens to have sufficient ice of his own, then the
railroad is unable to use its ice. Previously in New York
State the tariff charge for initial and re-icing was $2.50
per ton in bunkers, but some four or five years ago the
carriers increased the price of initial icing to $4 per ton,
leaving the re-icing charge at $2.50 a ton. (Tr., 7135.)
The shippers took advantage of that in a great many
cases by ordering onh?- one ton or possibly two tons at
the $4 rate, loading the cars with 20,000 or 24,000 pounds
of hot fruit, and then billing the cars to re-ice to capac¬
ity, which ice was supplied at the same station to the
same car at $2.50 per ton. The re-icing instructions
varied with the number of shippers that ivere supplying
fruit. Practically no two of them used the same notation,
even from the same station. One shipper looks at
weather conditions and if in his opinion it will only need
one ton in transit he bills it to re-ice one ton. Another
shipper bills it to re-ice to capacity; another to re-ice at
the first icing station ; another to re-ice at some other sta¬
tion. That would apply from the same station to differ¬
ent cars in the same train, and sometimes to the same des¬
tination. Witness interviewed a number of shippers in
that territory with regard to their opinion as to the pro¬
priety of a stated refrigeration charge as against the
cost per ton of ice basis. (Tr., 7135.) Witness knew
a good many of the shippers in that territory and han¬
dled a good deal of traffic for them in other territories
under stated refrigeration charges. He made it a point
to discuss the matter with them so that he could get
their ideas about it, and without exception they all said
they would prefer to see stated refrigeration charges
364
rather than the cost of ice basis. Shippers referred to
Avere J. L. Branch of Lockport, William Branch, Charles
Dean of Albion. Does not recall the names of the others.
Some of the shippers stated that they confronted unsatis¬
factory conditions with respect to ice (Tr., 7136) ; that
in some cases they had to store their peaches on account
of being unable to get ice and cars promptly; that they
were taking adAmntage of the storages that AA-ere avail¬
able for that purpose. Witness' reasons for thinking
that the stated charge basis is proper as against the cost
of ice basis are that, first, it provides a definite fixed
charge betAveen all points of origin and points of destina¬
tion on all fruits and vegetables, so that all concerns are
paying a uniform definite rate. The carriers do not
haAm a divided responsibility as to the serA'ice. They
knoAv it is their duty to provide the ice supply for initial
icing and for re-icing. They knoAV that this entire serv¬
ice, like that of transportation, is entirely up to them,
and thus proAÛde for it accordingly. Under the cost of
ice basis, the shipper provides for the initial icing so far
as it is coiwenient or adA^^ntageous for him to do so,
and yet the carrier has to stand ready with ice in case,
it is called upon for it. The carrier then has to contend
AA'ith all of the indefinite and unreasonable re-icing nota¬
tions that are suggested and shoAvn by the shipper on
the bills of lading. (Tr., 7137.) The consequence is that
under the cost of ice basis shipments do not in a great
many cases haAm the proper maximum protection, and
that no tAvo persons pay the same charge. The charge
Amries in accordance AA'ith each shipment. Furthermore,
the carriers under cost of ice basis furnish a great deal
of service for which they do not receive any pay. They
often furnish ice for AA-hich they do not receive pay. For
illustration, of ten cars out of one station over the same
route, passing tlirough tAvo or three re-icing stations,
365
three might he billed to re-ice to capacity at all icing sta¬
tions. They are all re-iced and the amounts billed
against the shipper. Others will he billed to re-ice one
ton at possibly the second ice station. Yet when those
cars go into the first re-icing station they oftentimes are
re-iced because it is impossible for the carrier to regu¬
late the labor and to regulate the handling of them so as
to restrict the icing in accordance with the particular
notations that cover the hilling. (Tr., 7138.)
It is impossible for the men in charge of the icing
station to always regulate the labor to the extent of
only adding the amount of ice called for in the hilling.
In cases where shipments are billed to re-ice at a given
station only, something often happens beyond to require
further re-icing, in Avhich case the railroad gets no pay
for the re-icing. In some cases the charges for re-icing
do not reach destination in time to be paid before the
shipment is disposed of. For instance, a man at Albion,
N. Y., handles for the account of shippers there a car¬
load of peaches, and there are ten shippers putting each
forty bushels of peaches in the car and that car goes
to Pittsburgh ; it is re-iced at East Buffalo or some other
point and they fail to get the charges against the ship¬
ment before it has arrived at Pittsburgh or at the time of
its arrival, and the bill shows np for this particular ice
a month or six weeks later. (Tr., 7139.) The railroad
company bills the shipper at point of origin and he in¬
variably comes back and says that he has made a settle¬
ment Avith his growers and he cannot collect. A great
many items of this kind are never collected. (Tr., 7139-
7140.)
Referring to Fraser's Exhibit No. 3 on page 34, wit¬
ness calls attention to a shipment from Barker, N. Y., in
September, 1918, bearing the quotation "One re-icing in
366
transit, cost not known." That is probably one of those
cases where the car was iced and no doubt showed on
the expense bill but the amount was not collected. (Tr.,
7140.) Of any number of shipments under the cost of
ice basis you will find more or less cases of that kind.
Witness has read Mr. Dearborn's testimony in connec¬
tion with formula which was used in constructing these
refrigeration charges in the western New York territory.
That formula was correctly stated by him. (Tr., 7141.)
Cross-Examination hy Mr. Younger.
The members of the eastern committee were Mr. Mc-
Williams of the B. & 0., Mr. Horr of the New York Cen¬
tral, Mr. Lantz of the Erie, Mr. Parkhurst of the New
York Central and Edward Flynn of the Grand Trunk.
That was the subcommittee of the general committee
who worked on refrigeration charges for Official Classi¬
fication territory. It had the assistance of various repre¬
sentatives of other lines. In regard to the investigation
which the committee made as to the cost of refrigeration
service to the shipper under the per ton of ice basis,
as compared with the stated charges as proposed, the
committee took representative stations and got the bills
of lading, billing, and developed the icing in transit, the
expense bills and took these items and consolidated them
and developed what the expense had been, but that ex¬
pense only shows the cost of ice and only a partial cost of
ice, and at that, only the price being charged by the rail¬
road company, which did not anywhere near represent the
cost. They made up detailed figures as to the actual
amounts that were paid by a number of shippers under
the per ton of ice basis. Did not pay a great deal of
attention to those figures because they did not represent
anything. In lots of cases where the shippers did their
own icing they restricted the additional icing so that they
367
did not ice to capacitJ^ They restricted this icing some¬
times to half the bunker capacity and sometimes to two-
thirds; thus they would restrict transit icings and the
Avhole thing was so indefinite that there were no facts
upon which exhibits could be based, such as Fraser 's Ex¬
hibit No. 3. They did not represent anything. Investi¬
gations Avere made of actual payments by shippers un¬
der the ton of ice basis. These investigations covered
about 150 to 200 cars. (Tr., 7142 to 7144.)
In reply to the question as to whether or not what
might "appear to be a haphazard manner of icing as
earlier referred to by the witness, was in fact due to
the conditions of the fruit itself, witness replied that he
did not knoAV of any condition that could apply, as an
illustration, to peaches, that AA'Ould permit any shipper
to attempt to handle peaches AAÛthout maximum refrig¬
eration. Witness heard part of Mr. Eraser's testimony
but did not hear his testimony as to the different charac¬
teristics of particular varieties of apples that would re¬
quire different icing. Witness knows nothing about the
varying amounts of ice used on any particular apples
shipped, further than what records the committee AAas
able to develop. They Avere usually iced only to tAAm or
three tons. Witness did not draAV his conclusions as to
haphazard icing merely from different amounts of ice
used, but from the fact that anybody who tries to handle
peaches or pears or any other deciduous, even apples of
early variety,—fall shipments by only using a restricted
amount of ice for initial icing or re-icing, is handling it
in a haphazard icing. Witness knoAA^s of no conditions
in the nature of the pear or the purpose for which it aa'us
to be used at destination that would justify or require a
different amount of icing or refrigeration. In connection
Avith pears, Avitness AA'ould say that if different amounts
of ice Avere used betAveen some points, that the icing Avas
368
haphazard. The same thing would apply to peaches and
to the early varieties of apples. As to whether he is
an authority on the characteristics of the commodities
mentioned, witness replied that he is forty years of age
and has been handling them all his life. Witness thinks
he understands the commodities to the extent that he
would know the amount of ice they would require under
different conditions. The shippers in western New York
who expressed their preference for stated refrigeration
charges do so because they had represented themselves
and other fruit dealers all over the south and southeast
and the west where all these comanodities are handled
under stated refrigeration charges, and the service had
been so much more satisfactory to them that they said
they wished the same basis and the same manner or
handling would apply in New York State; that they had
contended with all kinds of conditions that were adverse
to the proper and efficient handling of fruit in that ter¬
ritory, that is, fruit originating in New York State, and
that they believe the service was superior, and for that
reason they wanted stated charge basis. (Tr., 7145 to
7148.)
Redirect Examination.
Mr. McLaughlin was chairman of the general commit¬
tee. The witness was also a member. Witness did not
mention any members of the general committee, but was
asked about the subcommittee dealing with the eastern
situation. Mr. McLaughlin dealt with the eastern situa¬
tion, also Mr. Beidelman and Mr. McPike. The members
of the general committee had charge of the work, the
subcommittee reported to them. The eastern section
work was divided up. The witness was in New York
State, Mr. Horr of the New York Central was in Ohio,
Mr. Scott in Michigan and Maryland, Mr. Crow in south-
369
ein Illinois, Mr. Gumming, who is now with the Amer¬
ican Fruit and Vegetable Association, investigated the
Indiana situation. Each state was looked after by some
member. Witness handled New York State. When wit¬
ness had worked several days, had had several New York
Central men at Avork for two or three weeks and got his
data together, covering about 150 to 200 cars, it gave
so little information that he did not consider it of any
value because it only showed partially the ice used and
it did not represent the cost of the ice because the tariff
price Avas applied. The ice is not the only item in the
expense of refrigeration. It vms not as a result of the
investigation of these cars only that AAutness came to
the conclusion that icing in Avestern Ncav York was hap¬
hazard. He had knoAvn that from many years ' experience
prior to that time. Opinion is based upon coming into
direct contact with such service and such results as have
followed it. That opinion is based also upon the fact
that in any territory AAdiere the cost of ice basis applies,
or in case of shippers icing, it results in a service that
does not adequately and fully protect the property. It
results in varying charges and the carriers supplying
serAÛce and materials for aa'hich they do not get any pay,
and the results generally obtained are adverse to not
only the traffic but to all concerned. It did not take wit¬
ness long to be convinced that those conditions existed
there the same as they had in every other territory that
he had come in contact aa'ith Avhere the same practice pre¬
vailed. Witness neA'er knoAv of any case Avhere shippers
have had a stated refrigeration charge and wanted to re¬
turn to cost per ton of ice basis. (Tr., 7149 to 7153.)
370
R. R. Blydetstburgií :
Assistant general freight agent Pennsylvania, and in
tlie traffic department of that railroad since 1881. (Tr.,
6360-6370.) For reasons already given, thinks the prin¬
ciple of stated refrigeration charges is preferable to the
shippers' cost of ice. (Tr., 6383.) Shippers ought to
pay for the maximum service necessary to proper re¬
frigeration. (Tr., 6384.)
John B. Scott :
I am general manager of the Fruit Growers ' Express
and I have been general manager for about four years.
Prior to that time I was assistant general manager and
prior to that time various other positions connected with
the same company in the refrigeration business since
1894.
IVe serve the Fruit Growers' Express service to all
the railroads in the Southeast, with the exception of the
Louisville & Nashville, the Chesapeake & Ohio, and the
Norfolk & "Western and there may be a few other minor
exceptions, but practically all the railroads of conse¬
quence. (Tr., 7608.)
Q. You have said that there was a change being
worked in tlie practice that had prevailed in this section
of the country. Will you let me have the benefit of your
views as to the propriety or impropriety of the stated
charge basis as against the cost of ice per ton basis! A.
Personally, Mr. Westlake, I feel as I have testified in
many cases that stated charges are quite desirable for
the proper handling of fruits and vegetables, and I do
not believe it is necessary to go into detail as to why I
believe that, for the reason that my ideas, generally
speaking, have been voiced by many of the other wit¬
nesses, particularly Mr. Dearborn and also Mr. Bell, al-
371
though I want to limit that answer to fruits and vegeta¬
bles. I have some other ideas on other commodities.
Q. Then limiting your testimony to fruits and vegeta¬
bles, is that opinion based to some extent upon your
many years ' experience in connection with the refrigera¬
tion of fruits and vegetables f A. It is based entirely on
my 25 years' experience in the handling of fruits and
vegetables. (Tr., 6417-6421.)
The Witness (continuing) : My thought on the ad¬
visability and desirability of putting stated charges on
fresh meats, for example, is this, as I have testified in
other cases. (Tr., 6421-6422.)
I think the situation which obtains in connection Avith
fresh meat traffic is not at all comparative with fruits
and vegetal)les, and because of that fact and for that
reason I do not think that a stated charge is proper on
fresh meats and packing-house products, for the rea¬
son that the whole basis of our charges, for example,
on fruits and vegetables first contemplates that Ave are
going to furnish the refrigerator car. In the case of
fresh meats and packing-house products, the shipper fur¬
nishes the car.
Next, the stated charges contemplate the carriers in¬
dividually icing the car. In the case of fresh meats the
shipper does it. In the case of fruits and vegetables,
under the stated charge the carriers perform the first re-
icing. In the case of fresh meats, and packing-house
products, the shipper ices the cars.
Next, in thd case of fruits and vegetables, all our
charges contemplate a specific charge for damage to the
bunkers or refrigerating devices. In the case of fresh
meat and packing-house products, the cars being fur¬
nished by the shippers that damage naturally is taken
care of by the shippers who furnish the cars.
372
Again, in the instance of fruit and vegetables we nat¬
urally have to prepare the car and clean it and put it in
proper condition for taking care of the load that it is
going to handle. In the case of fresh meats and packing¬
house-products that service is performed by the ship¬
per.
Again, in the case of fruits and vegetables, generally
speaking, the loads are put in the car direct from the
fields Avith the natural heat that would obtain under these
conditions, Avhile all packing-house products and fresh
meats are loaded direct from the coolers and the expense
of superAusion that Avould naturally obtain in handling
fruits and A'egetables because of the conditions that
surround the handling of these commodities would be less
than the handling of these commodities than in the case
of fresh meat and packing-house products because the
major part of that Avork is done by the shipper. (Tr.,
6423-6424.)
If I am correct in my understanding of this situation,
Mr. Examiner, that the great preponderance of dairy
traffic is handled from cold storage plants, my ansAver
in that case Avould be the same practically as to fresh
meat and packing-house products.
I am not familiar Avith the methods of handling and
shipping, Avhat I may call shell fish, that is, oysters, lob¬
sters, clams, etc., and would prefer not to express an
opinion on that because I am not familiar Avith the con¬
ditions under which they are handled. (Tr., 6424.)
Bananas are a x>eculiar commodity, generally sjoeaking,
they do not require refrigeration and the only object in
using ice and Avhen it is used according to my experience,
there is only a limited amount used, it is then for the
purpose of retarding the ripening and in such cases
generally speaking it is under the direction of the mes-
373
senger in charge; a man usually accompanies these cars
and if the condition of the bananas in his judgment is
such that a ton of ice in front of the car or in some other
cases- in the back bunker is necessary for the preserva¬
tion of the bananas, he will put it in. So that I really
do not see how you could arrive at stated charges on a
commodity of that kind. I think the cost of ice really is
the proper basis.
I Avould say that a very, very small proportion of bana¬
nas are shipped under refrigeration from gulf ports, ex¬
cept cars going to the southern territory, which, I Avould
imagine, are largely in a little riper condition than the
general run of bananas going to the major portion of
the country. Generally they move in refrigeration cars
under ventilation. (Tr., 6425.)
Q. (By Mr. King) : What objection have you to a
stated replenishing charge on packing-house products,
dairy products, and so forth?
A. From a personal standpoint and from the stand¬
point of equity, I would say that there would be no objec¬
tion to it at all, providing it was put on the proper basis.
Q. (By Mr. "Westlake) : You mean providing the
measure of the charges were proper?
A. Yes, I think all traffic should pay for that service
that it gets. (Tr., 6425-6426.)
Q. (By Mr. "\Yestlake) : You heard some discussion
to-night here between Mr. Dow and Mr. Blydenburgh
with regard to his Exhibit Number 1 it being developed
according to Mr. Dow's computations based upon Mr.
Cleave's exhibit that the assumed amount of initial icing
of the cars shown on the exhibit exceeded the bunker
capacity of a great many of the cars of the railroads
whose cars are described in Mr. Cleave's exhibit. What
if any answer could you make to the criticism which Mr.
374
Dow voiced as to the fairness of this exhibit in showing
an initial icing of 10,000 pounds and a re-icing of 4,000
pounds as hearing upon the fairness of the charges in the
proposed tariff?
A. First, I do not want to he put in the position of
suhscrihing to the fact that if the stated charge service
in this eastern territory was to he taken caré of hy cars of
the hunker capacity that Mr. Dow stated, that it would
he at all fair to compute the charges that are to he made
on any such principle. Manifestly, it would he unfair.
Having established that principle, I want to say fur¬
ther, however, that when it Avas finally decided hy the
committee in Chicago as to what hunker capacity to use
in computing the charges generally throughout the coun¬
try, we spent, I should say, at least a couple of days at
various times discussing that very point. And I know
that I personally took the position, and others did also,
that we should have one hunker capacity in arriving at
the charges. And realizing that there Avere some cars
used around the country that did not have that capacity—
that we were then discussing 5 tons as the proper basis
—Ave took the position that while, generally speaking,
our experience Avas that the great preponderance of the
business Avas moving and would in the future move in
ears of 5 tons capacity, that the committee would recom¬
mend to the operating departments AA'hen this tariff went
in that such of their refrigerator cars as were of less
hunker capacity should not he used in the protection of
this business. And I recall very distinctly that the New
York Central, the Erie, and I believe a representative
of the LackaAvanna, although I am not so sure as to that,
and a representative of the Pennsylvania, told us that
except in emergencies or in isolated cases that that was
the practice noAv under the stated charges. And I know
of my OAA'n knowledge that shippers on the Delaware
375
Peninsula M^ould not accept unless there was a very
great car shortage, bunkers of, for instance, Pennsylva¬
nia cars small bunker capacity. In fact the Pennsylva¬
nia does not send them there. I know that from my own
experience on the Peninsula personally. I do not think
I have ever seen a small hunker car on the lower end of
the Peninsula where we operate and a great many of
the Pennsylvania cars are put in express service there.
And I think the general instructions of the Pennsylvania
will hear me out that they are positive that only cars of
E.-7 type he used. The E-7 type is the hig hunker car.
My instructions to my people are that under no cir¬
cumstances barring an absolute car shortage of equip¬
ment shall they use any car in our territory of less than
5 tons capacity. But if, for example, they should do it,
and it is done possibly to some extent now, and might he
done in the future, the carrier who furnishes the service
would still he responsible to the shipper for failing to
give him adequate refrigeration. So that if we put a
small hunker car in there, we are gambling wdth the loss
and damage hazard in doing it. We do not want it in any
business where we operate.
Q. To what traffic would these small hunker cars he
devoted then, if they w^ere not put into the fruit and
vegetable traffic?
A. It was stated at the committee meetings that these
could he confined to dairy and other service of the rail¬
roads that did not require the capacity that highly per¬
ishable fruits and vegetables do. That was the general
understanding of the committee. (Tr., 6426-6429.) I
would say that these small hunker cars should not un¬
der any circumstances he used for berries or a commod¬
ity quite that perishable, hut I should see no difference
for using them, for example, for grapes or some other
376
hardier commodities under certain conditions. (Tr.,
6429.)
Q. I recall that Mr. Dow, in one of his questions to
Mr. Blydenbnrgh sugg-ested that it might be a good idea
to establish a new cost of ice basis in this territory or
that perhaps that would be feasible, provided the ship¬
per would pay, in addition to the cost of ice into the
hunkers, additional charges which might be proper—
he did not admit they were proper—hut, for instance,
supervision, ice haulage, switching, bunker damage. Do
you think it would be possible to construct a tariff which
would take those elements into consideration in any way
other than upon the stated charge basis?
A. I do not see how it could he done fairly, Mr. West-
lake. (Tr., 6442.)
Witness continuing: I do not see that there is any
practical Avay that it could he done. (Tr., 6442.)
U. G. Powell.:
Kate expert of the Nebraska State Railway Commis¬
sion. I believe that the refrigeration charges should be
separately stated from the line-haul rate. Assuming that
the service is furnished, I think that the services for pro¬
tection against cold and against heat should be separately
stated from the line-haul rate. (Tr., 4275.)
AVithout burdening the brief with further recitation
of the testimony of other refrigeration experts, suffice it
to say, that the propriety of a stated refrigeration charge
is strongly supported by the testimony of witnesses :
T. H. Gorman, general freight agent of American Re¬
frigerator Transit Company, with 28 years' experience
in refrigeration and transportation of perishable freight.
(1870 et seq.)
George B. Horr, western dairy agent New York Cen-
377
tral and Michigan Central Railroads since 1915 and with
experienco in handling perishable freight since 1893.
(3859 et seq.)
H. A. Huber, superintendent of refrigerator service
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. R. with 33 years' ex¬
perience in handling perishables. (1803 et seq.)
Geo. R. Merritt, general agent refrigerator service
Northern Pacific R. R. wfith 28 years' experience in han¬
dling perishables. (1158 et seq.)
Geo. H. Nelson, manager refrigerator department
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe R. R. in entire supervi¬
sion of perishable freight service with 21 years' experi¬
ence. (85 et seq.)
One of the reasons stated by the witnesses in support
of their view as to the propriety of the stated re¬
frigeration charge, is that on no other basis can the car¬
rier receive compensation for the service performed;
in other words, that on the cost of ice basis the carrier
is not, and cannot be, compensated for the various fac¬
tors of expense incident to refrigeration service. This
difficulty the witnesses for the shippers admitted, except
that some of them claimed that remuneration for ice
haulage and switching was included in the freight rate.
Among the factors which the carriers' witnesses men¬
tioned were ice haulage, switching, bunker damage, su¬
pervision, profit and hazard. That these are proper
factors to be taken into consideration is well-established
by the following cases :
Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange et al. v. Southern
Pacific Co. et al., 20 I. C. C., where the Commission said :
"It appears that when the bunkers are filled with
ice certain repairs to that portion of the car are
necessary which are not ordinarily required, and
that the expense of these repairs is perhaps $5 a
trip, on the average. This is an item of cost which
378
should be properly charged against the refrigeration
service."
(Page 108 of the Opinion.)
"It is plain in determining the additional charge,
which the shipper who requires refrigeration should
pay in addition to the amount exacted from the ship¬
per who does not receive refrigeration, the cost of
this additional haul should be charged against the
refrigerated shipment. Otherwise, the grower who
picks his oranges earlier in the season, when they
can be sent through under ventilation, will be com¬
pelled to contribute to the expense of transport¬
ing the fruit of his neighbor who does not market
his crop until later. We hold that the expense of
transporting this additional weight should he con¬
sidered in fixing the charges for refrigeration."
(Page 109 of the Opinion.)
"To this (cost of ice, cost of repairs to hunkers
and hauling of ice) should be added a certain ele¬
ment of risk which the carrier must assume in the
rendering of this service, and, as was held in Sotith-
ern Bailtvay Co. v. St. Louis Hay £ Grain Co., 214
U. S., 299, a fair profit upon the transaction."
(Page 111 of the Opinion.)
Refrigeration Rates from Neiu Orleans, La., and
Other Points, 31 I. C. C., 638, on page 640 of which will
be found the statement:
"On this statement the average refrigeration rev¬
enue for less than carloads is in both instances less
than the average cost of the ice. The estimated
cost of respondents of the service is |44.03 per car,
exclusive of claim hazard. This is on the basis of
$34.93 average cost of ice on the less-than-carload
shipments in 1913, and includes various items charge¬
able to the Central Fruit Dispatch, such as propor¬
tion of pay roll bf general office, local inspection at
icing stations, proportion of office rent at Chicago;
average car repairs and damage to huidiers. These
items are incapable of exact allocation, and there¬
fore the amounts chargeable to each are more or
less arbitrary. Nevertheless, they do enter into the
service cost, and are entitled to consideration."
(Page 640 of the Opinion.)
379
Railroad Commission of California v. Älaibama Great
Southern R. R. Co. et al., 32 I. C. C., 17, in which it is
stated:
"The principal contentions of both complainant
and defendants have to do with the cost of the serv¬
ice. There is a disagreement at the outset as to the
various items which should be considered in the cal¬
culation of the total refrigeration cost. The Cali¬
fornia Eailroad Commission contends that this cost
should include only (1) the cost of ice used, and (2)
a sum of $5 per car per trip for damage to the ice
bunkers allowed by this Commission in the Arling¬
ton Heights Case, 20 I. C. C., 107, the case which
concerned the refrigeration charge on California
citrus fruits. Defendants on the other hand, in ex¬
hibits showing the amounts of the refrigeration costs,
include (1) the cost of ice; (2) damage to bunkers;
(3) supervision, which includes inspection and cer¬
tain overhead charges; and (4) cost of hauling the
weight of ice carried in the refrigerator car. De¬
fendants in general adopt the theory applied by this
Commission in the Arlington Heights case, supra,
that since refrigeration is a service separate from,
and additional to, ordinary transportation, for which
a separate and additional charge is imposed, into
this charge should enter all the elements of cost
which are incurred solely in furnishing the refrig¬
eration service; that is, the elements which are ad¬
ditional to the service Avithout refrigeration.
It may be noted here that this Commission held in
the Arlington Heights case, supra, that a charge for
the use of the special refrigerator car should not he
included in the additional charge for refrigeration,
since this charge was included in the freight rate of
$1.15 applicable alike to shipments of citrus fruit
in refrigerator cars under ventilation and under re¬
frigeration. The same holding is proper here in the
case of the deciduous fruit traffic.
The California Commission apparently takes issue
with this general theory of additional cost and par¬
ticularly with the inclusion of the item of the cost
of hauling ice, and also an item for extra sAvitching,
which is contended for by the carriers though not
included in their schedule of total cost. It argues
380
that the ice-haulage charge should not be included
in the refrigeration rate because this service is per¬
formed not by the refrigerator company, but by the
railroad and it contends, moreover, that this item is,
as a matter of fact, included in the typical $1.15
deciduous freight rate. It attempts to distinguish
the Arlington Heights case, which allowed this item
as a part of the refrigeration rate, by arguing that
the decision there was based on the fact that the tes¬
timony showed that only about half of the citrus fruit
movement is under refrigeration, the other half
moving under ventilation, and that, consequently,
if it had been held that the item of ice haulage was
a part of the freight rate the result would have
been that the shipper who forwarded his citrus fruit
under ventilation would have been compelled to pay
for a service incident to refrigeration, which he did
not receive. It is argued that the same decision is
not necessary or proper in the present case for the
reason that practically all of the deciduous fruit
moves under refrigeration.
These contentions raise two questions First
whether the items in question are, as a matter of
fact, covered by the present freight rate rather than
by the refrigeration charge; and, second, whether
they should properly he included in the freight rate
or in the refrigeration charge.
The question of fact as to whether the ice-haulage
item was included in the freight rate was one of
considerable difficulty in the decision of the Arling¬
ton Heights case, principally because of a practice,
as testified by one official of a refrigerator company,
of keeping this and other items 'suspended in air
between the regular freight rate and the refrigera¬
tion rate,' and charging it to one or the other as
either of the two different charges were attached.
The objections to such a condition are obvious, and
it seems essential to correct rate making, as it cer¬
tainly is to a just determination of the reasonable¬
ness of the different charges whenever they may be
questioned, that there be an agreement and a fixed
practice as to the allocation of the constituent ele¬
ments of cost between the two services.
We are of the opinion upon the present aspects
381
of the matter that under the prevailing practice of
separate charges the theory of differential costs
outlined above is the one that should be adhered to.
Under such a theory the item of ice haulage and
also of extra switching should be included in the re¬
frigeration charge. This is so even though, as in
the present case, practically the entire movement of
the commodity in question is under refrigeration
rather than part under ventilation and part under
refrigeration.
It Avas held in the Arlington Heights case that the
argument that the service of hauling the ice Avas per¬
formed not by the refrigerator company but by the
railroad does not establish that this item should not
be included in the refrigeration charge; that the
railroad company is responsible both for the trans¬
portation and the refrigeration service ; and that the
reasonableness of the refrigeration charge should be
determined exactly as though the service Avere ren¬
dered by the railroad company itself, and irre¬
spective of the consideration as to hoAV the railroad
might divide the total revenue Avith the separate
company with AA^hich it had contracted for furnish¬
ing part of the refrigeration service."
(Pages 19, 20 and 21 of the opinion.)
"While defendants did not include in their sum¬
mary of costs the items of extra sAvitching expense,
they insisted that this item Avas properly chargeable
to the refrigeration service and testified that the
aAmrage expense for switching Avould be about 23
cents per car for each SAvitching movement. This
does not seem excessive. In the case of Chicago
shipments the P. F. E. cars are normally re-iced
seven times, and at this rate the extra SAvitching
cost Avould be about $1.75 per car. We are of the
opinion that this is a differential cost properly at¬
tributable to refrigeration, and we do not find that
this item is covered by the freight rate. We hold,
therefore, that it shonld be included in the refrig¬
eration costs."
The Commission in that case also referred AAÙth ap-
382
pro val to the items of hazard and profit. (Opinion, page
26.)
Melon Refrifferation Charges, 38 I. C. C., 62, on page
63 of which appears this :
"A number of exhibits show refrigeration ex¬
penses incurred in the movement of cantaloupes
from the territory of origin during 1913 and 1914.
These were prepared in accordance with the rulings
in Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. 8. P. Co.,
20 I. C. C., 106; Atchison Railway Co. v. United
States, 232 U. S., 199; Railroad Commission of Cali¬
fornia V. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C., 17 ; Montrose
S Delta Counties Freight Rate Asso. v. R. R. Co.,
34 I. C. C., 400. They show that the cost of the serv¬
ice per car exceeded the revenue per car."
(Page 63 of the opinion.)
Williamson v. A. T. S. F. Ry. Co., et al., 42 I. C. C., 11,
on page 12 of which will he found this expression of the
Commission :
"Complainant's contention that carriers are en¬
titled to charge only for the cost of ice actually fur¬
nished is concluded by Railroad Commission of Cali¬
fornia V. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C., 17, and other
cases, in which we held that the carriers are entitled,
in addition to the actual cost of ice furnished, to
compensation for the haulage of the ice, the cost of
supervision, repairs to bunkers, extra switching, and
to an alloAcance for depreciation of cars, damage
claims, and profit. In Refrigeration Charges on
Fruits and Vegetables, 29 I. C. C., 653, involving
refrigeration charge of $40 per car for the so-called
shipper's icing plan previously in effect."
(Page 12 of the opinion.)
Mississippi R. R. Commission v. Neio Orleans, Mobile
S Chicago R. R. Co., et al., 42 I. C. C., 574, at page 57 of
the opinion in which case the Commission says:
"From tables of actual movements compiled by
complainants it appears that the cost of ice is about
383
75 per cent of tlie refrigeration charges of the New
Orleans, Mobile & Chicago and a somewhat higher
percentage of the charges of the Alabama & Vicks-
burg. But there are other elements of expense in
refrigeration, such as the extra cost of hauling the
ice, the necessity of cleaning the car, the damage to
bunkers from icing and to the cars from the melting
ice, extra switching and supervision necessary to
get the ice from the ice house. There is also the
profit to which the carrier is entitled. Arlington
Heights Fridt Exchange v. 8. P. Co., 20 I. C. C., 106;
Southern Rg. Co. v. St. Louis Hay S Grain Co., 214
U. S., 297. When these are considered, the fact that
the ice costs only 75 per cent of the refrigeration
charges falls short of showing that the refrigeration
charges are unreasonable. Railroad Commission of
California v. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C., 17, 26."
(Page 57 of the opinion.)
Roy Campbell v. St. Louis, Broivnsville & Mexico Ry.
Co., et al., 44 I. C. C., 567, on page 569 of the opinion in
which case appears the following :
"Complainant's contention that carriers are en¬
titled to charge only for the cost of ice actually fur¬
nished is concluded by Railroad Commission of Cali¬
fornia V. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C., 17, and other
cases, in which we held that carriers are entitled, in
addition to the actual cost of ice furnished, to com¬
pensation for the haulage of the ice, the cost of su¬
pervision repairs to bunkers, extra switching, and
to an allowance for depreciation of cars, damage
claims, and profit. In Refrigeration Charges on
Fruits and Vegetables, 29 I. C. C., 653, involving re¬
frigeration charges on fruits and vegetables from
points in Colorado to points in Kansas, we permitted
the discontinuation of the so-called 'Shippers' icing
plan' and the substitution of a flat refrigeration
charge. ' '
(Page 569 of the opinion.)
384
Loretz, Pegram S Compamj v. Southern Pacific Co.,
et al., 51 I. C. C., 158, on pages 159 and 160 of which the
Commission used this language:
"The carriers are entitled, in addition to the
actual cost of the ice furnished, to compensation for
the haulage of the ice, the cost of supervision, re¬
pairs to bunkers and extra switching, and to an
allowance for depreciation of cars, damage claims,
and profit. Railroad Commission of California v.
A. G. S. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C'., 17 ; Campbell v. St. L.,
R. é M. Rij. Co., 44 I. C. C., 567."
(Pages 159 and 160 of the opinion.)
In view therefore, of these opinions of the Commis¬
sion, and of the witnesses to whose testimony reference
has been made, it is incontrovertible that the factors
mentioned are properly chargeable to the refrigeration
service, and to that alone. No way has yet been devised
whereby the expense represented by those factors can
be justly charged to the shipper alone who requires and
receives the refrigeration service, except through the
medium of a separately stated refrigeration charge. If
the basis is that of "cost per ton of ice" the carrier re¬
ceives no compensation for those factors except in so
far as some of the factors may be claimed to be included
in the freight rate, nor does the shipper bear the burden
of such factors except to the extent that the freight rate
may be said to include them. And if any of the factors
of such expense are included in the freight rate, then the
shipper Avhose commodities do not require and do not re¬
ceive refrigeration, contributes to the expense which
should properly be borne by the shipper of the same com¬
modities Avhich do receive such refrigeration service. To
the end, therefore, that the burden may fall where it
should, and that the carriers shall receive proper com¬
pensation for the service performed, refrigeration
385
charges should be upon a stated basis and consequently
stated separately and all factors entering into the ex¬
pense of the service should be included in the stated
charge. Permit us to again refer to the case of,
Refrigeration Charges on Fruits and Vegetables
from Colorado to Kansas Points, 29 1. C. C.,
653,
where the Commission emphatically decided that refrig¬
eration service, even between the short-haul points there
involved, should be on a stated charge basis. And to
the proposition that refrigeration charges should be
stated separately we refer to Section 6 of the Act to
Eegulate Commerce, which is mandatory in its require¬
ment that the "icing charges" shall be separately stated,
in the tariffs of the carriers. Following this came the
decision of the Commission itself in
Refrigeration Charges on the Kansas City
Southern Railivay, 26 I. C. C., 618,
where at pages 619 and 620, this language is used :
"It will be observed that the present charge for
refrigeration under the rule involved is a part of a
first-class rate; that it is merely a part of a com¬
posite freight and refrigeration charge, the com¬
ponent factors of which are not stated. The law
requires that carriers shall state separately in their
tariffs all charges for refrigeration and similar serv¬
ices in connection with the receipt handling and de¬
livering of traffic and tue shall deal with these
charges separately in this case." (Italics ours).
And then followed the case of
1. C. C. V. Stickney, 215 U. S., 98,
where the U. S. Supreme Court, in dealing with a termi¬
nal charge, refers to the sixth section of the Act to Eegu¬
late Commerce, and finds that under that section car¬
riers must separately state such terminal charges, and
that such terminal charge must be considered by itself,
386
independent of, and apart from, the line-haul rate. As
the words "icing charges" are found in the same sen¬
tence with "terminal charges"—to wit "and shall also
state separately all terminal charges, storage charges,
icing charges"—no possible logical or reasonable dif¬
ferentiation or distinction can be made between the two
classes of accessorial service. In other words, if "termi¬
nal charges" must be stated separately—and the most
authoritative legal tribunal in the United States in no
uncertain language has said that they must be so stated—
then "icing charge" must likewise be stated separately.
This being the fact it follows that all of the factors men¬
tioned should be considered by the Commission in de¬
termining the reasonableness of the refrigeration charges
proposed by the tariff now before us for disposition;
and this, irrespective of whether some of the factors may
be included in the freight rate.
We therefore submit, in view of the testimony of the
witnesses to whom reference has been made and
especially because of the decisions of the Commission and
the cases cited, that the propriety of a stated refrig¬
eration charge on the commodities which have been made
subject thereto in Section 2 of the tariff, is practically
no longer open to debate.
Measure of Stated Charges.
Before discussing the measure of stated chages, that
is, the carriers' justification of the reasonableness of
the proposed stated refrigeration charges found in Table
Nos. 1 to 96, both inclusive, a foreword outlining the
members of the committee which formulated the charges,
the efforts put forth by them to arrive at just and equi¬
table charges, and the method adopted by them, would
seem to be appropriate. In this connection we quote the
387
substance of tlie testimony of certain witnesses wbo were
members of the committee.
R. C. Dearborn.
Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Dearborn, the general prin¬
ciple underlying the construction of the stated refriger¬
ation charges in the perishable protective tariff, includ¬
ing those in this territory involved in this hearing?
A. There were on this committee a number of men
who had spent the greater part of their working lives in
the perishable freight game from the transportation
standpoint, who felt that they were probably as familiar
with conditions throughout the territories where stated
refrigeration charges have been in effect as anybody in
the country, having made a study of it for a number of
years. (Tr., 6179-80.)
Those men were G. H. Nelson of the Sante Fe, Mr.
E. W. Rice of the A. R. T. Co., Mr. P. B. Beidelman of
the Great Northern R. R., Mr. J. B. Scott of the Fruit
Growers Express, Mr. E. S. Briggs of the Pacific Fruit
Express Co., Mr. E. F. McPike, Mr. H. A. Huher, Mr. R.
E. Cpmming, now secretary of the American Fruit and
Vegetable Shippers Association and formerly with the
Frisco Refrigerator Line. I myself spent my time on
that work for the last year and a half. (Tr., 6181.) I
have been connected with the refrigeration service for
about 17 years and Mr. G. H. Nelson has been connected
with that work for 21 years. Most of these otFer gentle¬
men have had more experience in refrigeration service
than I have. During our experience we were called upon
more or less to confer with people that were interested
in the rates from the territories where stated refrigera¬
tion charges had not been in effect. (Tr., 6182.)
It was necessary to find out the different commodities.
388
the different conditions, the different times of movement
that cover the varions sections of the United States or
the commodities that move from the varions sections of
the United States and the times of year and operating
conditions as far as possible, taking into consideration
the cost of ice and everything that went to make np re¬
frigeration charges.
Investigation was started, I believe, about the first of
July in 1918 to ascertain the various costs of ice, ton¬
nages and so forth throughout the principal producing
section of the United States and on the lines at their
ragular icing stations and emergency icing stations; the
idea being to arrive at ice costs per ton in the bunkers
in localities and in districts.
A great deal of data was secured along those lines. In
many instances figures were furnished us which upon a
careful check showed that a great deal of the elements
going into the cost of ice had not been given considera¬
tion and we found it necessary to take up with some lines
two and three times as to hoAv they arrived at their costs
and what elements were included. And I may say even
in the final analysis we were not entirely satisfied with
a great many figures we had. But from those figures
we arrived at what we thought was as close an approxi¬
mation for ice costs for the year 1918 as could be secured
and throughout Official Classification territory we felt
that $4 a ton on the average would come very close to
being the actual cost.
We kneAV from our OAvn experience in other territories
where conditions were similar in some instances and
dissimilar in others what constituted refrigeration, how
much ice was necessary for the initial icing, the first re-
icing and re-icing in transit in accordance with the
distance and with temperature. We endeavored to give
389
all those items consideration and in the territories where
no stated charges were in effect we also attempted to
secure information from those roads as to what the serv¬
ice was in the past; and as I say, we met some of the
conditions that I related a while ago. In other words,
we found it pretty nearly impossible to hase stated re¬
frigeration charges on actual records in some territories
and in those territories we based it upon the information
we could receive as to conditions and our knowledge of
Avhat went to make up the elements of refrigeration cost.
The first of those elements was the cost of ice, the
amount of ice and the cost per ton being given considera¬
tion. The second thing we took into consideration was
the haulage of the ice in the bunkers. In the Arlington
Heights case No. 3,000 the Commission laid down the
principle some ten years ago that has been brought forth
in many Interstate Commerce cases since and has been
practically adopted by the various refrigeration interests
and also by the transportation lines as being one of the
elements of refrigeration service. The haulage of ice
as computed by us in this particular work was based
upon the haulage of 8,000 pounds of ice, 2,164 miles, from
California to Chicago. It Avas worked out upon a pro¬
portionate basis in the various territories. (Tr., 6183-5.)
In the Arlington Heights case the commission
allowed $20 for the haulage of 8,000 pounds of ice for
2,164 miles. That Avas approximately 1.15 cents per
hundred pounds per hundred miles. I think in some in¬
stances that figure has been used, although I believe, gen¬
erally speaking, a round figure of one cent per hundred
pounds per hundred miles has been considered as the
cost of the haulage of ice. (Tr., 6185.)
In that connection I desire to say while the Commis¬
sion found that as a reasonable figure some ten or twelve
390
years ago and all transportation costs have gone-np very
greatly since, I do not knoAv of anybody that has at¬
tempted to increase that item in making np these charges,
although we do feel that it is an item which should prop¬
erly he increased.
We also considered hunker damage at $5 a car. That
was an item which was also laid down by the Commis¬
sion not only in the Arlington Heights case hut various
other cases, and that figure we did not attempt to in¬
crease, although from all the information we could
get—and I will say that we made numerous attempts
through mechanical departments of railroads, car lines
and so forth to find out what it amounted to—^we were
unable to get a definite figure. Although we have been
advised that in most instances it runs considerably over
$5 to the car. In that connection I want to say there
was considerable discussion as to whether that $5 per
car should be used in short hauls as well as long hauls.
We did not attempt to put it in as between one and the
other; we took it as it lay and figured in our own minds-
probably the only Avay it could he used was on that basis.
We also took in the item of switching, which had been
alloAved at 25 cents per switch, but in our investigation
we developed that that had gone up very naturally, and
increased that to 35 cents per switch on the contracted
line or on the initial cars of the shipment, performing the
service.
We also felt that the refrigeration service being a spe¬
cial service requiring extra Avork, labor and supervision,
that we Avere entitled to the supervision charge and Avent
into that element also. We developed from certain car
lines more than from the railroad, for the simple reason
that the railroads do not allocate their charges as be¬
tween superAusion of refrigerator shipments and line-
391
haul rates, that the supervision charge ran as high as I
think $6.15 down to in the neighborhood of $4, and we
took the minimum and charged $4 supervision. And we
based that on the movement rather than on the distance,
feeling that, generally speaking, the greater part of your
supervision expenses is in the initial service. I know as
far as our company is concerned that that is true, and
I think that the rest of the gentlemen took the same posi¬
tion and will bear me out in that statement.
Those are the elements Avhich we considered in the
making of refrigeration charges not only in territory
where it had not been on a stated basis before, but also
in the territories where it had been in effect; but in the
territories where it had been in effect we had something
more to go to on costs of ice and on icing service in tran¬
sit than in the territories where it was not previously in
effect, consequently it Avas somewhat easier for us to
arrive at a proper basis in the territory where those
charges had been in effect for a number of years.
Our investigations developed that the average ice
bunker capacity of cars in common use in the transpor¬
tation of fruits and vegetables under refrigeration was
10,000 pounds or very close thereto. "We were also ad¬
vised that there were some cars of smaller capacity.
There are a great many that are also larger. But we
took the 10,000 pounds as the initial icing basis.
Investigation also developed that various commodities
in varions seasons took different amounts of initial re-
icing. Our further investigation along that line shoAved
initial re-icings running all the Avay from 2,000 pounds to
8,000 and 9,000 pounds. We figured that the average on
the green fruit, a commodity'which was more generally
used as a basis tban any other commodity, it being prob¬
ably a commodity Avhich is grown in more sections of the
392
country than any other—the initial icing was five tons
and the first icing from 4,000 to 5,000 lbs. "We knew
from actual experience that such commodities as apples,
generally speaking, throughout the Avhole United States
moved at a later season of the year than green fruit.
That is not necessarily true of all territories as there are
some few territories where early apples do move in July
and August; but generally speaking, we felt that the
apple was more of a fall movement than the green fruit.
We also knew that in some instances, or we were ad¬
vised in some instances, that apples are held in cold
storage and move out under refrigeration, and that also
was given consideration in arriving at cost of service.
When we got to the vegetables Ave found various condi¬
tions in Avarions parts of the country. California ships
vegetables the year around; Texas ships vegetables prob¬
ably the year around; other territories ship vegetables
in July, August and September; in other territories it
is more of a AAÛnter movement. And there are various
classes of A^egetables. There is generally a difference be-
tAveen cabbage, spinach, lettuce and potatoes, depending
upon the territory AA'here shipped and when shipped. And
in our considerations Ave attempted to give the various
territories, from the best knoAAdedge that we could obtain,
the consideration that Avas due to the commodities; in
some instances going so far as to split the vegetables
movement, confining it perhaps on a high rate basis to
cabbage and tomatoes, putting them on the green fruit
rate, feeling that those commodities move at the same
time of year, knoAving that they were very large consum¬
ers of ice, and from the same territory there might be a
Avinter movement of spinach, lettuce, and celery which
did not take so much ice, and Ave attempted to give that
due consideration.
393
I think that is about all I have got to say unless you
want something further. (Tr., 6185-90.)
Mr. Westlake : It was originally intended, Mr. Ex¬
aminer, that Mr. E. W. Eice, formerly connected with
the American Refrigerator Transit Company and who
was chairman of the committee which arrived at the
charges applicable in Official Classification territory
should testify at this time as to the details of these
charges. Mr. Rice some time ago left the American Re¬
frigerator Transit Company and I telegraphed to him
last Thursday, I believe it was, to be in New York Satur¬
day or Monday and I telegraphed to him Tuesday, he
not having shown up, to come immediately to New York.
So far he has not arrived. I received a telegram from
his office Monday stating that he was out of town and
would be in office Monday.
Now, Mr. Dearborn is familiar in a general way with
the construction of all of these rates and will go just as
far as he can to give the shippers information as to the
method of construction of these charges. It may be that
he will not be able to go into some of the details con¬
cerning which you would like to have information, but
we will do the best we can.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) Now, Mr. Dearborn, will you
explain in a general way the method adopted by the com¬
mittee in arriving at the charges which appear in the
Proposed Perishable Tariff No. 1 for the territory Avhich
is involved in this hearing, taking New York I assume
as the basis for the whole territory.
A. The basic commodity used from New York State
was green fruits; in fact, the green fruit was generally
considered the basic commodity from practically all ter¬
ritory.
394
I think I explained yesterday that there was a ditïer-
ence in the service performed and in the needs of fruits,
vegetables, apples and so forth, there being a difference
between the different commodities, not only in time of
shipment but in the general nature of the commodity
itself.
In arriving at the rates from New York State we en¬
deavored to work to the end that we would make basic
rates to the principal destination points in the country,
for example, on your short-haul business from the peach
growing territory of New York, Buffalo as a short-haul
destination. We also considered New York City, Boston,
Pittsburgh, Chicago, Kansas City and numerous other
points, and worked toward arriving at the basic rates to
tliose individual destinations.
For example, from the shipping territory on peaches
to Buffalo we used the station of Albion as an originat¬
ing station. We figured out that the five tons of ice re¬
ferred to yesterday would be supplied for initial icing and
that there would be one re-icing of two tons. The cost
used as I stated last night was $4 a ton, which we esti¬
mated in July, 1918, was a harely close cost throughout
the territory. In that connection I know that we have
an exhibit here showing what the actual costs were in
1918 and throughout the eastern territory I see that the
average is $5.04.
Q. You are referring now to E. J. Cleave's Exhibit 6,
are you not?
A. Yes, l am. So I feel further that the $4 cost tliat
we use is at least more than fair to the shippers.
The cost of the initial icing and the first re-icing on the
basis of $4 a ton will give a cost of $28. We took in the
items of bunker damage, supervision, switching, haulage
395
and so forth, figuring- $5 for the hunker damage, $4 for
supervision, 70 cents for switching and a haulage charge
of $1, the distance being 99 miles, Avhich gave a total cost
of $38.70 on a $45 rate, leaving a profit and hazard of
$6.30, Avhich we consider is very fair.
In the same connection we figured from Albion to New
York City.
Q. Via what railroad!
A. Via the New York Central; initial icing and first
re-icing at point of shipment or in the shipping territory,
being five tons and two tons respectively at $4 per ton
would be a cost of $28 and one ton at the New York Cen¬
tral icing station at Albany or Karner, rather, which is
$4; your bunker supervision, switching and haulage,
which were on the same basis, given you before, amount¬
ing to $45.70, with the exception that the haulage was $4
rather than $1. (Tr., 6195-98.) The distance is 401 miles
from Albion to New York City and the rate checked in
was $50, leaving a net for hazard and profit of $4.30. lYe
have like illustrations to Boston, Pittsburgh and Phila¬
delphia. To Boston we figured it via the New York Cen¬
tral and Boston & Albany, also via the New York Central
and Boston & Maine, and I think one illustration for the
two routes Avould be sufficient. We provided initial icing
of five tons and first re-icing of two tons in the loading
territory, a re-icing at Mechanicville one ton and one ton
at East Deerfield, $4 each; bunker damage $5, supervi¬
sion $4, switching 70' cents and haulage $5. (Tr., 6198.)
We put in a ton at East Deerfield, which is on the Boston
& Maine. I said I took them by both the Boston & Al¬
bany and the Boston & Maine. The Boston & Albany
would he at Springfield rather than at East Deerfield.
The Boston & Maine we took Mechanicville. (Tr., 6198.)
And the other at Albany in the case of the Boston &
396
Albany. The distance from Albion to Boston is 468
miles via the Boston & Maine, and it gives a total cost
of $50.70 as against a $55 rate.
A like example at Pittsburgh, routing the shipments
via the New York Central and Pennsylvania Kailroad.
The first icing and first re-icing $28, one re-icing at Oil
City, one ton at $4, $5 bunker charge, $4 supervision, 70
cents switching and $4 for hauling, making a cost of
$45.70 compared with the $50 rate. (Tr., 6199.)
From Chicago, via New York Central Eailroad, initial
icing of 5 tons, first re-icing 2 tons at point of origin, ex¬
pense of $28. 1 ton of ice supplied each at Gardenville,
Collinwood and Air Line Junction, making an additional
$12 for the ice; $5 bunker; $4 supervision; 70 cents
switching, $7 haulage, 630 miles, being the distance,
which gave a cost of $58.70 on an $80 rate.
From Albion to Albany, Georgia, via New York Cen¬
tral, Pennsylvania, E. F. & P. and Atlantic Coast Line:
Initial and first re-icing 7 tons, $28 ; 1 ton each supplied
at Elmira and Potomac Yard; at Elmira at $4 and at
Potomac. Yards 1 ton at $4.50 a ton ; 1 ton at Eock Mount,
1 at Bennetts, 1 at Waycross, at $5 a ton each. (Tr.,
6200.)
The other points are Bennetts and Waycross, one ton
each there at $5 per ton. (Tr., 6200.) Bunker damage
$5, supervision $4, switching 70 cents, haulage $13, dis¬
tance 1,249 miles, would give an expense of $74.20. Thé
rate checked in is $80. (Tr., 6200-6201.)
To Kansas City we used two routings, one via New
York Central, Big Four and Missouri Pacific and one via
New York Central, Michigan Central and Santa Fe.
On the first routing, via Big Four and Missouri Pa¬
cific, $4 ice was used entirely, car being initially iced and
397
first re-icing with 2 tons, 1 ton each supplied at Garden-
ville, Collinwood, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Sedalia, Mis¬
souri. Bunker damage of $5, supervision |4, switching
70 cents, haulage |11, the mileage being 1,100 miles, a
total cost of $68.70, the rate checked in being $70.
My other examples via the Michigan Central and Santa
Fe, the initial icing and first re-icing were supplied the
same, and the car was iced at Montrose, at Michigan Cen¬
tral Junction, Blue Island and Fort Madison. "With the
exception of Fort Madison, the icing was all figured at
$4 a ton.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) What was it at Fort Madi¬
son?
A. At the time that we were figuring on these rates,
the information Ave had led us to believe that $3.50
Avould be the proper cost charge in the State of Iowa,
and Ave used $3.50 at Madison.
I might say right noAV that that has since been changed
to $4. Bunker damage $5, supervision $4, sAvitching 70
cents, haulage $11, distance 1,090 miles, Avhich gave a
cost of $64.20, as against the $70 rate.
These are the examples that I have. We Avorked a
number of these which I have not with me, hut I think
they fairly illustrate the method A\Lich were used in
arriving at AAdiat Ave considered proper stated refrigera¬
tion charges.
Q. I notice in these examples, Mr. Dearborn, that
you have given, that you have uniformly used 70 cents
switching. That Avould he initial icing and first re-icing.
Apparently, at that time, yon did not take into account
any additional SAvitchings at re-icing points.
A. The original understanding as to the switching
was that the first initial icing—or the initial icing or the
398
first re-icing only would be included. It was later felt
that on the original line or the initial line, that all re-
icing supplied on that line should be included on the
basis of 35 cents ; but inasmuch as this is the way we
originally made up this form, I continued to use that.
Q. So that on your first example, Albion to Buffalo
via the New York Central, there being no re-icing after
the re-icing at initial point, your 70 cents would be all
right?
A. 70 cents Avould be correct. (Tr., 6201-6202.)
"We used only two SAvitches at 35 each in checking in
these rates and all the way through we would have to
add 35 for each switch beyond the initial switch and
the switch for re-icing at the initial point for the addi¬
tional switches performed on the initial line. As to
states other than New York we pursued the same general
plan in making up our statement of refrigeration charges.
(Tr., 6203.) In practically all the territory we Avorked
it out to the best of our knowledge and information Ave
could get along the same general line. (Tr., 6203-6204.)
The supervision charge of $4 I explained in my testimony
yesterday. The SAAÛtching charge of 35c per car or per
switch has been heretofore fully explained in the record.
The haulage of ice was at Arlington Heights ease basis.
(Tr., 6204.)
Q. (By Mr. AVestlake.) I assume, Mr. Dearborn,
that there are some hauls on this Noav York business, or
business in this territory, that are less than 99 miles
aa'hich you have used from Albion to Buffalo?
A. Generally speaking I suppose there are shipments
moving under refrigeration for distances of possibly 20
or 30 miles. My theory on that, hoAvever, is that for a
night haul, as far as the line haul is concerned, refriger-
399
ation service is not necessary. Eefrigeration service
might be necessary, however, for that kind of a move¬
ment which you take into consideration that the shipper
is going to be in the neighborhood of 24 hours in loading
ids car, and some 6 or 8 hours in the haulage, and may
find it necessary to hold his car at destination from 1 to
2 or 3 days in order to properly protect his goods, and
he may, therefore, need refrigeration. As far as the
actual haul itself is concerned of 6 hours, I would say
that it never would be necessary.
Q. Do you feel that for those short hauls of 25 or 30
miles your example of 99 miles from Albion to Buffalo
is typical or representative?
A. As far as cost is concerned, I can see where there
would be no real difference between a movement of 5
miles and 100 miles. It is necessary to supply the same
amount of ice. The difference in the time of your haul¬
age would only be some 4 or 5 hours. The time of load¬
ing and the time at destination would be the same. Con¬
sequently, I would say that your icing service would be
on the same basis.
Q. What if any consideration did the committee give
to the fact that in this territory certain shipments, for
instance, apples, move out of cold storage?
A. They gave quite a large amount of consideration
to the apple movement from this territory, we being ad¬
vised that apples did move to quite a large extent from
cold storage; and the apple rate from New York State
is on a basis of $10 less per car generally speaking, than
the green fruit applied only for a certain distance and
that as the haul increased that rate was reduced to a
difference of $5 per car.
Q. Do you know why it was on some of those long
400
hauls the spread between the green fruit and the apple
rate was made only $5 as against $10 for the short haulf
A. It Avas figured generally that you would have the
same natural tendency to overcome on your long haul
after the car had been thoroughly cooled as you would
have on your green fruit shipments, and it was our opin¬
ion that |5 would be the proper differential.
Q. As illustrating that $10 spread, you might call at¬
tention, for instance, to page 361 of the tariff, from New
York, group A, to New York groups 1 and 2; the rate in
column 4, which covers apples is how much?
A. $35.
Q. And the rate in column 1, which is fruits (except
apples, vegetables and melons) in straight or mixed car¬
loads, is how much?
A. $45.
Mr. Dow; Those two groups are the same, are they
not? Group A is identical AAuth groups 1 and 2, is it not?
The Witness : I think that is correct. In other words,
from your Eochester section into Buffalo, your rate
would be $35. To Noav York City territory your rate is
$40 on apples, from the same producing territory.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) That would be, for instance,
in column 4, apples from group A to group 3?
A. $40:
Q. $40 on apples, and $50 on your green fruit?
A. That is correct.
Q. That $10 spread would represent a difference of 2
tons and a half of ice at the $4 cost basis which you
used in making up these rates?
A. It Avould.
401
I might say, in that connection, that I believe it is jnst
as essential that apples coming from cold storage he
given maximum refrigeration as it is on apples coming
out of the fields, for the reason that a commodity which
has been held, or a commodity of the nature of apples
which has been held in cold storage for a certain length
of time at a temperature sufficiently low to prevent its
interioration, should not he allowed to move with make¬
shift refrigeration of one or two tons, and take a chance
with the elements, because it will go to pieces quicker, I
believe, than your car coming out of the field.
Q. If these examples which you gave were figured on
the present ice costs, as you understand them to-day in
this territory, there would he far less if any spread at
all between the items properly chargeable to this service
and the rates which have been checked in this tariff?
A. It would add practically $1 a ton to all the ice
supplied, which on even your short haul would make a
difference of $7 and your long haul on the lines in this
territory would be some higher. (Tr., 6204, 6205, 6206,
6207, 6208, 6209.)
The ice haulage is figured on the Ic per 100 pounds
per 100-mile basis. It is not figured down to the exact
cents. That is taken as an approximation which might
vary 15 or 20 cents per car. (Tr., 6209.)
Mr. Dow: Will you develop, Mr. Westlake, inasmuch
as my cross-examination is deferred, how that item of
profit is figured?
Mr. Westlake: There is no profit figured here. We
have just simply given you the items properly charge¬
able to this service and are giving you the rate and then
we are assuming that we are entitled to some profit and
hazard.
402
Mr. Doav : I thought you were asking how he arrived
at the rate?
Mr. Westlake : We simpy arrived at the rate and then
there is a very small sum between the cost of the service
and the rate checked in, and I think you yourself will
probably admit that we are entitled to these figures or
these difterences for our profit and our hazard.
Mr. Doav: Does that mean that you arrived at the
rate first and figured the cost afterwards and then
agreed that the difference was fair?
Mr. Westlake: You might ask Mr. Dearborn that
question.
The Witness: No, we figured the cost and arrived at
our rate, figuring that three or four or five dollars, if it
happened to be in that category, would he an average
fair profit. (Tr., 6209, 6210.)
The Witness (continuing) : We did not find our profit
a certain fixed figure. If our cost was $49.20, we Avould
make our return $55. If our cost was $51, we would
probably make our return $55 also. In other words,
there was a leeAvay of $1, $2 or $3 in and between the
cost and the return. We aim to strike in the neighbor¬
hood of $5 per car. (Tr., 6210.)
John B. Scott.
Keferring to the committee aa'hich Avorked on this east¬
ern proposition, I Avant to say that during our working
hours Ave Avould sit in different rooms. I spent a part
of every day and regularly each week the entire com¬
mittee met as a AAdiole and discussed all these problems
so Ave Avould all be Avoi'king on the same basis. I person¬
ally saAA' the Department of Agriculture's statistics for
the State of Noav York aa^hich the committee had. (Tr.,
403
6453.) We liad quite a few of those Government bulle¬
tins. (Tr., 6453.) With regard to figures on the present
cost to the shipper of this service, we sent representa¬
tives into the territory to personally investigate condi¬
tions and the representatives did canvass that territory
and they found conditions about to the effect that Mr.
Dearborn testified to, varying in practices and things of
that kind. I have not at this time any personal informa¬
tion as to the statistics that they got together with ref¬
erence to this situation, although I saw them at the time.
(Tr., 6454.)
Q. Well, you have described all that they got. They
got the volume of the movement, did they, of all these
perishables from New York State?
A. Yes. People who have spent practically their en¬
tire working life in handling fruits and vegetables under
refrigeration under stated charges—that is about all we
Avould need to arrive at a reasonably fair conclusion,
Avould be first to know what the commodities were to be
handled, when they would move, Avhat the ice situation
generally is, about where the service of the icing would
have to be given, and so forth, and we would be prepared
to proceed on a reasonably accurate basis, taking our ex¬
perience into consideration.
Q. You Avould Avant to knoAv Avhen the commodities
move, in Avhat volume, from and to Avhat points, and the
A'arying characteristics Avith respect to the commodities
themselves and climatic conditions and all these things?
A. Now, of course, from what points they moved
would be valuable only to the extent as to the amount of
equipment to be required, and those things, generally
speaking. There may be exceptions. For sample, in
your case, I understand you have lots of short hauls.
That might make some difference, and of course it would.
4U4
Q. To what extent did you go into that short-haul
question?
A. Well, I do not know that any of us are in a posi¬
tion to say that we knew how much of that business was
short-haul business. I personally do not know and I do
not knoAv that I saw any staistics on it. In other words,
I would not know whether 1 per cent or 20 per cent of
that business customarily moved to a market like Buffalo
or to a market like Eochester, but my general judgment
would he that Eochester would get very few, if any, car¬
loads other than some cold storage movement. (Tr.,
6454-6455.)
These movements into storage should certainly not be
a refrigeration movement, generally speaking. Now,
Buffalo, I can imagine, might get quite a little business
under refrigeration. I understand there is a big move¬
ment of apples from the storages in Western New York.
In that respect they resemble somewhat the traffic in
dairy products and I think the committee tried to recog¬
nize that condition by having a somewhat lower rate.
Personally I do not believe in a lower rate on apples
generally than on vegetables. My experience does not
convince me that apples that actually move in the sum¬
mer time are entitled to that low rate. But when you
consider that a large proportion of that business moves
in the fall from cold storage that might make a differ¬
ence. But in Michigan, for example, Ave have already
handled this season our apple business. We handled
that in the month of August, the hottest period we have
had for the year. We handled them ahead of poaches.
(Tr., 6456.) These apples from Michigan moved into
consumption. (Tr., 6456.) Noav, we will not get any
more apple business this season. (Tr., 6456, 6457.)
405
Q. Do you mean that all your business in Michigan
has been handled directly to consuming points as dis¬
tinguished from storage?
A. I do not expect to handle another shipment of ap¬
ples under refrigeration from Michigan this season, and
our business has only practically started. Our apple
business is practically over. There may be a car or two
this week. When I say it is over, it was practically over
before I left Chicago. There may be a stray car or two,
but generally speaking the season is over. (Tr., 6457.)
I left Chicago last Thursday, a week ago. In fact, I
was in Benton Harbor a week ago Saturday, in the ter¬
ritory, and the boys told me then that the apple business
would wind up that week. (Tr., 6457.)
Q. (By Mr. Dow.) I did not realize that the Michi¬
gan apples were stored to such a small extent as that
testimony indicates.
A. I do not think a single one of those cars went to
storage, although I personally do not know that, although
they all went under refrigeration, and I know from my
own observation at Benton Harbor the days I was there
that the ice consumption was very heavy, and I know
from past statistics there is nothing in the meltage. to
justify a lower rate, although I will admit your New
York situation may be different, when you take that vol¬
ume of cold storage into account, if there is the volume
I have heard spoken about.
Q. And that has been increasing very materially in
the last few years in storage?
A. I do not know. I am waiting with much interest
the facts you are to present on that. It may change my
views on some of the charges we propose.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) Mr. Scott, I think the im-
406
pression prevails here that very little thought or con¬
sideration Avas given by the committee which framed the
proposed tariff to the charges in the Official Classifica¬
tion territory, particularly with regard to New York
State.
Will you tell us, someAvhat in detail, what the com¬
mittee did, Avhat investigation it made, to determine the
stated charges to be applied to the traffic in this terri¬
tory®
A. In the first place, Avhile I Avas not a member of the
original committee, at the investigation of the southern
roads on Avhich Ave operate, I was invited by the com¬
mittee to sit with them and assist them to the extent of
my ability in arriving at proper charges for the south¬
ern business at least; and accordingly, at such an invita¬
tion, I did sit AA'ith the committee for months.
In the course of those sessions—and, by the way, there
Avere some tAventy or thirty members of that committee—
as far as I could judge all of the so-called refrigeration
experts of the country from the railroads' standpoint
Avere in attendance. All sections of the country, gener¬
ally speaking, were represented, and very thorough and
full discussions Avere had on all matters, before any de¬
cisions were reached.
In so far as the charges Avere concerned, in view of
the scope of the Avork, quite properly the charges were
divided into three committees, southern, western and
eastern; and Avhile I did not sit continuously with the
eastern committee, my Avork being largely in connection
Avith the southern committee, I did spend considerable
time Avith the eastern committee, and the committee with
AAdiieh I did sit Avere in the next room to the eastern com¬
mittee, and Ave were continually exchanging ideas one
Avith the other, where it was thought that one or the
407
other might help, from personal knowledge that we
thought some member might have on some particular
point that was under discussion.
In so far as the eastern work was concerned, I know
that the committee went very carefully into every pos¬
sible detail of the situation. They examined all of the
Government statistics as to the various perishables that
originated in the various eastern states, determined just
what the shipping points were, when the business moved,
in Avhat volume—in fact, all pertinent information that
a committee should possibly have in determining any re¬
sults, and so far as the New York situation in particular
was concerned, I know that we gave that situation at¬
tention for days, and after determining just where that
business principally was, where the icing stations were,
charges were arrived at which, in the judgment of the
committee were fair, and I know that every member of
that committee made an honest effort to deal fairly with
the interests that were involved; and while all of the
members of the committee prior to the Government tak¬
ing over the railroads represented certain special rail¬
roads, it was, of course, generally understood in the com¬
mittee that all individual interests were to be lost sight
of and the matter handled entirely from an administra¬
tive standpoint; that is, without regard to its possible
effect on any individual line in the future.
And as I say, Avhile I sat in with them and gave them
the benefit of what experience I have had, it was with
the distinct understanding that I would have no vote
and could make no decision myself and my Avork was en¬
tirely in an advisory capacity.
The committee realized fully, however, that this New
York situation was different in some respects than that
obtaining in other sections, and because of that and be-
408
cause of the fact that they were changing something that
would affect a large volume of traffic, I know that they
did the very best they could to deal fairly with the en¬
tire situation, and I think they have done so, although
it is possible that some of these charges might he out of
line, they might be in some cases low or they might in
some cases be high. And I do not think any member of
the committee would hesitate to recommend a change if
it was felt apropos and frank discussion that they had
made a mistake in their calculations. I certainly would
not if I had a vote. And I want to say for the committee
that there was no snap judgment taken. If there were
any mistakes made they were made in good faith, and
with the thought that they were doing what they should
do as the committee.
E. W. Rice.
Lives in Chicago,—connected with Hygienic Ice Com¬
pany—prior to that was general freight agent of the
American Eefrigerator Transit Company at St. Louis
for nine years. Had charge of traffic and operation,
handling perishable freight. (Tr., 7129.)
This company served various railroads, the principal
of which was the Wabash, Denver & Eio Grande, Inter¬
national Great Northern, Cotton Belt, Texas & Pacific,
Kansas City Southern, S. A. U. & S. Also had traffia
agreements with many eastern lines. Was a member of
the committee which prepared the proposed tariff and
worked out various charges and rules. Began this work
in a small committee early in January, 1918, and con¬
tinued until May 1,1919. Was engaged on this proposed
tariff for about one year and five months. The orig¬
inal committee had been working on refrigeration in
general for the past eight or nine years, hut on January
409
1st (presumably 1918) they started off with a view of
applying refrigeration charges; generally, then about'
April 1, 1918, there was a committee appointed by the
Eailroad Administration to take up the work and carry
it on until this time. Commencing about April, 1918, this
committee, composed of railroad men and refrigeration
men from all over the United States, was organized and
brought together at Chicago. The committee was di¬
vided in three sections, one for the territory north of
the Ohio and Potomac and east of the Mississippi, an¬
other for the territory south of the Ohio and east of
the Mississippi, and another for the rest of the country,
largely west of the Mississippi. As stated refrigera¬
tion charges had been applied generally from all the ter¬
ritory west of the Mississippi south of the Ohio and east
of the Mississippi, it was only a question of revising
the charges and rules applying from that particular ter¬
ritory, but in the territory north of the Ohio and east of
the Mississippi, with the exception of southern Illinois
and part of Michigan and Maryland, some of the terri¬
tory covered by the Pennsylvania Eailroad and possibly
one or two other exceptions, the practice and custom was
the so-called cost of ice basis. (Tr., 7130-7131.)
This committee developed the movement of various
commodities, fruits and vegetables for this territory, the
cost of ice, and attempted to work out the basis for a
large part of the territory based on their experience in
connection with other territories and the conditions as
they showed up. That was not a difficult matter because
the relation of refrigeration to commodities that were
under consideration is practically the same in all terri¬
tories. It is only a question of applying service in other
sections. Witness represented A. E. T. Company seven
seasons in New York, and was located in Buffalo-Eoches-
410
ter territory. In addition to that he made visits to New
York during the time the committee was in session, for
the purpose of investigating conditions in that section
in connection with this particular tariff. (Tr., 7132.)
(By Mr. Younger) ; The members of the eastern com¬
mittee were Mr. McWilliams of the B. & 0., Mr. Horr of
the NeAV York Central, Mr. Lantz of the Erie, Mr. Sam
Parkhurst of the New York Central and Edward Elynn
of the Grand Trunk. That was the subcommittee of the
general committee Avho worked on refrigeration charges
for Official Classification territory. It had the assistance
of various representatives of other lines. In regard to
the investigation which the committee made as to cost
of refrigeration service to the shipper under the per ton
of ice basis, as compared with the stated charges as pro¬
posed, the committee took representative stations and
got the hills of lading, billing, and developed the icing in
transit, the expense hills and took these items and con¬
solidated them and developed Avhat the expense had been,
hut that expense only shows the cost of ice and only a
partial cost of ice, and at that, only the price being
charged by the railroad company, which did not any¬
where near represent the cost. They made up detailed
figures as to the actual amounts that were paid by a num¬
ber of shippers under the per ton of ice basis. Did not
pay a great deal of attention to those figures because
they did not represent anything. In lots of cases where
the shippers did their own icing they restricted the ad¬
ditional icing so that they did not ice to capacity. They
restricted this icing sometimes to half the bunker ca¬
pacity and sometimes to two-thirds ; thus they would re¬
strict transit icings and the whole thing was so indefi¬
nite that there were no facts upon which exhibits could
be based, such as Eraser's Exhibit No. 3. They did not
411
represent anytliing. Investigations were made of actual
payments by shippers under the ton of ice basis. These
investigations covered about 150 to 200 cars. (Tr., 7142-
7144.)
Mr. McLaughlin was chairman of the general commit¬
tee. The witness Avas also a member. Witness did not
mention any members of the general committee, but was
asked about the subcommittee dealing Avith the eastern
situation. Mr. McLaughlin dealt Avith the eastern situa¬
tion, also Mr. Beidelman and Mr. McPike. The members
of the general committee had charge of the work, the
subcommittee reported to them. The eastern section
Avork Avas divided up. The Avitness was in New York
State, Mr. Horr of the New York Central Avas in Ohio,
Mr. Scott in Michigan and Maryland, Mr. Crow in south¬
ern Illinois, Mr. Cummin, who is now with the American
Fruit and Vegetable Association, investigated the In¬
diana situation. Each state Avas looked after by some
member. Witness handled Nbav York State. When wit¬
ness had worked several days, had had several New
York Central men at Avork for two or three weeks and
got his data together, covering about 150 to 200 cars, it
gave so little information that he did not consider it of
any value because it only showed partially the ice used
and it did not represent the cost of the ice because the
tariff price was applied. The ice is not the only item
in the expense of refrigeration. It was not as a result
of the investigation of these cars only that witness came
to the conclusion that icing in western NeAV York was
haphazard. He had known that from many years ex¬
perience prior to that time. Opinion is based upon com¬
ing into direct contact Avith such service and such results
as have folloAved it. That opinion is based also upon the
fact that in any territory Avhere the cost of ice basis ap-
412
plies, or in case of shippers icing, it results in a service
that does not adequately and fully protect the property.
It results in varying charges and the carriers supplying
service and materials for which they do not get any pay,
and the results generally obtained are adverse to not
only the traffic but to all concerned. It did not take wit¬
ness long to be convinced that those conditions existed
there the same as they had in every other territory that
he had come in contact with where the same practice pre¬
vailed. Witness never knew of any case where shippers
have had a stated refrigeration charge and wanted to
return to cost per ton of ice basis. (Tr., 7149 to 7153.)
It thus appears that as early as January, 1918, work
was begun on the proposed tariff, and that from July,
1918, until the completed tariff was presented, in the
latter part of May, 1919, to the Commission for its rec¬
ommendation and advice, the best refrigeration experts
in the United States were studiously engaged in con¬
ducting investigations and in accumulating and co-or¬
dinating data and information to the end that they might
present, as the fruits of their skill and their labor, a
tariff which would be fair, both to the shippers and to
the carriers. And notwithstanding the attacks which
have been leveled at it by the shippers and their repre¬
sentatives, we confidently assert that the proposed tariff
will stand as a lasting monument to the absolute impar¬
tiality and unquestioned skill of the men who compiled it.
We come now to an analysis of the proposed stated
charges for refrigeration, as set forth in Section 2 of the
tariff".
As heretofore stated the factors which form a com¬
ponent part of the stated charges are :
413
1. Cost of ice.
2. Ice haulage.
3. Switching.
4. Supervision.
5. Bunker damage.
6. Hazard and profit.
The first five items have, in nearly all cases, been used
by the Avitnesses in arriving at the cost of the service,
as disclosed by their exhibits, or stated by them in their
testimony. The item of hazard and profit has not been
specifically included in the computations, but all of the
carriers ' witnesses have been in accord upon the proposi¬
tion that such an item should properly be given consid¬
eration in arriving at the measure of a stated charge.
No consideration was given to the expense of cleaning,
which is a substantial item. This is evidenced by the
testimony of L. S. West (Tr., 3043 to 3046, inc.) and by
his Exhibit No. 1. All of the enumerated items, as such,
have been approved by the Commission as properly to be
allocated to the refrigeration service. As more or less
criticism has been directed to these items, either as to the
propriety of the items, as such, or as to their measure,
we will discuss them in their order.
COST OP ICE.
This, of course, is one of the principal factors of ex¬
pense incident to refrigeration service. It therefore de¬
serves extended consideration.
The hearings had not proceeded to any great length be¬
fore Examiner King, who joined us at Denver, announced
that he had been selected by the Commission to assist
Examiner Marshall in the analysis of cost exhibits. As
stated by him at the New York hearing (Tr., 5957) : "We
have had a number of exhibits pertaining to the cost of
refrigeration service for carload shipments moving un-
414
der a stated refrigeration charge. The data furnished
was not altogether satisfactory, in that it was lacking
in certain details which were thought to he essential. The
carriers have heen requested to furnish additional de¬
tails, and that is now heing prepared, and I understand
Avill be furnished during the course of the hearings."
(Tr., 5957.)
The data to which Examiner King referred consisted
of the details of the ice cost exhibits submitted by the
carriers. These had heen submitted in general form,
without any accompanying details exhibiting the factors
forming the basis of the ultimate figures. These details
have all heen furnished and are in the record. In this
connection attention is directed to the fact that on June
23, 1919, a printed memorandum, prepared by counsel
in this case, with the assistance of those who were most
familiar with the subject, was distributed among the car¬
riers and car lines, and those who might become witnesses
in the case, in which memorandum appeared the follow¬
ing relating to ice and salt costs:
"Kote: To the end that there may he uniformity
in the computation of the cost of ice or salt in bunk¬
ers, the following Avas adopted at the conference as
a fairly accurate statement of the factors which
should enter into such cost :
Ice.
(a) Cost of cleaning and preparing ice house pre¬
paratory to storing ice.
(b) Cost of ice per ton f. o. h. point of produc¬
tion.
(c) Freight charge at commercial rate from point
of production to ice house except for transportation
over company line, in which event company ma¬
terial rate for that portion of the haul should he
charged.
(d) Expense of spotting cars at ice house for
storage.
(e) Labor placing ice in ice house for storage.
415
(f) Expense for straw or other packing material,
if any.
(g) Expense for labor caring for ice, taking ont
of ice and placing in bunkers of cars, including crush¬
ing and tamping.
(h) Shrinkage of ice.
(i) Interest on investment, less depreciation.
(j) Taxes and insurance on ice house equipment
and contents.
(k) Depreciation on plant.
(1) Repairs to plant.
(m) Expense supervision ice house and labor,
including clerical help, stationery, tools, etc.
(n) Expense of light, power, telephone, water,
hose, etc., and
(o) Expense of labor, materials, etc., in manu¬
facture of ice Avhere own plant manufactures ice.
Salt.
(a) Statement should be predicated on cost of
salt per ton (and per carload if readily available)
f. 0. b. cars point of shipment.
(b) Commercial freight rate on salt in carloads
(and less than carloads if any purchased in 1. c. 1.
quantities) and the carload minimum weight, from
production point to each icing station, using com¬
pany material rate OA^r own line.
(c) Cost of labor unloading salt into storage
facility.
(d) Cost of labor handling salt from storage
facility to bunkers of cars.
(e) Interest on storage facility, less depreciation.
(f) Depreciation on storage facility.
Note: Each car line or railroad company oper¬
ating refrigeration serAuce can determine for itself
whether or not all of the items shown as going to
make up the cost of ice or salt placed in the bunkers
are applicable to its situation and whether or not
any legitimate items have been omitted. Doubtful
items should not be included."
It will be noted the company material rate was to be
liarged aa'here the haul was OA-'er the carriers' OAvn line
Item (c)) and that "doubtful items should not be in-
416
eluded." It should also be observed that no item for
profit is included.
It must be admitted that, as to some of the exhibits
at least, the figures for ice costs may be slightly in ex¬
cess of the actual costs, due to the fact that in some in¬
stances no credit has been given for such ice, if any, as
remained on band at the end of the season covered by the
exhibits, but the difference would practically be negli¬
gible, and would not, to any appreciable extent, militate
against the accuracy of our showing as to the cost of
the refrigeration service. Other than this suggested
inaccuracy in our ice cost exhibits, no fault has been
found by Examiner King Avitb respect to any of the de¬
tails furnished or as to any of the factors used.
In arriving at the charges in the proposed tariff the
ice costs in July, 1918, or earlier, were used by the com¬
mittee, while, in justifying the proposed charges, 1919
costs were sometimes used, 1918 costs at other times,
and in some instances the exhibits showed the result
of using both 1918 and 1919 ice costs. A great deal of
criticism has been directed to the proposition that 1919
ice costs are abnormal, but no one with the exception of
one witness, had the temerity to venture what the reduc¬
tion, if any, Avould be in the future,-nor when such reduc¬
tion might be expected. It was also admitted that the
item of labor enters largely into the cost of ice, and that
there was no immediate hope of a reduction in that item.
We are neither prepared to admit that 1919 ice costs are
abnormal, as compared with Avhat they will be next year,
or the year after, nor do we subscribe to the doctrine
that stated refrigeration charges should be based upon
any cost other than that noAV being paid by the carriers.
If, perchance, the future should bring forth a reduction
in cost of ice, it will then be time enough to ásk that the
417
carriers defend their charges upon the then current price
of ice. It will he admitted that a merchant should not be
askèd to base his charges upon reduced prices which his
patrons venture to suggest he may have to pay for his
stock the next year, or the year after, or what he paid
last year, or the year before, or during what might be
called "normal times." No more should a carrier be
called upon to base refrigeration charges upon what its
patrons hazard a guess will be the cost of ice next year,
or the year after, or what it paid last year, or the year
before, or during what might be called "normal times."
Carriers, as well as merchants, are living in the present,
and not in the past or the future, and, if their revenues
are not based upon sound business principles, they may
not be living when the future becomes the present.
Nor does it follow that the 1919 costs, where that basis
was used, represent abnormal figures, either as compared
with 1918 costs, or so-called normal costs. As stated by
the witness, George H. Nelson, manager of the Santa
Fe Eefrigerator Despatch:
"We have contracts at practically every point where
we secure ice and these contracts were made prior to the
time that there was a shortage in the ice crop even con¬
templated. Some of our contracts for 1919 are ten years
old. As to those there would not be any difference now
than it was in 1918." (Tr., 8158.)
"The contract at Newton has been advanced from
$2.50 to $3.25, and that advance was made in 1918, but it
was not on account of any emergency at the present time.
It was on account of the increased costs of labor and ma¬
terial since the war or during the war." (Tr., 8159.)
"I will not admit that the cost price now is abnormal
and the figures here are based on that abnormal price.
I will admit the prices are abnormal, but I will not admit
418
the figures are based on that abnormal price. I am not
saying- that the 1919 prices in the open market are not
abnormal. I am stating that the exhibits were made on
1919 prices to the Santa Fe." (Tr., 8158-60.)
Nelson's Exhibit No. 7 shoAvs, for instance, that at all
of the Santa Fe icing stations the cost of ice was the same
in 1918 as in 1919, except that at San Bernardino—its
largest icing plant—the cost in 1918 was $5.04, as against
$3 per ton in 1919 ; at Winslow it was $3.77 in 1918 and
$5.50 in 1919; at Clovis it was $3.85 in 1918 and $4.28 in
1919; at Waynoka, $3.50 in 1918 and $4.15 in 1919; at
Corwith, $3.31 in 1918 and $5.54 in 1919.
Witness George H. Nelson:
"The increased prices of 1918 over 1917 at Argentine,
Waynoka, Bakersfield and Fresno are due to an arbi¬
trary increase to keep the ice companies from going
broke." (Tr., 108.)
R. C. Dearborn's Exhibit No. 5 shows that tEere are
ten icing stations where the 1919 ice costs are less than
they were in 1918, nine Avhere the costs for the two years
are the same, five where the increase is less than ten
cents a ton, twenty-one Avhere the increased cost ranges
from ten to less than fifty cents a ton, five where the in¬
crease is just fifty cents a ton, four where the increase
is in excess of one dollar a ton, and the balance show
an increase in cost of betAveen fifty cents and one dollar
a ton. And the station Avhere increases in excess of one
dollar a ton are shoAvn are comparatively unimportant
icing stations.
Thus the 1918 tonnage of ice used and increases in ice
costs betAveen 1918 and 1919 at the four stations men¬
tioned are as follows:
419
Station
Oakland, Cal.
Pórtela, Cal.
Ice 1918 Cost 1919 Cost
Tonnage Per Ton Per Ton
2223 tons $2.88 $4.50
83.65 2.25 4.25
Santa Barbara, Cal. 967.92 6.15 8.50
Spokane, AVasli. 1312.15 3.22 4.23
Compare this with the tonnage at Trnckee, California,
where the ice used in 1918 was 30,005.6 tons and the ice
cost was about ten cents less a ton in 1919 than in 1918 :
Tucson, Arizona, ice tonnage, 20,245.16 tons; 1918 ice
costs $4.1939; 1919, $4.70 a ton; Eoseville, California, ice
tonnage, 100,306.44 tons, ice costs, 1917, $3.38; 1918,
$3.28, and 1919, $3.20.
There are other instances where increases or decreases
may be shown, but on a weighted average the increase
in cost per ton of ice to the Pacific Fruit Express will be
very little for the year 1919 over 1918.
These illustrations are given because the Santa Fe Ke-
frigerator Despatch, formerly serving the Santa Fe (and
now a department of that railroad) and the Pacific Fruit
Express, serving the Southern Pacific, the Union Pacific,
the Salt Lake, and the Western Pacific railroads, are
typical of the situation reflected by the ice cost exhibits
in this case, particularly with respect to transcontinental
hauls. It may be true that other carriers or car lines
show greater increases in ice costs for 1919 over 1918,
but the fact remains that it is costing those carriers or
car lines 1919 prices, and it is by those that they must
survive or perish. Thus, on the Northern Pacific Rail¬
road, according to Mer ritt's Exhibit No. 6, which gave
the figures upon which his other exhibits were based, the
increase in ice costs per ton, for the year 1919 over 1918,
ranged from 63 cents per ton at St. Paul to $3.96 per
ton at Helena; on the other hand there were reductions
420
ranging from 41 cents a ton at Yakima to $3.55 per ton
at Ellensburg.
The Avitness H. A. Huber, in computing the cost of
refrigeration service on the ice costs shoAvn in his Ex¬
hibits 8 and 9, testified the cost figures shown on those
exhibits are in very many cases too low. (Tr., 8249-
8251-8253-4.)
E. E. Betts: It is only natural to presume that the
price paid this year in the Chicago locality, at least, is
excessive as compared with the general average of years,
but if these prices have to be paid by the carriers then
the amount they are asking in the tariff is far too small,
because the carriers could not operate and provide the
service for the prices proposed in the tariff. (Tr., 3968.)
John B. Scott:
This witness testified that in making up his exhibits
showing cost of refrigeration service from Florida, he
used the figure of $4.50 a ton. He then detailed all of
the icing stations used by the Fruit Growers Express in
the territory south of the Potomac and Ohio, and stated
the actual costs of ice at those stations. He then stated
that at all icing stations north of the Potomac in Official
Classification territory, except certain river stations, he
paid $4 a ton, which is the tariff price. Then followed
this testimony:
The costs I have given are for 1919, with this excep¬
tion. The prices we have given are the prices that we
are now paying. For example, at Sanford during the
season just passed, we paid $4.32. The contract that I
have just closed and Avhich is now in effect is $5 per ton
at that point. (Tr., 7617-7618.) That is with the South¬
ern Utilities Company.
421
Q. (By Mr. Westlake) ; Well, taking it by and large,
is there any material difference between the ice prices
you are now paying at those points and those that you
had to pay during the current year's business or cur¬
rent season's business? A. With a few exceptions the
prices I have given are the prices that we actually paid
at these stations on all this Florida business, and the
exceptions are Sanford, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West
Palm Beach, Okeechobee, Palatka, Lakeland, Ft. Myers,
Arcadia, Punta Gorda. Those contracts are all with the
Southern Utilities Company, and I have just negotiated
agreements at those points contemplating |5 ice over the ■
old prices of approximately $4.37 or $4.38.
Q. Having in mind all of these ice prices which you
have read and the icing stations at which shipments
moving to New York would be iced, and the respective
tonnages used at those icing points, would you say that
$4.50 which you have used in your illustration is a fair
figure? A. It is fair to the" shippers and unfair to us
and the Administration or whoever handles the business,
because the ice is costing us more than an average of
$4.50 and for the approaching season I will be very well
satisfied if Ave can hold it down to an average of $5.
Q. The reason I asked you that question was that
AAdien you first commenced reading your figures you had
several of them lower than $4.50 and I did not know what
were the respective tonnages of ice that you used at the
various points. A. For example, we purchased 50,000
tons or will purchase this season from the Southern Utili¬
ties Company in Florida and we Avill pay $5 a ton for
all that ice.
Sanford is our biggest icing station, and we will pay
$5 per ton for that ice. (Tr., 7619.)
422
Q. We are paying it right noAV if we have any busi¬
ness. We will have business probably within 30 or 40
days and the price will then commence. But in addition
to that I have the figures of the ice company and they
are asking me to give them $40,000 to help them out for
losses during the past season. I have so far withheld
decision on it, but I do not know what we will do, but
they said if we did not help them out to the extent of
approximately $40,000 and make them a substantial in¬
crease in our price for the approaching season that there
would be nothing left for them to do but to go in the
hands of a receiver, and, of course, that would mean no
ice. We could not let that condition happen of course.
That is at Sanford, Lakeland, our biggest icing points.
In other Avords, AAm bought 44,000 tons of ice from the
Southern Utilities Company in Florida last season. That
is operated by the J. G. White Management Corporation
of New York. It is not the Atlantic Ice & Coal Corpora¬
tion, of which I spoke a little while ago. All the business
they do is furnishing ice to us and to the trade. They
are in the ice business pure and simple. (Tr., 7620.)
All ice that we buy from the Southern Utilities Co., and
we buy most all our railroad ice from them, is bought
on the basis of a price f. o. b. bunkers, $5 per ton in the
season uoav approaching. (Tr., 7621.) But those agree¬
ments further provide that they will not guarantee to
take care of our requirements but will simply give us a
guaranteed tonnage per day from their ice manufactur¬
ing plants at all these different points and all of the ice
they can store in their storage. If that is not enough we
have to go on the outside and get it. And Avhen I reached
that agreement I knoAV we would have to get at least
11,000 tons the coming season, based on an average move¬
ment. (Tr., 7621.) That agreement covers 1919-20 only;
that is, the approaching season.
423
Q. It is a general contract, is it, or is it a matter of con¬
tracting at each point where the ice is furnished? A. We
are in this position. We have a contract with the South¬
ern Utilities Company Avhich was made before the war
and I belieA'e has about three years to run; it runs until
September 1, 1923. The ice company came to us last
year and told us that obviously they could not operate
under the prices stipulated in that contract as the con¬
tract was made before the war, and certainly not with
any idea that the war would affect the situation to the
extent that it did, and we alloAved them a bonus during
the current season of 25 per cent OA^r the contract price.
At all other points aa^here Ave have contracts with them
the contracts provide or rather, a side agreement en¬
tered into at the same time the contracts were entered
into proAuded that on or before September 15th of each
year Ave Avould get together and undertake to agree on
what Avould be a fair price for the ensuing year, and in
accordance Avith that agreement is AAUy I made this trade
in Ncav York the other day that I did. (Tr., 7621-7622.)
E. SuDENDORF, an ice manufacturer at Clinton, Illinois,
Avas called to the stand by Mr.-Barry Gilbert, attorney
for some of the shippers appearing as protestants in
this proceeding, and testified in substance as folloAVS:
Has a xfiant making from 35 to 40' tons, average
about 35 tons a day. Ices cars at that point for the Illi¬
nois Central, from 500 to 2,000 cars a year according to
season and according to amount of ice they have to
spare. Averages about 1,000 cars a year. Sells ice to
Illinois Central at $5 a ton for icing in the daytime and
adds 50c a ton for night icing. The current year has
been a normal one for ice except with respect to natural
ice. There has been more ice manufactured this year
than in any previous year. Not a normal year for the
424
production of natural ice. No previous years like it in
that respect within witness' experience. In previous
years he charged the Illinois Central for the first half of
last year up to August |4 a ton and after that $5 a ton.
Before that he got $3.50 a ton for daytime work. In 1917
the price Avas $3.50 until the fall or about August; then
they got $4. Could manufacture ice more cheaply if the
plant was enlarged. Overhea'd costs more in small plant
than in large plant. Does not anticipate increase in the
price this year. They charge retailer all the way from
$5 to $11 a ton, and 55c per 100 for ice to families, de¬
livered. Cheapest icing they do is for the railroad. Can
afford to do it because it is good business; they do not
have to cut up chunks. There is a fair profit in the
present price to railroads. Does not come in competition
with other plants because business is local. (Tr., 4777
to 4779.)
One hundred pounds of natural ice melts quicker than
100 pounds of artificial ice. Witness' ice plant at Clin¬
ton is right in the railroad yards with a sidetrack at the
plant where the cars are switched and trains made up.
Ice is moved out of the storage house up an incline to
the icing platform by electric motor. Plant and facili¬
ties are OAvned by witness' company, which operates the
facilities. These facilities are put up to obtain the rail¬
road's icing business. Used to have a contract, but re¬
fused to contract with the railroad for the last three
years for the reason that, especially since the govern¬
ment has taken over the roads, the contracts proposed
made the icing company assume all liability for proper
icing. If a car gets Avarm and any damage results, the
ice company Avould haAm to defend the suit. Sells Illi¬
nois Central from 1,500 to 3,000 tons a year. Has prob¬
ably sold 1,500 tons already this year and could have
425
sold more if he had it. Had to refuse a great deal of
business on account of having to take care of home re¬
quirements. Has refused to ice a good many cars on
account of shortage of ice. Eailroad would have used
more ice if it could have gotten it. Not able to ice all
the cars they were asked to this year. Ordinarily they
are able to do so. Cars which they are unable to ice have
to move to another icing station, usually the next one.
They give a car enough to carry it to the next station,
but not all the railroad wants. (Tr., 4783 to 4786.)
Illinois Central relies upon witness' plant at Clinton
and has no ice house there, but witness maintains an ice
house for them. Sells ice to railroad at same price as
he charges others in carloads. The price to the Illinois
Central includes putting ice in bunkers. Has nothing
to do with cleaning out bunkers or drains; the railroad
does that. The railroad has an inspector that sees they
get proper quantity of ice and that the ice is put in right.
Eailroad supervises icing of cars. The supervision con¬
tinues whether the icing is done in the day or night. Ice
is charged for on the basis of 300 pounds per cake. Icing
of cars is done by machinery operated by electric motor.
They have all the latest appliances which save labor.
(Tr., 4780 to 4783.)
For such perishable freight as butter, eggs, peaches
and meat, they ice all the cars that come, but as to extra
icing—such as for bananas, which are usually not iced
at Clinton, this year the railroad desired them iced there;
because of a shortage of ice elsewhere, they have merely
iced these cars sufficiently to get them to the next point.
In that case two icings are given instead of one, a partial
icing at the witness' plant and a complete icing at the
point whore the railroad can find ice. The railroad pays
witness only for what is put in. Witness' plant is suffi-
426.
cient to supply the Illinois Central with all its require¬
ments if the entire output is devoted to that purpose.
In some years they Avould have more than enough ice for
that purpose. Natural ice melts quicker than artificial
ice. Witness said earlier that artificial ice melts quicker.
He desires here to correct that statement, as the con¬
verse is true. (Tr., 4786-7.)
Witness' firm refused to sign contract with the rail¬
road company because it wanted to avoid responsibility
for the efficiency of the icing. Carrier now assumes that
responsibility both as to efficiency and adequacy of the
icing and for safe transportation of the commodity un¬
der refrigeration. Considers this a serious hazard to
assume. Value of the commodity in the car is usually
high. The railroad can control the cars to see that they
are kept properly iced. (Tr., 4788-9.)
Contract proposed by the railroad called upon the
icing company to defend claims for damage arising from
insufficient icing. It did not limit this obligation to icing
at that plant, but witness would not have signed it if it
had, because the railroad has an inspector to see that
cars are iced properly. Witness corrects the statement
that he has not had a contract for the last three years
and now limits it to two years. (Tr., 4790.)
John P. Boyle.
In connection with ice costs it is interesting to note
the testimony of John P. Boyle, at 136 West Lake steet,
Chicago, in the business of manufacturing and deliver¬
ing ice. His testimony Avas in substance as follows:
AVas requested by Attorney Barry Gilbert to testify
but declined to do so, except upon request of the Com¬
mission, Avhich Avas made through Examiner Marshall.
427
There is a national ice dealers' association called The
National Association of Ice Industries. It consists of
about 700 members located all over the United States.
(Tr., 4818-19.) As secretary of that organization I keep
its records and call the meetings, etc. I am kept in close
touch with the ice industry of the United States. (Tr.,
4819.) We have one director from Boäton, two from
New York, one from Atlanta, Georgia, one from New
Orleans, one from Pittsburgh, one from Cleveland, one
from Detroit, two from Chicago, one from Kansas City,
one from Greeley, Colorado, one from Dallas, Texas, and
one from Los Angeles. There is a general attendance of
these directors at our meetings at which there are dis¬
cussions of the conditions surrounding the ice industry,
not so much as to costs as with respect to the general
conditions of the business. We in a measure keep posted
on what prices ice is selling for all over the country. (Tr.,
4820.)
I have been to New York, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Min¬
neapolis, St. Louis, Duluth, Mihvaukee and Kansas City
in the last six months and am naturally kept acquainted
with ice prices. (Tr., 4821.) I consider myself an expert
on the subject of ice. (Tr., 4822-3.)
The current year has seen the shortest crop of natural
ice in the history of the business, I believe. The shortage
in Chicago of natural ice of 1,800,000 tons has naturally
affected the price of ice this current year. (Tr., 4823.)
It would also affect the price of natural ice to the extent
that the artificial supplies were drawn on, where hereto¬
fore they have not been. The total output of Chicago in
ice, natural and artificial, is 2,150,000 tons. The actual
shortage, loaded on cars, would run perhaps ten per cent
less than that. (Tr., 4824.)
For instance, the Hudson River—they did not cut a
428
pound of ice on it, where normally they put up 2,000,000
tons a year. The same condition exists in a belt reach¬
ing across the country north, I Avould say—taking in
Philadelphia and New York, part of Connecticut, north¬
ern Ohio, southern Michigan, across to Chicago, Wiscon¬
sin, Iowa and Kansas, until you get up into the mountains
there, where they had their regular crop, but it is a belt
right across the country from there north, where the har¬
vest was very short last year. Take 150 miles south of
Chicago, it was not atfected, because they do not depend
on natural ice anyway, except to this extent, that the
shortage through all of these points—as a matter of fact,
St. Louis has been shipping to Chicago from 20 to 30 cars
a day ; something heretofore miknown.
Q. Is the ordinary movement in the other direction!
A. Well, not in the last three or four years, because they
have sufficient manufacturing capacity there to take care
of themselves, unless we might get an abnormal two or
three hot weeks and we might help them out temporarily,
but as a matter of fact, Cincinnati is shipping ice to
Cleveland. Last week Cincinnati shipped 84 cars to
Cleveland, to one company. Indianapolis and Springfield,
Illinois, are shipping ice up here. I got ice last week
from Evansville, Indiana. That is something unknown
heretofore. (Tr., 4825.)
The prices in 1919 are 33-J per cent higher than in 1918
at Chicago; New York and Cleveland not over 15 or 20
per cent. New York compared with 1917, about 40 per
cent. (Tr., 4826.) Boston, Jersey City, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, St.
Paul and Minneapolis, about the same; and as far west as
Kansas City. Prom there west, when you get up into the
mountains, they are pretty sure of the crop, and I don't
know as there was much variance in price, except brought
about by the increased cost of labor. Cincinnati and
429
points south of there the prices would be perhaps 15 or
20 per cent higher. The higher prices in 1918 over 1917
were due to war conditions, shortage of fuel and the in¬
creased cost of labor. (Tr., 4827.) In 1920 prices should
go hack at least 20, if not 25, per cent from the present
level. (Tr., 4828.)
I would be tickled to death to make a contract with the
railroads for ten years at $4.50 a ton in the bunkers, of
not less than 40,000 tons at a given point. (Tr., 4829.)
The prices per ton for ice quoted in May, 1919, were:
Boise, Idaho, $3.
Danville, 111., $5.
Du Quoin, Ilk, $4.
Mounds, 111., $5.
Quincy, 111., |6.
Des Moines, la., $6.
Danville, Ky., $5.
Louisville, Ky., $6.
New Orleans, from the platform $6; $6.50 where they
have to use wagons. They have icing platforms.
Baltimore, Md., wagons, $5; platform, $4.
Boston, Mass., wagon, $5.
Grand Rapids, Mich., $4.50.
Minneapolis, Minn., $4.
Columbus, Miss., $6.50.
Springfield, Mo., platform, $4; wagons, $6.
St. Louis, Mo., wagons, $5 ; platform, $4.50.
Rochester, New York, platform, $5.
Wilmington, North Carolina, platform, $4.50.
Cleveland, Ohio, wagons, $6.
In Cleveland I know that they are icing for less than
that on contracts.
Toledo, Ohio, wagons, $6.
Colorado Springs, $6.
Springfield, 111., $6.
430
Elkhart, Indiana, |6.
Dubnque, Iowa, $7.
Salina, Kansas, by wagon, $5.
Bangor, Maine, by wagon, |5.
Columbus, Mo., $7.
Lincoln, Nebr., $4.50.
Atlantic City, New Jersey, $8.
Buffalo, New York, platform, $4; wagon, $5.
Cincinnati, platform, $5; wagon, $6.
Janesville, Wis., $4.
Little Eock, Arkansas, bas made a contract to supply
the railroad there at $4.50. There is where I happened
to get information.
Siloam Springs, Arkansas, $5.
Dover, Delaware, $6.
Jacksonville, Florida, $5.
Atlanta, Georgia, has 38 plants in 21 cities, and their
price is $5. You will notice that in the south the price is
not as high as it is where there was all natural ice.
Q. (By Mr. Gilbert) : They are more uniform down
there? A. Yes, sir.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $6.
Washington, Pennsylvania, $6.
El Paso, Texas, $5. (Tr., 4840-41.)
If a man made a contract for a quantity, those prices
would he shaded. I couldn't tell how much. That de¬
pends on the necessities of the shipper. (Tr., 4842.)
Q. (By Examiner Marshall) : Based upon the cost at
the present time, do you think the carriers can furnish ice
at $4 a ton? A. I do not.
Q. If they had furnished it at that price, do you think
they are making any profit, or losing on it? A. I think
that they are not making any money.
Q. (By Mr. Sternhagen) : Could you say that with
431
respect to last year, Mr. Boyle? A. I don't think they
would have made any money last year on that basis."
(Tr., 4846.)
I would not care to supply ice to the carrier at $4 a ton
in the bunkers under normal conditions. (Tr., 4847.' )
On a long time contract a railroad can buy ice at less
than |4 in a normal year. (Tr., 4848.)
I would be very glad to take a contract to-day from a
railroad that would give me an icing station where they
would agree to take 40,000 tons, and I could take on a
contract at about $3.75. (Tr., 4848.)
Under normal conditions I think a $4 charge would be
a very fair price for the railroads to charge where the
railroads store their own ice direct from the water in the
harvesting season. With no transportation $3 would be
a fair price and allow a good profit. (Tr., 4850.)
I recognize that Avhen a railroad assumes the obliga¬
tion of icing cars it has a certain responsibility and haz¬
ard going with the commodity that is in the car. It is the
exception when the lake or source of ice supply is con¬
veniently located so that the carriers can get the ice di¬
rect. (Tr., 4851.) No ice can be bought in any quantity
in Chicago now. (Tr., 4852.)
Ice should be delivered at Chicago for $7.
I do not know whether or not any one did actually
quote a price of $6 in Chicago last May. (Tr., 4854.)
A $6 quotation in Chicago would not in any sense be a
yearly quotation which could bo relied on. (Tr., 4855.)
I did not quote that price of $6 to any customer in Chi¬
cago this year. (Tr., 4857.)
In Chicago the normal shrinkage on 40,000 tons of ice
would be about 10 per cent. (Tr., 4858.) I should think
the shrinkage along the line of tlic Great Northern and
432
Northern Pacific would be less than at Chicago. The
shrinkage would depend upon how often you open your
ice house and what quantities you take out at a time.
(Tr., 4859.)
Blue Island is the only station of which I haye any
knowledge where they open it up and use as much ice
as a wholesaler. (Tr., 4861.) If you had to store arti¬
ficial ice without refrigeration it would be murder. It
would not keep at all. (Tr., 4862.)
There is no difference in the expense of icing cars with
crushed ice or chunk ice. (Tr., 4863.)
Q. (By Mr. Gilbert) : To get a normal 1917 figure,
is it correct to say that in general you would take off
33J per cent? A. You will never get a normal 1917 figure
until you get labor down again and everything that en¬
ters into the cost of manufacturing. (Tr., 4865.)
The bare cost of cutting ice and putting it into the ware¬
house is 40 cents a ton. If you are going to figure cost on
your investment and depreciation and all of those things
that enter into it, why it is a different figure. (Tr., 4867.)
It must be borne in mind that carriers are obligated to
provide maximum tonnage of ice to adequately take care
of the maximum crop movement. This often results in
the storing of a greater supply of ice than is needed,
due to failure of crops or other conditions which cannot
be anticipated, and a consequent loss by meltage after
the close of the season. It also frequently happens that
there will be an unprecedented production of perishables
with the result that the carriers' ice supply is inade¬
quate, necessitating the hauling of ice from great dis¬
tances, with its attendant expense. Consideration should
also be given to the fact that carriers cannot be expected
to erect expensive ice storage houses, or ice manufactur-
433
ing plants, at any considerable number of their stations
to take care of the short season business there handled.
This means that ice must be hauled to these stations.
Xor should rve overlook the fact that the sources of ice
supply are, as a rule, located considerable distances from
the icing stations. And no proper comparison can be
made between the cost of ice to the packer, for instance,
whose requirements at a given plant run up into the thou¬
sands of tons a year, and w^hose refrigerated business is
continuous throughout the year, and the cost to the car¬
rier at the average icing station, where the ice tonnage
is a few hundreds or four or five thousand, and the sea¬
son is short, and the ice haulage is an important factor,
and the overhead expense great in proportion to the ice
tonnage. Such comparisons are unfair, and of no im¬
portance in determining the proper cost of ice to the
carrier.
As heretofore stated, the carrier, in computing the
cost of ice in the bunkers, used the company material rate
for hauling the ice over their own lines. This is much
less than the actual cost, as the company material rate
used, in most instances at least, was the figure adopted
by the respective carriers several years ago. The excep¬
tion was that the witness E. E. Betts, superintendent of
transportation of the C. & N. ^Y. E. E. used 6 mills per
ton per mile, but this figure was amply justified by the
testimony of C. F. Balch, statistician for the same rail¬
road. (Balch Exhibit No. 1—Tr., 5600-5601.) The fig¬
ure of six mills did not include anything for the use of
the property. (Tr., 5607.)
From what has been heretofore stated we think it neces¬
sarily follows that the ice cost figures submitted by the
carriers herein have been fully justified; that those fig¬
ures for 1919 do not differ greatly from those for 1918;
that we will never have "normal 1917 figures" again
434
until labor costs and other items of expense are reduced
to their former level—which is in the very remote fu¬
ture; and that the carriers should he permitted to jus¬
tify their proposed charges on the 1919 costs, though in
many instances they have done so on the 1918 basis.
For convenient reference the following is a list of the
ice costs exhibits submitted by the carriers in this pro¬
ceeding:
Summary.
Cost Per Ton of Ice in Bunkers of Refrigerator Cars.
H. A. Huber 8. C. R. I. & P. R. R.—^natural ice years
1918 and 1919 no tonnage or details shown.
H. A. Huber 18. C. R. I. & P. R. R.—^natural ice years
1918-1919 shows tonnage but no detail except at To-
peka, Kan., and Dalhart, Texas.
H. A. Huber 9. C. R. I. &, P. R. R.—artificial ice 1918-
1919 no tonnage (details not necessary as contract
price includes placing in bunkers).
H. A. Huber 19. C. R. I & P. R. R.—artificial ice 1918-
1919 shows tonnage.
Kentfield 5 and 8. Principal New England lines—1918-
1919 shows tonnage and details.
Kerr 1. Southern R. R.^—^year 1919—shows tonnage (no
details necessary as all contract ice).
Kerr 2. A. C. L. R. R. year 1919—shows tonnage (no
details necessary as all contract ice).
Kerr 3. Principal Southeastern and Carolina lines 1919
no tonnage or details [contracts).
McPike 112. Southern and Eastern lines, Illinois
Central R. R. years 1918-1919 tonnage and details
shown.
435
McPike 113. North and west lines 111. Cent, years 1918-
1919—tonnage and details shown.
Merritt 6. Nor. Pac. E. R.—^years 1918-1919 shows ton¬
nage, no details.
Merritt 56. Nor. Pac. E. E.—^year 1918—tonnage and
details sho^vn.
Bagent 13. St. L. & S. F. E. E.—costs for 1917-1918-19—
shows tonnage for 1918—no details.
Beidelman 3. Grt. Northern E. E.—^years 1918-1919—
tonnage shown.
Beidelman 14. Grt. Northern E. E.—year 1918,—shows
tonnage and details.
Brooke 5. C. F. A. territory—1918-1919^—shows tonnage;
details furnished Commission.
Cleave 6-A. Trunk Line territory—1918-1919—shows
tonnage and details.
Crowe 1. Waterloo, Centralia & Freeport, la., shows
tonnage and details.
Dearborn 5. Contracted lines P. F. E.—1916 to 1919,
inc.,—show^s tonnage no details.
Weston 4. Contracted lines P. F. E.—1916 to 1918—
shows tonnage and details.
Nelson 7. Santa Fe years 1915 to 1919, Inc. No details.
Gorman 1.. D. & E. G. E. E.—1917-1918-1919—shows no
tonnage, some details.
Gorman 3. Kan. City, Hoisington, Coffeville, Cotter, Mc-
Ghee and Paragould 1917, 1918, 1919, show^s no ton¬
nage, some details.
Gorman 36. Stations in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas, year 1919, shows
tonnage and details.
436
Gorman 37. Tex. & Pac. E. E., Jan. to July 1919, shows
tonnage and details.
Gorman 38. Kansas City—1918 and 1919 (6 Mo.), shows
tonnage and details.
Gorman 39. Hoisington, Kan., 1918 and 1919 (6 Mo.),
shows tonnage and details.
Gorman 40. D. & E. G. E. E., 1918 and 1919 (6 Mo.),
shows tonnage and details.
ICE HAULAGE.
That this item is properly chargeable against refrig¬
eration service is now beyond doubt. The pioneer case
upon the question is the Arlington Heights Case, 20 I. C.
C., 106, from page 109 of which we have heretofore
quoted. Following that have been several other cases
decided by the Commission, from which quotations have
also been made. In that case, as we read it, the Commis¬
sion allowed $20 for an average haul of 8,000 pounds of
ice for a distance of 2,164 miles. This is more than one
cent per 100 pounds per 100 miles. There has been some
doubt created by Attorney Lamb as to whether or not
the allowance of $20 was for 2,164 miles or some greater
distance. As a foundation for his argument Mr. Lamb
has filed herein "Santa Fe Exhibit 18," originally intro¬
duced in the Arlington Heights case, and Mr. Peabody's
testimony relating thereto. Mr. Peabody testified that
the average haul was 1,999 miles and Santa Fe Exhibit
18 shows that the cost of hauling four tons of ice that
distance was $18.09. Applying these figures to a haul of
2,164 miles, we find the resulting figure to be $19.58, as
against tlie amount allowed by the Commission of $20.
Later on, in the Deciduous Fruit Case, 32 I. C. C., 26,
the Commission allowed $22.50 per car for haulage of
437
average weight of ice of 9,000 pounds, from Sacramento
to Chicago, a distance of approximately 2,175 miles. It is
apparent that the Commission disregarded the slight dif¬
ference between 2,164 and 2,175 miles, and simply multi¬
plied $20 by 9/8ths (9,000 to 8,000 pounds of ice) and
arrived at the figure of $22.50.
The Arlington Heights case Avas decided January 14,
1911, and the Deciduous Fruit case in 1914.
In the preparation of the various exhibits in this case
the witnesses, almost Avithout exception, have used the
figure of one cent per one hundred pounds per one hun¬
dred miles (Avhich is less than the Commission basis), or
have used the exact Commission basis. Either basis
Avas thought to be Ioav at the present time. Some of the
reasons advanced for that opinion are set forth in the
testimony. For instance :
George II. Nelson :
Exhibits are based on haulage of ice as allowed by tlie
Commission in Arlington Heights case, 3,000 ; has taken
a rate of actual mileage to 2,164 miles and amount of ice
continuously in the bunkers as a basis. In the founda¬
tion used in basing freight rates they made greater rate
for a shorter distance than for a longer distance; Avhere
used for haulage of ice the rate would increase propor¬
tionately for short-haul business. Further it probably
costs more to haul ice to-day than in 1910, and the rate
for ice haulage, as used by carriers, is too low. (Tr.,
1774.)
A. F. Cleveland :
Assistant general freight agent of the Chicago & North
Western Eailroad for approximately 22 years (Tr.,
4176), used both Commission basis and actual cost basis
of 7.31 mills per ton per mile. (Tr., 4177.)
438
C. F. Balch :
Statistician of the C, & N. W. R. R., testified that the
cost per gross ton mile was six mills (Tr., 5598 to 5600),
which did not include anything for the use of the prop¬
erty. (Tr., 5607.) His exhibit was based on the months
of April, May and June, 1919.
Among the shippers' witnesses who testified on the
measure of the ice hauling charge were the following:
E. G. Dezell:
Assistant manager of the California Fruit Growers
Exchange.
Q. If it is from the decision, the decision will speak
for itself, and we can argue that subsequently. (Tr., 923.)
Q. And where we are endeavoring to get at the proper
measure of the factors, which we have used, we could
very fairly, could we not, have increased the rate which
the Commission allowed us for the haulage of the ice.
A. Yes; but as to the extent, we probably would not
agree on that.
Q. We might differ as to the extent, but I am trying
to get from you whether or not you think we have not
been very fair in adopting what we conceive to be the
basis used by the Commission. A. I don't think that
that is the correct basis that they have used, hut I will
say that tliere is no question in my mind that the hauling
of ice costs more to-day than it did at that time—cost
somebody more. (Tr., 2924.)
L. F. Berry:
Traffic manager of Reid-Murdock & Co.
Referring to the cost of haulage of ice as between car¬
riers, some of the carriers have a tariff on the basis of
six mills per ton per mile. For instance, the Chicago and
439
North Western Eailway. That is for hauling material
of all kinds, ice or anything else, that is hauled by the
railroad, also between the North Western and the Chi¬
cago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Eailway. (Tr.,
9073-9074.)
If there was added to that the profit using ah operating
ratio of say 55f per cent, which is the normal or might
be considered below normal at the present time, yon
would have nine mills per ton per mile. (Tr., 9074.)
I would figure that nine mills per ton per mile is a
reasonable charge on the haulage for ice on the carriers'
business. (Tr., 9077-9079.) If the carriers are not com¬
pensated for ice haulage in the freight rate I would say
that nine mills per ton per mile is a reasonable rate of
compensation to the carriers. (Tr., 9079.)
C. M. Htjbeb:
Eepresenting the Mississippi Eailroad Commission.
(Tr., 8514.)
(Eeferring to item for ice haulage)—"The rate per
hundred pounds or per ton per hundred miles, two cents,
is not unreasonable, but in my judgment he has figured
the average weight of ice in the bunkers at too great a
figure." (Tr., 8541.)
There was a recurrence in this case of the stock con¬
tention that carriers should not receive any compensa¬
tion for ice haulage in cases where refrigerator car lines
such as the Pacific Fruit Express or the Fruit Growers
Express received all of the refrigeration revenue. This
contention is, of course, finally and effectually disposed
of by the decisions of the Commission in the Arlington
Heights case, 20 I. C. C., 106, at page 109, and in the case
of Railroad Commission of the State of California v.
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, et al., 32
440
I. C. C., 17, at pages 20 and 21. The former case dis¬
posed of the situation where the stock of the refrigerator
car line was entirely owned by the carriers, to wit ; The
Sonthern Pacific and the Union Pacific, and the latter
case found no distinction where one of the carriers, to
Avit: The Western Pacific, Avas in no AAmy interested in
the refrigerator car line.
This very argument Avas made by the witness, G. K.
Williams, traffic manager of Chase & Company, fruit and
vegetable shippers, Jacksonville, Pia. (Tr., 8303.)
"We shall endeavor to establish that in this territory
the elements of 'haulage of Aveight of ice' and 'switch¬
ing' have constituted in part the refrigeration charges.
Indeed they should constitute no part of the said charges
for the reason that such services are performed by the
carriers." (Tr., 8038.)
"The rule in Arlington Heights case, 20 I. C. C., Ill,
and the Deciduous Fruit case, 32 I. C. C., 26, should never
be adopted as applicable in this territory until the man¬
ner of rendering refrigeration service is changed to cor¬
respond to the manner of rendering service in that terri¬
tory." (Tr., 8039.)
The cross-examination of the AAÛtness commencing on
page 8058 of the transcript and ending on page 8063
thereof clearly developed that the witness was entirely
mistaken with respect to the alleged facts upon which
he sought to differentiate the method of rendering re¬
frigeration service in Florida from that in vogue in Cali¬
fornia. In fact, there is no difference between the two
methods.
We think that the item of ice haulage used by the car¬
riers in this case in justifying the proposed refrigera¬
tion charges is upon a basis entirely too low and should
441
be materially increased; that it is immaterial whether a
carrier performs the refrigeration service directly or
through the intermediary of a refrigerator car line ; that
this item should be considered by the Commission in the
justification of the proposed charges in all cases, and
that it should not give any weight to the contention of
some of the shippers that this item, is included in the
freight rate—for, whether it be or not, the law is man¬
datory in its requirements that the icing charges be stated
separately. Obviously, they cannot be, at the same time,
stated separately and also included in the freight rate.
SWITCHING.
This item has also been included by the carriers as a
proper factor of expense in justification of the proposed
charges, under sanction of the Commission, as indicated
by its decisions to which we have previously adverted.
The figure used by the witnesses in their exhibits has been
35 cents for the aggregate service of smtching a car to
and from the icing platform. A few witnesses have used
the actual cost of the service which has always been
largely in excess of 35 cents. Some of them have shown
the result of using both the 35-cent item and the actual
cost.
Again the decision of the Commission approving an
allowance of 25 cents per switch was the starting point.
To this was added an arbitrary 10 cents to care for in¬
creased cost of labor and materials.' But to be absolutely
certain of the propriety of the figure of 35 cents, efforts
were made to develop the actual cost of the service. Thus
we have the following exhibits and testimony:
442
E. F. McPike :
Exhibit No. 70 of this witness shows estimated cost of
switching incidental to icing cars at certain icing sta¬
tions on the Illinois Central Eailroad, to he—
At Mounds, Illinois $1.67 per car
At Nonconnah, Tenn 2.51 per car
At Gwin, Miss 2.17 per car
These figures are based upon switching engine cost of
$11.07 per hour, which is analyzed in detail on a separate
sheet forming a part of McPike's Exhibit No. 70. (Tr.,
83-84.)
Exhibit No. 92 of the witness E. F. McPike, shows an
estimated expense of switching ten cars at Mounds, 111.,
of $13.63, or about $1.36 per ear. (Tr., 2127-2128.)
Geo. H. Nelson :
Switching at 35 cents per switch is based on switching
in trainloads ; if switching were based on one car move¬
ment it Avould be greatly in excess of 35 cents per switch.
(Tr., 122.)
K. C. Dearborn :
The switching cost of 35c per switch was an arbitrary
figure based on a Commission's decision in various cases
allowing 25c per switch. The increase is due to greater
cost at the present time. Switching is performed to the
ice plants in trainloads when moving in solid trains. Gen¬
erally the road engine heads into the ice house and makes
the first spot ; if necessary, two or three additional spots
are made by a switch engine. Moving in and out of the
ice house track is considered as one switch and one charge
of 35c is made in the exhibits. Icing stations are gen¬
erally located at division points or terminals. If there
Avas only one car in the train the cost of switching would
443
be greatly in excess of the amount used which is figured
on the maximum number of cars used for each switch.
W. H. Jones:
Trainmaster on Southern Pacific at Los Angeles for
nine years. (Tr., 4396.) At the present time in complete
charge of terminals at Los Angeles and San Pedro and
for two years previously. Prior to that time, on the
division between Los Angeles and Yuma and the south¬
ern branches; in fact on the Los Angeles Division Im¬
perial Valley inner California. (Tr., 436-437.)
My duties have rendered me familiar with the handling
of cars through the yards at Colton, California, to which
I have paid particular attention. I have prepared a
statement purporting to show the cost of handling a car
in the Colton jmrd. (Tr., 437.) There are three pages
to the computation; one showiftg the cost of handling
the cars at Colton during month of November, 1918,
eliminating all engine hours consumed in handling cars
to and from the cement plant; the next page covering
the month of February, 1919, and the last page covering
the month of June, 1919. (Tr., 438.)
My explanation of the elimination from this computa¬
tion of the cars handled to and from the cement plant is
this :
The cement plant at Colton is located about one mile
and a half from the main yard. The cost of handling
cars to and from the yard to the cement plant, and to
the various industries located at the plant, would not be
an average cost of the cars; that is, it would be much
greater. Our engine consumes six hours a day in doing
work at the cement plant. We are handling in the neigh¬
borhood of 275 cars at the cement plant per month, and
when you requested me to give you the average cost of
444
Üajidling cars in the Colton yard, I did not think it would
he fair to holster up the cost of switching but including
the service of that kind. For that reason I had the en¬
tire expense of the enginemen, fuel, oil and everything
else eliminated from the cost of handling cars in Colton
yards. The balance of the switching is on a parity; that
is, whether we place cars at one point or another, it will
cost you approximately about the same; but the cost of
handling cars at the cement plant far exceeds any other
switching that we might have to perform in Colton
yards. (Tr., 439.)
In arriving at the cost of cars switched to and from
the cement plant, we simply eliminated the number of
cars that were handled at the cement plant and eliminated
the number of hours and everything else that were re¬
quired to do that switching. (Tr., 439-440.)
Q. All right. Now take the first page of this com¬
putation and tell us just exactly how you went about
ascertaining the cost of sAvitching a car in Colton yard.
A. The first item is enginemen; that is the total cost of
the enginemen in Colton, $1,738.60.
Q. That was for the entire month? A. That was for
the entire month, for the entire number of enginemen.
Now, by taking six hours from that,—that is the elimina¬
tion of the time consumed in working at the cement
plant,—we find Ave have $188.29. That would leave the
cost of enginemen, $1,550.31. The same applies to the
yardmen; the same applies to fuel; the same applies
to water; to lubricants; to other expenses, and engine-
house expenses, making a total of $7,097.87, with the ce¬
ment SAvitching eliminated. Our supervision at Colton
includes such expenses as yardmasters, clerks, and all
SAvitch tenders. The cost of the supervision, with the
elimination, amounts to $1,259.21, miscellaneous supplies.
445
$79.61, making a grand total with the cement plant switch¬
ing eliminated of $8,436.69. The number of cars handled
in the cement company's plant, with the cement cars
eliminated, amounted to 15,133 cars, and the passing cars
iced amounted to 312, or a total of 15,445 cars, and the
cement company, 239 of them, makes, eliminated, an
actual total of 15,206. That divided into the $8,436.69—
Q. 69 cents. A. And 69 cents produces a cost of 55.5
cents.
Q. Per car handled? A. Per car handled.
Q. Assuming that you switched a car to the icing
platform and after it was iced you took it away from
the platform and hauled it to some other track, would
that be figured in this exhibit as one move or two moves 1
A. It would be two movements.
Q. That is the way this is based! A. Yes, that is
the way this is based.
Q. So that assuming that it takes as much time and
expense to handle a car to and from the icing platform
as it does to handle any other one of these cars contained
in this exhibit, you would double your 55^ cents? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. That Avould be $1.11? A. Yes. (Tr., 440'-441.)
The second page of this statement relating to Febru¬
ary, 1919, was made up in the same manner as that re¬
lating to November, 1918, and for February I got an
average cost of 55.6c per move, which would be doubled,
making $1.12, and for June, when you handled more cars,
the cost per move Avas 61.6 cents, which is approximately
$1.03 for switching a car to and from the platform. (Tr.,
441-442.)
On pages 443, 444 and 445 of the transcript appear
detailed statements of all of the items from which the
446
witness ascertained the average cost during November,
1918, February, 1919, and June, 1919, in one direction
only, one car in the Colton yards.
In my opinion, and from my familiarity with switching-
operations at Colton, I would say that these figures were
representative for the handling of a car to and from the
icing platform. It is also my opinion that these would
be approximately representative figures for Yuma and
other icing points. (Tr., 446.)
This figure of 15,445 is the total number of cars
handled in Colton yards, plus the cars which were iced
and passed through in the same train. In compiling re¬
ports of cars handled in Colton, it not being a terminal,
but where Ave take a car from a train and place it to the
platform and return it, then we have added that to the
actual number of cars handled in Colton. (Tr., 446.)
That item is made up of 15,133 cars that actually
moved and were handled in the Colton yards during that
month, plus 312 that Avere re-iced through the yards.
(Tr., 446-447.) We do not keep track of the number of
times Ave move cars so that some of these cars may have
moved once or twice or three times in the yards and
some of them did not move at all. (Tr., 447.) What¬
ever Avas done to the cars, this 55^ cents for the month
of November represents the actual cost or average cost
of Avhatever Avas done to the cars in the yards but this
does not purport to represent each separate movement
of the car. This is the average cost per car.
I understood Mr. Westlake when he said that if a car
was moved to the icing station and back, the cost would
be represented by doubling that amount. That is exactly
so because of these 312, the actual number of cars iced
Avas 156. As to the figure of 15,133, you can divide that
by two to determine the actual cars which were in the
447
yard. (Tr., 448.) "When the car departs we take another
count of that car. If the car goes to the interchange we
take another count of the car when it returns. There
are times when a car may he counted from two to five
or six times, according to the movement of the car under
load within the yard. (Tr., 448-449.)
We keep count of each car. We take two moves for
every car that comes into the Cotton yard, one in and
one out. 15,133 represents individual movements for
which we are permitted to receive a count for each move.
We keep in the superintendent's office at Los Angeles a
record of the money that is paid out in the course of
the year for those different items here shown on these
three pages. (Tr., 449.)
I think these statements are sufficiently fairly repre¬
sentative of the average cars. If I were to stay on this
job trying to get up that statement for two weeks, I
could not have devised a more fair formula than I have
because I have eliminated every car that I could that cost
more than the average. (Tr., 451.)
This statement actually refiects the arrival and de¬
parture of the cars or movement of the cars but it does
not reflect the inter-yard movement and the number of
cars that may be shunted around from one track to
another.
Colton is not a freight terminal. (Tr., 452.)
These figures are in the last column of 15,206, which is
November, 1918, and 18,674 for February, 1919, and
24,704 in June, 1919, and actually represent the moves
of cars and not the cars themselves. There were certain
items not considered in figuring these costs. Those items
are overhead expenses, such as taxes, depreciation, in¬
terest on the investment, and other things that would be
448
difficult to secure. Supervision above the yardmaster
Avould have to be taken into consideration and it has not
been taken into consideration here. (Tr., 452.)
There are a great many trains go through Colton that
probably we would not get a single count for our yard
handling. Take the manifest train No. 244, that is made
up at Los Angeles. If there were no cars set out from
that train at Colton, and no work performed on the train,
we would not be allowed to take any credit because the
train happened to go through Colton, any more than if
it was a passenger train; but if there was some dead
freight pulled into Colton, and they moved a train of
perishables out of Colton, and they set out the entire
train at Colton, say 45 cars, and picked up 45 other cars,
we would get the credit of the handling of these cars.
Q. Don't a great many of those cars come by reason
of the fact that Colton is at the bottom of the hill, and
you reduce the tonnage; that the cars are merely set
out by the train, and then go out on another track? A. No,
sir. On the contrary, we pull more weight east than into
there from the west. Our rating is 46,000 tons between
here and Colton. They put on a couple of helpers, the
600M, on certain trains. Some trains will go through
with the same tonnage.
Q. What does it cost you to switch your cars to and
from the cement mill? A. Taking the month of Novem¬
ber, we handled 239 cars from the cement Avorks. That
cost us $1,024.64.
Q. Or a -little less than $5 a car? A. Yes, a little
less than $5 a car. (Tr., 457-458.)
449
Examination hy Examiner Marshall.
Q. Your statement covers the movements for the
month of November, 1918, and June and February, 1919?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those considered representative of the aver¬
age movement throughout the year! A. Yes. We tried
to get them three or four months apart so as to make a
showing as representative as possible. They were not
selected with any idea of bolstering up or otherwise flim-
flaming the count.
Q. They were taken because they were counted repre¬
sentatives? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would the result have been different if you had
taken other months! A. They would have been the same
if you took any three months, or any one month during
that time. (Tr., 461.)
H. E. Coverston:
Special agent C. C. C. & St. L. R. E.
Coverston Exhibit No. ,8 shows the estimated cost per
car for additional switching service performed in con¬
nection with initial icing and re-icing at Chicago, Toledo,
Detroit, Cleveland and suspension bridge on the New
York Central and Michigan Central railroads. This is
based upon engine hour cost of |10.80' per hour, which is
the average engine hour cost ascertained in a study made
at Cincinnati, Louisville and Terre Haute. (Tr., 3433.)
This estimate was based upon actual observation made at
the points named (Tr., 3434) and includes only such
moves as are made directly for the purpose of icing and
would not otherwise be made. (Tr., 3435.) At some of
the icing stations the switching is done by road engines.
The same cost per engine hour was used for road engines
450
as for switcliiiig engines. This is entirely too low for
road engine cost, because if the train has more than 50
cars it requires an extra man and a larger tjq)e locomo¬
tive, more expensive to operate. The wages of firemen
are higher and a penalty or constructive mileage must
be paid where the runs are under a hundred miles, so
that as a general rule road train costs are higher than
$10.80 per engine hour. (Tr., 3436.) From very com¬
plete records at the icing stations, it was shown that 20
per cent of the cars were handled by switch èngines and
80 per cent by road engines. (Tr., 3437.)
This exhibit shows the following switching costs for
initial icing and re-icing at these points :
Chicago (Englewood yards) $1.44
Chicago (Kensington) 1.70
Toledo (Air Line Junction) 1.08
Detroit (Junction yards) 1.44
Cleveland (Collinwood yards) 1.44
Suspension Bridge (Montrose yards) 1.08
Road Engines (Re-Icing).
Toledo (Air Line Junction) 68
Detroit (Junction yards) 36
Cleveland (Collinwood yards) 83
Suspension Bridge (Montrose yards) 83
Coverston Exhibit No. 9 shows the estimated cost of
switching cars for icing and re-icing at C. F. A. stations
of the Pennsylvania Lines, as follows:
Chicago, initial icing $1.57
Re-Icing.
Chicago (P. R. R.) 4.20
Chicago (P. C. C. & St. L.) 3.00
Crestline 1-75
Allegheny 1.24
Indianapolis 1.05
Columbus, Ohio 1.05
This exhibit is based upon an engine hour cost of
$10.30. (Tr., 3438.) At none of these Pennsylvania
451
points are the cars handled by road engines. This ex¬
hibit shows that the switching cost alone involved in
icing and re-icing a car moving over the P. C. C. & St. L.
from Chicago to Pittsburgh would be $5.62 and -moving
over the P. F. W. & C., $7.52. (Tr., 3439-3440.)
E. S. Briggs:
Traffic manager Pacific Fruit Express Co.
Switching cost studies were also made by the general
manager of the Southern Pacific Company at the icing
plant of that railroad at Eoseville, California. It was
found that iced cars were handled to and from the icing
platforms in drags of sixteen (16) cars each; that the
switch engine hour cost was $11.64; that the time con¬
sumed Avas 30 minutes, resulting in a cost of $5.82 which
divided by the 16 ears gives an average cost per car for
switching to and from the icing platform of 36.4c. (Tr.,
1286-7.)
U. G. PowELu:
I am noAv, and have been since 1907, rate expert for
the Nebraska State Eailway Commission. Prior to that
time I Avas in the railroad business for twelve years. At
this proceeding, I represent the Nebraska State Eaihvay
Commission and for them the shippers of the State of
Nebraska. (Tr., 4214.)
This witness offered and there was received in evi¬
dence "Exhibit No. 1, Witness Powell." With respect
thereto, the vfitness testified:
This exhibit is the result of a study made under my
direction Avith regard to the refrigeration situation in
Nebraska. (Tr., 4216.)
Page No. 15 is a copy of a working statement prepared
by the auditor of the Burlington and furnished to all
452
division superintendents for the purpose of showing the
cost of handling cars through freight yards.
This tabulation is made in comparative form showing
the cost for 1919, 1918, for all the stations on the Bur¬
lington west of the Missouri Eiver. (Tr., 4232.)
The following is a summary of the switching cost per
car in cents at the various stations named:
Cost Per
Station
Car in Cents
Year
Omaha
108.0
1919
78.7
1918
South Omaha
24.2
1919
18.0
1918
Lin'coln
104.2
1919
73.8
1918
Hastings
37.8
1919
27.4
1918
Wymore
42.1
1919
43.9
1918
Nebr. City
74.7
1919
31.5
1918
McCook
46.1
1919
31.9
1918
Denver
81.0
1919
71.8
1918
Alliance
71.2
1919
43.7
1918
Edgemont
45.5
1919
37.9
1918
Deadwood
140.8
1919
107.3
1918
I think it would cost 35c a car to set any car in any one
of the yards as an average figure. I think that is a fair
figure. (Tr., 4316-17.)
A. F. Cleveland:
Assistant general freight agent of the Chicago & North¬
western Eailroad and in the traffic department of that
453
railroad for approximately twenty-two (22) years. (Tr.,
4176.)
There was introduced in evidence as Cleveland's Ex¬
hibit No.T, a statement in justification of stated refrig¬
eration charges. (Tr., 4177.)
On this exhibit appear figures showing the actual cost
of switching service to and from the icing platforms. In
this connection, the witness testified:
"The SAvitching is computed on two cases; basis num¬
ber one is the 35 cents for each car re-iced, and divided
by the total number of cars handled.
Basis number 2 is computed on engine hour cost of
$11.85, arbitrarily taken, 30 minutes service, and divided
—that would make a cost of 30 minutes, $5.92, and di¬
viding that number by the number of cars re-iced at any
given point on a single day. For example, if there were
two cars re-iced on one day, there was assessed against
each of those cars one-half of $5.92. If there were three
cars, one-third of $5.92.
All of those items were added and divided by the total
number of cars handled, resulting in the, figure here
shown." (Tr., 4178.)
Exhibit No. 1 shows the average switch cost per car
at WarsaAV and Fondulac of $2.12 per car; at Menominee
$6.71, at Marquette $7.45, and at Milwaukee, "Wis. $1.69.
These figures are computed on the basis of $11.85 per
engine hour, using 30 minutes per switch and dividing
by the number of cars switched. (See Exhibit No. 1,
Witness Cleveland.)
In view of the testimony of these witnesses, the item
of 35 cents per switch, to and from the icing platform,
used by the carriers' witnesses in justification of the
proposed charges, is entirely too low and we make this
454
Statement unqualifiedly, notwithstanding the fact that
there may be instances where no switching is required
of a car to an ice platform in transit. These instances
are so few, and there is such a wide variation between
the figure of 35 cents and the actual cost of switching,
that no one can fairly contend that 35 cents represents
anywhere near the average actual cost of switching cost
to and from icing platforms.
SUPEBVISION.
That an item for supervision of refrigerated ship¬
ments—over and above that necessary to supervision of
other than refrigerated shipments—is properly to be
allocated to the refrigeration service is beyond question.
The decisions of the Commission heretofore referred to
establish this clearly.
As to the measure of the item for supervision, it is to
be noted that a uniform charge of $4 per car has been
used by the witnesses in this case with very few excep¬
tions. In some instances, the item has been $3, based
upon the figure found proper in the Arlington Heights
case in 1911. In still other instances, a still smaller fig¬
ure has been used. In the case of only one witness, so
far as we can recall, was a figure in excess of |4 adopted.
This was in connection with the testimony of John B.
Scott, manager of the Fruit Growers Express, who used
the exact figure concerning the accuracy of which there
Avas no doubt.
Primarily, the figure of f4 was arrived at by taking
the |3 allowed by the Commission in the Arlington
Heights case, and arbitrarily adding thereto 33;\ per
cent to take care of, in part at least, increased cost of
superAÛsion due to the large increase in wages and otlier
items of expense incident to supervision.
455
That as an average figure the item of $4 is more than
justified by the testimony in this case is evidenced by the
statements of the following witnesses :
Geo. H. Nelson, manager of the refrigerator depart¬
ment of the Santa Fe K. E., and having general super¬
vision over the perishable freight service on that rail¬
road. (Tr., 85.)
The supervision expense does not include labor of
putting the ice in cars which labor would be included in
the cost of ice. The supervision covers general office ex¬
pense and outside agencies which increased consider¬
ably over 1918. The $4 supervision charge is an aver¬
age taken from reports of the various car lines and car¬
riers. (Tr., 1727.)
The $4 supervision charge applies against all busi¬
ness moved under refrigeration. In the judgment of the
witness, 1. c. 1. costs more to supervise than carloads.
Supervision expense includes general office expense, sal¬
ary of the manager as well as clerks employed in the
office, traveling expenses, stationery, rental of office,
postage salary of traveling agents and inspectors at
principal stations, in addition to which are costs of va¬
rious employees at various division points and icing
stations, Avhich cannot properly be allocated on pay
rolls, etc. (Tr., 1727.)
E. C. Dearborn, general agent of the Pacific Fruit Ex¬
press :
Supervision cost |6.65 per car to the Pacific Fruit Ex¬
press, but |4 only is asked for in making our rates, that
being the average on various lines and was used through¬
out the United States in arriving at supervision expense.
(Tr., 995.)
456
C. H. Weston, auditor of the Pacific Fruit Express
Company, and who has been connected with that com¬
pany since it was organized, in 1907 :
At the Los Angeles hearing on July 8, 1919, there was
received in evidence "Weston Exhibit No. 1" showing
average expense per car for supervision of cars under
refrigeration for the year ending December 31, 1918.
It showed that the entire expense chargeable to supervi¬
sion of refrigerated shipments handled by the Pacific
Fruit Express Company for that year amounted to
1361,899.93 ; that the number of cars under refrigeration
Avere 54,456, giving an average expense per car for su¬
pervision of $6.65.
It developed that certain of the percentages used in
allocating supervision expense had been adopted by the
Pacific Fruit Express in 1910 or 1911.
The witness thereupon promised to conduct a further
detailed investigation, and to submit another statement
shoAving in greater detail the allocation of certain charges
to refrigerator serAuce and covering the same cars
shoAvn on Weston Exhibit No. 1. This statement was
submitted and received in evidence as Weston Exhibit
No. 1-A. That exhibit shows that the average cost per
car for supervision for the year 1918 was $5.95. (Tr.,
2718.)
The detail to AAdiich the witness went, and the thor¬
oughness of his investigation will he shoAvn by reference
to his testimony given at the Cliicago hearing covering
pages 2718 to 2724 on his direct examination, and 2761
to 2787 on his cross-examination and 2788 to 2790 on his
redirect examination, and finally from 2790 to 2794 on
Ids redirect examination.
It should, hoAvcA'or, be noted that wherever there Avas
a doubt in the Avitness' mind as to AA'hether or not cer-
457
tain items of expense should he charged to supervision
of refrigerated shipments, those items were not in¬
cluded. For instance, on page one of Weston Exhibit No.
1-A appears an item of $60,328.92 under the heading
"amount deducted for diversion, car mileage and record
employees, etc.," no part of which has been charged to
supervision of refrigerated shipment. (Tr., 2783-4.)
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) And when you were in doubt
as to some of these items where you differed from your
people, you eliminated the charges from the refrigera¬
tion?
A. I tried to give the shipper the best of it. (Tr.,
2789-90.)
E. C. Dearborn:
I might say, Mr. Examiner, that at most points on the
Union Pacific that our man looks after the entire serv¬
ice at that point. On foreign lines such as the Erie or
North Western or other lines like that, our man is there
to see that these foreign lines do perform the maximum
amount of service. In other words, we want to be as¬
sured that we are giving the greatest service that can
be given to the shippers at all these points ; and we have
found in a great many instances if we don't have (Tr.,
402) inspectors, some of the railroads would slough on
the ice a little bit, and we have the inspectors to see
that we get the best service. (Tr., 403.)
By Examiner Marshall: I assume that extends to
Marion, Ohio?
Mr. Dearborn: Yes, sir. Our man makes all the re¬
ports to us and is our agent. We keep our own repair
record not only on our lines but on foreign lines of all
ice and everything connected with the service. You ask
as to who would rule at those particular points. Of
458
course the railroad man would have the say, but with
our man there if we don't get the service from any par¬
ticular railroad, we change to a road that will assure the
shippers and ourselves the greatest amount of service at
all points.
Examiner Marshall: All that inures to the advantage
of the shipper!
Mr. Dearborn: The shipper certainly gets the maxi¬
mum service that we can give him. (Tr., 403.)
T. H. Gokman, general freight agent of American Ke^
frigerator Transit Co., operating over Denver & Rio
Grande, Missouri Pacific, Wabash, St. Louis Southwest¬
ern, Texas & Pacific, International & Great Northern,
and several smaller lines. Fifteen years' experience
with the A. R. T. Co., and thirteen years in railroad
transportation service previous to that:
The A. R. T. Co. does not handle any ventilation at
all. Its cars are used for ventilation but it gives no
supervision of the ventilation loading. All ventilation
traffic in A. R. T. cars is handled by the carriers.
Gorman's Exhibit No. 5-A Avhich is a detail of Gor¬
man's Exhibit No. 5, itemizes the expenses properly
chargeable to supervision of cars moving under refrig¬
eration for the year ending December 31, 1918. The
total cost of supervision for that year was $36,519.03
and the total number of cars moving under refrigeration
for the year was 5,983 or an average cost of supervision
per car of $6.10. (Tr., 8312.)
The original consolidated statement (Exhibit 5)
showed an average cost of supervision per car for 1918
of $5.74. (Tr., 8316.)
In going over our figures, we found that there had
been some omission in getting up the fonuer figures and
459
the omitted figures are now included which brings the
cost per car up to $6.10. The only character of service
that we perform is with respect to refrigerator ship¬
ments and the items that have been charged to supervi¬
sion could not be chargeable to anything else. (Tr.,
8318.)
We do not operate any heater service anywhere. (Tr.,
8334.) It is someAvhat of a misnomer to speak of the ex¬
pense of the general freight agent in that connection. I
am referring to myself. It has nothing to do with the
transportation end of the traffic, it is freight haulage.
We have general supervision over the handling of this
refrigerated traffic.
My Exhibit No. 5-A does not take into consideration
any of the expenses of the general offices outside of the
general freight agent. We could not arrive at any per¬
centage that might be assigned to supervision of the
other offices. We had a vice president and general man¬
ager in 1918. None of his salary or expenses has been
included in this statement; none outside of the general
freight agent's office, none of the superintendents' office
expenses or auditing department or freight claim depart¬
ment. The general freight office has direct charge of
the handling of the refrigerator business and the entire
expense of that office is chargeable to what we call ' ' extra
handling account," therefore all of the expenses of the
general freight agent's department are charged in this
supervision and no other department. (Tr., 8832-3.)
There is a lot of temporary help included in this Ex¬
hibit (5-A) because our fruit movement lasts about six
weeks to two months. (Tr., 8333, Vol. XL.) Those men
are employed during that time only and the number of
men we employ depends upon the volume of the move¬
ment so that it might vary from year to year. (Tr.,
8334.)
460
J. B. Scott, general manager, Frnit Growers Express,
referring to the supervision of its Michigan refrigeration
business testified that the average supervision cost per
car was |4.82, made up of the following items:
"Salaries, |2.17 per car; cleaning, 35 cents; tele¬
graphs and telephone, 27 cents; traveling expense,
77 cents ; stationery and postage, 21 cents ; sundries
and incidentals, 8 cents; rent, 11 cents; proportion
of taxes, 42 cents; proportion executive and general
expense, 44 cents; total, |4.82."
The average haul on the Michigan business in con¬
nection with which I delevoped an exact cost of $4.82 per
car supervision would be between 300 and 400 miles.
(Tr., 6204.)
Q. In these supervision figures for 1917 which you
gave us, what, if any, apportionment did you make be¬
tween the refrigerator business and ventilator business!
A. We charge an arbitrary amount of $40,000 of the
salaries that we pay to what we term the cars; in other
words, other than to refrigeration. Now, that is an ar¬
bitrary amount that we have charged for years, in other
words, $10,000 per quarter, four quarters and $40,000,
and in looking into that particular feature the other day
I was very much surprised to know that we had carried
that arbitrary amount to the cars themselves as long as
we have, because that was the same amount that we
charged years ago when we handled all of the banana
business from Mobile and that section, and our equip¬
ment is reduced by half, so it is too large to cars now.
Q. (By Mi*. Westlake.) What is the significance of
that with regard to your supervision!
A. It would automatically make our supervision
higher for the refrigeration business. In fact, we are in
tile refrigeration business only, that is our business.
This other is simply a side issue, when cars are not re-
461
quired for refrigeration. We do not solicit the business,
generally speaking, and do not want it. (Tr., 6462-6463.)
Our total salaries, offhand, I believe, are $125,000 or
$126,000. That includes the district salaries, 80 per cent
of which are charged to refrigeration. That is the way
I arrived at that item of $1.34. District salaries, gener¬
ally speaking, ought to be all charged to refrigeration.
In order to be safe I will answer that it is all charged.
District salaries mean literally salaries that we pay in
the district itself. For instance, in the Salisbury terri¬
tory we do not haul a single car out of that territory
other than under refrigeration. (Tr., 6463.) I told you
the $4.57 or whatever the amount was in 1917 was the
actual supervision expense for that year. I also told
you the $5.70 supervision item was our average for all of
our business for the current year, hut that the $4.57 for
1917 was the actual supervision expense for this particu¬
lar district which Ave termed the peninsular district.
Executive and general expenses are distributed at the
end of the year according to the number of cars handled.
If we handled 30,000 cars and this district handled 5 of
them they would pay five-thirty-thousandths of that gen¬
eral item of expense. (Tr., 6464.) The expense is first
charged to the refrigeration business as a whole to that
item, and if we had handled 30,000 cars under refriger¬
ation from all districts, this district would have that
proportion of that that their number of cars would repre¬
sent to the total. In other words, it is apportioned
on the basis of the cars actually loaded under refriger¬
ation. Take a concrete example, if we handled 30,000
cars under refrigeration for the season of 1910 and
15,000 moved from this peninsula district, half of that
item would be charged to this district. The item of car
cleaning moans just what it says. It means that we paid
an average of-280 per car for cleaning all cars before
462
Ave fnrnislied them to the shippers for loading. That is
our actual cost. (Tr., 6465.) This cleaning contem¬
plated putting that car in proper condition to be loaded.
If Ave had a lot of rotted fruits or Amgetables in the
car it Avould contemplate cleaning it out and scrubbing
it and in that particular case the cost might be $10, but
on the aAmrage our figure is 29c per car. I have not
the details of the figure of $5.70 for supervision, but I
should say, generally speaking, that if you aa'OuM add
25 per cent to these items you would about hit it. In
other words, I see in this district it Avas $4.53 in 1917 or
tAvo years ago, and $5.70 on an average for 1919 does not
seem out of line. (Tr., 6466.) On those cars, the cost of
Avhich is read into the record, I havm used the actual
amounts of ice on all the shipments moving from all the
stations. For example, in this particular district to the
particular base point that I gave. In other words, if
XeAv York Avas the illustration, on straAvberries, the ton¬
nage that I gave represented the actual tonnage on all
strawberries from the peninsula to New York. We did
not assume anything as to the initial icing or re-icing.
We do not assume anything in our business. They AA'ere
all checked OAmr. There is no estimate in that. (Tr.,
6467.)
Q. (By Mr. King.) Mr. Scott, is there any material
difference in the consumption of ice for refrigeration of
cantaloupes and other green fruits and vegetables? A.
Generally speaking, cantaloupes should take considerable
lieaA'ier icings than any other commodity in the fruit
and vegetable line that I knoAV of, except green corn.
(¿. Then you feel that a higher charge for refrigerat¬
ing cantaloupes is justified? A. On the business as a
Avhole, yes, in all cases.
I haA'e gwen a supervision overhead, etc., of $5.70. In
463
arriving at the rates the committee uniformly used $4.
(Tr., 7645-7646.) I do not know what our actual figures
Avere last year, but as I recall them in 1918 they were
f4.35. IVe are paying higher salaries than AA'e Avere.
IVe have given the employees AAdiat we thought they Avere
entitled to under present conditions, irrespective of what
others did. (Tr., 7646.)
Q. I observe generally speaking the increase to rail¬
road employees is greater than any other business I have
any knoAAdedge about or knoAV anything about increases
in, and Avhat I was driving at is that you followed that
trend of increases while the other trend of salaried em¬
ployees has made it almost impossible for them to get
along. A. Well, obviously, no humane management I
think AA'Ould folloAV the latter. "We expect our men to live
and know they have to have money to live with and we
try to pay them and recognize conditions accordingly.
(Tr., 7646-7647.) I do not see how the business could be
supervised for $4 per car. If I testified that the entire
expense of supervision is charged against refrigeration
I AAms mistaken. That is divided as follows:
First, AA'e take an aribitrary of $10,000 per quarter
or $40,000 per year from our total salary account and
charge that to Avhat we call the cars and Ave then take
the balance of the salaries and charge that to refrig¬
eration. (Tr., 7647.)
For years we have charged an arbitrary of $10,000 per
(juarter for the cars from our salary account. I think
our total salary account was $117,000, or something
around that figure. In other words, we charged $40,000
out of that $117,000, I believe to the cars and the balance
to refrigeration. (Tr., 7648.)
■ With respect to the item of $5.47 per car supervision,
Avitness has prepared an exhibit shoAving the details of
464
that item which he otïers as Scott's Exhibit No. 8. In
respect to "Undistributed Items" explained by the star
on Exhibit No. 8, witness says this is due to F. G. E.
method of bookkeeping. Prior to February 1, 1919, it
was customary for F. G. E. Company to distribute each
item of expense to a specific specified item of supervision
such as enumerated on this exhibit. After February 1st
it was decided to obviate the necessity of dividing all
these different items and just charge all the items that
went to make up supervision to the one item "Supervi¬
sion," and because of this fact, the aggregate sum of
$1.15 per car arrived at was not divided but was just
charged to that account. There is no question as to the
propriety of the separate items which go to make up the
$1.15. The same items were included in that amount as
were included in the other items which were specifically
shown separately in the supervision account. (Tr., 9589.)
Considerable criticism has been directed to the fact
that carriers have used an item of $4 for supervision, re¬
gardless of the length of the haul. The testimony of
the witnesses has been to the effect that the supervision
on a short haul is approximately the same as on a long
haul. This is substantiated by the testimony of John B.
Scott who stated that the supervision per car on his
Michigan business for an average haul of from 300 to
400 miles was $4.82 per car, while the average supervi¬
sion expense of the Pacific Fruit Express Company was
$5.95 per car for the same year on all of its business
which is principally long haul. The testimony of T. H.
Gorman, the business of whose refrigerator line, the
American Eefrigerator Line, is for shorter hauls than
that of the Pacific Fruit Express Company, was $6.10
for tlie same year, 1918. The witness John B. Scott, tes¬
tified that the average supervision per car for all of the
business of the Fruit Growers Express for the year 1919
465
was $5.70. The average haul of all of the business of
the Fruit Growers Express is considerably greater than
the average haul of the Michigan business, but the differ¬
ence in the supervision expense is represented by the
variance between the figures of $4.82 and $5.70. In addi¬
tion, it should he noted that the $4.82 figure is for 1918
wliile the $5.70 figure is for 1919, so that the spread be¬
tween the two would be materially reduced.
In view of this testimony and of the fact that the
actual supervision expense, so far as has been obtained,
is considerably in excess of $4 per car, it seems to us
that the use of that figure in the various exhibits in this
case, has been fully justified. In other words, if the
average supervision expense of $4.82 per car is proper
for a haul of between 300 and 400 miles, it can hardly be
said in fairness, that the item of $4 is too high for any
haul short of 300 or 400 miles.
BUNKER DAMAGE.
This is a short term to indicate damage to refrigera¬
tion devices, such as:
Bunkers (or tanks), ice racks, drip pans, drip cups,
drain pipes, hatchways, ice plugs and ice covers.
That an item to cover such damage is properly charge¬
able to refrigeration service is no longer open to debate.
As appears from the citations heretofore made, the C Im¬
mission has so decided. Were the shipments not re¬
frigerated, most, if not all, of the enumerated devices
would not exist, and except when the car is used in re¬
frigerated service, they are not used.
The figure used by the witnesses in this case has been
uniformly $5 per car per trip, regardless of distance.
The starting point for this amount was the Arlington
Heights Case, 20 1. C. C., 108. Wherever the question
466
has since arisen, the Commission has adopted that ex¬
act figure. The carriers felt that if that amount repre¬
sented the average damage in 1910 or 1911, the same
figure would he more than fair to the shippers at the
present time in view of the admittedly substantial in¬
crease in the cost of labor and materials. But they were
not content to rest that factor of the cost of service solely
upon the Commission's decisions. They felt that it was
incumbent upon them to shed all the light possible upon
the question. Accordingly, request was made upon all
of the principal carriers and refrigerator car lines to
ascertain, for the year 1918, the actual cost of such re¬
pairs. Unfortunately, the invariable answer of the car¬
riers was that no separated or segregated accounts were
kept of the repairs to refrigeration devices, and that no
reliable figures were obtainable. We were able to 'ob¬
tain some figures from Mr. John B. Scott, of the Fruit
Growers' Fixpress, Mr. T. II. Gorman, of the American
Eefrigerator Transit Line, and Mr. B,. C. Dearhorn, of the
Pacific Fruit Express. Their testimony in substance
follows :
JOHK B. S-OOTX:
Cross-Examination hy Mr. De Vane.
I know that the average number of trips per year
made by our cars under refrigeration is 6. We handle
a few cars under ventilation. I have never kept any
statistics on that, although it would be very small com¬
pared with our refrigeration business. (Tr., 6459.)
Q. Have you made any independent investigation to
determine the actual cost of bunker repairs? A. I have
made this investigation. I know that onr refrigerating
devices, or in other words the parts of a car that Avould
be atfected by the use of ice, cost under reasonably nor¬
mal conditions about f204, I believe.
467
Q. That is the initial cost, is it? A. The initial cost,
yes. I know from my own personal knowledge that the
life of these parts without taking into consideration any
of the repairs could not possibly be over seven years, six
years maybe, at least seven. So that if, for exanaple, we
handled 30,000 cars of business per year in the territories
that we operate in under refrigeration, that would be
$30 per car that we would get from this item of $5
bunker repairs, and multiply that by seven years would
only give us $210, or practically the life of the part.
And I have gone into that matter very carefully with our
general superintendent of shops and with our individual
superintendents of shops, and they both tell me that they
are satisfied that $5 is too low. And prior to our reach¬
ing the determination to retire from the business in or¬
der to clear this up entirely to my mind I had already is¬
sued instructions to our shops that I wanted all items of
expense that would be properly chargeable to the use of
ice to be kept separately so that this time next year I
would know exactly what it cost. Now, I appreciate that
was quite an undertaking—
Q. Well, the answer is then that you have not got the
actual repairs on the bunkers! A. No, I have not. (Tr.,
6460.)
Q. (By Mr. Westlake) : Have you anything on bunker
repairs? A. Since Mr. DeVane raised the point in
Florida, at the first opportunity I had our Potomac
yard shops keep an accurate record of what that
amounted to in actual money. I am advised that the
total expense of repairing bunkers of our refrigerators
at our Potomac yard shops for the 13-weeks' period end¬
ing August 2, 1919, amounted to $35,830.40, and during
that same period repair material was sent either from
Potomac yard or from Chicago to various points in the
Southeast of an actual value of $3,088.61, and that latter
468
9
amount does not include any freight charges or labor of
putting that material on the cars at these points in the
Southeast. That makes a total expense at Potomac yard
alone and this limited amount that was sent to the ship¬
ping territory of $38,899.01 for a 13-week period. Now,
that amount does not include any expense we were put
to at any of our other shops or any expense for work per¬
formed by the railroad and which we have paid or will
subsequently pay.
During this 13-week period there passed southbound
through Potomac yard empty 8,844 of our refrigerators.
So, I have divided the total number of cars that passed
through Potomac yard, whether they were repaired or
not, whether they had been previously used for a venti¬
lated shipment or whatever they had been previously
used for, into the $38,000 which produced $4.40.
Q. (By Mr. Westlake) : Per car! A. Per car. And
that convinces me beyond all shadow of a doubt that $5
is certainly reasonable for that item of hunker repairs.
This is the first time however that Ave have been able to
get any definite figures on that expense. (Tr., 7628-
7630.)
Not one penny of that sum of $38,899.01, according to
our Potomac yard superintendent of shops, is directly
or indirectly chargeable to any other part of the car, ex¬
cept that which is affected by the use of the ice. That
covers a period of only 13 Aveeks, and coA'ers the expense
only at the Potomac yard and a little extra repair ma¬
terial that he happened to have record of at Potomac,
yard, which he gave me as additional information and
Avhich I have shoAvn separately. (Tr., 7630.)
Q. (By Examiner Marshall) : Just before you pass
from that Potomac yard situation, is there any Avay of
ascertaining or do you know the number of trips per car?
469
»
A. I discussed that with our superintendent and the only
way we could determine how many cars were not dupli¬
cated in the cars passing through there would have been
to make up quite an elaborate set of figures and check
each car, so I told him to be sure to get at it the way
it would obviate every possible criticism and to check
every car that passed through.
As I stated in Jacksonville and I believe I stated at
other hearings, our average business per year under re¬
frigeration is approximately 27,000 cars. Assuming that
it is 30,000, we have approximately 5,000—or have had
for some time, and we have less than that now ; that would
make six trips per car per year under refrigeration and
for $5 per car this brings $30, which wmuld mean that our
bunker expense would be $150,000 if this $5 item is cor¬
rect. Now, this expense at Potomac yard convinces me
at least that the $150,000 probably is not anywhere near
what we actually expend for that item, because this is
only one shop and for one period. Naturally, our year
is divided into four periods of 13 weeks each, and assum¬
ing that this was—well, four times 38,000 would make it
pretty close to $160,000. (Tr., 7630-7631.)
The 13 weeks which I spoke of were those ending Au¬
gust 2nd. (Tr., 7631.)
Q. Have you stated into the record how many of those
8,444 cars were actually repaired at Potomac yard during
this 13 weeks'? A. Out of the 8,844 cars that actually
passed through southbound, 3,168 actually passed
through our shops. (Tr., 7631-7632.)
There were five thousand and some cars on which no
repairs were necessary. Those other cars that did not
pass through the Potomac yard shops might have been
repaired by the railroads or by any of our other shops.
This is simply a one-shop statement. (Tr., 7632.)
470
The figures which I gave for bunker repairs were based
on information furnished by our shop superintendent. I
did not prepare and do not know how any of these figures
were gotten up, except I told him how I wmnted them
gotten up and I gave him instructions several months
ago and I know they were made up as I told him, and I
discussed it with him the other day coming down from
New York.
Q. Other than that you have no knowledge of how he
allocates to the bunker repairs the $35,000? A. Mr.
Stewart, our shop superintendent, has been in the busi¬
ness something like 35 years and has built refrigerator
cars and knows beyond any shadow of doubt what part of
the car is affected by the use of ice and what is not and
I am entirely satisfied to leave it to his judgment to al¬
locate the items one against the other. In my opinion
those figures are correctly stated. (Tr., 7650.)
The 13-weeks period ended August 2, 1919. That cov¬
ered a movement from Georgia and the Carolinas and any
portion of the Florida movement that moved during
May, June and July. The 13 weeks which he gave hap¬
pened to be just exactly one-fourth of the year. That is
why I gave it to you. Our books are kept that way. I
find that one-fourth of the year produces $4.40, and bas¬
ing that on the year it would be $17.60 for the entire
year for the one shop. (Tr., 7650.)
I estimate that these cars make six trips a year for
$5 per trip, which amounts to $30 per car. I believe that
I testified at the Jacksonville hearing that these bunkers
cost $204 and some odd cents. I have now testified that
our entire refrigeration movement in these territories
served by our company consisted of 27,000 cars in the
average. From Florida for the last two years I think it
has been approximately 14,000 cars or a little more than
5 per cent. (Tr., 7651.)
471
Q. I have been requested to ask you if the thirteen-
weeks period used by your shop in estimating the amount
of hunker repairs is a fair average for the entire year,
or if you know— A. I take exception to that word esti¬
mate. Those expenses which I gave you were actual.
Now, in answer to the rest of your question, I do con¬
sider it a fair basis.
The period used was not the period when most of the
cars were allocated to the shops for repairs. Those thir¬
teen weeks just happened to be the first thirteen-weeks
period already past after this discussion wms had in the
South and in Washington. (Tr., 7682.)
T. H. Gorman:
The following is a reproduction of "Gorman Exhibit
No. 30":
Shop Cost of Eepairing Eefrigera-
No. Cars. tion Devices—Year 1918.
1004
Cost.
Grate racks and bulkheads |5,984.49
Drip pans 4,763.49
Drain cups 1,548.30
Drain pipes 305.30
Hatchways 6,026.72
50% plugs 1,237.80
50% hatch covers 1,381.68
Total 121,247.73
Average per car—121.16.
Total number A. E. T. cars in service 5,601.
Total number loads under refrigeration 1918, 5,983.
Average number trips per car, 1.07.
Average cost repairing refrigerator devices per trip,
119.78. (Tr., 1893.)
Concerning this exhibit, the witness stated:
472
In this exhibit, fifty per cent of the damage to plugs
and hatch covers was properly chargeable to ventilation,
inasmuch as cars moved about fifty per cent in that
service. I took 1,004 cars, as that was the entire num¬
ber of cars which the mechanical department had been
able to take records from in the time given. (Tr., 1893.)
Damage shown (except 50 per cent charged to ventila¬
tion) all caused by handling of ice into the bunkers and
the haulage of ice. In fact, these parts of the car would
not be in the car if it were not for shipments moving un¬
der refrigeration. (Tr., 1930.) A. E. T. cars also used
for 1. c. 1. service, for which shippers pay nothing. (Tr.,
1932.) Even if less than carload shipments under re¬
frigeration were taken into consideration, cost of repairs
would still be in excess of |10 per car per trip. (Tr.,
1941.)
The 1,004 cars picked out for the average per ear cost
were taken as they came from the cars showing repairs
as they came from the car shops. (Tr., 2989.) If the
1. c. 1. refrigerated moves were substantial, it would ma¬
terially reduce the cost per car attributable to stated re¬
frigerated movement. (Tr., 2989.)
As witness stated at Denver, it was his opinion that
the number of loads under refrigeration that were not
under a stated charge would not equal the number of
loads under a stated charge. (Tr., 3000.)
Witness' figures as to trips per year, do not include
foreign movement or anything that might be done with
refrigerator car while it is off the A. E. T. lines, nor does
he know how much this off-line movement amounts to.
(Tr., 3004.)
AVitness does not contend that the $19.78 shown on his
Exhibit 30 represents a fair cost of bunker repairs per
car per trip; he does believe, however, that taking the
473
other cars that move under refrigeration in addition to
those that moved under a stated refrigeration charge,
and adding them together you Avould probably get around
$9 or $10 bunker damage per trip, or somewhere along
there. (Tr., 3004.)
So far as witness' knowledge goes, A. R. T. cars are
used very little for refrigeration on other lines so that
the number of loaded trips in addition to what is shown
on Gorman's Exhibit No. 30 qs to stated refrigeration
would be confined almost exclusively to cars in 1. c. 1. serv¬
ice. (Tr., 3005.)
Gorman's Exhibit No. 30 includes repair items for dam¬
age occurring on foreign lines as well as on the A. E. T.
(Tr., 3012.) Does not think trips, exclusive of ventilated,
would run over three a year. (Tr., 3013.)
Refrigeration devices would not rust at all if the car
had not been in the refrigeration service. (Tr., 3019.)
R. C. Deaeboen:
Dearborn's Exhibit No. 20, and his testimony relating
thereto, shows that the average cost of equipping Pa¬
cific Fruit Express cars with ice bunkers is $210.72; that
the average life is 8-J years, or, a damage per year is
$24.86 (should be $24.79) and that this figure, divided by
3.6 trips per year, gives an average bunker damage of
$6.90 per car. The average of 3.6 trips per year is based
on the fact that the Pacific Fruit Express has 15,000 cars
in service and that in 1918 the number of refrigerated
loads was 54,456. (Tr., 261.)
It was impossible to secure actual cost of repairs. The
figure of $6.90 does not include additional repair items
which would make bunker repairs greatly in excess of
$6.90. (Tr., 268.)
Cars make an average of about seven round trips a
474
year under refrigeration and ventilation. No damage
is done to refrigerating devices -which should he charge¬
able to shipments moving under ventilation. (Tr., 344.)
While this evidence is not of the most definite char¬
acter, it is as definite as it can he made until records are
kept hy some carrier or refrigerator car line for, say a
vdiole year, covering every single item of repair to re¬
frigeration devices, and follo-wing every individual move
of every car. But the evidence seems to us to be entirely
convincing to the proposition that the cost of repairs to
refrigeration devices is much in excess of $5 per car per
trip.
In this connection, it should be deemed "wmrthy of at¬
tention that Mr. A. M. Mortensen, who -was manager of
the Signal Supply Company and traffic manager for the
Stewart Fruit Co., formerly traffic manager for the Cali¬
fornia Fruit Gro-wers' Exchange, and -who for several
years was district manager of the Pacific Fruit Express
(Tr., 871) did not question the propriety of an item of
$5 bunker damage per 'car on ordinary refrigerated
movements. (Tr., 876-877.)
Nor did 0. E. Goodman or D. G. Arbuthnot, both of
whom testified at length (Tr., 891 to 908) as to bunker
damage, question the correctness of the $5 figure.
C. M. Hubee;
Average damage to bunkers on shipment from
a Mississippi point to Chicago would be from two to
three dollars per car. (Tr., 8548.) That is based on the
assumption that these cars make from ten to twenty
trips a year under refrigeration. (Tr., 8549.)
475
L. S. West;
Is superintondeiit of Merchants Despatch Trans¬
portation Co. (3031), has charge of the shops at
Eochester of the isTeAV York Central Eailroad, which owns
the M. D. T. Co., and where he repairs and hnilds re¬
frigerator and other cars. The New York Central re¬
frigerator cars are inspected at the end of each trip
(3032) and necessary repairs are made to the body,
tracks, ice bunkers, ice openings, hatch covers, pings,
drip pans, traps, doors, floor racks or any other item
of the cars. Eepairs to the refrigeration devices are
made at the end of each trip, hecanse in a great many
instances these parts are broken. During 1918 Avitness
repaired 6,810 refrigerator cars. In the ease of AA'ooden
bunkers the cost of repairs to the hunkers, ice openings,
hatch covers, ice plugs, drip pans, traps, doors, floor
racks, etc., is $65 per car per year and in the case of
steel hunkers that cost is $50 per car per year. (3033-4)
The life of the refrigerator devices above mentioned is
about one-fourth of the life of the refrigerator car it¬
self. These devices cost $357.50 (3035) and they have to
he entirely renewed (besides original installation) three
times during the life of the car. (3036) (West Exhibit
No. 1.)
The M. D. T. cars of the New York Central Eailroad
are used in substantially the same service, and between
the same terminals, as those of the Ncav York Dispatch
refrigerator line, whose refrigerator cars average tAvelve
loaded trips per year. (2834) It Avill be noted, too, that
this is in comparatively short-haul service.
There has been considerable objection to the use of the
$5 figure for the short hauls, and as to cars preeooled
and preiced by the shippers, but little, if any, other criti¬
cism has been directed to this item.
476
As to the propriety of the |5 charge for short hauls,
we have this to suggest. If the charge is to be reduced
for short hauls, it should he increased for long hauls to
maintain the average which we claim is much in excess
of $5. In fact, we contend that $5 should be a minimum
charge, and that a greater sum should be allowed to re¬
turn to the carriers their actual out-of-pocket cost for
this item. HoAvever, if any grading is to be done, it
should be on a mileage prorate. In this connection, the
uneontroverted testimony of the witnesses, both for the
carriers and the shippers, was that the greatest amount
of damage was in the initial icing. Among the witnesses
who so testified are, Geo. H. Nelson (Tr., 114), A. M.
Mortensen (Tr., 876-7, 880-881), and 0. E. Goodman.
(Tr., 896-7.)
The witness Nelson, testified that there would be very
little difference, if any, in the damage to the bunkers on
short hauls as compared with long hauls. That usually
the damage is done at the initial point rather than in
transit. (Tr., 1776-7.)
This being the unquestioned fact, and the average
bunker damage being in excess of $5 per car per trip, we
see no good ground for receding from our position that
an item of $5 is proper for short hauls.
HAZARD AND PROFIT.
While, as previously stated, no specific figure for these
items or factors has been used by-witnesses in justifica¬
tion of the proposed stated charges, nevertheless, they
are factors to Avhich consideration should be given. The
Commission has so decided in the cases to which refer¬
ence has been made.
At page 563 of the transcript will be found a statement
of the witness E. A. Coons, of some of the hazards of
the refrigeration service.
477
T. G. Stkachast (for the shippers) admitted that car¬
riers should have a profit of about 6 per cent on the prop¬
erty investment used in the service. (Tr., 7814.)
G. J. Vizard (for the shippers) was willing to allow
$3 for profit and hazard on fruits, cauliflower and toma¬
toes, but thought the carriers should operate at a loss
of about $2 a car on apples, berries and vegetables. (Tr.,
8454.)
W. W. Mankeb (for the shippers) thought the carriers
should have a profit. (Tr., 8949-8950.)
B. J. Christman, called by the carriers, testified as fol¬
lows ;
I am now and have been since June 1, 1919, managvr
of the Georgia Fruit Exchange. My duties or functions
are, looking after the distribution of peach shipments.
That is about 85 per cent of the peach shipments from
the State of Georgia. (Tr., 7583.) Prior to June 1,
1914,1 was general southeastern.agent of the Fruit Grow¬
ers' Express, with which I was connected for about 18
years. (Tr., 7587.)
I allowed for profit and hazard $12 per car. (Tr.',
7591.)
Cross-Examination.
Q. Now, this factor of profit or allowance of hazard,
do you concede that factor as one that might properly
be allowed for furnishing the refrigeration service, that,
is, exclusive of all transportation! A. I would have to
say this because my experience taught me, and my, iu-
timate knowledge of the work of furnishing refrigeration
satisfied me, that they had to have a profit of about $10 a
car in order to make a reasonable return on the iuvest-
nient. (Tr., 7957.)
478
Witness continuing: The factor of hazard and profit
has nothing to do with the measure of profit or compen
sation for the transportation proper. It is entirely sepa¬
rate. (Tr., 7958.)
G. E. WiLiJAMs, traffic manager for Chase & Company,
fruit and vegetable shippers, Atlanta, Georgia and
called for the shippers, testified on cross-examination,
as follows :
"Q. (By Mr. Westlake) : Do you agree with the
15.25? A. I consider that is a proper profit and hazard,
yes."
C. M. Hubee, representing the Mississippi Eailroad Com¬
mission, said:
I would allow $4.50 a car for hazard and profit. (Tr.,
8551.)
Shippers' witnesses, W. H. Youïtct (Tr., 4436) and
Leonaed W.4y (Tr., 1403) also stated that carriers were
entitled to a profit on refrigeration service.
In fact, the shippers or their representatives, almost
without exception, agreed that carriers should he com¬
pensated for hazard and profit in connection with re¬
frigerated shipments.
The Commission itself has approved items of $8.11
and $7.50 per car to cover hazard and profit. In this con¬
nection, we quote the following from the case of Rail¬
road Commission of the State of California v. Alabama
Great Sotithern Railroad Comj^any et al., 32 I. C. C.,
17:
■ "The present refrigeration rate to Chicago under
attack is $75 per car. This, it will be observed, is
$8.11 liigher than the costs stated al)ove. In the
Arlinyton Jleiyhts case, supra, this Commission
found that under a refrigeration rate on citrus fruit
to Chicago of $62.50 the total costs wore $55, leaving
479
a margin of $7.50 to cover 'a certain element of risk
which the carrier must assume in the rendering of
this seiwice, and, as Avas held in Southern Ry. Co. v.
St. Louis Hay S Grain Co., 214 U. S.. 299, a fair
profit upon the transaction.' It would seem that,
judged by the test of cost of service, the present
rate to Chicago, which has been selected as a typi¬
cal one, in that more than half of the movement is to
points Chicago and East, is not excessive."
We feel, therefore, that in its consideration of our
justification of the proposed charges, the Commission
should permit a substantial margin for profit and hazard
between the cost of the service and the proposed charge.
Section Two as Applied to New York State.
Three members of the committee which formulated the
tariff testified at New York City as to the investigation
which was made of the conditions in New York State,
and the matters which were considered by the commit¬
tee in preparing the tariff for application to that terri¬
tory. Those Avitnesses were Messrs. Dearborn (6199 et
seq.), Scott (6417 et seq.) and Eice (7129 et seq.). Mr.
Eice was for many years connected with a refrigerator
car line doing business in New York State, and Avas
therefore personally familiar with that traffic. In addi¬
tion to this, he made a personal study of the situation
in connection with his work on the committee. (7129-
7132)
Based on their experience with stated charges in other
territories, the committee found that the relation of re¬
frigeration to the commodities is practically the same
in all territories. (7132)
The customs and practices under the cost of ice basis
of shippers in New York shoAV that the business is han¬
dled in a haphazard manner. Cars are supplied by car-
riei-s. Some shippers do their own initial icing so far
480
as they can. Others require the carriers to do so. The
cars are re-iced in transit by the carriers in accordance
with instructions of the shippers, based upon what the
shippers think each individual shipment will require.
When the shipper can supply the ice advantageously to
himself as to cost or otherwise, he does so. As the car¬
rier has the duty of supplying ice upon request of ship¬
pers, it anticipates the volume of traffic and makes its
arrangements, either by storing the ice or otherwise, to
have' sufficient ice ready to enable it to supply the maxi¬
mum amount required by the shippers. This ice, how¬
ever, is only used by the shippers when it is to their
advantage to use it. In some instances, shippers will
get their ice from their own supply or by their own
contracts so long as satisfactory conditions prevail, and
when that supply is exhausted, they call upon the rail¬
road for iced cars. The railroad must stand ready to
supply that ice in cases where the shippers does not do
so. If the railroad has plenty of ice on hand, and the
shipper uses his own, then the ice of the railroad is not
used. (7133) A year or so ago, when the carriers for
initial icing charged $4 a ton and for re-icing $2.50 per
ton, the shippers in a great many cases ordered only
one or two tons for initial icing at the $4 rate, loaded the
cars with hot fruit and then billed the cars to be re-iced
to capacity at the $2.50 rate. This re-icing was often
supplied at the same station. (7135-6357.)
The re-icing instructions vary with the number of
shippers. No two of them use the same notation even
from the same station. One shipper bills to re-ice a ton
in transit and another to re-ice to capacity ; one bills to re-
ice at the first icing station, and another to re-ice at an¬
other station. This is true of different cars from the
same station in the same train, and sometimes to the
same destination. (6357-7135)
481
Carriers often furnisli ice for wliicli they receive no
pay. For illustration,—of ten cars in a train ont of one
station over the same route passing through two or
three re-icing stations, three are hilled to be re-iced to
capacity at all regular icing stations while others are
hilled to he re-iced with one ton at the second icing sta¬
tion. Often these latter cars are re-iced at the first sta¬
tion because it is impossible for the carrier to regulate
the labor in handling these cars so as to restrict the
icing to that shown in the billing. In cases where ship¬
ments are hilled to be re-iced at one station only, some¬
thing often happens to require further icing for which
the railroad gets no pay. (7138-7139) Often the rail¬
road has difficulty in collecting its icing charge because
of delay in billing caused by the varying and uncertain
icing instructions. (7140)
A number of the shippers in the territory were inter¬
viewed by members of the committee, and stated that
they would prefer the stated charge to the present plan,
that ice conditions were unsatisfactory, and that they
were compelled to store their fruit because they were
unable to get ice and cars promptly. (6454-7136-7137)
The committee carefully considered also the Govern¬
ment publications of statistics and other information
as to perishables in"this territory. (6417 to 6421-6453)
The western New York section produces about 15,000
carloads of apples a year; from 4,000 to 5,000 carloads
of peaches; 5,000 carloads of cabbage, and from 3,000
to 4,000 carloads of potatoes. (6333.) 95 per cent of
the apples move without ice. (6334-6345) Substantially
all peaches move under refrigeration. (6334) By far
the largest percentage of the shipments move over the
New York Central. In 1915 over 93 per cent of the total
shipments were handled by this line. (6736) Some-
482
times, there are as many as 300 cars shipped in one
night. (6809) For the peach crop, the cars as assem¬
bled before the peaches ripen because of the necessity
of immediate movement as soon as the peaches are
picked. The icing stations in the producing territory
are located at Eochester, Oswego and Suspension Bridge.
The cars are iced at these points, go to the loading point
at night, are loaded the following day, and are re-iced
either at Rochester or Suspension Bridge before going
forward. (6334) For loading at outlaying points, the
ice is bought from local dealers in order to avoid sub¬
stantial hauls to and from icing stations. (6337)
The railroad at the present time furnishes the largest
part of the ice supplied in the territory. At many of
the loading points, there are no facilities to enable the
shippers to ice their own cars, and a large number of
the shippers require the carriers to supply iced cars.
One shipper testified that at his station the railroad
ices over 800 cars a year. (7306-77)
With these facts before them, it was the unanimous
view of the committee and also of the other traffic wit¬
nesses that stated charges per carload should be estab¬
lished in this territory (Messrs. Dearborn, Scott, Rice,
Kallman, Blydenburgh and Kentfield).
The fundamental reasons for stated charges are dis¬
cussed elsewhere herein. Speaking specifically of the
particular reasons in New York State, Mr. Rice testified
that the stated charges result in uniformity of charge
to all shippers between the same points. It is definite.
It eliminates divided responsibility for proper refrig¬
eration. The carriers know that it is their duty and
theirs alone to provide proper refrigeration and they
prepare themselves to do so. Under the present method,
tlie shipper provides such ice as it is convenient for him
483
to furnish, while at the same time, the carrier must stand
ready to furnish all the ice if called upon suddenly to
do so.
The carrier, under the present method, must contend
with all of the numerous indefinite and varying icing in¬
structions which the shippers give. The shipments often
do not have proper protection, and the carrier, as a
practical matter, often furnishes ice which it is not paid
for. This is due to labor difficulties which it is imprac¬
ticable to control. (7137-7140)
In view of the fact that the practice at the present
time is entirely in accordance with the widely varying
instructions of shippers, it has been impossible to show
the cost to the carrier of the service of proper refriger¬
ation, except upon the hypothetical basis of what such
service would cost if it were performed. The carriers'
evidence of cost, therefore, consisted of testimony show¬
ing how the committee, in formulating the tariff, had
arrived at the measure of the charges to numerous
points (Dearborn), and further, tabulated statements of
points from and to which shipments actually move, and
the cost of proper refrigeration npon such shipments.
(Kallman's Exhibit No. 2, Blydenburgh's Exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. Dearborn testified that the committee arrived at
the measure of the charges as follows (6195 et seq.) :
The basic commodity, as in all other territories, was
green fruits. There is difference in service on different
commodities, because of their different nature and dif¬
ferent needs. Basic rates were established to principal
destination points. Albion was taken as a typical peach
originating station. Buffalo was used as a short-haul
destination. New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago,
Kansas City and other points were used as representa¬
tive destinations in arriving at basic charges. To Buffalo,
484
99 miles, it was assumed, based upon the practices in
other territories, that five tons of ice would be supplied
for initial icing, and that two tons would be used for re-
icing. This was figured at an estimated cost, using the
estimate of July, 1918, of $4 a ton. (Note: Cleave's
Exhibit No. 6 shows an actual average cost in 1918
of all roads in Eastern Trunk Line territory, of $5.04
per ton.) To this was added the items of bunker dam¬
age, supervision, switching and ice haulage, giving a
cost figure of $38.70. The charge was fixed at $45, leav¬
ing $6.30 to cover profit and hazard.
To New York City, a distance of 401 miles, an addi¬
tional re-icing at Karner was figured, giving a total of
$45.70, for which the charge was made $50. (6198) The
average haul of 70 per cent of the peach movement is
402 miles. (6738) Similar illustrations were given to
Boston, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Albany, Georgia.
(6198 to 6202)
Wherever the committee had information that the cost
of ice was less than $4 per ton, the lower figure was used.
For example, at Fort Madison, Iowa, the cost figure was
$3.50. (6201)
For short hauls of 20 or 30 miles which would be an
over night run, the committee was of the opinion that
with prompt loading and unloading no refrigeration
would be necessary. (6456)
If on such hauls refrigeration were necessary, there
would be no difference in cost to the carrier. The same
amount of ice would be supplied as the time in transit
would only be four or five hours shorter.
The committee gave consideration to the fact that ap¬
ples move to a large extent out of cold storage, and for
this reason, the charge on apples was made $10 less than
on other fruit.
485
This differential was established notwithstanding that
Mr. Dearborn stated his opinion to he that it is jnst as
essential to give maximum refrigeration to apples com¬
ing from cold storage as coming from the field, as the
cold storage apples "go to pieces quicker." (6204-
6209)
After the cost was figured to representative points,
•as above described, the charge was fixed at a small
amount above this cost figure the difference represent¬
ing profit and hazard. No fixed figure was used for
profit but the committee aimed at a profit of about $5
a car. (6210)
Confirming the propriety of the charges fixed by the
committee, Kallman's Exhibit No. 2A shows the cost of
performing proper refrigeration service on shipments
of peaches and apples to numerous destinations. All of
the ■ shipments shown in the exhibit represent transpor¬
tation between points and via routes actually used. As
heretofore stated, owing to the present method of icing
according to shipper's instructions it is useless to show
the present performance on actual shipments. It was
therefore ascertained from and to what points and via
what routes and through which icing stations shipments
actually move. Eepresentative movements were then
taken, and the cost figured upon the refrigeration serv¬
ice which would be performed on such shipments under
the proposed tariff. The ice costs per ton at various
icing stations were takeji from Brooke Exhibit No. 5
and Cleave Exhibit No. 6. (6328) The other factors
Avere those applied generally throughout the country.
The switching cost at icing stations of 35c is very ma¬
terially less than actual switching cost. No special
switching study was made in this territory, but by ref¬
erence to Coverston's Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9 relating
486
to points in C. F. A. territory, it will be seen how inade¬
quate is the 35e figure.
The final conclusion found in Kallman's Exhibit No.
2A is, that figured upon the 1918 ice costs, the greater
number of shipments show a cost exceeding the pro¬
posed charge ; some of the shipments show a cost slightly
less than the proposed charge, and based upon 1919 ice
costs, all of the costs were substantially greater than the
proposed charges.
Blydenburgh's Exhibit No. 1 is a similar exhibit show¬
ing shipments originating at points on the Pennsylvania
R. R. The ice costs from Delaware are based on compu¬
tations from actual costs per car which the shippers
have been paying under their own arrangements with
ice dealers. (6380-6381-6406) These ice costs per car
apply irrespective of the amount of ice which the dealer
actually puts in the car. (6387-6388) ■
This exhibit likewise shows a large number of ship¬
ments upon which the 1918 cost is greater than the pro¬
posed charge, and the 1919 cost is very much greater.
Bearing in mind all that has heretofore been said in
justification of the principle of stated charges per car,
and bearing in mind the desirability of having in force
for this special service a tariff which will be uniformly
applicable to all of the nation-wide fruit and vegetable
traffic, the carriers submit most earnestly that they have
shown that the committee acted carefully, reasonably
and wisely in applying the tariff to Eastern Trunk Line
territory, and that the charges proposed are fair and
proper. Stated charges have long been in effect in Mich¬
igan, and at the first Chicago hearing, the Michigan
fruit shippers had no substantial objection to Section 2
of the tariff. (Witness Burdick, 5485.) (The fact that
487
they were later induced to express some opposition as to
apples does not lessen the significance of their original
position.)
The DelaAvare and Maryland shippers have actually
implored the Fruit Growers Express to renew its serv¬
ice, which is upon a stated charge basis. (6339-6441)
In Georgia the stated charges have been definitely ap¬
proved by 85 per cent of the shippers. In no
territory where stated charges are in effect have
the shippers asked for a change in the method. The
shippers of New York alone want the cost of ice basis,
and it is only because of their vigorous protest that we
have given them special attention in this brief. There
is no other reason why all of the general discussion of
Section 2 should not apply with equal or greater force
to this traffic. We say greater force because upon the
cost of ice basis, the carriers are less adequately com¬
pensated for this service in this territory than elsewhere.
The larger percentage of increase in charges which
these shippers are at pains to point out speaks elo¬
quently for the carriers' proposal, for it shows that
Avhen measured by a proper standard the carriers in this
territory have been substantially underpaid for this valu¬
able service.
These shippers have for so long been enjoying ele¬
ments of transportation service for less than the cost
paid by shippers elscAvhere that they appear to regard
it as a right which they may properly insist upon.
They have left no stone unturned to retain this right.
Time, money, care and energy have been devoted as lav¬
ishly as they properly could be to convince the Commis¬
sion of the soundness of their opposition. The result
has been that the record contains a mass of data most of
which is utterly useless in considering the proper issues
488
in the proceeding. They are without force or direction.
If the purpose of the shippers was to confuse or lead
the mind away from the significant facts, these data
might to some extent serve that purpose. They fail to
accomplish even that. The greater part of these data
must simply be laid to one side, as a mass of inert facts
which neither advance nor impede the consideration of
the real questions of the proceeding.
When all of the contentions of these shippers and
their supporting evidence is carefully considered, the
soundness of the carriers' position remains unimpaired.
This will he shown by a discussion of such of the ship¬
pers' contentions as appear to require or merit consider¬
ation.
The fact that the New York Central Railroad has in
the past encouraged the industry to large investment and
production cannot determine the reasonableness and
propriety of these charges. The stress laid by these
shippers upon that company's past acts is a measure of
the force of their opposition. Witness Phillips thinks
that these rates should not be advanced regardless of the
revenue derived therefrom (9377), if such an advance
threatens to put the industry out of business (9378).
The Willamette Valley Case, 219 U. S., 433, has long
since settled that point. If the New York Central Com¬
pany could not be estopped from increasing its charges
to a reasonable basis, then certainly the present Railroad
Administration cannot be prevented from fixing its
charges so as to yield adequate compensation to it for
the service which it performs.
Much was said in the record upon the matter of the
cost of production to the shippers and the small profits
which it is asserted they are able to secure from their
business. This Avas stated to be put in evidence for the
489
purpose of showing the serious commercial effect upon
these industries of any advance in their transportation
charges. In view of our objection to this evidence as
irrelevant, we shall not discuss the weight of that evi¬
dence.
In attacking the principle of stated charges, the ship¬
pers appear to contend that this basis is too rigid, waste¬
ful, and substitutes the fixed service of the carrier for
the wiser discretion of the shipper. They have reiter¬
ated by each witness that the necessities of refrigeration
vary with each shipment, and that the shippers alone,
by virtue of their long experience, are able to gauge those
necessities. They have carefully enumerated all of the
factors which they allege determine the amount of ice
required, and they seek to convey the impression that the
present methods of icing- have been carefully and accu¬
rately worked out to a scientific nicety. They pretend
to know down to the quarter ton what amount of ice is
required, and they would have us believe that there is
sound reason in each case for putting in 3| tons instead
of 3-2' tons. The factors which, it was stated by one wit¬
ness or another, control the amount of ice were the fol¬
lowing :
Climate of Production
Soil of Production
Species of Commodity
Variety of each Species
Condition of the Commodity when Gathered
Condition of the Commodity when Loaded
Value of the Commodity
Nature of the Commodity when shipped
Season when loaded.
Time within the season when loaded
Condition of weather when gathered
490
Condition of weather when loaded
Temperature of weather when loaded
Temperature of car when loaded
Weather and temperature during transit
Whether loaded from field
Whether loaded from cold storage
Whether loaded from dry storage
Whether precooled
Whether to move at once or to be held in car over
night or over Sunday.
Whether for immediate market
Whether to be placed in cold storage
Whether to be canned
Whether to be re-iced in transit
Whether to move over one line or via a junction
point and another line
Whether for direct transportation or for reconsign-
ment
Distance to be transported
Running time or schedule of train
Climate and Aveather at destination
Orders of the consignee as to amount of ice
Amount of ice left in hunkers upon arrival
One shipper can tell "by the feel of the car" when he
gets into it hoAv much ice to supply. One pretends to
know for several days in advance what the temperature
and weather will be along the line until the car reaches
destination. All the shippers guess at this factor in
most instances, for it was admitted that during the peach
season in New York in September the weather and tem¬
perature fluctuated widely and suddenly from day to
day—a cool day in western New York will be followed
by a warm day or an extremely hot day while a shipment
is in transportation. (7247-7248) Yet the icing instruc-
491
tions of tlie shippers are very seldom, if ever, changed
after the shipment begins to move. One shipper, who
personally gives the icing instructions for all of his cars
of apples, often telegraphs these instructions hundreds
of miles without having more than a general knowledge
of the Aveather at loading point. While at New York,
he said he would telegraph icing instructions on ship¬
ments from Arkansas and from Illinois. This, he said,
was not taking a chance on the weather, hut was sound
business judgment, or, as his counsel expressed it, "com¬
mon sense at its best."
One formerly iced to capacity, until upon inquiry of
the consignees he learned that shipments were arriving
at Philadelphia with the bunkers half full. This he con¬
sidered was too much ice left in the bunkers, and it was
this factor which influenced him in reducing the amount
of ice supplied initially. (7225, 7226, 7249, 7250.)
A signiflcant converse of this case was one in which a
shipper had been loading cars of small capacity with
icing of two or three tons. In 1913, the agents at desti¬
nation advised him that there Avas no use shipping under
those conditions because the shipments Avere rotten upon
arrival. (7304) Now he ices to capacity.
Elaborate exhibits were introduced to show that the
actual practices of the shippers have varied in accord¬
ance with their judgment of the individual requirements
of the shipments.
The only deductions Avhich can be made from these
exhibits is that there are Avide differences in the amounts
of ice furnished. There is no consistency to be found
anywhere. Different shippers differ widely in their judg¬
ment under the same circumstances. Some believe in
full refrigeration while others believe in taking a chance.
Some want the goods to arrive in perfect condition and
492
■will not spare ice, -w^hile others give first thought to the
icing expense. Some use thought and others have hope.
There is very slight evidence that they are guided by
the condition of the fruit at destination, and this can he
readily explained by their system of conducting their
business. Most of the shipments are sold on consign¬
ment, and the commission men at destination sell the
goods in the condition in which it arrives for the best
price to be secured, remitting the proceeds to the ship¬
per. The shipper often does not know whether his low
price was due to the market on a certain day or was due
to the inferior quality of the fruit. As he has been re¬
sponsible for the icing instructions, he of course, makes
no claim against the carrier, so unless there is a wreck
or the goods arrive entirely worthless, it is reasonable
to believe that in most instances the shipper does not
know whether the goods were sufficiently protected or
not.
These shippers have in their zeal overstated their case.
They would have us believe that they exercise superior
intelligence in measuring their ice requirements, but on
cross-examination each one left no doubt that he was
guided by the most general and superficial facts. None
of them knew the cooling power of a given quantity of
ice under given conditions. None of them could say why
a given shipment required a certain amount of ice except
by the most general explanation as to their experience
in kno-vving the feel of the car and judging the condition
of the weather. In this case, as in most cases, Ave ven¬
ture to say that experience is largely a matter of habit.
Nothing could demonstrate more clearly than these;
icing exhibits of the shippers the haphazard practice
under the present system. The proper preservation of
these food products is a matter of chance. The ship-
493
per's icing is a question of expense rather than efficient
operation. See, for instance, Mr. Frazer's testimony, in
explaining the larger amount of ice supplied on cer-
tain shipments shown in his exhibit. "The price was
high in 1918 and the men were particularly careful that
nothing would happen to their cars. Often these would
have moved with no icing." (6850)
It should also be borne in mind that the three or four
shippers who testified as to their icing practices are a
very small part of the shippers in this territory and
handle a very small part of the business. We venture
to say that they were probably selected to testify he-
cause of their intelligence as well as their attitude to¬
ward the tariff. It does not follow that all of the ship¬
pers in this territory use as much care in their icing as
these shippers or are guided by as high motives.
The carriers propose to deliver these goods in good
condition, and their icing service will he rendered with
this single end in view. It is said that the superior wis¬
dom of the shippers results from the fact that this is
their business, while it is only incidental to the carriers.
This ignores the fact that at present the carriers are
furnishing a larger amount of ice than the shippers;
that the carriers are doing all the re-icing in transit ;
that a great many of the shipments are now iced to full
capacity with consequent responsibility on the part of
the carrier, and that the carriers have already adjusted
themselves to this refrigeration business. How can it be
said that tlie carriers with their large organizations have
less interest in efficient refrigeration than the ship¬
pers? The shippers are by no means devoting all their
attention to this question. They are engaged in raising
and selling their products, and transportation is only a
single phase of their business. It is hardly to be ex¬
pected that they would become expert in refrigeration
494
and transportation while engaged in the difficult task of
managing their farms and orchards.
The carriers at the present time hold themselves out
to furnish ice to any reasonable extent demanded by the
shippers, and they have established icing stations and
equipped themselves to meet these demands. With these
facilities they now supply the largest proportion of the
ice used. Eequests are made by shippers for large num¬
bers of iced cars, and at many points the shippers have
no means either of icing their own cars or of having
them iced except by the railroad. (7264-7265) The car¬
riers have gone to large expense to construct these fa¬
cilities and each year they purchase and store large quan¬
tities of ice irrespective of the cost involved. Knowing
that duiing the shipping season shippers all along the
line will suddenly require iced cars, they meet this con¬
dition by preicing cars and sending them along the line
for the shippers' immediate use. Sometimes these cars
are required and sometimes not. If not, the carrier
loses. The carrier must store enough ice to supply all
reasonable demands. If, because of the extent of the
shipper's own supply, it has stored more than the ship¬
pers ' demand, it bears the loss. One shipper who testified
with all the appearance of a conservative and efficient
businessman, stated that he usually ices his own cars,
but sometimes he gets in a hurry and takes cars which
are iced by the carrier. (7018)
There is not an iota of responsibility on the shippers
for this frequent economic waste of ice. If the carrier
fails to furnish an iced car on reasonable demand it be¬
comes liable. This has been referred to by some of the
carriers' witnesses as a divided responsibility, but this
states it too generously, for there is no responsibility
whatever on the shippers. If they have no ice or if
ice is too expensive to supply, they call upon the carrier
495
to furnish it at the tariff charge, and this the carrier
does irrespective of the cost to it. If they have stored
ice, and the local price makes it advantageous for them
to sell, they can do so and call upon the carrier. The
shippers dance and the carrier pays the fiddler and sup¬
plies the hall.
None of the shippers would he willing to assume all
responsibility for furnishing ice. Mr. Phillips would
oppose the discontinuance by the carriers of their icing
facilities and service leaving it to the shippers to do it
all. (9383) He insists that the carrier shall continue
to hold itself in readiness to furnish as much ice as its
experience has shown may he demanded. (9384) Mr.
Frazer stated that it was the present practice of the
carriers to ice cars in anticipation of demand and send
them to stations along the line to take care of sudden
orders. This service, he stated, the shippers desire to
have continued. But for all of this the shippers insist
that they shall pay only $4 per ton for such ice as they
actually use.
Attention is directed by the shippers to the fact that
there are about 60 cold storage and icing plants in this
territory. These, it is contended, have been constructed
at considerable expense, and the proposed charges, it
is said, will deprive the shippers of their benefit. By
means of these, the shippers are enabled to ice their
shipments. A similar situation was discussed by the
Supreme Court in A. T. S S. F. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 232
U. S., 199, in which the court held that as the icing of
cars is a part of the transportation required by the In¬
terstate Commerce Act to be furnished by the carrier,
the carrier has a right to furnish it at a reasonable
charge. The court said:
"Whatever transportation service or facility the
law requires the carriers to supply, they have the
496
right to furnish. They can therefore use their own
cars and cannot he compelled to accept those ten¬
dered by the shipper on condition that a lower
freight rate be charged. So, too, they can furnish
all the ice needed in refrigeration, for this is not
only a duty and a right, under the Hepburn Act,
but an economic necessity due to the fact that the
carriers cannot be expected to prepare to meet the
demand, and then let the use of their plants depend
upon haphazard calls, under which refrigeration
can be demanded by all shippers at one time and
by only a few at another."
This decision should effectually dispose of this con¬
tention. The shippers cannot, by building these icing
plants, increase the amount of ice which they themselves
furnish, and yet demand that the carriers shall continue
to hold themselves in readiness to supply all the ice
which they may require. Nor can they with reason con¬
tend that the carriers must continue to permit them to
perform such icing of cars as they desire, while the car¬
riers furnish the rest at a charge per ton. In Unit Mar¬
keting Sgstem v. St. L., B. é M. By. Co., 49 I. C. C.,
510, 514, the Commission said;
"This decision [Arlington Heights case, 20 I. C.
C.] furnishes no basis for an assumption that whe.re
carriers offer to provide and do provide a refrig¬
eration service, which is the same or substantially
the same as that demanded by shippers generally,
and which is reasonably well adapted to the particu¬
lar traffic involved, a shipper may elect to perform
a part of the service for himself and thereby secure
a lower rate than that which the carrier has estab¬
lished for the entire service, and which is available
to the majority of shippers. Such a course would
disrupt the service, prevent the economical and ef¬
ficient performance of the carrier's obligation to
the general public, and Avould ultimately impose an
unwarranted additional burden upon other shippers
and other classes of traffic."
It is said that shipments coming from cold storage
houses require less ice than those loaded from the field
497
and that this should bring about a lower cost to the ship¬
per which can only be done upon the cost of ice basis.
It is very doubtful if cold storage shipments actually
require less ice hy reason of that fact alone if they are
to be properly protected. Witness Dearborn, whose ex¬
perience gives the weight of authority to his opinion,
testified that cold storage shipments "go to pieces
quicker," than shipments coming from the field, and
that it is just as essential that apples coming from cold
storage be given maximum refrigeration as apples from
the field. In 11. B. Williamson v. A. T. S B. F. Ry. Co.,
42 I. C. C., 11, the Commission said:
' ' Complainant does not attack the charge of |47.50
as applied to shipments of apples moving direct
from the orchard, but insists that on shipments
moving from cold storage refrigeration charges
should be based on the actual cost of the ice fur¬
nished or requested by the shipper, and that the
above-quoted tariff provisions should be amended
accordingly.
It does not appear that less ice is used for the re¬
frigeration of cold storage apples than for the re¬
frigeration of other apples. It is impossible for the
carriers to determine in all instances whether ap¬
ples are shipped from the orchard or cold storage."
See also :
Providence Fruit and Produce Exchange v. N. Y.
C. R. R., 33 I. C. C., 294.
This question is related not so closely to the principle
of stated charges as to the measure of the charge. There
was not the slightest suggestion as to how this factor
could be considered in measuring a stated charge. There
is no uniform difference between the amount of ice used
in cold storage shipments and the amount used in other
shipments. Cold storage shipments have as much vari¬
ation one to another as other shipments. Even if it
were entirely clear that cold storage shipments invari-
498
ably require less ice, there appears to be no way of
measuring the allowance which should be made for it.
The committee considered this matter very carefully,
and for this reason, the charge on apples was made
lower than the charge on other fruits.
Mr, Phillips calls attention in his exhibits to the fact
that in the proposed tariff, the stated charge on apples
has a varying differential under other fruits of $10 in
some cases and $5 in others, while in still others the
charges are equal. The witness pointed to this as a criti¬
cism of the tariff, but was unable to advance any better
scale of charges. We believe this demonstrates the care
with which the charges were made. There has been no
evidence submitted in the record to impeach the sound¬
ness and propriety of the committee's action in this re¬
spect.
Great stress was placed by the shippers upon the con¬
tention that in fixing the charges, the carriers did not
give proper consideration to the short-haul shipments.
By this, apparently, was meant shipments of less than
100 miles or, more specifically, shipments from points in
the western New York fruit belt to destinations in the
immediately tendtory such as Buffalo and Eochester.
Mr. Phillips alone was of opinion that a short haul in¬
cluded anything less than 800 miles. Eeferring to these
very short hauls, it appeared that most of them involved
overnight runs and it is difficult to see why any ice at
all is necessary if the shippers load promptly and con¬
signees unload promptly. Witness Kallman and witness
Dearborn were firmly of the opinion that refrigeration
of these shipments is rmnecessary, and witness Dear¬
born stated that if any refrigeration is necessary it
should be to capacity.
As showing how disproportionate is the vigor of their
protest to the extent of the short-haul btisiness affected.
499
attention is called to the table on page 23 of Frazer's
Exhibit No. 3. This table, showing 3,018 cars of peaches,
represents 70 per cent of the peach shipments over the
New York Central in 1915. The table is as follows :
Distance Shipped Percentage
(miles) No. of Cars of Total
100-200 173 5.7
200-300 415 13.8
300-400 555 18.4
400-500 1647 546
500-600 228 7.5
3018 100
It will be noted that only 5.7 per cent of these cars
moved less than 200 miles; over 80 per cent over 300
miles and 62 per cent over 400 miles. The short-haul
shipments of peaches therefore are a very small part
of the traffic. As to apples, it was impossible to ascertain
tain definitely how many moved under refrigeration,
but witness Kallman expressed the opinion that it was
not more than 5 per cent. Of this 5 per cent it may
safely be said that a correspondingly small proportion
moves for short distances. So that the entire short-haul
traffic of apples and peaches hardly merits the violent
opposition shown by the record. Again this opposition
was entirely destructive in its nature; and no suggestion
Avas otïered as to how the tariff could be modified to
give greater satisfaction to the. shippers.
Attention should be given to the report of the Com¬
mission in Refrigeration Charges on Fruits and Vege¬
tables from Colorado to Kansas Points, 29 I. C. C., 653. In
that case the carriers proposed to establish a stated
charge of $40 to replace the so-called "shipper's icing"
basis at $2.50 a ton. The distances involved were ap¬
parently of comparable length with those generally in¬
volved in this eastern territory. Many of the conten-
500
tions of the shippers and carriers were similar to the
contentions here involved. After setting forth all of
the objections urged by the carriers to the "shipper's
icing" plan and the views of the shippers, the Commis¬
sion sustained both the propriety and measure of the
stated charge. The case is so similar to the present
issue that there is no logical reason why the same con¬
clusion should not here be reached.
The grouping of New York State, both as to points
of origin and destination was stated to he unsatisfac¬
tory, hut the witness would suggest no other. Upon re¬
quest, he agreed to do so hut nothing has been heard
from him up to the time of going to press.
The carriers have been entirely sincere in their re¬
quest for suggestions from the shippers. They have been
willing to give careful consideration to suggestions Avhich
would enable them to obviate the shippers' criticism con¬
sistently with the general purpose of the carriers in pro¬
posing the tariff. The carriers believe that the tariff
is the best that could be devised to accomplish their pur¬
poses as heretofore set forth, but they have been entirely
open to any suggestion for its improvement. These ship¬
pers, however, have contented themselves with adverse
criticism. They have offered no constructive sugges¬
tion to overcome the difficulties which they point out.
Their cry is "Let us alone !" and nothing else vdll satisfy
them.
It is mere sophistry for them to testify that they be¬
lieve that the carriers should be fully compensated for all
their services, and that they are willing to see this done,
while at the same time they oppose every detail of the
plan by which it is proposed. They admit that in prin¬
ciple the carriers should be paid for ice haulage, and
other elements of the service, but they insist upon the
5or
retention of the cost of ice basis, well knowing that these
elements cannot practically be included in a per ton rate.
Their view is that carriers should not be permitted to
change their charges or practice until they improve their
facilities and equipment, while they are aware that such
improvement is remote in view of the present state of
the carriers' revenue.
Another objection raised by the shippers to the meas¬
ure of the proposed charges in this territory is based on
the fact that some of the refrigerator cars owned by the
Eastern Trunk Lines have bunkers which are not large
enough to contain five tons of ice.
The plausibility of this objection disappears when we
consider the evidence as to the extent to which this
smaller equipment is actually furnished for this fruit
and vegetable traffic. All of tlie shippers stated that
they desired cars of the larger bunker capacities, and
none of them' were able to say that smaller capacity cars
are being supplied for their shipments except infre¬
quently. The carriers' testimony affirmatively showed
that the larger equipment is usually furnished in this
traffic. The New York Central within the last few years
has acquired a great many new cars of the large type
for use in this traffic. Mr. Phillips, who lives in Roches¬
ter, N. Y., and represents the apple shippers of the whole
country, said that the New York Central cars are the
best in the country. Mr. Frazer said that there is an in¬
creasing percentage of newer cars with large bunkers be¬
ing furnished. (6899) One local shipper said that several
years ago he often received cars with small bunkers, but
that in 1918 and 1919, all of the cars were cars with large
hunkers. (7303) The witness said that there in an ar¬
rangement among the shippers themselves, whereby the
equipment is so distributed that such smaller cars as are
furnished are used for short-haul shipments, in which
502
they could be satisfactorily employed. (7315 and 7316)
Mr. Scott of the Fruit Growers Express Company testi¬
fied that during the heavy shipping season in this terri¬
tory, the carriers use such empty cars—F G E—P F E—■
SEED, and other car lines—as are found on their lines.
These cars are all of large bunker capacity adapted to
long-haul fruit shipments. Furthermore, carriers in
this territory have recognized that the larger cars should
be devoted to the fruit traffic, and with this in mind they
have made it a practice and propose to continue to sup¬
ply these smaller cars for the transportation of dairy
products and other freight for which the small cars can
be more satisfactorily employed. The Pennsylvania
Eailroad, which has many of the larger cars, supplies
the fruit traffic on its line entirely with its larger sys¬
tem cars. That line rarrely furnishes cars of another
railroad for this traffic.
While it is true that several of the railroads in this
territory have cars of small ice capacity, there is no evi¬
dence that these lines actually transport any of this per¬
ishable traffic. Wherever the fruit traffic originates, the
record clearly shows that the tendency of the carriers
is to acquire an increasing number of cars of the large
bunker capacities. Apparently this objection is one
which only occurred to these protestants after they ex¬
amined the Cleave exhibits. It is a theoretical objec¬
tion which is not supported by any evidence of practical
difficulties experienced by these shippers in the car sup¬
ply. This paper objection ought not to be given weight
to overcome the fact that these carriers will undertake
to supply satisfactory equipment to accomplish their un¬
dertaking in the proposed tariff.
It has been shown elsewhere herein that a service of
refrigeration involves several factors in addition to the
cost of the ice such as the switching at icing stations.
503
haulage of the ice, maintenance and repair of refrigera¬
tion devices, cleaning of cars, etc. The shippers do not
dispute the propriety of compensating the carriers for
these elements of service. The only practicable way
that this compensation can he secured is by means of a
stated charge per car. No other way has been suggested.
Members of the committee who have labored with the re¬
frigeration problem for many years have been unable
to see how otherwise it could be done, and none of the
shippers or their representatives had any idea to ex¬
press. Mr. Phillips admitted that ice haulage, for in¬
stance, should properly be compensated for, but stated
frankly that he was unable to suggest any way by which
this item conld be included in the charge upon the cost
of ice basis. (9330-9334)
There appears to be no escape from the alternative
that the carrier must establish this per car charge or
forego its proper compensation for these elements of
service.
Discussion of Exhibits Submitted and Testimony Given with
Respect to the Cost of the Service of Refrigerating Shipments of
Perishable Commodities Subject to Proposed Charges in Section 2
of the Tariff in Comparison with Proposed Charges, and Views of
Shippers with Respect to Proposed Charges.
Having heretofore discussed and justified the meas¬
ure of the factors used by the various witnesses in their
exhibits showing the cost of the service of refrigerating
shipments subject to the provisions of Section Two of
the tariff, we now come to a consideration of the
exhibits themselves and of testimony given apart from
exhibits. We can do no better in this respect than to
submit a summary of those exhibits and the testimony.
The following is a list of the witnesses who testified
with respect to this subject matter:
504
Bagent, K. E. :
Chief clerk to general manager of the Frisco Refrig¬
erator Line, and assisting in the supervision of the
handling of perishable freight over that railroad (Tr.
8469-70).
Blydenbukgh, E. R. ;
Assistant general freight agent of the Pennsylvania
Railroad. In the traffic department of that railroad
since 1881 (Tr. 6369-6370).
Cleveland, A. F. :
Assistant general freight agent of the Chicago &
Northwestern Railroad. Connected with traffic depart¬
ment thereof for about 22 years (Tr. 4176).
Ceow, F. W. :
Service clerk perishable freight service, Illinois Cen¬
tral Railroad; six years as traveling agent in perish¬
able freight department of that railroad (Tr. 3974).
Deaeborn, R. C. :
General agent Pacific ITuit Express Company, with
which he has been connected since October 1, 1907 ; with
Fruit GroAvers' Express four years prior thereto (Tr.
251).
Gorman, T. H. :
General freight agent of American Refrigerator Tran¬
sit Company, operating over the Denver & Rio Grande,
Missouri Pacific, Wabash, St. Louis Southwestern, Texas
& Pacific, International & Great Northern, and several
sm.aller lines. Fifteen years' experience AAuth the Amer¬
ican Refrigerator Transit Company; thirteen years in
railroad transportation service previous to that (Tr.
1870).
505
Horb, George B. ;
Western dairy agent, New York Central and Mich¬
igan Central since 1915; assistant general dairy agent
NeAv York Central fast freight lines from abont 1907 ;
prior thereto, assistant general western agent Mer¬
chants' Despatch Transportation Company, as far back
as 1893 (Tr. 3859).
Huber, H. A. :
Superintendent refrigerator service, Chicago, Eock
Island & Pacific Eailroad. Entered railroad service
1886, and became superintendent of the refrigerator ser¬
vice in 1904 (Tr. 1803).
Kallman, W. S. :
Assistant freight traffic manager. New York Central
Eailroad. Has been associated Avith New York Central
for 19 years, and in the railroad business 36 years,
mostly in the traffic department (Tr. 6323).
McPike, E. F. :
Manager perishable service of the Illinois Central
Eailroad. In railroad service since 1894; first began to
specialize in perishable freight AAmrk in 1903. Appointed
to his present position January 1, 1912; was a member
of the United States Eailroad Administration on the
committee compiling Perishable Protectee Tariff No. 1;
has been secretary of the American Eailway Perishable
Freight Association since it was first organized in 1908,
under the original name of Eailroad Eefrigerating Ser¬
vice Association; that now covers about 185,000 miles
of lines throughout the United States and Canada (Tr.
78 and 79).
506
Meeritt, George R. :
General agent refrigerator service Northern Pacific
at the present time and since January, 1910. Previously
traveling freight agent for about ten years, and agent
for eight or nine years prior to that (Tr. 1158).
Nelson, George H. :
Manager of the refrigerator department of the Atchi¬
son, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad; has been in that
department since 1898 in various capacities, from office
boy to manager; has entire supervision of the perish¬
able freight service of the Santa Fe Railroad (Tr. 85).
Quinn, Charles D. :
Assistant general freight agent of the Louisville &
Nashville Railroad. Former position was chief clerk
to the general freight agent and assistant general freight
agent. Has had 23 years' railroad experience (Tr. 7708).
Scott, John B. :
General manager of the Fruit Growers' Express, and
has been such for about four years. Prior to that time,
assistant general manager, and prior to that, various
other positions connected with the same company; in
the refrigeration business since 1894. The Fruit
Growers' Express furnishes service to all the railroads
in the Southeast with the exception of the Louisville &
Nashville, Chesapeake & Ohio and the Norfolk & West¬
ern. There may be a few other minor exceptions, but
practically all the other roads of consequence (Tr. 7608).
Smith, Leroy R. :
Auditor of station accounts and has been such for the
Great Northern Railroad for two years; in railroad
service 26 years (Tr. 6053).
507
Stevens, O. M. :
Superintendent of refrigerator service of the Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Eailroad.
It was the aim of the Administration to present ex¬
hibits which would show the actual performance of car¬
load movements under refrigeration of the principal
perishable commodities from the principal producing
districts throughout the United States to all destina¬
tions, or to representative destinations, for a given year,
or for a representative period of a given year. Where
the performance for a whole year has not been shown,
it was because of the large volume of movement of
perishables under refrigeration and the limited time at
our disposal for preparation of the exhibits. Such ex¬
hibits have been presented, and are on record in this
case, and we have set forth a summary thereof in Ap¬
pendix B.
That summary includes, not only the exhibits, but
also the testimony of one witness. Me. John B. Scott,
who furnished for the record a detail of the cost of the
service of refrigeration with respect to certain territory
instead of filing the same in the form of an exhibit.
The witnesses, Blydenburgh and Kaeeman, who testi¬
fied Avith respect to the refrigeration service in Official
Classification territory, could not prepare exhibits show¬
ing actual performance because the shipments in that
territory moved on the cost of ice per ton basis. Ac¬
cordingly, they prepared exhibits shoAving what the re¬
frigeration service Avould cost if properly performed
in that territory. These exhibits have been made the
subject of discussion in connection with that portion of
this brief relating particularly to Eastern Trunk Line
territory.
In the summary. Appendix B, will be found a state-
508
ment in connection Avith the exhibits of each witness,
shoAving upon what basis the ice costs were figured,
whether for 1917, 1918 or 1919, or a combination of
those years. In connection with every exhibit presented
by every witness, the testimony Avas that the exhibits
were representative.
The actual amounts of ice furnished, either initially,
or in transit, Avere used by the witnesses, and applied
to these amounts Avas the actual cost of ice to the car¬
riers. In addition to the general exhibits, detailed state¬
ments, where called for by the examiner, Avere furnished,
shoAving performance of individual cars. These details
shoAA^ed initial icing stations and in transit stations
amount of ice supplied at each point, cost of ice at each
point, average haul, etc. In fact, every necessary detail
has been supplied to enable the Commission or any one
interested to check the general statements.
As to the accuracy of the records of the carriers Avith
respect to the amounts of ice supplied, it is true that
Mr. F. C. Smith, an inspector for the Commission,
found some discrepancies at BraAvley, Cal., and at Blue
Island and Corwith, 111. As a whole, however, no com¬
plaint has been made AAuth respect to the accuracy of
carriers' records at other points, and we assert, with
entire confidence, that the summary. Appendix B, fairly
reflects the cost of the refrigeration service to the car¬
riers, and conclusively demonstrates that the proposed
charges haA^e been amply justified.
This summary, AAdiich shows a comparison between
the cost of the service and the proposed charges in the
tariff, discloses very graphically that such proposed
charges, under the present cost of the service, will not
return to the carriers sufficient compensation to pay
the out-of-pocket expense, plus a reasonable margin for
509
hazard and profit. In fact, in many cases, the cost of
the service exceeds the proposed charge, and on an,
average it might be stated that the cost of the service
just about equals the proposed charge. The question,
therefore, naturally arises why, in proposing these
charges, the committee did not make them sufficiently
high to return to the carriers, not only the cost of the
service, but a reasonable amount in addition thereto to
cover profit and hazard. The explanation for this is
that when the conmiittee formulated the tariff, com¬
mencing about July, 1918, it took into consideration the
ice costs in the various sections of the country for the
year 1917 and, so far as the information was available,
for the year 1918, up to the month of July. These ice
costs, as has been fully developed in the record, have
largely increased since that time. The result is that the
proposed charges are not sufficiently compensatory.
This summary will also afford sufficient answer to the
criticism which has often been made during the prog¬
ress of the proceedings herein to the use, in some of
the exhibits submitted in justification of the charges
proposed in the tariff, of 1919 costs of ice. For even
had the witnesses founded their exhibits on the loAver
ice costs which they had in mind when they formulated
the tariff, the proposed charges would still be justified.
Views of Shippers and Comments Thereon.
Among -the objections of the shippers to the measure
of the stated charges were the following:
1. That the effect of the increases would be to
hamper the shipper's business.
2. That the charges were unreasonable in com¬
parison with like charges from other territory, dis¬
tance considered.
. 3. That the charges were unreasonable in com-
"j :~^.parison Avith what the shipper had theretofore paid.
510
4._ That the increase would add to the high cost
of living.
5. That the carriers should not be permitted to
justify the charges upon the 1919 cost of ice.
6. That the cost of ice basis is the proper one.
7. That if the carriers show a loss in one terri¬
tory they should show an equal loss in all terri¬
tories.
As instances of the positions of the shippers in these
respects and, in some cases, their utter absence of foun¬
dation for their objections, Ave cite the following testi-
monjr of shippers or their representatives.
Edward P. Byars, traffic manager of the Fort "Worth
Freight Bureau, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce,
West Texas Chamber of Commerce, secretary-treasurer
of the Texas - Wholesale Fruit and Produce Dealers.
(Tr., 8456-7.)
I have made no analysis of the cost of the service
as compared with the proposed tariff, so that my
statement that those rates are unreasonable is
merely because they represent in a great many in¬
stances very substantial increases over the present
rates. (Tr., 8262.)
That is the foundation for my statement. (Tr.,
8262-3.)
J. Eiohard Reuter, connected with Chris Renter,
aa-holesale vegetable shippers, NeAv Orleans. (Tr., 8564-5.)
I object to the proposed plan because, under the
proposed Perishable Tariff No. 1, the charges would
be considerably higher than we are at present pay¬
ing on our class of business. (Tr., 8569.)
C. M. Huber, representing tlie Mississippi Railroad
Commission. (Tr., 8515.)
Made certain mileage comparisons (Tr., 8527-8528,
8529, 8530 and 8531) in connection with refrigeration.
On cross-examination he Avas asked:
"You made some mileage comparisons. Have you
made any analysis of the cost of service of refrig-
511
eration to the carriers, say, on tomatoes or cab¬
bages from California. Group A as compared with
like service from IMississippi to a given destina¬
tion?"
to which he answered:
"No, sir." (Tr., 8557.)
He also stated that he had no idea as to the cost of
ice at the average initial point in California, Group A,
or how that compares with the Crystal Springs price,
or the average amounts of initial icing, except that he
thought it would be the same in both cases. (Tr., 8559.)
A. W. Kalb, manager of the Danbury Fruit Com¬
pany, also of the Danbury (111.) Company, at Danbury,
Ohio; also traffic manager of the Ottawa Fruit Growers'
Exchange at Port Clinton, Ohio (Tr., 5493), said:
Exhibits from southern Illinois show a loss of
flO to $12 a car, and it would be discrimination to
allow that loss from one territory and less loss from
another territory. (Tr., 5509.)
Leoxaed Wat, rate clerk Public Utilities Commission
of the State of Idaho. (Tr.," 1361.)
This witness made comparisons of various kinds with
respect to the refrigeration charges, and combined re¬
frigeration and freight charges, percentage increases,
etc. On cross-examination he stated:
I personally know nothing about the factors enter¬
ing into the cost of refrigeration service. (Tr.,
1391.)
I know nothing about any of the factors or cost
going to make up any of the proposed refrigeration
rates as contained in the Proposed Perishable Pro¬
tective Tariff No. 1.
I don't know anything about the reasonableness
or unreasonableness of any of the proposed rates
contained in that tariff. (Tr., 1392.)
512
And on recross examination this testimony:
Q. (By Mr. Westlake). You said that by com¬
paring the rates out of Idaho with rates from other
points on a purely mileage distance basis, that your
Idaho rates were comparatively more than they
were from the other sections? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't take into consideration whether or
not substantially similar circumstances and condi¬
tions obtained from the two respective territories ?
A. No, I didn't take into consideration the various
different conditions. (Pages 1411-1412.)
R. L. Thompson, traffic manager of King's Food Prod¬
ucts Company. (Tr., 1650.)
"Q. Well, what factors do you take into consider¬
ation in arriving at your conclusion that the rate
is too high? A. From the fact that you have got
to sell the goods for a certain price, and if you get
the price of your transportation too high it necessi¬
tates placing the sale price of your product beyond
the reach of the consumer, or that you are manu¬
facturing at a loss." Tr., 1657.)
U. G. PowEix., rate expert for the Nebraska State Rail¬
way Commission. (Tr., 4214.)
The object of page 7 of my Exhibit No. 1 was to
show the adjustment of interstate rates from Group
B points, California points to Nebraska stations, as
compared with other states. So far as the mileage
on this page is concerned, that is on an air-line basis,
from winch I have gotten these comparisons. (Tr.,
4278.)
Those comparisons are of no avail unless you
take into consideration the air-line mileages which
I have shown on these pages. (Tr., 4279.)
I don't knoAV what originates in Group B in Cal¬
ifornia, or Avhere it is. (Tr., 4281.)
It is to be noted that the witness ' air-line mileage
from Group B (Imperial Valley), in California, to
NeAV York, is 2,250 miles, and it may be here sug¬
gested that the AAutness has materially narroAved the
United States, and has anticipated by several years,
at least, the method of_ transporting perishables in
carloads from California to New York.
513
John F. Waddell, traffic manager for the Western
Fruit Jobbers' Association. (Tr., 9432-3.)
This witness made certain comparisons, based on
distance, between refrigeration charges in Canada
with those shown in the Proposed Tariff. (Tr.,
9441 to 9443.)
On cross-examination the witness stated that he
had no ice cost figures for Vernon or Yakima, or
any other point; he did not know the average ice
consumption on a shipment from Vernon to Cal¬
gary, or between any of the points of origin and
destination enumerated by him. (Tr., 9442-3.)
C. A. Turnell, representing C. A. Watson & Sons,
growers and shippers of apples at Chicago, Valley City
and Nioga, 111. (Tr., 9479-80.)
Objected to the proposed charges, but was unable
to state the cost of the service between any of the
points mentioned in his testimony. (Tr., 9485.)
F. A. Jones, representing the Arizona Eailroad Com¬
mission.
This witness based his conclusion that refriger¬
ation rates from northern California should be more
than from Arizona because, as he claimed, the tem¬
peratures were nearly the same and the distance
from Arizona was less.
C. F. Morgan, produce shipper. (Tr., 796.)
Objected to increase in rates because of effect on his
business. (Tr., 801-2.)
E. M. Weyl, member of Weyl, Zuckerman & Co., dealer
in potatoes and onions. (Tr.^ 817.)
This witness stated:
I do not know anything about the reasonableness
of these proposed refrigeration charges on our Cal¬
ifornia shipments. I do not pretend to say whether
they are too high or too low, or unreasonable, but
I am complaining at raising them. If you raise
514
these rates you may destroy an industry which we
have huilt up here in California. (Tr., 820-21.)
L. R. Aldekson, merchandise broker, operating a busi¬
ness called "The California Produce Distributors,"
located at Los Angeles. (Tr., 825.)
This witness objected to an increase in refriger¬
ation charges because the potato yield is getting
lighter; it has been attacked by very virulent forms
of post and disease; that is accentuated by the con¬
tinuous use of the same soil, (Tr., 827.)
T. G. Strachan, appearing for the Virginia State Cor¬
poration. (Tr., 7795.)
One reason why I take the position that these
refrigeration charges should not he increased is be¬
cause of the effect it Avould have upon the apple or
other fruit industry in Virginia. Another position
is the unreasonable charges. (Tr., 7807.)
So that as to any apple shipments moving ont of
the field, I am not prepared to say how much the
initial icing will be in ponnds, or how mnch the re-
icing at the initial point will be, nor am I prepared
to say how many re-icings would he necessary be¬
tween Staunton and New York City, or how much
ice would he supplied at any of the re-icing stations.
That would he done by icing people, and I do not
have that information, nor do I know what it would
cost for the ice per ton at those re-icing stations in
transit. I have no personal knowledge on the sub¬
ject. (Tr., 7809.)
J. H. Tench, rate expert for the Florida Railroad
Commission.
This witness made certain distance comparisons
on combined freight and refrigeration charges from
California with those from Florida. On cross-ex¬
amination he stated:
I haven't got the California freight rate with me.
I don't know what the refrigeration or freight rate
is from California to New York City. The com¬
parison is solely on a mileage basis. (Tr., 8099.)
515
Carl. Giessow, general manager of the New Orleans
Joint Traffic Bureau. (Tr., 8591.) This witness stated:
We don't want to pay a stated refrigeration
charge that will inure to the benefit of a private car
line. (Tr., 4608.)
The Avitness also made compilations showing per¬
centage increases Avhich would result at New Orleans
by placing that city on a stated charge basis (the
cost of ice per ton basis noAV applying), as com¬
pared Avith cities where the stated charges now
apply.
(See Sheet 2 of GiessoAv Exhibit No. 1.) (Tr.,
8593-4.)
T. D. Guthrie, traffic manager of the Southern Whole¬
sale Grocers' Association. (Tr., 8402-3.)
" In connection Avith this witness' statement that
certain of the proposed charges were too high, he
gave the folloAving testimony:
Q. Now, you gave us three rates here: apples
from Grand Junction, Col., to New Orleans, $80;
cabbage from Grand Junction, Col., to New Orleans,
$80; apples, Santa Fe to Noav Orleans, $65; cab¬
bage, Santa Fe to Ncav Orleans, $75, and apples
from Fresno to Noav Orleans, $85, and cabbage,
i'resno to Ncav Orleans, $80, and you commented
upon the fact that in the first instance the two rates
Avere the same; in the second instance the cabbage
rate Avas the higher, and in the last instance the
apple rate was the higher. Nova^, do you knoAV aa'hat
the comparatiAm costs of the service of refrigeration
on those commodities is from those given points of
origin to those given destinations! A. No, I do
not knoAv the exact cost.
Q. Do you knoAA^ the approximate cost of the
transportation of either commodity! A. No, I
doubt if that is a matter of record.
Q. No, I am not asking you Avhether it is a mat¬
ter of record, or whether it has been or will be de¬
veloped, but whether you knoAv! A. No, I do not
know tlie costs. (Tr., 8418.)
Tliese illustrations Avill suffice to show in a general
516
way the character of the average objections made by the,
shippers to the proposed increases. We have not under¬
taken to quote all of the reasons given by all of the ship¬
pers why, in their opinion, the refrigeration rates should
not be increased, but we unhesitatingly state, that in no
instance, has any testimony by any of the shippers, or
any of their witnesses, in any way tended to show that
the cost to the carriers of performing the refrigeration
service has been less than that shown by the various
exhibits submitted on behalf of the carriers.
With regard to the first ground of objection, namely,
that the effect of the increase would be to hamper the
shipper's business, it is sufficient to refer to the case of
Siiperior Commercial Club v. Great Northern Railway
Company, 25 I. C. C., 342, at page 348, where the Com¬
mission's decision is that the needs of shippers cannot
be made the basis of reasonable rates. To the same
effect is the Willamette Valley Lumber case, 219 U. S.,
433.
The objection that the charges are unreasonable in
comparison with like charges from other territory, dis¬
tance considered, is easily answered by a simple refer¬
ence to the testimony to the effect that in many instances
distance cuts a comparatively small figure in the cost
of refrigeration service ; that cost will depend largely
upon the temperature and other conditions surrounding
the initial loading, the character of the commodity, the
cost of ice at the loading point, the temperature encoun¬
tered en route and the cost of ice at the re-icing stations
in transit.
With regard to the third objection that the charges
are unreasonable in comparison with what the shipper
had theretofore paid, it seems to us that the objection
answers itself. In other words, if what the shipper had
theretofore paid is too low, a reasonable advance in
517
those charges would result in a present reasonable
charge.
The objection that the increases would add to the high
cost of living is, obviously, not a valid reason why car¬
riers should not receive reasonable compensation for
the service performed. It might just as well be said that
no advance should have been made in the rate of wage
or in the cost of materials generally, within the last year
or two, because that would add to the high cost of liv¬
ing. Such an argument would not have met with a great
deal of favor among the laboring classes or those who
had materials or commodities to sell.
Referring to the objection that the carriers should
not be permitted to justify the proposed charges upon
the 1919 cost of ice, we refer to what has been said upon
this subject in a previous portion of this brief under
the heading, "Cost of Ice."
With respect to the position of some of the witnesses
that the cost of ice basis is the proper one, we refer to
a discussion of this subject in that portion of our brief
under the caption, "Propriety of Stated Refrigeration
Charges."
Answering the contention that if the carriers show a
loss in one territory, they should shoAV an equal loss in
all territories, our reply is that the rates should be so
made that no loss should be shown in any territory, but,
that the rates should exceed the cost of the service by
a margin sufficient to allow the carriers a reasonable
amount for profit and hazard.
Adverting to the contention of Mr. Jones, represent¬
ing the Arizona Railroad Commission, that refrigera¬
tion rates from northern California should be more than
from Arizona, because, as he claimed, the temperatures
Avere nearly the same and the distance from Arizona was
518
less, we have only to make reference to Dearborn's Ex¬
hibit No. 16 and Dearborn's Exhibit No. 11. Dearborn's
Exhibit No. 16, covering cantaloupes from Arizona to
Illinois, shows that the average amount of ice consumed
per car was 33,450 lbs., and that the average cost of
that ice was $100.14 per car. On the other band, Dear¬
born's Exhibit No. 11, which covers cantaloupes from
northern California to Illinois, shows that the average
amount of ice consumed per car was 31,387 lbs., and that
the average cost of that ice per car was $56.43. Dear¬
born's Exhibit No. 16 further shows that the average
total cost per car for refrigeration service on canta¬
loupes from Arizona to Illinois was $127.36, while the
average total cost per car for refrigeration service on
cantaloupes from northern California to Illinois was
$89.06, or a difference of $38.30 per car. The proposed
refrigeration charge per car from Arizona to Illinois is
$125 and from northern California to Illinois $95, or a
difference of $30.
A great deal of evidence was introduced on behalf of
shippers here to show the cost of producing and market¬
ing their commodities, for the purpose of proving that
the margin of profit betAveen the cost of production and
the sale price Avas so small, under the present refriger¬
ation charges, that an increase in the charges last re¬
ferred to AA'Ould mean a further reduction in profit and
that this AA'ould result in crippling their industry or
business, or woAild, as some shippers expressed it, "put
them out of business." This character of testimony,
AA'hen admitted in eAudence, Avas over our objection to
its materiality. We still insist upon that objection. It
Avill, of course, he unfortunate, and much to he regretted,
if the proposed increases actually result in serious in¬
jury to any business or industry of any of the shippers,
but Ave cannot bring ourselves to believe, in view of the
519
extremely liigli prices wliicli tlie producers are receiving
for their commodities, that the addition of a few dollars
per carload in the refrigeration charges will, to any ap¬
preciable extent, atfect the business or the industries of
any of the shippers interested in this case. It has been
our experience in nearly every rate case, whether deal¬
ing Avith freight rates or refrigeration charges, that a
similar claim has been ihade by the shippers, but it has
also been our observation that ■ AA^henever the carriers
Ave re fortunate enough to receive an increase in their
rates business went on just the same, and, in fact, pro¬
gressed just as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than it had
before. We might also observe that it has been our
uniform experience that when the freight rates have
been increased to the producers, the retail prices in¬
creased in greater proportion than the rate increase
would seem to justify. In other words, the producer
passed the increase on to the retailer, plus a reasonable
or unreasonable profit, and the retailer in turn added a
little more profit to that.
In justice to some of the shippers who appeared in
this case, we might say that some of them admitted that
we should have some increase in our refrigeration
charges, although not to the extent claimed. Among
these witnesses were T. Gl. Strachan, representing the
Virginia State Corporation (Tr., 7817) ; C. M. Huber,
appearing for the Mississippi Kailroad Commission;
Leonard Way, rate clerk Public Utilities Commission
of the State of Idaho (Tr., 1361), who at pages 1404
and 1405 of the transcript said that Avith the increased
cost of ice at certain stations he would naturally expect
that there should be a very material increase in the re¬
frigeration charges on shipments that might be iced or
re-iced at those points, as between 1913 and 1918 or
1919 refrigeration charges, although he added that the
520
ad\'arjces should perhaps be measured by the ability of
the industry to pay it. He further stated that if the
refrigeration rates were reasonable in 1913, he would
say that perhaps they are entitled to some advances,
provided that tliey are not now carried in the trans¬
portation charge. The Avitness, Feed Bremier, director
Hivision of Utilities for the Board of Railroad Commis¬
sioners of the State of North Dakota (Tr., 3706), admit¬
ted that the carriers should have some measure of in¬
crease, but that he did not know to what extent, and
therefore, that they Avere not opposing all of the pro¬
posed charges. The witness, W. H. Young, manager of
the Fremont Traffic Bureau and traffic manager of the
Nebraska-IoAAm Wholesale Fruit Dealers' Association,
as well as other organizations, and representing the Iowa
Fruit Jobbers' Association (Tr., 4374), testified that it
aa'as probable that the carriers were entitled to some
increase at the present time (Tr., 4434). Witness, F. S.
Keiser, traffic manager of the Duluth Commercial Club
(Tr., 4438), stated that if the original or former stated
refrigeration charges as now in effect, are all right, then
the proposed increase of 33J per cent would not be
enough, taking into consideration the advances which
have been made in the cost of materials and labor. (Tr.,
4484.)
We believe that when even the shippers will admit that
the carriers are entitled to some increase, this goes a
long Avay toAvards justifying the measure of the increase
asked by the carriers. The average percentage of in¬
crease the country OA^er is far less than the average per¬
centage of increase in cost of materials and labor gen¬
erally. The cost of ice and the cost of labor make up
the major portion of the cost of performing re¬
frigeration service. Admittedly, the percentage in¬
crease in tlie cost of these factors largely exceeds the
521
percentage increase which the carriers are asking with
respect to the proposed refrigeration charges in Sec¬
tion 2 of the tariff, with the possible exception that
where the present charges are on the cost of ice basis,
the percentage increase is comparatively large. Obvi¬
ously, this is due to the fact that where the basis is
that of cost of ice per ton, the carriers are not receiving
any compensation for any factor other than the bare
cost of the ice. They are not being remunerated, either
for haulage of ice, supervision, damage to refrigeration
devices or switching of cars to and from ice platforms,
nor are they being allowed anything for profit or any¬
thing to cover hazard. When these factors are added
to the increased cost of ice, it necessarily follows that
the percentage increase is great. A comparison, there¬
fore, of the percentage increase, applicable to a now
published stated charge, with the percentage increase to
the bare cost of ice alone, affords no proper criterion
by which to judge the reasonableness of the two per¬
centage increases.
It might be well in passing to note that, in connec¬
tion with the refrigeration of perishables from New
Orleans, the comparisons made in the percentage in¬
crease between that district and other districts, are not
at all fair, because the cost of ice to the New Orleans
shipper is not his sole cost in connection with his refrig¬
erated shipments. It was testified that those shipments
are handled on this basis : the commission broker at New
Orleans figures up what the ice is going to cost, what
the cartage will be, what the freight charges will be,
what the loading charges will be, and what all other
expenses will amount to, and then adds them all to¬
gether and then superimposes a profit, and finally quotes
a given rate per package to the shipper to cover all
of these charges or expenses, plus a profit. (Tr., 8579.)
522
It cannot be said, therefore, that the increased cost to
the New Orleans shipper will, in any Avay, be represented
by the difference between the present cost of ice per car
on his carload shipments and the stated charge set forth
in the Proposed Tariff. There is nothing in the record
that will enable us to compute the exact difference. An
endeavor was made to develop this feature upon cross-
examination of the New Orleans shippers, but either be¬
cause of inability or unwillingness on their part to fur¬
nish the information, the effort failed.
It is also well to call particular attention to the fact
that the shippers of 85 per cent of the peach production
of Georgia are satisfied with the proposed refrigeration
rates applicable from Georgia. Those rates are now in
effect. In this connection we refer to the following tes¬
timony :
B. J. Christman :
I live in Atlanta. I am now and have been since
June 1, 1919, manager of the Georgia Fruit Ex¬
change. My duties or functions are looking after
the distribution of peach shipments. That organiza¬
tion represents the shippers of about 85 per cent of
the peaches from the state. (Tr., 7583-4.)
Peaches from Georgia are practically all shipped
in refrigerator cars under refrigeration. There is
a very small movement by express. I should say
that the movement in box cars or not under re¬
frigeration is practically negligible. Our peach
shipments move in the latter part of May, June,
July and August. The principal peach producing
sections of the State of Georgia are between Ameri¬
cas, Ga., and Macon ; between Cohimbus and Ft. Val¬
ley, between Williamson and Ft. Valley and between
Macon and Athens. Those shipments extending
over the period from May to August are all from
the orchards. A conservative estimate of the annual
average carload peach production in Georgia, I
shoidd say, would be around 6,000 cars. (Tr., 7584.)
In 1918 the production was approximately 8,300
523
carloads, and this year (1919) approximately 7,500
carloads. Our shippers are interested to a small
extent in the production of peaches in South Caro¬
lina, around Meriwether and Clark's Hill. The
average annual production in carloads in South
Carolina of the shippers whom I represented would
be possibly fifty. Those fifty cars represent ap¬
proximately 50 per cent of the annual carload move¬
ments of peaches out of South Carolina or originat¬
ing in South Carolina. The representative markets
reached by the shipments of peaches originating in
Georgia are as follows:
In the East, they are Baltimore, Philadelphia,
New York, Providence, Boston, Pittsburgh, Syra¬
cuse, Wilkesbarre, Scranton, Buffalo, Albany, Sche¬
nectady; these are the principal markets; of course,
we do ship into a great many markets, but they are
all small ones with the exceptions of those named.
(Tr., 7585, Vol. XXXVI.)
For the West they are, Chicago, St. Louis, Mil¬
waukee, some to Minneapolis and St. Paul, Indian¬
apolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo, Columbus, Ohio,
and there are a number of others but they are small.
(Tr., 7585.)
Carload shipments of peaches originating in Geor¬
gia and moving under refrigeration move under the
stated charge basis. (Tr., 7585-7586.) The charges
under which those shipments are now moving* have
been in effect since May 15, 1919. They are the same
charges as those set forth in Proposed Perishable
Protective Tariff No. 1. Both the Georgia Fruit
Exchange and myself, and the shippers I represent,
are satisfied with those charges under present con¬
ditions. I am satisfied with the rate on cantaloupes
set forth in the proposed tariff on cantaloupes, which
is made uniformly $5 greater than the stated charge
applicable to peaches. (Tr., 7586-7587.) There is a
difference in the amount of ice required for icing
cantaloupes. I feel that that |5 charge is very
closely justified by the difference in the amount of
ice supplied alone. (Tr., 7587.)
A very exhaustive cross-examiuation was conducted
by Mr. DeVane, which developed how the rates now iii
524
effect in Georgia (and whicli are those appearing in the
proposed tariff) were arrived at as a compromise be¬
tween the Administration and Mr. Christman. This tes¬
timony will be found on pages 7587 to 7600, inclusive of
the transcript.
On redirect examination the Avitness stated:
"While at the time these rates AA'ere compromised
I felt that the charges finally agreed upon were about
$1.50 too much, subsequent conditions have changed
my mind with respect to that on account of the in¬
creased cost of ice, due, perhaps, to a larger crop
than was anticipated; at least as it applies to this
year's crop, we could very well have added that
$1.50." (Tr., 7602.)
As peaches are the principal refrigerated perishable
moving from Georgia it would seem that, in vieAV of the
testimony of Mr. Christman, no possible doubt can re¬
main as to the reasonableness of the charges proposed in
the tariff with respect to Georgia traffic.
Attention is also directed to the fact that a tentatwe
report, favorable to the carriers, has been rendered in
the case of Wisconsin <& Michigan Fruit é Vegetable
Jobbers' Association v. Ahnctpee S Western Railwag
Company, I. C. C., 10020. That case was set down for
trial on the same date for which the hearing in this case
at Chicago was set. The testimony produced in both
cases was practically the same. In fact, the same wit¬
nesses testified and submitted the same exhibits in both
cases. In case No. 10020, the refrigeration rates involved
were those applicable from Chicago to points in Wiscon¬
sin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and to Duluth,
Minn., and from St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn., to the
northwestern section of Wisconsin and to Duluth. While
the rates in the proposed tariff arc slightly higher than
those lander attack in case 10020, they still are amply
justified by the cost of tlie service, as demonstrated by
525
the evidence of the witnesses, A. F. Cleveland and 0. M.
Stevens.
Certain of the refrigeration rates from points in
Michigan and from Florida are in effect, and have been
since early in 1919, but it has been agreed by the Fruit
Growers' Express that, if the Commission should find
that those rates are too high, reparation will be volun¬
tarily made down to the basis found reasonable by the
Commission.
Conclusions as to Section Two. -
In conclusion, as to Section Two of the tariff, the car¬
riers cannot too strongly urge upon the Commission
their firm conviction, not only that the proposed rates
are not unreasonably high, but that in most instances
they are unreasonably low. Throughout the greater part
of the United States, where stated charges have been in
effect, those charges have remained stationary for many
years, or have been reduced, while the cost of materials
and labor has increased to an extent almost beyond be¬
lief, and certainly beyond all measure of anticipation.
Refrigeration service has been performed for compensa¬
tion which was measured by the cost of a decade ago or
longer. The dollar then received was worth approxi¬
mately double its value to-day. Every factor entering
into the cost of refrigeration service has advanced. Ice
prices have gone up, and will probably never get back
to where they were as late as 1917. Labor constitutes a
large part of the cost of ice, and there is no immediate
hope of its early return to its former level. It costs
more to haul ice, due to increased costs of transporta¬
tion generally. This again is due to enhanced cost of
labor and materials incident to the transportation serv¬
ice. Likewise supervision, switching and bunker dam¬
age represent a greater monetary outlay due to in-
526
creased cost of labor and materials. It costs more to
clean refrigerator cars than formerly. The hazard is
greater, due to enhanced value of the perishable com¬
modities.
In view of these undeniable facts, it seems almost in¬
credible that anyone can come to any conclusion but that
the proposed rates do not represent any undue increase ;
in fact the conclusion is almost irresistible that the car¬
riers could, with the best of grace, insist upon a still
greater measure of increase. In this connection we di¬
rect the attention of the Commission to the testimony
of the witness, JoH]sr B. Scott, manager of the Fruit
Growers' Express. This company has long been in
business. For many years it has been an important
factor in the movement of perishables under refrigera¬
tion. It has a large investment devoted to this service.
But notwithstanding all this the Fruit Growers' Express
will retire from business at the expiration of its present
contracts, and this determination would not be influenced
even by an increase in the proposed rates. We quote
from Mr. Scott's testimony as follows;
"Now, as far as this being a profitable business
is concerned, our company has already decided, two
■weeks ago, to retire from the business because of the
fact that it is not profitable, and the Fruit Gro-wers
Express will go out of the business just as quick as
their various contracts can be taken care of, which
means that we wdll not operate anywhere in the
country next season except on the Atlantic Coast
Line, Seaboard Air Line and the Florida East Coast,
and on those roads simply because we have con¬
tracts which we have already canceled, but which the
cancellation does not apply on until November next
year.
Examiner Marshall: You mean you have—
The AVitness : AVe have decided to go out of busi¬
ness finally.
Examiner Marshall : A"oi; mean you have re-
527
scinded the contracts etïective November when,
1920?
The AVitness : Our Atlantic Coast Line and Sea¬
board Air Line contracts provide that we would ex¬
tend an 18-months notice of cancellation. That no¬
tice was extended I think in June; June or May; or
whenever extended the 18 months would take in No¬
vember some time, 1920, so that on November 20th,
or whatever the date of it would be, Ave will be out of
business. (Tr., 4045 and 4046.)
Q. (By Examiner Marshall) : AVhy is your com¬
pany proposing to retire from business!
A. The real reason, Mr. Examiner, is that we feel
conditions noAV are entirely different in the fruit
car business than they Avere when we first entered
the business. AA'hen we first entered the business a
car of peaches generally speaking was worth around
|500. A car of oranges Avas Avorth around $300, and
all other commodities in proportion. Conditions
have changed to such an extent that oranges uoav in¬
stead of being worth $300, are worth anywhere from
$1,500 to $2,500, and as high as $3,000. A car of
peaches is worth anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500.
The hazard of the business is so great that we feel
that Ave could not possibly stay in business any
longer at the proposed increase in rates, or ev^en
if the rates- Avere increased beyond what is pro¬
posed.
I spent two months personally handling the Geor¬
gia peach crop this season, something like 7,700
cars. All of that moved in a very few weeks. AA^e
had to go as far south as the loAver part of Florida,
all points south of the Ohio and east of the Mis¬
sissippi, to get enough ice to take care of this busi¬
ness. If we had failed we stood in the position of
probably losing as much in tAvo days as we could
make out of the business under the most faA'orable
circumstances in twenty years. In other words, we
stood a chance of losing as much as a half a mil¬
lion dollars a night, and we just did get by with it
due to the ice situation. If we had failed why our
profits, if there A'^re any, would be eaten up for
years. So the minute I got back I told them we Avere
sitting on a volcano, and as far as I Avas concerned,
528
that I would never go to (joorgia again and under¬
take to handle that business at any kind of a rate.
Now as far as these Michigan rates being too high,
they are certainly low in my opinion, considering the
great risk taken by the companies undertaking to
handle them.
Q. These potential losses would have been in¬
curred under your contract with the railroad com¬
panies or under your—
A. They would have been incurred under our
contract with the railroads, and when we take our¬
selves out of the situation the railroad will of course
be in the same position that we were. The railroad
will either have to furnish the service itself and
take that risk, or the railroad will have to get some
private car line to come in and take the same risk.
But in any event, of course, the railroad stands be¬
fore the shipper as responsible for this loss. It is
more than an estimate. We have paid out thou¬
sands of dollars due to the failure to get cars. AVe
failed to have cars two days in North Carolina
and it cost us $100,000." (Tr., 4054 and 4056.)
The foregoing testimony was given at Chicago in Au¬
gust, 1919. AATien an attack on the refrigeration rates
was made at the Atlanta hearing in September, Mr.
Scott gave the following testimony;
"Q. I would like to have your general conclu¬
sion, Mr. Scott, as to the reasonableness of the
stated refrigeration charge in the section as stated
in the proposed tariff.
A. I think the charges proposed in the tariff are
entirely too low based on the costs that confront
us. The company which I represent feels so strongly
that there is absolutely no possibility of getting a
new dollar for an old one that the management has
finally and positively determined to go out of busi¬
ness, and Ave will not operate in Georgia next sea¬
son or any future season, neither will we operate
in any other section of the country after the ap¬
proaching season, and our operations for the ap¬
proaching season will be limited absolutely to the
various lines in Florida, points on the Atlantic Coast
Line and Seaboard Air Line in South Carolina and
529
North Carolina. We will not operate in the Nor¬
folk territory, the Peninsula or in Georgia, Ten¬
nessee, Alabama, or Mississippi, after this season
and nowhere after the season of 1919-20. There is
one more season in the territory that I have stated.
Q. Have the measure of the rates and the hazard
of the business anything to do with determination
of your company to retire from business?
A. Our management feel that the conditions are
so ditferent since we first went into this business
that they are not justified in building additional
equipment at the excessive present costs or of go¬
ing into the ice business as we feel the future re¬
quires. The hazards of the business under present
conditions are so much greater than they were under
the old normal conditions that the management feel
very strongly that instead of prices going down
that would atïect this service they will probably go
still higher, and we simply feel that the business
is not an attractive business to invest additional
money in or to stay in, unless you are absolutely
obligated to do so, which we are not.
We further feel that there has been so much op¬
position from certain quarters to our rates and what
we think are foolish ideas of our profits that it has
kind of got on our nerves when we are doing a good
part of this business at a loss, and we are sick and
tired of defending charges of this kind.
Q. You have spoken of the hazard of the business.
Do you refer exclusively to the hazard which is in¬
cident to the refrigeration service, or have you in¬
cluded in that any part of the hazard due to the
transportation service!
A. Obviously we have only included the hazard
that is incident to the furnishing of the refrigeration
service." (Tr., 7632-7634.)
530
SECTION THREE.
BULE 300.
This rule provides for the application of stated re¬
plenishing charges for ice and/or sale upon the com¬
modities therein described, within a certain territory
heretofore pointed out.
Shippers' Vieivs.
No specific objection appears in the record except that
voiced by the witness C. A. Turnell, who said in sub¬
stance :
"As we have facilities to properly refrigerate
our shipments through to destination, taking this
privilege away from us carries with it an element
of discrimination in view of the proposed Eules No.
300 and No. 312 as applied to packing-house prod¬
ucts."
Answer.
In answer to this objection, we are content to rely
upon the principles established in I. C. C. Docket I. & S.
514 dealing with westbound replenishing charges.
BULE 312.
(A) Shippers must declare in writing to initial car¬
rier at loading station if car is to be initially iced by
shipper or by carrier, and whether to be re-iced en route,
or handling without icing. (See paragraph (G) of Rule
300.)
(B) If salt is desired, shipper must specify per¬
centage.
(C) Such instructions shall appear on shipping or¬
der and on bill of lading over the signature of the ship-
531
per, and the same must be endorsed by forwarding
agent on original waybill.
Shippers' Views.
AVitness E. O'Haba:
The packers, generally speaking, are required to per¬
form the initial icing service in all cases, and usually are
performing such service in connection with their pri¬
vately owned brine cars (which type of car is not gener¬
ally supplied by the carriers) and we can see no reason
wh}^ W'O should be required to declare in writing to the
initial carrier the fact that the car is to be initially iced
by us. (Tr., 6635.)
Answer.
Carriers would now state that the reason why they de¬
sire from shippers the information mentioned by wit¬
ness O'Hara is to enable them to perform the service of
icing properly in the event that the shippers have not
elected to do the initial icing themselves.
Propriety of Westbound Keplenishing Charge.
In a previous portion of this brief (pages 14, 15), we
have set out the commodities to which Section 3 of the
tariff applies and the territory within which the charges
set forth in that section are applicable. In general
these charges may be said to apply on fresh meat,
packing-house products, fish, shell fish and dairy freight
and the territory may be briefly described as that cov¬
ered by shipments westbound from the Missouri Eiver.
There was no serious objection on the part of those
shippers whose connnodlties moved subject thereto, to
the principle of the westbound rei)lenishing charge. It
is true that some of the packers did state that they
532
tlioiiglit tlie cost of ice per ton and salt per one hundred
pounds, was the proper basis, but their conclusions were
based largely upon what they claimed to be the incon¬
sistency of the Commission in the Westbound Replen¬
ishing Charges Case, I. & S. 514, 34 I. C. C., 140. Their
contention in this respect is that the Commission found
that the freight rate was sufficiently high to include
everything, except the furnishing of the re-icing in
transit. It is true that the Commission found this to be
a fact as to shipments which were initially iced by the
shipper and were not re-iced in transit, but the Commis¬
sion further found as to shipments that were re-iced in
transit that the freight rate was not sufficient to include
a certain amount of supervision or the switching neces¬
sary in performing the re-icing or the haulage of the
ice furnished in transit. There is to our mind no incon¬
sistency in these findings.
As to the propriety of the principle of stated replen¬
ishing charges in connection with Section 3, we are con¬
tent to rely on the decision of the Commission in I, & S.
514. It is upon the principles therein set forth and the
factors of expense there specified, that the exhibits sub¬
mitted by our witnesses in this case in justification of the
charges set forth in Section 3 have been prepared.
Measure of Westbound Replenishing Charge.
As previously stated, the exhibits submitted by our
witnesses, in justification of the stated westbound replen¬
ishing charges in Section 3, were prepared in accord¬
ance with the rules laid down and the factors enumer¬
ated by the Commission in I. & S. 514.
liv. C. Dearborn, general agent of the Pacific Fruit Ex¬
press Company, Chicago, Illinois (Tr., 2058), Geo. H.
Nelson, manager of the refrigerator department of the
533
Atchison, ïopeka & Santa Fe Eailroad (Tr., 2135), and
Geo. R. Merkitt, general agent of the refrigerator serv¬
ice department of the Northern Pacific Railroad (Tr.,
1158), submitted exhibits in support of the reasonable¬
ness of the charges proposed in connection with Section
3 of the tariff.
Dearhorn Exhibit No. 36 covers various commodities
from the Missouri River territory, namely. Council
Blutïs, Omaha, St. Joseph and Kansas City, moving
Avest, all under replenishing charges, to the States of
California, Oregon and Washington. (Tr., 2061.) The
basis of this exhibit is stated by the witness as follows :
Exhibit 36 is the westbound replenishing charge.
The Interstate Commerce Commission in I. & S.
Docket 514, which was tried some years ago, ren¬
dered a decision wherein they made an allowance of
$4.21 for the haulage of ice Avestbound, that figure
being the difference between the amounts of ice
hauled on cars which AAmre not re-iced in transit and
cars which were re-iced in transit; the contention
being that on cars which were not re-iced in transit
the freight rate covered all the items of expense. It
figured out, I believe, 1,940 pounds was the amount
of ice hauled. The Commission further found that
in the application of the $5 per car charge in the Ar¬
lington Heights case, or from California points to
Chicago, that the distance Avas somewhat greater
than it was in this particular instance. They took
the position that the rate of $4.35 per ton would be
a reasonable charge per ton for haulage of ice, in
this particular instance, which gives a figure of
$4.21.
In making up my exhibit I found that the actual
amount of ice hauled in bunkers is somewhat in ex¬
cess of the amounts as shown in the exhibits pre¬
sented in I. & S. 514. However, in order to get the
same relative figure it would also be necessary, I
believe, to figure out all the cars moved not re-iced
in transit, and make a subtraction of the two, and I
figured by taking this $4.21 that I was playing per¬
fectly fair, and I used that amount rather than to
534
go to tlie extra work of figuring out the amounts on
all the cars which were not interested in this hearing.
I might say further that we used the $3.33 super¬
vision expense in this westbound charge. In I. & S.
514 we assumed and felt that we showed that the
supervision expense was $3 per car. The Commis¬
sion in that instance allowed us 5/6ths of $3 per car,
or $2.50, and I therefore in this same exhibit took
5/6ths of the $4 charge which we are contending is
correct at present, which made $3.33, and I used that
figure. (Tr., 2068-9.)
That exhibit covers all cars, not only those origi¬
nating at the points enumerated, but also those
moving through St. Joe, Kansas City, Omaha and
Council Bluffs, in the year 1918. (Tr., 2085.)
This exhibit shows a net loss to the carrier of an aver¬
age of $4.70 per car, by comparing the expense with the
revenue under the proposed tariff. Due to the fact that
the witness was supplied with an erroneous ice cost at
Milford, Utah, it was necessary to refigure the exhibit on
the correct ice cost at that point. A supplement exhibit
was therefore submitted by the witness under "Dearborn
Exhibit 36-A." (Tr., 5700 and 5702.) This exhibit
changes the result from $4.70 to $4.47 net loss per car on
the average. (Tr., 5703.)
Nelson Exhibit No. 29 covers the entire movement of
transcontinental westbound business for the first fifteen
days of each month for the fruit year November, 1917,
to October 31, 1918.
This is the westbound replenishing charge. It
covers all of the cars moving via the Santa Fe Kail-
Avay for the first fifteen days of each month for the
year. I didn't have time to work up the whole
year's business. (Tr., 2137.) I make a switching
charge on the system lines bnt not on the foreign
lines. (Tr., 2138.)
The only difference in the items chargeable so far
as I. & S. Docket 514 is concerned is the item of
supervision, $3.33 versus $2.50, and 35 cents per
switch versus 25 cents per switch. The ice haulage
535
is based absolutely on the decision in I. & S. Docket
514:. There were 34 cars, so far as the Santa Fe was
concerned that moved billed "Do not re-ice in
transit" with an average bnnker capacity of 9,582
pounds, and in arriving at the haulage of 1,777
pounds I deducted from the average amount hauled
on the cars being re-iced, at the regular icing sta¬
tions, the amount that would be hauled in connection
with these cars billed "Do not re-ice," with the re¬
sult that we show here 1,770 pounds hauled at the
rate of 20.21 cents per hundredweight. This exhibit
shows an excess of the refrigeration revenue on an
average per car of $1.09 over the items properly
chargeable against the service. Of the 223 cars
shown 30 had destinations in Arizona, 191 in Cali¬
fornia, and 2 in Oregon. (Tr., 2138-9.) The com¬
modities are all of those which would come under
Section 3 of the tariff, principally packing-house
products and some eggs. (Tr., 2139-40.)
Merritt Exhibit No. 42 shows the initial, ear number
and amount of ice and salt furnished westbound refriger¬
ated carload shipments moving during the year 1918 and
cost of ice and salt on the year 1919 basis from St. Paul,
Minn., to Butte, Mont., and to Spokane and Seattle,
AVash. These shipments moved subject to westbound re¬
plenishment charges under Section 3 of the proposed
The average cost of ice and salt per car (plus allow¬
ance for ice haulage, switching and supervision) as com¬
pared with the proposed charge in the tariff on cars mov¬
ing to the three destinations named are as follows:
tariff.
Origin Destination
St. Paul to Butte
Cost of Service Proposed
Per Car Charge
$23.47
$20.00
St. Paul to Spokane
St. Paul to Seattle
31.35
60.42
32.50
32.50
The items of ice haulage and supervision are computed
on the basis of I. & S. Docket 514, that is, ice haulage is
figured only on the ice furnished in transit and the su-
536
I)ervision is arrived at by taking the $2.50 per car allowed
in I. & S. 514 and increasing it one-third because of in¬
crease of cost of labor, etc., since that decision was ren¬
dered by the Commission.
The item of switching is figured upon the basis of 35
cents per SAvitch (to and from the icing platform) in
accordance with the basis almost uniformly adopted by
the witnesses in the present proceeding. (Tr., 8309-
8310.)
These exhibits are admittedly representative of the
movement of commodities under Section 3. In fact no
question has been raised either as to whether the ex¬
hibits are representative or as to whether they correctly
reflect the cost of the service. As they religiously fol¬
low the Commission's decision in I. & S. 514, we need
only summarize them, as follows :
Average Cost of Average Proposed
Exhibit Service per car Revenue per car
Dearborn Ño. 36-A $36.97 $32.50
Nelson No. 29 31.09 32.14
Merritt No. 42:
St. Paul to Butte 23.47 20.00
St. Paul to Spokane 31.35 32.50
St. Paul to Seattle 60.42 32.50
These figures amply demonstrate that the proposed
charges in no instance allow a sufficient margin for
hazard or profit and in most instances result in a cost of
service in excess of the proposed reA^enue under Sec¬
tion 3 of the tariff.
537
SECTION FOUE.
RULE 400.
This rule provides for the application of the charges
shown in Section 4 and governs services of icing and re-
icing, except when such service is included within the
stated charges applicable as provided in Sections 2, 3, and
6 of the tariff and describes the commodities to which
Section 4 is applicable.
Shippers' Vieics.
Witness B. W. Edwaeds:
Page 515, Eule 400, A-3. This is in Section 4 and
reads :
"For all ice or salt supplied by carrier or car line,
not included within the stated charges provided in Sec¬
tions 2, 3 or 6, when specific rules in such sections make
reference to this section ; charges for ice or salt supplied
by carrier or car line shall be on the follomng basis ; ' '
and then it goes on and gives the basis of the charge.
We ask for an exception to that rule reading somewhat
as follows :
"On fish or other perishable freight"—now, I have
no particular other freight in mind, perishable freight.
I could limit it to fish. As far as my interests are con¬
cerned, or my position in this case, I will limit it to
fish—"on fish or freight moving in carloads on the car¬
load minimum basis of third class or hither, except as
noted, the carrier will make no extra charge in excess
of the freight rate for the ice or salt used in initial icing
or re-icing between origin and destination as covered by
this tariff," or words to that effect.
Q. Just what do you mean by that? What is the
538
actual effect of that exception, or what will be the actual
effect? What change will it work from the present prac¬
tice? A. The actual effect is that at the present time
on carloads of fish moving on the carload minimum,
there is no charge in C. F. A. or Trunk Line territory
for the icing or re-icing. The effect of this taritï is to
assess that charge on carloads of fish moving on the car¬
load minimum.
Q. You want to take fish out of the provisions of this
tariff so far as those charges are concerned? A. That
is it, exactly. (Tr., 4523-24-25.)
Carloads of fish move in C. F. A. territory, and Trunk
Line territory. On the basis of third class minimum of
24,000 pounds the icing charge has been absorbed for
32 years. It is in every respect a carload movement.
(Tr., 4525.)
There has been no icing charge in addition to the rate.
Xo one knows anything about the history except from
the records. (Tr., 4526.)
Witness E. O'Haea.
We do not object to the payment of a minimum charge
for icing. There are many cars that are re-iced only
with ice and many others that are re-iced with both ice
and salt. The average amount of ice used on our meat
traffic the year round at each icing station is 800 pounds ;
the amount of salt used in connection with such re-icings
varies from 7 to 12 per cent—the average would be 10
per cent. The justification set forth by the refrigera¬
tion committee in memorandum dated Chicago, 111., No¬
vember, 1918, headed "Eegarding Preliminary Proof
of Perishable Freight Tariff No. 1," is as follows:
"The carriers are subject to a certain expense for
the switching, placing, supervision, inspection and
liandling of every car requiring re-icing service, re-
539
gardless of how small a quantity of ice and/or salt
may be required. This, therefore, in certain cases
where only small quantities of ice may be furnished
will make a material increase in the charge per car,
but in many such cases if on basis of the actual
weight of ice and/or salt furnished per car, the car¬
riers would not receive compensation for the actual
cost of services performed."
Surely there is nothing in this justification that would
warrant the assessment of a double minimum, if the
minimum charge is sufficient and no doubt it is, to cover
a case where ice alone is used, where salt in addition to
ice is used a separate minimum should not be assessed,
as the one minimum is reasonable alone where ice alone
is furnished. We don't know why any different minimum
should attach to the butterine and oleomargarine than
attaches to butter and other dairy products. (Tr., 6635-
36.)
Answer.
With regard to the objections made by the witness
E. O'Hara, attention is called to the fact that an amend¬
ment is proposed to Kule 400 whereby a minimum charge
for 1,000 pounds of ice will be made, but that the salt
will be charged for on the actual weight.
The above modification is shown in the letter in the
behalf of carriers addressed to the examiner under date
of October 23, 1919, in Appendix A.
RULE 410.
When shipper performs the initial icing at loading
point, it will be at his expense and the carriers will as¬
sume no responsibility or liability whatever for the ade¬
quacy or efficiency of such initial icing nor for the pro¬
tection of the freight at loading point, nor between load¬
ing point and first re-icing station.
540
Witness R. O 'Haea :
We will be compelled to initially ice many cars of
cheese moving from points within Official Classification
to points within Official Classification in quantities of
15,000 pounds or over, under which movement the rates
include the expense of refrigeration, as found by the
Commission in I. C. C. Docket 7969 ; and this rule should
he modified to take care of cases where the shipper is
to be reimbursed for the initial icing on dairy products
in quantities of 15,000 pounds or over, where less-than-
carload or any-quantity rates are paid or only the freight
rate and the refrigeration rate is segregated from the
current rate which includes both services. (Tr., 6636-
37.)
Answer.
The carriers submit that they have amply shown by
their testimony and exhibits of record in this case that
the freight rates proper cover only the haulage serv¬
ice and do not include the cost of furnishing accessorial
services such as refrigeration or icing to either carload
or less-than-carload shipments.
RULE 415.
When carrier performs the initial icing, if shipper de¬
lays iced car at loading point more than twenty-four
(24) hours from time such cars are set for loading, the
carriers will not be liable for any loss or damage occur¬
ring through failure to re-ice such cars at loading point
and/or between loading point and first regular re-icing
station.
541
Shippers' Views.
AVitness J. Cuetis Robinson :
AAHien a carrier performs the icing service at loading
point and the shipper delays a car beyond 24 honrs from
the time car was placed for loading, he should pay for
such additional ice as may be necessary (at a reasonable
cost) to protect the load to first re-icing point. . This
should in no way relieve the carrier of his duty to per¬
form the re-icing service at loading point; neither
should it modify the carriers' liability under so-called
protective service proposed in Perishable Taritf No. 1
for the charges which are proposed. (Tr., 2493.)
Ansiver.
The witness J. Cuetis Robinson is not interested in
Rule 415 as commodities handled by the shippers rep¬
resented by him move under Section 2 of the tariff and
the situation to which he refers is covered by Rule 215
Avhich has been heretofore fully discussed in this brief.
Principle of Cost of Ice Per Ton and Salt Per Hundredweight Basis.
AVe have heretofore set out the commodities which are
subject to this basis and the territory in which the same
applies. AVe have also stated that there were no objec¬
tions to this basis, and that the shippers of other com¬
modities would prefer to have their shipments move un¬
der this section. They also claimed that it was discrim¬
inatory to permit the commodities therein described to
remain subject to this basis, while denying that privi¬
lege to other commodities. Considerable testimony was
given by witnesses representing shippers of commodi¬
ties now described in Section 4, in support of their con¬
tention that there are vital differences surrounding the
movement of their products and those relating to fruits.
542
berries, vegetables and melons, which are subject to the
provisions of Section 2. Among these witnesses were
R. O'Hara, who is employed in the transportation de¬
partment of Swift & Company (Tr., 6566) ; W. W. Man-
ker, assistant traffic manager of Armour & Company
(Tr., 8862) ; E. Mcöivebist, connected with Bowman &
Company; R. R. Hargis, assistant traffic manager for
Wilsón & Company (Tr., 9026) ; W. T. Hickerson, in the
transportation department of Morris & Company (Tr.,
9387) and C. 0. Cornwell, assistant traffic manager of
the Cudahy Packing Company. These witnesses ap¬
peared at the supplementary hearing in this proceeding
at Chicago. Up to the conclusion of the first hearing at
Chicago very little criticism, if any, had been directed
to the fact that packing-house products and dairy freight
had been made subject to the provisions of Section 4.
At the New York and the Atlanta hearings, however,
certain shippers of fruits and vegetables voiced their
protests against their commodities being made subject
to a stated refrigeration charge under Section 2, while
packing-house products and dairy freight were permit¬
ted to move on the cost of ice per ton and salt per hun¬
dred pound basis. At the Atlanta hearing the examiner
in charge of this case asked whether or not any of the
exhibits filed in the record showed the quantity of the
ice used in reicing packing-house products from Chicago
to the East or to the South, or the prices paid for ice at
various reicing points ; and wanted to know why the rec¬
ord did not contain that informatio]i. Counsel for the
Administration stated that the question had never sug¬
gested itself to his mind, and that he thought that the
issue was as to the measure of the tariff charges shown
in Section 4 (Tr., 7694 to 7696), but that if any informa¬
tion was desired along that line an endeavor would be
made to sui)ply it. Further discussion was had on this
543
subject resulting in a request on the part of the exam¬
iner that the Eailroad Administration prepare data of
the character indicated, and have it ready for presen
tation at a later hearing. Accordingly Examiner Wm. V.
King and Mr. W. H. Wharton, special service agent of
the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Eailway, immedi¬
ately proceeded to develop so far as possible the amount
of ice used and the cost thereof on representative ship¬
ments of packing-house products and dairy freight. One
of the counsel for the Administration got in touch with
the principal packers and shippers of dairy freight at
Chicago and enlisted their co-operation in the prepara¬
tion of the data requested by the examiner. The result
was that when the supplemental hearing was held at
Chicago, the witnesses whose names have heretofore
been enumerated, including Mr. Wharton, but excluding
Examiner King, presented a number of exhibits showing
the required data. The time allowed, however, for the
preparation of the data and the compilation of the ex¬
hibits was so short that it is doubtful that the exhibits
are at all representative; particularly in so far as dairy
freight traffic under refrigeration is concerned. The
Commission has before it, however, such information as
has been furnished by the witnesses named and as is
shown by the exhibits submitted, and may, of course,
make such recommendation with respect thereto as it
may be advised.
Some explanation is perhaps due as to the reasons
which actuated the committee which formulated the tar¬
iff in placing in Section 4 of the tariff the commodities
which are made siibject thereto. These reasons will be
found in the testimony given by the witnesses, E. F.
McPike, P. B. Beidelman and C. E. Bell at the New York
hearing. The substance of this testimony was that the
members of the committee felt that the Commission, in
544
the Private Car Line Case, 50 I. C. C., 652, had set the
matter at rest, and that the Commission was of the opin¬
ion that the proper basis to be applied to the transpor¬
tation of packing-house products and dairy freight un¬
der refrigeration was the cost of ice per ton and salt per
100 pounds.
Measure of Charges Under Section Four.
No serious objection has been offered to the measure
of the charges for ice found in Section 4 of the tariff,
but, as previously stated, some testimony was offered to
the effect that the charges therein found for salt per
hundred pounds were not vdiat they should he. So far as
the charges for ice are concerned, we think that the tes¬
timony of the carriers fully justifies the reasonableness
of the charges found in Section 4.
So far as the charges per hundred pounds of salt are
concerned, which is on a uniform basis of 75 cents per
hundred pounds throughout the United States, the Ad¬
ministration is not in position to recommend any change
at the present time. The investigation which has been
made is incomplete. Consideration has been given to
the advisability of dividing the United States into zones,
and applying varying charges for salt in those zones in
accordance with such figures as might be developed as
to the respective costs of salt therein. Bxit as to this
our investigation is likewise incomplete. The entire
situation with respect to these matters is clearly shown
by the testimony of Mr. C. E. Bell, given at the final
hearing at Chicago, and from which we quote as fol¬
lows :
"Statements have been made in this record that
we were making some investigation in connection
with salt costs as shown in Section 4 of the tariff,
with a view of giving consideration to a zoning of
the country with respect to such costs.
545
This investigation has been very disappointing,
in that the reports Ave have recei\^ed do not contain
complete and accurate information.
We directed that all the railroads compile for each
and every icing station a statement on a form vdiich
Ave furnished, and Avhich form shows the name of the
icing station, the source of the salt supply, the cost
per hundred pounds at source of supply, the freight
per hundred pounds from source of supply to the
icing station, such freight to be computed on the
basis of company material rates, if any are in ef¬
fect; the cost of transfer from cars to storage and
from storage to bunker; the number of tons of salt
used per year ; and that if there A\ms more than one
source of supply, the cost of salt in the bunkers from
each source should be figured, covering the total
amount from each source, and the grand total aver¬
age, to arrive at a cost based on a a\'eighted aver¬
age; then to shoAv the cost of the salt placed in the
bunkers at icing station based on the foregoing
data.
These forms have been received covering a ma¬
jority, if not practically all of the icing stations in
the countrv, but they are defective in many respects.
(Tr., 9396.)
Some of the important stations have failed to indi¬
cate the number of pounds of salt used, making it im¬
possible to shoAV a correct aa^eighted average. Many
of the forms Avhile shoA\dng the cost at point of sup¬
ply and the freight rates to icing stations, failed
to shoAV the cost of transfer from cars to storage and
from storage to bunkers. This is particularly true
of the states consuming the most salt, lUinois,
Michigan, Noav York and Ohio. Illustrating that
situation, a total of 26,492,932 pounds Avas rejAorted
for the State of Illinois, but they failed to shoAV the
cost of labor in transferring, as I have indicated,
on 10,836,200 pounds of that. There is no use in
reading into the record the others, I think. That in¬
dicates the difficulty Ave have had.
Many of the forms have failed to sIioav the freight
rate from the point of supply to the icing station.
As I have said, the instructions Avere to figure on the
company material rates. Some of the lines, includ¬
ing the Pennsylvania Railroad, have shoAvn the
546
movement as free. Other reports show at com¬
mercial rates and still others show at company ma¬
terial rates.
Where contract prices prevail for salt, in many
cases the number of pounds or tons used have been
omitted, making it impossible to determine the ac¬
tual cost based on a weighted average. This is par¬
ticularly true of the south, where most of the icing
is done by private concerns under contract. (Tr.,
9397.)
Under the circumstances I feel that the figures do
not reflect the true situation and so do not warrant
any change in the figures shown in perishable pro¬
tective tariff No. 1, but that a further analysis is
necessary, and we hope that the Commission will be
disposed to allow the existing charges to remain in
effect and the matter will be pursued further by us,
with a vieAV of disposing of the question on its mer¬
its.
I desire to say in my opinion it is important that
no change be made without the most complete in¬
formation. Manifestly, the cost should be averaged,
either countryAvide or by wide territories or zones,
so as to keep the various routes on a parity, not only
from a comparative standpoint, hut to prevent undue
discrimination.
I desire to add that I have all the reports in my
possession, the analysis that I have made, the work¬
ing sheets, and I should be pleased to allow Exam¬
iner King, or anyone else, to inspect them and de¬
termine whether or not they think they are suffi¬
ciently complete for the purpose of this case."
(Tr., 9398.)
We trust, therefore, that, as suggested by Mr. Bell,
the Commission will allow the 75-cent uniform charge
for salt to remain in effect until such time as our investi¬
gation can he concluded, AA'hereupon such change can he
made as may appear to he equitable.
547
SECTION FIVE.
RULE NO. 500.
This provides for the application of the rules relat¬
ing to Section 5 covering protective service against cold
on carload shipments of perishables.
Shippers' Vieios.
AVitness J. Curtis Eobinson:
Application Knie 500.
There is no apparent statement or definition as to
what constitutes carriers' liability under "Carriers'
Protective Service." Option 2 originally provides "un¬
der this option the carrier assumes all liability for loss
due to frost, freezing or heat, not the direct result of
the negligence of the shipper." Tariff was amended by
Circular 14 to I. C. C. 1014 effective November, 1918,
to read: "Under this option the carrier assumes liabil¬
ity for loss due only to freezing or from artificial over¬
heating, not the direct result of the negligence of the
shipper."
Under these tariffs some declaration of liability was
made. The proposed tariff does not seem to include any
declaration whatever. Carriers must be made liable for
acts of negligence. We contend for the original word
ing of the tariff. According to Mr. Johnson, chairman,
of the District Freight Traffic Committee, AV^estern ter¬
ritory, Chicago, in the judgment of the committee the
carriers' liability is the same under the amended form
of Option 2 as under the original form. That being true
the language should also express it. Artificial overheat¬
ing would not take care of smoke or soot damage. Dam¬
age arising from smoke and overheating are two differ
ent elements. The use of the word "only" should b..
548
stricken out as this word is liable to be construed by
claim agents and others to mean that the only damage
recoverable is from frost and overheating and that Op¬
tion 2 would abrogate common laiv liability. In other
words, it should be plainly shown that carriers are re¬
sponsible for acts of negligence.
In fact we want it clearly defined that while freez¬
ing may be the result of an act of God, that the possi¬
bility is that freezing to have caused the damage may
have been the result of negligence on the part of the car¬
rier, which clearly would constitute their legal liability.
Witness 0. W. Tong:
This Avitness stated that provision should be made that
if the shipper desires to make use of Eules 9-D and 9-E
of the Western Classification, he should have that privi¬
lege. (Tr., 4729-31.)
Witness E. S. De Pass:
This witness asks that paragraph (C) be canceled and
the privilege of changing from shippers' protection
to carriers' protection be accorded, as it is permitted to
change from refrigerator to heater protection in Eule
75, Paragraiíh A-1 ; if necessary, to transfer the car, that
a $5.00 charge would be reasonable, that being the trans¬
fer charge proposed by the carriers in Eule 90 and there
being no ice to remove from the bunkers.
Ansirer.
The carriers again direct attention to Item No. 20
paragra])h (D) of proposed tariff, which clearly shows
that they are not attempting to escape any liability for
loss or damage resulting from negligence of carriers.
As to the (luestion of future application of Eule 9-1)
and Hule 9 E of AVostern Classification, this feature has
549
already been fully covered by carriers in their answei
under Item No. 20, paragraph (D).
As to granting the shippers the privilege of changing
from "shipper's protective service" to "carrier's pro¬
tective service", the carriers submit that they cannot
reasonably be required to permit any such change be¬
cause they woidd not be afforded the necessary oppor¬
tunity to prepare themselves or their facilities to render
"carrier's protective service" as they might normally
do at original loading point.
RULE NO. 505.
This rule relates to shippers' instructions covering
shipments moving either under "Shippers' protective
service" or "Carriers' protective service."
Shippers' Views.
Witness 0. W. Tong:
This witness stated that they wanted to get away
from any rules that provided that when shipper orders
a car he must specify the character of service he de¬
sires to use ; that they do not want the carrier to know
when they place the order for a car to load potatoes
whether it is going to move under Option 1 (Shippers'
protective service) or Option 2 (Carriers' protective
service), his reason being that they did not want to be
bothered each season giving carriers estimates of amount
of business to move under "Carriers' protective serv¬
ice"; that there has been a vast amount of discrimina¬
tion in the furnishing of equipment under Options 1 and
2. (See Exhibit No. 3; Tr., 4729-31.)
550
Witness J. CuETis Eobinson ;
We object to paragraph D becanse it will be under¬
stood that shipper has elected to forward goods under
shippers' protective service in the event no stipulation
has been made as to whether they are moving under
carriers' protective service or shippers' protective serv¬
ice. Some shippers are hot familiar with all the
technical details and requirements of tariffs as they are
published by the carriers nowadays and if this rule was
made effective it would permit the carriers to neglect
the shipment entrusted to their care in good faith by the
shipper and would in the eyes of some claim agents re¬
lieve carriers from their common law liability. That
portion about carriers not furnishing or maintaining ar¬
tificial heat should be stricken out and a rule similar
to that carrier in the present tariff substituted to the
effect that carriers will consider shipments forwarded
without declaration of the kind of protective service de¬
sired as being subject to the conditions and charges pre¬
scribed under Option 2. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness H. W. Bishop:
Witness stated that the rules proposed are exactly op¬
posed from the rules in effect in the tariffs to-day, and
which they ask be continued; that they are willing to
pay for the service performed, and willing to take the
burden of specifying when they are willing to take the
risk themselves in transit. (Tr., XXIV, 4348.) Wit¬
ness asked for the privilege of introducing into the rec¬
ord, when he could get it, a copy of the rule that bears
on this contained in the Xational Trading Eules of the
Fruit and Vegetable Industry, which provides that the
seller shall consult the buyer as to the class of railroad
protective service desired; that if the buyer remains
silent on the subject, it shall be .the duty of the seller
551
to forward the goods under carriers' protective serv¬
ice ; in such cases the buyer shall have no right or privi¬
lege of objecting to the payment to the transportation
company of the charges for such protective service.
(Tr., 4346-47.)
On cross-examination of witness Bishop by Attorney
Westlake as to whether witness in stating that the rules
in effect in the tariffs to-day should stand, he was voic¬
ing the views of his constituents. Witness replied that
is the view of practically all the fruit and vegetable
shippers in the United States, as expressed in the newly
constructed national trading rules. (Tr., 4371-72.)
Answer.
The carriers submit that they hold themselves in
readiness to furnish protective service against cold as
authorized by tariffs, but only in compliance with a rea¬
sonable request therefor and that they are entitled to
some advance notice from the shipper.
RULE NO. 510.
This rule provides in substance that the shipper as¬
sumes entire responsibility for loss or damage by heat
or cold not the result of negligence by carriers (except
as may be otherwise specifically provided in the rule)
when shipments are moving under "Shippers' protective
service"; also that carriers will not prewarm cars un¬
der that rule; also that shippers will furnish such false
floors, stoves, fuels, etc., as they may deem necessary;
also provides rules for attention to fires and provides
that the carriers will not place shipments in round¬
houses or carriers' warming houses.
552
"Witness O. W. Tong:
AVitness stated under Kule 510 and these other rules
of the tariff that I called attention to, there is no dif¬
ferentiation at all as between the words "artificial
heat" and "natural heat"; that the words "heat" and
"heating" were used throirghout ; that they want it dis-
tinetly understood that throughout the tariff they are
furnishing artificial heat under shippers' protective serv¬
ice and not protecting shipments against natural heat
where messengers are not in charge. (Tr., 4974.)
AA^itness J. Curtís Kobinson :
This rule permits the shippers to install linings when
in their judgment it is necessary. AA'^e believe Eule 45,
page 8, of tariff would make it possible for carriers to
insist upon or compel shippers to provide false floors,
racks or other fittings or in lieu thereof carriers might
contend the car to be unsafe for transportation and re¬
fuse to accept it as not measuring up to the rules and
regulations as published and on file with the Commission.
Paragraph E.
Koundhousing : AA''e disapproved of the negative state¬
ment of this rule, that cars will not be placed in round¬
houses or other warming houses at any point including
destination for protection of contents against cold or for
relieving of frost from the lading. Even though the
present tariff does carry the clause that cars Avill not be
placed in roundhouses or other warming houses for pro¬
tection of contents from frost or. freezing we contend
that the carrier has no moral right to allow goods to
freeze if by the exercise of reasonable care and facili¬
ties they can prevent it. AA^e believe it to be their duty
to prevent loss where they can by the exercise of reason-
alile diligence. (Tr., 2493.)
553
Ansiver.
As to question of protecting shipments against natural
heat by means of ventilation when shipper does not send
any caretaker in charge of car, the carriers consider that
the interests of the shipper in this respect are fully
taken care of by paragraph (F) of Eule 510, in which the
shipper is given the privilege of forwarding his cars
under ventilation.
As to roundhousing such shipments covered by Eule
510, the carriers submit that such structures have been
erected for the purpose of caring for engines and that
carriers cannot reasonably be expected to use roundhous¬
ing for the protection of perishable freight; to do so
would often jeopardize transportation on account of lack
of sufficient power. The carriers further submit that
the prohibition of roundhousing such cars will lessen the
possibility of discrimination.
RULE NO. 512.
This is the rule governing transportation of care¬
takers with carloads of perishables in cases when the
shipper installs portable heaters.
Shippers' Vieirs.
Witness 0. W. Tong:
Witness Tong stated under Eule 512, page 552, it pro¬
vides that the agent at point of origin will execute a re¬
lease or contract for man or men in charge, using forms
provided for this purpose by initial carrier; that there is
no standard form of contract and that if they are going
to adopt any uniform rules or regulations, that there
should be a standard contract ; that this contract should
provide distinctly that the attendant who accompanies
the car is responsilde only for the condition of the con-
554
tents of the car while in his charge; that many cases
arise where a messenger is not responsible for the pro¬
tection of the property, but that the carrier, due to its
own action in delaying the shipment, etc., is responsible
for any freezing that might occur. (Tr., 4977-79.)
Witness J. CuETis Robinson :
Paragraph A provides that if the shipper installs port¬
able heater in car he must send a man to care for the fire
and one man will be carried free of charge with one con¬
signment consisting of one or more carloads. A con¬
signment might consist of more cars than one man
could take care of to advantage and if the carriers are
going to impose a charge for extra service in supplying
heaters for protection against cold they should give the
shipper the option of sending a man with each car as
cars do not always go to the same destination and some¬
times there are too many for one man to take care of
and properly protect.
Paragraph C.
This rule says that caretakers will be responsible for
the fires in portable heaters and the result of contents
and condition of ears in their charge. We do not con¬
sider it fair and equitable for caretakers to be respon¬
sible for everything that may happen to the contents
of the car when as a matter of fact this responsibility
cannot reasonably be made to extend beyond properly
attending to the stoves. The caretaker has no control of
the carriers' acts. He has not authority over the load
beyond caring for the fires and his control of the ship¬
ment is limited by paragraph A where it stipulates the
shipper "must send a man to care for fires."
555
Paragraph D.
This paragraph provides the caretakers must remove
stoves when they abandon cars. I confess that I am not
familiar with the entire tariff but it seems to me there
should be a provision in connection with this item for
free return of the stoves to shippers. Stoves should be
returned free the same as linings. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness 0. W. Tong:
Witness stated he directed carriers' attention some
days ago on cross-examination to what was an error in
this rule in not providing return transportation from
Illinois to Wisconsin; that the rule should be clarified
so there will be no question but that free transportation
is to be given caretakers who accompany cars from Wis¬
consin into Chicago. (Tr., 4979-80.) Attorney Westlake
stated that it was the intention to include Wisconsin and
if the rule is not clear it will be made so. (Tr., 4980-81.)
Answer.
With regard to the objections made by the witness
Tong because of the fact that the wording of the rule
does not permit the return of the caretakers to the ex¬
tent desired, attention is called to the fact that Ave pro¬
pose to change the second subparagraph of paragraph
(F) to meet Mr. Tong's requirements, as shown in letter
in behalf of carriers addressed to the examiner under
date of October 23, 1919. (See Appendix A.)
As to responsibility of caretakers for the condition of
contents of cars in their charge, the carriers submit that
this is obviously a very reasonable requirement, particu¬
larly in view of the fact that under Item No. 20, para¬
graph (D) of tariff the carriers clearly show that they
are not trying to escape liability for their negligence.
556
RULE NO. 515.
This rule provides for the application of "Carriers'
Protective Service" under Section 5 of the tariff.
Shippers' Vietvs.
Witness Jas. McCabe;
Witness called attention to carrier's Protective Tariff
No. 1, page 523. Witness stated that all carriers' lia¬
bility is against frost, that ivhen goods are shipped un¬
der option and there is a loss, because of overheat, the
carrier will say: "We only protect against cold and if
shippers ivanted protection against overheat they should
have shipped under standard ventilation." (Tr., 1674-5.)
(Witness suggested a commission should be appointed
and investigation made in regard to claims, one by the
carrier and one by the shipper and these two to select
the third to adjust claims.) (Tr., 1675.)
Witness also stated his objections also go to all of
those objections which have been made here by the ship¬
pers. (Tr., 1675.)
Witness E. G. Phillips:
With respect to carriers ' protective service covered by
Section 5, Rule 515, ivitness insists that carriers' lia¬
bility under this section be specified in the terms of for¬
mer option No. 2, which read: "Under this option the
carrier assumes all liability for loss, due to frost, freez¬
ing or heating, not the direct result of negligence by the
shipper." This ivas slightly changed by Supplement 14
to I. C. C., 1014, effective November, 1918, to the folloiv-
ing Avording: "Under this option the carrier assumes
liability for loss, due only to freezing or from artificially
overheating, not the direct result of the negligence of
557
tlie shipper." In both the amended and original form
some declaration of liability was made, but in proposed
taritf no declaration whatever is made as to carrier's
liability, biit witness calls attention to fact that liability
of shipper is stated in no uncertain terms under the
shipper's protective service. Chairman Johnson of dis¬
trict freight traffic committee, western territory, Chicago,
wrote witness that in judgment of committee carrier's
liability under provision of Supplement 14 was the same
as under original wording. The use of words "artificially
overheating," Supplement 14, is not in witness' judg¬
ment proper to take care of smoke damage which occurs
in eases where there is no overheating. Smoke damage
occurs Avithout overheating. Damages from these two
causes are different matters.
Witness objects to use of word "only" in Supplement
14, as liable to be construed by claim agents to mean
that the only damage recoverable is that for freezing
and artificially overheating, and this construction would
entirely abrogate the common law liability. For these
reasons the witness asks that original Avording of the
carrier's liability under option 2 be included in this rule.
Throughout this tariff carriers have been careful to
disclaim liability, and in no case have they stated Avhat
their liability is. Witness is not certain what their lia¬
bility is under this carrier's protective service, but if
it is the same liability that they have in refrigeration serv¬
ice it Avould be nothing more than keeping these heaters
lighted from point of origin to destination, and hauling
the car in a reasonable time. Witness submits that is
hot proper basis for carrier's protective service and not
the basis definitely recognized by carrier's tariff and
actual practice, and in those cases they have for this
charge acted as actual insurers of the goods except for
damage caused by shippers.
558
Cross-Examination hy Mr. WestlaJce.
Witness thinks that tariff should contain a statement
under Enle 515 defining carrier's liability for carriers'
protective service in the terms of the old option No. 2.
(Tr., 9323.)
Witness does not think it necessarily follows that car¬
riers should in other parts of the tariff likewise spe¬
cifically define their liability. Witness thinks this special
service for an increased, or insurance price or obliga¬
tion different from ordinary liability in case of ordi¬
nary shipment, and carrier should prescribe under those
conditions, where they are getting paid, what their lia¬
bility is.
Witness ' answer would be in the affirmative as to Sec¬
tion 2 of the tariff where carrier offers protective service
against heat.
Witness thinks carriers should define their liability
under Section 2 of the tariff, and not absolve themselves
from all liability, except solely the matter of negligence.
Witness is not prepared to say that carriers should
clearly define their liability under Section 2, Section 3,
Section 5, Section 6, but where carrier furnishes this
service at an increased charge, witness thinks carriers
should not continually absolve themselves from liability
with no counter-statement as to what their liability is.
(Tr., 9323-4.)
As to whether or not witness thinks it appropriate that
carriers should, where they offer protective service in
this tariff, clearly define their liability, he would be will¬
ing to leave the matter to the law as it stands. (Tr.,
9325.)
Witness is not satisfied with the present rule as con-
559
tained in Supplement No. 14, but is in part satisfied with
the proposition laid down in option No. 2. (Tr., 9325.)
Witness thinks that the present rule as it appears in
the existing tariff (not the proposed tariff) regarding
carriers' protective service is satisfactory in view of
the fact particularly that the carrier has limited its lia¬
bility, and particularly described the shippers' liability
under shipper's protective service. (Tr., 9326.)
Witness J. CuKTis Robinson :
Paragraph A.
Carriers' Protective Service: This tariff only pro¬
vides that carriers will furnish artificial heat when re¬
quired only in the territory as covered by the tables of
charges in this section but there is no statement as to the
liability assumed in the event the carrier does not pro¬
vide artificial heat for which the stated charge in this
section is made.
Paragraph A also restricts furnishing of heat within
the territory covered by the table of charges in this
section. This is a seeming discrimination against ship¬
ments under shippers' protective service as under ship¬
pers' protective service a shipper assumes entire respon¬
sibility for loss or damage not the result of the negli¬
gence of carriers apparently regardless of destination.
Another objection to paragraph A is that the service
should be extended to all points in the United States
and Canada from Northwestern shipping points.
Paragraph B.
It states that these charges are in addition to the
freight rates. We contend that while the carriers are
entitled to a charge for the heater service if it is per¬
formed, that the freight rate for transportation as orig-
560
inally charged and as increased now includes the charge
for such service as should be given by the carriers in
the protection of the commodity entrusted to them for
transportation by reason of the freight rate being what
it is ; that originally cars were frequently protected with
heaters without charge in addition to the freight rate
and business strongly solicited with a knowledge that
such service might have to be and would if necessary be
given.
Paragraph D.
We object to Item 3 of paragraph D on the grounds
that carriers would be attempting to relieve themselves
by the rule from acts of negligence on their part for
which under the common law they are responsible and
they should not be permitted to do this.
Paragraph F.
Paragraph F is discriminatory. Carriers offer to as¬
sess charges but deny to assume responsibility for
bananas, pineapples, celery, cauliflower, lettuce, spinach,
artichokes, tomatoes and certain other commodities.
Paragraph H.
We object to a charge of $5 per car for transferring
cars on the grounds that this tariff is to be universal.
Any shipment that is acceptable to carriers for trans¬
portation for which they furnish suitable equipment
should not be penalized by reason of some negligence on
the part of the carriers accepting the shijunent for for¬
warding which might necessitate its transferring in
transit. If a charge of this kind was legitimate at all
it slnndd he the actual cost of tlie transfer service and
not any assumed amount. Any transfer that is per-
561
formed should be considered to be performed at the risk
of damage on the part of carriers for wbicb compensa¬
tion will be made to the shipper or owner for any dam¬
age. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness H. W. Bishop:
Witness referred to case 29 I. C. C., 504, optional plan
of service, and stated they now ask that the original rule
wbicb provided for liability in clear, positive, specific
and affirmative terms, be substituted for Eule 515, para¬
graph A. (Tr., XXIV, 4351-52.) Witness stated that
their experience in the matter has been that previous
to the publication of that rule they bad considerable dif¬
ficulty in collecting claims for frost damage; that after
the rule was published they bad no such difficulty with
this optional plan. (Tr., 4352.) In response to question
by attorney Westlake if they would expect under the
original rule the carriers to assume the responsibility for
damage to shipments due to their inherent character or
nature, witness replied "no, sir," the only exception
being "not the direct result of the negligence of the
shipper." (Tr., 4352-53.)
Witness stated be Avanted to ask the Railroad Ad¬
ministration "what we are going to do on a car, for in¬
stance, on wbicb protective service was requested from
California and wbicb might have frozen before it reached
the territory coAmred by these tables of charges?" At¬
torney Westlake replied be Avould not have any remedy
unless the law gave you one. (Tr., 4354-55.)
Witness asked that some provision be made by AAdiicb
a situation such as this will be taken care of, to aa'bicb
attorney Westlake replied that this Avill be taken care of
if allowed to make the added charge to wbicb carriers
would justly be entitled to. Witness stated be didn't
562
object to paying for the service carriers rendered. (Tr.,
4355.)
Witness stated with particular reference to the com¬
modity of bananas, cars are handled under messenger
service, the messenger being furnished by the shipper;
that under the proposed tariff, the railroads charge for
protection on bananas but give no protection. (Tr.,
4357-58.) Witness suggested that one of the ways of
solving this problem is for the carriers to take care of
the bananas and furnish their own messengers and they
would be perfectly willing to pay what that service costs
to the carrier, but in response to question by attorney
Westlake Avhether they would be willing to pay the added
expense which the carrier would be put to in furnishing
these messengers, over and above the present heater pro¬
tective charges which have been proposed in this tariff
on commodities other than bananas, witness replied they
were willing to pay adequate remuneration for the serv¬
ice performed and that is all the answer he could give.
(Tr., 4358-59.)
Witness 0. W. Tong:
Witness stated their objection to this paragraph A of
Eule 515 is the carriers are endeavoring to curtail their
liability by the changes in the wording of the rules ; that
rule should read "the carriers' liability. Under this op¬
tion the carriers assume all liability for loss or damage
not the direct result of the negligence of the shipper"
(Tr., 4981-2) ; that where shipments are moving at the
present time under option 2, there is no element of dam¬
age for which the carrier is responsible, says only the
usual exceptions, the acts of God, etc.; that' they are
responsible for everything under option No. 2. (Tr.,
4982.)
563
Witness stated the application under this proposed
tariff of proportional heater charges would result- in
discrimination against Minnesota and Wisconsin ship¬
pers for the reason that in moving business from Min¬
nesota and Wisconsin shippers, into the State of Illi¬
nois they would be required to pay a charge for heater
protection through from the points of origin, whereas
shipper from the State of Michigan in reaching Illinois
territory would he able to get the benefit of proportional
charges from Chicago into the Illinois territory after
taking care of the cars into Chicago themselves, or hav¬
ing the carriers do so under the tariffs as they exist.
(Tr., 4991-2.) That their objections to the proposed
tariff is that it does not establish proportional or local
rates from Chicago and all Chicago junctions into the
eastern territory. (Tr., 4994.)
On cross-examination of witness Tong by Westlake
as to whether he wanted option No. 2 service from Min¬
nesota and Wisconsin to points in Illinois, witness re¬
plied under the present conditions they would rather
have both options 1 and 2 eliminated altogether and let
the carrier take care of all the business the same as they
do from any of those other stations, and assume the lia¬
bility for the transportation. (Tr., 5047-5048.)
Witness W. A. Schumacher:
The Witness: Our position on that, Mr. Examiner, is
that the price we are asked to pay is too high. By a
reservation in Section P the carriers hold themselves out
to furnish carriers' protective service on bananas but
they will furnish heat at full rates without any responsi¬
bility. Now, it seems to me that if the apple shipper or
potato shipper is offered an option to service Avith full
liability and responsibility and so forth and does not
564
have to send any caretaker along then a banana shipper
should not have to pay the same price because he does
not get as much service. All he gets is the heating of his
car in transit. And Avhat I think should be done is to
give the banana shipper a reasonable rate for the heater
service or for the use of heaters.
Now if the Commission and Eailroad Administration
will look upon that kindly and make such a rate we will
be perfectly satisfied as far as we as shippers are con¬
cerned.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Westlake.
Q. Your idea as I get your testimony with regard to
Rule 515, paragraph E, is that if the carriers are to im¬
pose ujjon your business stated charges provided by
Section 5 they should practically guarantee the safe
movement of the commodity of bananas as they do other
commodities! A. Yes, I think that is a fair statement
of my position. But, however, I do not think that is the
best solution of the question though. (Tr., 8503-4.)
The Witness (continuing) : I think it is a correct state¬
ment to say that bananas are more susceptible to dam¬
age by heat or cold than most commodities moving under
carriers' protective service. I also think it is a fair
proposition to say in all fairness that if the stated
charges for protective service against cold on the other
commodities as provided in this tariff are reasonable
that perhaps a somewhat higher charge should be im-
])osed on bananas providing the carriers guarantee the
same trajisportation of those first commodities. (Tr.,
8504.)
565
W. E. Scott, witness :
Direct Examination by Mr. Thome.
The witness here read paragraph "C" of Knie 515
(page 523 of the proposed tariff), and then stated:
Now, the question has been raised by our folks as to
whether or not in case an insulated car is furnished for
such transportation from a point outside that territory,
as to Avhether the $5 charge also would accrue in addi¬
tion to the stated charge from the first point at Avhich
the rate is published, and there is language in this same
rule which indicates that such might be the intention.
Keferring to paragraph D, sentence 2, we hardly think
that that is justified if such is the intention. I simply
take this occasion to call attention to it.
Another rule which our people find objectionable is
paragraph F in the same rule, 515, which provides that
on certain articles where protective service is given, even
under the carriers' protective service and charge paid,
the carriers will not be liable for damage caused by heat
or cold.
This is said to be due to the fact that certain articles
are particularly liable to be damaged by artificial heat.
Chief among these articles as far as the grocers are
concerned, is candy and chocolate, and also cheese. (Tr.,
9093-9094.)
Witness L. F. Berey :
Chocolate is particularly liable to damage by artificial
heat. (Tr., 9095.)
Mr. AV. R. Scott: AVhile, as Mr. Berry states, choco¬
late is particularly liable or susceptible to artificial heat,
a charge is proposed for performing that service and yet
566
the carriers would exempt themselves from any damage
or loss in the handling of it. (Tr., 9095-9096.)
Ansiver.
While the witness E. F. McPike was on the stand, Mr.
Bishop inquired why paragraph (A) of Kule 515 did not
specifically provide for liability of carrier for all loss
or damage not the result of negligence by the shipper.
Witness McPike quoted from his Exhibit No. 66 (page
81 of printed pamphlet), to the effect that while existing
laws, no doubt, provided clearly for the liability of a
carrier for any loss or damage "caused by it," the laws
are not equally explicit as to the liability of the shippers
and it was thought necessary, therefore, to provide rea¬
sonable rules accordingly in the tariff. (Tr., 2569-70.)
See also Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 53 for explana¬
tion of other matters covered by Section No. 5 of pro¬
posed tariff.
EULE NO. 520.
This rule which relates to "Carriers' Protective Serv¬
ice" states that the charges shown in Section 5 are con¬
ditioned on the understanding that cars will be loaded
within twenty-four (24) hours after they have been placed
for loading and imposes an additional charge of |2 per
car per twenty-four (24) hours or fraction thereof there¬
after. The rule further provides that the detention
charge shall be computed from the time car is placed for
loading to the time that loading is completed and written
shipping instructions are delivered to the carrier's agent
or representative in charge.
567
Shippers' Views.
Witness E. S. DePass:
This witness states that if cars ordered for "Carriers'
Protective Service" are held more than 24 hours at load¬
ing points, shippers are penalized $2 per day, in addition
to demurrage or other charges (Tr., 1444) and that the
Carnation Milk Company objects to such arbitrary charge
unless some actual protective service is performed.
Witness J. Curtis Kobinson :
"Carriers' Protective Service." This rule should be
amended to provide that the time will commence from
the first 7 A. M. after a suitable car is placed for loading.
For instance : If a carrier places a car at 10 A. M. in
the morning the penalty charge should not begin to he
assessed until twenty-four hours after the next 7 A. M.
The particular point about this is the lack of regularity
on part of carriers in spotting equipment. If there was
a definite regular time to spot equipment at various
points it would probably not cause any shipper to sutfer
a serious penalty. There should be a note to the rule
that the charge is to apply providing suitable equipment
is furnished.
Answer.
The carriers point out that under Eule 520 the ship¬
pers are given 24 hours' time in which to load and this,
the carriers submit, is a reasonable period and that they
should not be required to give any more free time he-
cause it might tend to encourage undue detention of
available special equipment needed by other shippers.
568
RULE NO. 525.
When a car for "Carriers' Protective Service" against
cold has been ordered and placed for loading and order
for such car has not been canceled before placement
thereof, a charge of five dollars ($5) per car per twenty-
four (24) hours or fraction thereof from time car is
placed for loading (until car is released by shipper)
shall be collected from party ordering the car, if car is
not used. Such charge will accrue to the initial carrier
furnishing the car.
Shippers' Views.
Witness E. S. DePass :
Wdien car is ordered for "Carriers' Protective Serv¬
ice" and not used, a charge of |5 per day is assessed for
each day held. (Tr., 1444.) The Carnation Milk Com¬
pany objects to such arbitrary charge unless some actual
protective service is performed. (Tr., 1445.)
Witness J. Curtis Kobinson :
Cars ordered but not used: We think $5 is excessive
for furnishing a ear to be shipped under carriers' pro¬
tective service. If no stove has been provided and kept
burning, no additional service has been performed, other
than is contemplated in the rate and even if a stove has
been furnished we consider that no additional service
has been preformed other than was ultimately contem¬
plated in the rate. This rule should be eliminated be¬
cause the carriers will get a penalty for delay to equip¬
ment under the demurrage yirovisions. (Tr., 2493.)
Witness M. C. Kagatz:
Witness stated it was unreasonable to ask them to
])ay $5 if unsuitable equipment is furnished; that if they
569
order a car under option No. 2, it miglit take the greater
part of a week or ten days to furnish it, and about the
time car was furnished they might get a cancellation of
the order. (Tr., 5108-9.)
On cross-examination by attorney Westlake as to hoAV
he Avould have this rule read if it suited him, witness re¬
plied there should be no such rule. (Tr., 5125.)
Witness admitted on cross-examination that when a
man does order a car and does not use it, and it is
through no fault of the carrier that it is reasonable that
there ought to be a charge. (Tr., 5126.)
Answer.
The carriers submit that having prepared and placed
special cars in response to order of a shipper and such
cars have not been used for the purposes for which so
prepared and placed, the carriers are not only entitled
to compensation for the expense involved, but there
should also be an element of penalty against such shipper
so ordering the ears for the detention of such special
equipment, in vieAv of all which the carriers contend that
the proposed charge is reasonable.
RULE NO. 530.
This rule relates to "Carriers' Protective Service"
and provides charges at intermediate stop, hold or re-
consigning points and at final destination when such cars
are not held because of any fault of the carrier. The
charge is f2 per twenty-four (24) hours or fraction
thereof.
Witness E. S. DePass:
Cars under "Carriers' Protective Service" are sub-
,iect to a charge of |2 per day when held in excess of
570
twenty-four (24) hours at destination. The Carnation
Milk Company objects to such arbitrary charge unless
some actual service is performed. (Tr., 1445.)
Witness J. CuETis Eobinson :
There should be a provision in this rule, if any charge
is permitted for the service, which would provide that
the charge would not begin to accrue until twenty-four
(24) hours after the first 7 A. M. after arrival in terminal
yards or at hold points, unless disposition instructions
were given prior thereto. (Tr., 2493.)
Answer.
The carriers point out that the stated charges for
"Carriers' Protective Service" under Eule No. 515 were
predicated upon such service to, hut not after arrival in,
terminal train yards at destination, but Eule No. 530
grants a free time of 24 hours after such arrival. Any
failure on part of consignee to unload the car at the ex¬
piration of such time would result in the goods remain¬
ing under "Carriers' Protective Service," and the car¬
riers submit that they are entitled to an additional charge
as proposed under Eule 530, which furthermore would
tend to prevent possible discrimination.
RULES NOS. 545 AND 550.
Eule 545 relates to the transportation of stoves or
heaters, fittings and fuel therefor, false floors and linings
in the car with freight requiring such protection, and
Eule 550 covers the return movement thereof.
Shippers' Views.
There is no objection to Eule 545 as no charge is made
for the transportation in the going direction of the article
mentioned.
571
With regard to Rule 550, the witness M. C. Eagatz
stated they had trouble in securing the return of linings,
false tloors'used in cars; the consignee is not inclined to
remove the lining and bundle it up and return ; that under
the plan proposed of having the carriers line the car
these difficulties will be removed; that there should be no
charge for the return of the linings as is done in Western
Trunk Line territory (Tr., 5109-12) ; that carriers in¬
variably lose the linings. (Tr., 5111.)
On cross-examination of witness by Mr. Westlake, wit¬
ness admitted that he did not mean invariably, that what
he meant to say is they lose them to some extent. (Tr.,
5120.)
Witness P. B. Betpelman :
In framing this rule it was not intended it shoidd ap¬
ply in connection with cars which had been especially
fitted for potato traffic or other traffic where cars re¬
quired special equipment and the cars are used exclu¬
sively in that service; that on that account it was pro¬
posed to add paragraph F, which will provide that wffien
cars have been fitted for a special character of service
and such fittings are returned intact in the same car and
are virtually, not exactly permanent fittings, but are at¬
tached to the car and built into the car and form a part
of same, the provisions of paragraphs A to E, inclusive,
will not apply, the object of this being to prevent any
misunderstanding consignees or agents might have when
constrning the rule as it now reads. (Tr., 6122.) Wit¬
ness stated the proposed change in the rule will be uni¬
versally applicable and will not apply solely to the New
England territory. (Tr., 6123.)
572
Ansiüer.
One of the carrier's witnesses, Mr. P. B. Beidelman,
speaking with respect to Eule 550 stated: "In framing
this rule it was not intended it should apply in connec¬
tion with cars which had been especially fitted for potato
traffic or other traffic where cars required special equip¬
ment and the cars are used exclusively in that service;
that on that account it was proposed to add paragraph F,
Avhich will provide that when cars have been fitted for a
special character of service and such fittings are returned
intact in the same car and are virtually, not exactly per¬
manent fittings, but are attached to the car and built into
the car and foi'm a part of same, the provisions of para¬
graphs A to E, inclusive will not apply, the object of this
being to prevent any misunderstanding consignees or
agents might have been construing the rule as it now
reads. (Tr., 6122.)
Witness stated the proposed change in the rule will be
universally applicable and will not apply solely to the
New England territory." (Tr., 6123.)
In accordance with witness Beidelman's suggestions, it
is proposed to add a paragraph to Eule 550 reading as
follows :
"When cars have been permanently equipped with
false floors, linings and other fittings, and are used
for a special character of traffic, the false floors, lin¬
ings and other fittings remaining intact in the car of
which they form a part, no charge will be made for
the return transportatio]i of such false floors, linings
or other fittings. No bill of lading will be issued for
the return movement of such cars or for any of the
false floors, linings or otlier fittings remaining tliere-
in."
The proposed modification of Eule 550 is covered by
the letter addressed to the examiner in behalf of carriers
under date of Octol)er 23, 1919, in Appendix A.
ö73
CARLOADS.
Section 5 of the proposed tariff contains special rules
and stated charges on perishable freight, carloads, under
protective service against cold as governed by the gen¬
eral rules and regulations of Section 1 of the tariff, ex¬
cept as otherwise provided in Section 6. As originally
prepared, this section was intended to apply universally
throughout the United States with the exception of cer¬
tain New England railroads, but during the progress of
the hearings in the case, it has been decided to eliminate
from Tables 101, 102 and 103 all stated charges to the
following states :
Connecticut Maryland Ohio
Delaware Massachusetts Pennsylvania
District of Co- Michigan Rhode Island
lumbia (Groups 3 and 4) Vermont
Indiana New Plampshire Virginia
Kentucky New Jersey West Virginia
Maine New York
(9399-9401)
C. E. Bell of the Traffic Section of the Railroad Admin¬
istration testified, with respect to the proposed tariff
as follows:
At pages 1068-1076 inclusive of the record there was
some, discussion at the Portland hearing as to the pro¬
jection of carriers' protective service from points in
western and northwestern states to points of destination
east of the Illinois-Indiana state line. (9399)
At pages 1072 and 1073 of the record I stated that
there is now no heater protective service from points in
Transcontinental or Western Trunk Line territory to
destinations east of the Indiana-Illinois state line; that
it is the common pimctice to remove tlie heaters from
the cars wdien they strike Chicago or the dividing line;
that the carriers in Central Freight Association terri-
574
tory and Eastern Trunk Line territory have never held
themselves out to give protective service either between
points within Official Classification territory or from
points without Official territory into Official territory,
except in so far as that service is provided in tariffs of
certain lines in New England.
I stated further that the Eailroad Administration had
desired to project the service from points west of the
Indiana-Illinois state line to points east of that line;
that the division of operations had been requested to
take steps to see that the service was provided, but that
the division of operations had never finally advised the
division of traffic whether or not the facilities would be
provided; that if these facilities are not provided we
would be forced to eliminate from the tariff the proposed
charges in so far as they intended to apply to points
east of the Indiana-Illinois state line. (9400)
I also stated that there were causes over which the
division of operations had no control, which had pre¬
cluded any final determination of the matter.
Since the Portland hearing I have followed the matter
up further and the situation existing at the time of the
Portland hearing is unchanged. It is certain that this
service cannot possibly be operated during the approach¬
ing season, and it naturally follows we must eliininate
from the proposed tariff all charges for carriers' pro¬
tective service from western points to destinations east
of the Illinois-Indiana state line, including points south
of the Ohio Eiver. (9401)
575
Witness P. B. Beidelman, assistant general traffic
manager of the Great Northern Railroad, made the fol¬
lowing statement on behalf of the committee that pre¬
pared the tariff with relation to Section 5 :
The committee desires to make one or two changes and
to explain more in detail reasons for making exceptions
of the tariffs of certain lines operating in the New Eng¬
land States ; that at the time proposed tariff was drafted
there was not, nor is there at the present time any car¬
riers' protective service or so-called heater car service
in Official Classification territory east of the Indiana-
Illinois state line except in the New England States;
that there is justification for making no change in the
New England territory until such time as this service can
be afforded in Official Classification territory generally,
especially so as the practice in New England territory
has been reviewed by the I. C. C. and approved and there
is no complaint with respect to the present practice or
changes. (Tr., 6116-7.)
Witness also stated another reason for desiring to
make a change is that in making exceptions they over¬
looked the Canadian National Railway and the N. Y.,
N. H. & H. ; furthermore, they have in the exceptions
mentioned specifically vegetables and fruits, whereas
these tariffs cover not only those commodities but other
perishable commodities ; that the exceptions as now
worded are restricted to the State of Maine and change
is desired to include other New England States. (Tr.,
6117.)
Witness stated that change they desire to make on
page 519, beginning at the lower half, below the line,
lower half of the page, we want to make read as follows :
"The provisions of this section will not apply for
account of carriers within the Dominion of Canada,
except as to traffic passing through the Dominion
of Canada, but which has both points of origin and
destination within the United States."
576
(This merely puts at the top the paragraph which is
now at the bottom, the same wording.)
The second paragraph would read as follows :
"Exceptions: The provisions of this section are
subject to contrary rules, regulations and charges as
published in the following taritfs, supplements
thereto and reissues thereof, as they may respec¬
tively apply."
Then list :
Bangor & Aroostook Tariff I. C. C. No. 1458.
Boston & Maine Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No
(I shall have to use the present number—A-1562.)
Canadian National Railways Tariff I. C. C. 894.
Canadian Pacific Tariff I. C. C. No. E-1838.
Maine Central Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No. C-2272.
N. Y. N. IL & H. R. R. Tariff 1. C. C. F-2191. (Tr.,
6117-18.)
The first tariff in which this additional service was of¬
fered on perishable freight service originating in Wash¬
ington, Idaho, was in Transcontinental Freight Tariff
25-B, Countiss' I. C. C. 1002, effective December 19,
1934. (9143)
Eaely History.
Heater service by carriers in the Western territory
was first authorized in tariffs by Western Trunk Line
roads on January 1, 3914. (Beidehnan, 1023.) This
comprised rates from North Dakota, South Dakota, Min¬
nesota, Wisconsin, etc. (Beidelman, 1017.) From
Transcontinental territory heater rates were first pub¬
lished effective December 19, 1914. (Briggs, 1254.) This
includes rates from North Pacific Coast territory, i. e.,
Wasliingtou, Oregon, Northern Idaho and Montana.
( lleidelman, 3024; kloliue, 2234.)
Pi'ior to tliat time, however, it was the practice of some
of the western or northwestern carriers to protect ear-
577
load perishables against cold as far back as 1907, and
possibly a longer period. (Beidelman, 1049.) This addi¬
tional service was performed by carrier without any addi¬
tional charge above the freight rate. (Beidelman, 1051.)
For a number of years the potato shippers of Minne¬
sota, Wisconsin and North Dakota, at their own expense,
lined cars with paper or wooden lining, installed stoves
and provided messengers to attend fires en route; the
carriers in such cases transporting the materials and
messenger wfithout charge, also returning them free to
original shipping point. (Beidelman, 1019.) This serv¬
ice by carrier was performed without tariff authority,
but carriers undertook to remedy this by issuing tariff
in the fall or winter of 1912, wdiich was suspended by the
I. C. C. and was subject to hearing under I. & S. Docket
172, 26 I. C. C., 681. The cause of this suspension Avas
the inclusion of a rule which in substance declared that
carrier wmuld not accept potatoes (carloads) during win¬
ter months unless the shipper furnished lining, stoves,
etc., and sent messenger in charge. (Beidelman, 1020.)
Subsequently, under opinion 29 I. C. C., 504, the Com¬
mission approved tariff offering shipper privilege of
providing his own protection at his risk and expense or
moving under carriers' protection at an additional
charge in cents per one hundred pounds with minimum
Aveight 30,000 lbs., which charge Avas over and above the
freight rate. This tariff Avas in substance the same as
the tariff in effect for similpr service in the State of
Maine (Beidelman, 1022-1023), and Avhich Avas proposed
by carriers as a result of suggestion made by the I. C. C.
in their opinion, 26 I. C. C., 861, namely, that the Amlume
of the potato traffic from the states in question warranted
the carriers in offering a protective service from cold
(Beidelman, 1021),—those charges being based on the
tariff then in effect from and in the State of Maine.
578
(Beidelman, 1096.) Following this was the establish¬
ment of rules and charges from North Pacific Coast ter¬
ritory on a basis similar to those in effect in Maine, ex¬
cept that instead of cents per one hundred pounds, the
North Coast charges were fixed on a flat figure per car¬
load, using a minimum weight of 30,000 lbs. at same
scale of rates to arrive at the carload charges. (Beidel¬
man, 1024-1025.)
Generally speaking, this scale of rates started with a
state rate of four cents per one hundred pounds, which
on basis of 30,000 lbs. per car, would be $12 per carload,
grading one cent per one hundred pounds, or $3 per car
for each additional state traversed. (Beidelman, 1026.)
Proposed Charges.
The committee checking out the new tariff found these
two different adjustments in effect and determined upon
the ''per carload" charge, regardless of weight, as the
logical method of harmonizing all territories (Beidel¬
man, 1027), because it encouraged heavier loading, and
the difference in expense of protective service between
a light and heavily loaded car was negligible. (Beidel¬
man, 1025.) In publishing charges in Section 5 of pro¬
posed tariff an exception was made of the Bangor and
Aroostook Railroad, Boston and Maine, Canadian Pa¬
cific and Maine Central in the State of Maine. (Beidel¬
man, 1038.) Explained by Mr. Beidelman (6116 to 6119,
inclusive).
The adoption of "per carload" basis of charges re¬
sulted in somewhat greater increases from the North
Coast territory by reason of the per car basis having
already been in effect in that territory against Western
Trunk Line territory where present charges are in cents
per one hundred pounds, minimum 30,000 lbs. per car.
579
The commodity in the latter territory, generally speak¬
ing, loads heavier. (Beidelman, 1030.)
Beidelman's Exhibit No. 10 (4081) shoves the average
loading weight of potatoes (carloads) on the Great
Northern from October 15, 1917, to April 15, 1918, from
the States of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South,
to he:
Briggs' Exhibit No. 14 (4095) indicates to what extent
the present charges in Western Trunk Line territory
have been altered, based on a loading weight of 30,000,
36,000, 40,000 and 45,000 lbs. per car. If cars load as
heavy as 45,000 lbs. the proposed rates in that particular
territory represent a reduction in nearly all cases.
P. B. Beiuelmast (1015), assistant general freight
agent. Great Northern Eailroad, St. Paul, Minn. With
traffic department that line since 1900. From 1907 to
1916 inclusive handling perishable freight from a traffic
department standpoint. From June, 1918, to June, 1919,
on committee drafting proposed Perishable Protective
Tariff No. 1.
E. S. Briggs (1241), traffic manager. Pacific Fruit Ex¬
press Company, San Francisco, Cal. Commenced rail¬
roading, local freight department, 1888. Held various
positions in local and general freight office to chief clerk
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
43,709 lbs
50,188 "
41,909 "
39,629 "
48,396 "
43,685 "
43,033 "
Witnesses and Quaxifications.
(For the Administration.)
580
general freight agent, assistant general freight agent
for ten years, thence to Pacific Fruit Express Company.
Frank E. Moline (2207), inspector of refrigeration
and heating service of the Northern Pacific Eailroad, St.
Paul, Minn. In capacity of inspector refrigeration and
heating service. Northern Pacific, for nineteen years.
Duties to look after terminal inspectors on Northern Pa¬
cific between St. Paul and Portland. On road about nine
months out of every twelve.
W. J. Mooney (2852), supervisor of refrigeration and
heating of Great Northern Eailroad, Spokane, Washing¬
ton. In that capacity for four years. Prior to taking
service with the Great Northern was engaged in butter,
egg and poultry packing and cold storage work. As su¬
pervisor of refrigeration and heating on the Great
Northern Eailroad he is on the road practically all the
time and covers the line from Williston, N. D., and west
about once a month; balance of line east of Williston
about once every three months. (2853)
(For the Shippers.)
E. S. De Pass (1428), traffic manager of the Carnation
Milk Products Company, Chicago, 111., which has plants
located in the following states: 2 in Oregin, 9 in Wash¬
ington, 1 in Idaho, 6 in AVisconsin, 1 in Illinois, 1 in
Michigan; also plant in Ontario, Canada. Mr. De Pass
also represents the National Canners Association.
L. F. Sainsbury (1846), connected with Lloyd-Garrit-
son Company, Yakima, AA^ashington. This firm engaged
in buying and shipping fruit. ATith said firm about two
months—prior thereto was manager of the Fruit Grow¬
ers Agency for thirteen months, which concern handled
legislative matters of interest to fruit industry—prior
to that time Air. Saiusbury was manager of the ATakima
581
Valley Traffic and Credit Association, and prior to his
service vdth that association he was agent of the North¬
ern Pacific Railroad at North Yakima, Washington, for
about seven years.
I. L. Plette (1530), manager of the Yakima Valley
Traffic and Credit Association. Worked for the North¬
ern Pacific Railroad at Toppenish, Washington, 1914-
1915.
H. W. Bishop (4336), headquarters at Grand Forks,
N. D. ; traffic manag'er for a number of wholesale fruit
houses located in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Da¬
kota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and Washington.
In that position over five years. Prior thereto and for
the preceding seven or eight years in the general freight
office of the Great Northern and M. & St. L. Railroads.
P. S. Keiser (4438), representing Commercial Club of
Duluth, Minnesota. Started railroading with the Illinois
Central Railroad at Mounds, Illinois, 1904 to 1916, and
from 1916 to January, 1919. Was secretary and chief
clerk to E. B. Boyd, chairman Western Trunk Line Com¬
mittee.
0. W. Tong (4681), traffic manager of the Northern
Potato Traffic Association, 712 New York Life Build¬
ing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for about ten years. Was
in the employ of the rate and other departments of the
C. St. P. M. & 0. at St. Paul and Omaha. 1907, rate clerk
Railroad Commission at Helena, Montana, with whom he
was connected for about eight years, after wliich he was
engaged in private practice I. C. C. work.
Michael C. Ragatz (5061), secretary and traffic man¬
ager for J. C. Pamechon & Company, Minneapolis, Min¬
nesota, wholesale produce concern, handling about 4,000
to 5,000 ears of potatoes and other produce per year. In
that position nearly ten years.
582
J. H. Faerell, (5386), engaged in inspecting potato
cars at St. Paul for about twenty-five years. Performs
this work for a number of shippers. Also attends to
firing the stoves and employs messengers for firing cars
in transit. Handles approximately 4,000 cars, St. Paul
terminals, and an average of about 9,000 cars for entire
year. (5387-5388)
E. W. Hubbell (5435), with firm of J. R. Beggs &
Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, wholesale potato dealers,
with warehouses at various points in Minnesota and Wis¬
consin. Beggs & Company have been in business about
twenty-five or thirty years. Handle from 2,000 to 4,000
cars per year.
W. B. Mumby (5460), traffic manager, L. Starks Com¬
pany, Chicago, engaged in potato business operating in
Wisconsin with between 75 and 90 warehouses in that
state, handling on an average of about 3,000 cars per
year.
H. W. Knoche (5575), .traffic manager, Theodore
Hamm Brewing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, manu¬
facturers of beer up to December 1,1918,—after that time
manufacturers of cereal beverages. Appears also in be¬
half of Shipping Brewers Traffic Committee, consisting
of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, William
Lemp Brewing Company, the Independent Brewing Com¬
pany, all of St. Louis; Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company,
Pabst Brewing Company, Miller Brewing Company, Val
Blatz Brewing Company, WAukesha Brewing Company,
of Milwaukee; also eighteen other brewing concerns.
Comparison op Present and Proposed Charges.
Briggs' Exhibit No. 1 (1242) covers statement of pres¬
ent rates from North Coast territory per carload of any
weight, also from Western Trunk Line territory, based
583
on per car of 30,000 lbs. in weight, compared with pro¬
posed charges per carload of any weight. In addition
to which is approximate mileage haul from representa¬
tive points in each originating state from which heater
charges are now published to representative points of
destination; also the percentage increase, based on the
charges arrived at as shown above.
This statement, showing the proposed rates, represents
in money increases ranging from, f3 per car to approxi¬
mately $16 per car. The percentage increase ranges
from 17 per cent to approximately 67 per cent. An
analysis of the movement indicates that the smaller pro¬
portion of the business is destined to points where the
greater increases are made. The maximum increases in
the majority of cases are made at points where rates are
now out of alignment.
It is estimated that the average increase throughout
both territories is approximately 25 per cent.
Briggs' Exhibit No. 14 (4095) shows a comparison of
proposed charges in Western Trunk Line territory, that
is, from North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa,
upper Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana (Points in
Chicago switching district only) and Missouri, against
present charges, based on loading weight of 30,000, 36,000
40,000 and 45,000 lbs. If cars are loaded as heavy as
45,000 lbs., the proposed rates, with very few exceptions,
result in a reduction; whereas, loaded to a weight of 40,-
000 lbs., the average increase is very small, ranging from
1 8/10 per cent tip, but in no case exceeding 25 per cent.
If loaded to a weight of 36,000 lbs., which is the estab¬
lished taritf minimum weight on potatoes from that sec¬
tion during winter months, the percentage increase in
the majority of cases is below 16 per cent.
Beidelman's Exhibit No. 10 (4081) shows average
584
weight of potatoes, handled by the Great Northern Rail¬
road, ranged from 39,629 lbs. to 50,188 lbs., and on the
basis of the actual loading weight of business handled
by that line from Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and
South Dakota at the rates noAv in effect as compared with
the proposed rates, it would result in an increase of 13
per cent to the business handled to Indiana, points in
Chicago switching district and also the business handled
to northern Michigan. On the business handled from
Iowa, Minnesota, North and South Dakota to the States
of Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Itansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North and South Dakota, the proposed rates
mean a decrease of one per cent to twenty-one per cent.
Briggs' Exhibit No. 6 (1248) covers a comparison of
differentials over Chicago used by the Yakima Valley
Traffic and Credit Association in assessing charges
against their members for "Shippers' Protective Serv¬
ice" supplied en route by the association, as against the
differentials for "Carriers' Protective Service" pro¬
posed in Tariff No. 1. As an example, the Yakima asso¬
ciation charges its shippers |10 over Chicago when busi¬
ness is destined to Indiana and southern Michigan. In
the Proposed Tariff No. 1 the carriers' charge to those
states is $5 per car over Chicago. To western New York,
eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania and "West Virginia,
shippers' charge |15, carriers' charge |10 over Chicago.
To the states east of the territory just mentioned, in¬
cluding New England States, the shippers charge their
members a differential of |22.'50 per car over Chicago
as against the carriers' proposed differential over Chi¬
cago, ranging from $10 to |20 per car.
Briggs' Exhibit No. 10 (1251), map of United States,
showing zones from and to which charges are proposed
for "Carriers' Protective Service Against Cold," and
comparison of present and proposed rates from Oregon
585
and Washington. This shows the logical grading of the
rates as one moves east from the originating territory.
Briggs' Exhibit No. 11 (1252), map of United States,
showing zones from and to which charges are proposed
for "Carriers' Protective Service Against Cold" and
comparison of the present and proposed rates from the
State of Utah, graphically arranged in the same manner
as Exhibit No. 10.
Briggs' Exhibit No. 12 (1252), map of United States,
similar to Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11, showing present and
proposed rates from the State of Minnesota.
Tong's Exhibit No. 7 (4990), showing heater car
charges arrived at by using Western Classification Eules
9-D and 9-E, on the assumption that the 10 per cent in¬
crease applies to the freight charges only, rather than
10 per cent over both the freight and present heater
charges, also present heater car charges to various des¬
tinations against the proposed heater charges. Exhibit
shows, for example, from Princeton, Minnesota to St.
Louis, present heater charge $21.60, proposed $25.00,
on Eule 9-D basis, $9.00 ; Pittsburgh, present $21.60 ; pro¬
posed $35.00, Eule 9-D $14.58; New York, present $21.60,
proposed $40.00, Eule 9-D $17.64.
Could have charges materially lower than under ex¬
isting tariffs or proposed tariffs (except Texas) and still
give the shippers full protection throughout the United
States. (Tong, 4991.)
Tong's Exhibit No. 8 (4995) shows comparison of pro¬
posed charges from the potato-producing districts in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Idaho to various
representative destinations, the approximate mileage
haul, the assertion being made that the proposed rates
are out of line: $25 rate from Minnesota to Cairo, Illi¬
nois, distance of 766 miles, against $25 rate from Minne-
586
sota to Chicago, distance of 450 miles, contention being
made that the whole idea about blanketing rates is wrong.
(Tr., 4995.)
AVitness G. E. Mekeitt offered his Exhibit No. 44,
Avhich makes comparison of charges for "Carriers' Pro¬
tective Service" on potatoes, carloads, as proposed in the
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 (Section 5), and
present tariff charges per car from Minnesota, North
Dakota and AVisconsin to Colorado, Illinois, Indiana
(points in Chicago switching district covered by Agent
L. A. Lowrey's Tariff No. 20-J, I. C. C. No. 37), Iowa,
Kansas, Alichigan (npper), Minnesota, Missouri, Ne¬
braska, North Dakota, South Dakota and AA^isconsin. The
present heater rates with which comparison was made
are published in AV. T. L. Circular 12 G, E. B. Boyd's
I. C. C. No. A-1020.
AA^hile the proposed charges represent some increases
when compared Avith the present charges based on the
minimum weight of 36,000 pounds, nevertheless, fig¬
ured on the average loading Aveight of 43,000 pounds, po¬
tatoes from the three origin states named, the proposed
charges actually represent decreases in all cases except
that to the points in Indiana named and to upper Michi¬
gan there is an increase of 16.28 per cent from Minne¬
sota and North Dakota and from AVisconsin to such
points in Indiana there is a like increase of 16.28 per
cent. (Tr., 8310.)
587
Eates and Services from Western Territory to Official
Classification Territory; Also Locaixy Within Of¬
ficial Classification Territory.
Present rates from the West are not projected east
of Indiana-Illinois state line (Beidelman, 1067), although
records of shippers show that in some cases service is
given over C. P. A. and eastern trunk lines. (Beidelman,
1096-1097.)
There is no heater protective service at present from
Transcontinental or Western Trunk Line territory to
destinations east of Indiana-Illinois state line (Bell,
1072-1073). Common custom of western lines to remove
their heaters at Chicago. Carriers in C. F. A. and East¬
ern Trunk Line territory have never held themselves out
to give heater protective service, except as to the Maine
railroads previously mentioned. Division of Traffic,
United States Eailroad Administration, desires to pro¬
ject this service from points west to points east and the
division of operation was asked to provide necessary
facilities for giving this service, advice of which
would he forthcoming at Chicago hearing. If facilities
furnished, rates would he projected east of Chicago as
proposed in Tariff No. 1. If eastern railroads could
not he equipped, rates and service would be cut off at
Chicago. (Bell, 1072-1074; Beidelman, 2299-2300.)
Examiner Marshall pointed out the peculiar position in
which the Eailroad Administration would be placed if
service not established east of Chicago. (Marshall, 1074-
1075.)
Approximately 25 per cent of business handled by Pa¬
cific Fruit Express Company from north coast, or 575
cars of season 1917-18, destined to points east of Chi¬
cago; 4J per cent, or 100 cars, destined to points south
of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi Eiver; 7| per
588
cent, or 174 cars, destined to Texas points; also 40 cars
to Oklahoma and 42 cars to Louisiana. (Brigg's 4097 to
4100, inclusive.)
Pennsylvania System Tariff, I. C. C. P-1180, effective
December 15, 1918, item 1295, provides :
"Cars equipped Avith Baxter and certain other
types of heaters will be accepted and inspected en
route, fuel will he furnished at charge of 10 cents
per gallon for oil, 2 cents per pound of charcoal,
which charge includes the service rendered in con¬
nection thereAvith. AVhen charcoal is furnished by
shipper and accompanies the car, a charge of 20
cents per car Avill be made for each replenishing of
fire." (De Pass, 1430.)
Wabash Joint Circular 600-A, effective January 1,
1913, supplemented October 18,1917, Rule 22, covers pro¬
tection to be afforded on that line. (De Pass, 1431-1432.)
Yakima Valley Traffic and Credit Association admit
charging their shippers same as railroad tariff Avith dif¬
ferentials higher to Eastern territory. (Sainsbury,
1501-1502.)
Reasons for continuing present rates and rules in New
England territory is that no heater protective service is
noAV offered, and it is not likely that any will be offered
for the coming season, in Official Classification territory.
(Beidelman, 6115 to 6119.)
AYe move a large amount of business from Minnesota
and AATsconsin into the Central Freight Association ter¬
ritory and the shipper sometimes puts notices on his
billing calling for Option 2 service. (Tong, 4983.)
There being no charge in effect east of Chicago for
protective service, the shipper got the benefit, you might
say, of Option 2 service right through to all the eastern
destinations for the rate into Chicago proper. (Tong,
4984.)
589
On two cars of potatoes from North Branch, Minne¬
sota, to Grand Eapids, Michigan, they arrived frozen,
claim declined, suits instituted in District Court at North
Branch, Michigan (19t!a Judicial District), and judg¬
ment rendered against carriers for full loss (Tong,
4985) ; discrimination claimed account southern Michigan
shippers to Springfield, Illinois, get heater protection at
Illinois state rates, wdiile Minnesota and Wisconsin ship¬
pers move into Illinois on stated rates. (Tong, 4991.)
Minnesota and Wisconsin shippers, hoAvever, do not Avant
to he placed in the same position as the southern Mich¬
igan shippers. (Tong, 5048.)
Insist that if Option 2 is published from Minnesota
and Wisconsin to eastern points, then Option 2 charges
must also he published from Chicago to such eastern
points account of Minnesota and Wisconsin shippers
having storage warehouses at Blue Island, Illinois, etc.
(Tong, 4994.)
If we are going to have Option 2 service at all, we
Avant Option 2 service right through to all the destina¬
tions our shipments move, including the Eastern terri¬
tory. (Tong, 5017-5018.)
We have a Avarehouse at Joliet, Illinois. Handle 500
or 600 cars (potatoes) per year, should have Option 2
protection to Eastern States same as from their Minne¬
sota and Wisconsin warehouses. (Ragatz, 5160.)
Canadian Rates to Canada.
The Great Northern carries heater rates to points on
their lines in the United Statues, hut not in Canada. Ac¬
count of joining in customs of other Canadian lines they
cut oflf the taritf at the Canadian border. Witness Bei-
delman, personally, was of the opinion service can be
performed as Avell through to Winnipeg as to St. Paul.
(Beidelman, 2194-2195.)
590
At present time rates and services are projected
through to western Canada destinations, per Countiss'
I. C. C. 1043. (Beidelman, 4346-4347.)
Increases and Decreases.
A somewhat greater increase was made in charges
from North Pacific Coast territory because that territory
at present enjoys "per carload" charge, regardless of
weight. That section was in reality favored with lower
charge per unit of 100 lbs., whereas the "Western Trunk
Line rates, being at present published at cents per 100
lbs., it follows the heavier a car was loaded, the charge
to be paid by consignee for heater service would increase
in volume proportionately to the weight of the load placed
in car. (Beidelman, 1030-1064.)
Beidelman's Exhibit No. 10 (4081) shows Great North¬
ern potato loading, October, 1917, to April, 1918, from
Iowa, Minnesota and North and South Dakota, ranging
from 39,629 to 50,188 lbs. Proposed charges show in¬
crease of 13 per cent to Indiana, Chicago Switching Dis¬
trict only, and northern Michigan points to Colorado,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North and South Dakota the decrease ranges from 1 to 21
per cent.
Briggs ' Exhibit No. 14 (4095) shows comparison of pro-
])Osed charges in "Western Trunk Line territory, based on
loading weight 30,000, 40,000 and 45,000 lbs. When loaded
to the latter weight the proposed charges result in, with
few exceptions, a reduction in the present rates. On
basis of 40.000 lbs. loading, the majority of increases are
small.
The railroads of the State of Maine increased their
heater charges December, 1918, approximately 66 per
cent. (Beidelman, 1033.)
591
Beidelman's Exhibit No. 1 (1036) shows the old and
new rates in effect from representative shipping points
in Maine to various destinations and mileage. On page 2
of that document are shown certain points in Western
Trunk Line territory where approximately same distances
are involved, together with proposed charges under new
tariff. Generally speaking, a result of this comparison
shows that proposed rates in Tariff No. 1 for approxi¬
mately equal distances are considerably lower than pres¬
ent rates published from State of Maine. (Beidelman,
1036-1065.)
The increase from North Coast territory ranges from
17 per cent upward (Briggs' Exhibit No. 1, 1242, also
Beidelman, 1041) from Western Trunk Line territory
increases range from 9-1/10 per cent to 15-7/10 per cent,
based on potato tariff minimum (Beidelman, 1040-1067).
However, the general increase in all territories averages
approximately 25 per cent. (Beidelman, 1032-1092.) Con¬
firmed by Briggs (4097-4102.)
AVhile the per car increase in some cases seems large,
yet when calculated in dollars and cents per car, the meas¬
ure of the difference is comparatively small. (Beidel¬
man, 1043-1044.)
Reiser's Exhibit No. 2 (4451) shows the present rate
per minimum carload and the proposed rate per carload
of any weight from Duluth to various points of destina¬
tion and the percentage of increase in charges, and pur¬
ports to show an average increase of 41 percent.
Reiser's Exhibit No. 3 (4451) is a statement showing
present rates per minimum carload against the proposed
charges per car of any weight into Duluth from various
originating states, and purposes to show an average in¬
crease in charges of 40 per cent.
592
Material and Equipment, in Addition to the Car Itself,
Needed with Shipments Under Heater Protection.
False Floors.
Are necessary for protection against frost during win¬
ter inontlis. (Mooney, 2902.)
False floors were installed in Great Northern cars
within the last five or six years, a considerable period
after freight rates on commodity herein involved were
made. (Beidelman, 1112-1113.)
About forty per cent of the false floors supplied by
Northern Pacific are lost. (Moline, 2272.)
Northern Pacific use No. 1 grade lumber in false
floors, while shippers use much poorer grade on false
floors supplied by them to option No. 1 cars. (Moline,
2274.)
False floors AA'cigh about 720 pounds per car. (Moline,
2273.)
Northern Pacific do not supply false floors to cars mov¬
ing under option No. 1 "shippers protective service"
(Moline, 2251), nor do they furnish floor racks on cars
moving under refrigeration. However, cars which come
to them permanently equipped with racks, such racks re¬
main in the car. (Moline, 2252.)
"We expect and we want the carriers to equip
every car with a false bottom in conformity with the
regulations prescribed by the United States Depart¬
ment of Markets in their Document No. * * *
and then the carriers will paper the cars, every car
that is sent in for loading." (Tong, 5044.)
Tong's Exhibit No. 3 (4732) copies of correspondence
as to plan of liaving all cars equipped with false floors.
See also proposed Rule 505, Tong, 5055.
593
Car Linings (Sides).
For warm air circulation. (Beidelman, 1045-1055.)
Car Heaters. (Beidelman, 1055 ; Bidggs, 1253.)
Northern Pacific place two heaters in each car, one in
each end bunker. (Moline, 2215-2216.)
Great Northern use rope with hook to raise and lower
heaters. (Mooney, 2864.)
Pacific Fruit Express use charcoal heaters. (Briggs,
4117.)
Fuel.
Northern Pacific cannot use old unburned oil taken
from heaters account of being dirty and would smoke and
cause damage to shipment. Oil is either dumped out or
sent to roundhouses to be used in starting fires in loco¬
motives. (Moline, 2221.)
Great Northern strain old oil into a barrel (Mooney,
2863) and reuse. (Mooney, 2905.)
Kerosene—Chicago open market present price 13-^
cents per gallon. Burning 24 hours steadily will con¬
sume 2-J gallons costing 34 cents. (De Pass, 1433.)
Northern Pacific, when using charcoal heaters, place an
additional sack of charcoal in car. (Moline, 2228.)
Papering Car.
One and one-half rolls paper used per car at $1.25 per
roll and about one bunch of lath to about three cars-
( Moline, 2216.)
Ragatz Exhibit No. 1 (5087) shows system adopted by
Minnesota and Wisconsin potato shippers in loading or
preparation of car using false floors in eight sections
with four sections in each end of car, one false door,
paper jflaced over top of false floor also about three feet
up side of walls of car. (Ragatz, 5088.)
594
liagatz Exhibit No. 2 (5088). Pictorial card issued by
the United States Department of Agriculture showing
proper way to load potatoes during winter months.
(Ragatz, 5088.)
Would allow carrier for cost of service for five hun¬
dred-mile haul, which figures were used in arriving at
Ragatz basis for $2 per 100 miles ;
False fioor |4.03
False door .81
Stove 1.41
Paper 1.87
Firing 6.00
Fuel 2.49
Total $16.61
Less $5 car rental and $3 initial expense, balance $8.61.
(Ragatz 5130 to 5136 inclusive.)
"We do not know how much it would cost the carrier."
(Ragatz, 5137.)
The shippers individually, and not the association
(Yakima Valley Traffic and Credit Association) furnish
paper, false floors, false bulkheads, shavings and mattings
(Sainsbury, 1500), except that the association furnishes
these materials when loaded in refrigeration cars and
charges the shipper for same. (Fainhury, 1508.) The
association furnishes heaters, fuel and attendants, charg¬
ing members same as railroad rates, and east of Great
Lakes differentials. (Sainsbury, 1500.)
Cla.ss of Cars Used.
The larger i)ercentage of traffic under carriers' pro¬
tection is handled in refrigerator cars. (Beidelman,
1045.)
On option 2 cars Nortliern Pacific always used in¬
sulated refrigerator cars, hut shippers have moved their
option 1 potatoes in box cars. (Moline, 2265.)
595
On Great jSíortliern if shipper orders car to move tin¬
der option 2, a refrigerator or fully insulated car would
be furnished. If car ordered under option 1 and a box
car was furnished, change to option 2 would not be per¬
mitted. (Beidelman, 2292.) Great Northern use refrig¬
erator cars on option 2. If there is a shortage of refrig¬
erator cars, then box cars are supplied for option 1.
(Mooney, 2289.)
Considerable apples have been moved out of Wenatchee
Valley by Great Northern in box cars late September and
early October, as it was considered safe, but do not con¬
sider box cars between October 15th and the following
April 15th. (Mooney, 2903.)
Yakima Valley Traffic and Credit Association in winter
of 1917 handled 904 cars under "Shippers Protective
Service"—of these approximately 585 were box cars.
(Sainsbury, 1499.) In 1916 many shipments were moved
in box cars, without attention being given them, with con¬
siderable loss. (Sainsbury, 1500.)
Yakima Valley Traffic and Credit Association Business
season 1918-1919 approximately all handled in refriger¬
ator cars. (Plette, 1539.)
Box cars are not suitable equipment at all in winter
time for potato loading. (Farrell, 5408.)
For season 1916-1917 and 1917-1918 L. Starks & Co.
handled from Wisconsin a total of 5,400 cars of potatoes
of which 2,501 were box cars and balance were refrig¬
erator cars, insulated cars and some vegetable cars, all
furnished throughout winter months. Box cars used
account could not get refrigerator cars. (Mumby, 5461.)
596
Factors and Expense Tpieeeof Incident to Heater
Service.
Territory, St. Paul, Omaha and TFesi.
Great Northern have not such items separated in their
accounts and cannot give us details (Beidelman, 1083),
hut have insisted that proper record he kept on each
item. (Beidelman, 1089.)
Pacific Fruit Express Company has complete figures.
Other roads' figures incomplete. (Beidelman, 1090.)
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 2, "Method 1" (1242),
shoAVS analysis of movement, expense incident to "car¬
riers protective service against cold," cars handled by
Pacific Fruit Express Company season October 15, 1917,
to April 15, 1918, with gross and net revenues. The
basis of this exhibit is by use of averages per car, re¬
gardless of distance hauled. Illustration is given below
in comparison Avith other exhibits, and shows a total
average loss of $1.29 per car handled.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 5 (1246) is chart showing
range of increase in wages, cost of car heaters and char¬
coal by the Pacific Fruit Express Company years 1915
to 1918 inclusive. This exhibit shows that during that
period Pacific Fruit Express average wage increased
fifty per cent—price of charcoal increased approximately
77 per cent—and cost of charcoal heaters increased ap-
j)roximately 93 per cent.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 15, "Method 2," (6085),
amending Briggs' Exhibit No. 2 on basis of using the
average figures shown in Exhibit No. 2 for such items
as heater depreciation, fuel expense, etc., for tjie aver¬
age mileage haul of all shipments involved in that ex¬
hibit during season of 1917-1918, which figured 1,120
miles. For greater or lesser distances the amounts are
597
calculated on a percentage higher or lower, as Pacific
Fruit Express mileage haul shown in column 3 bears
to the average haul of 1,120 miles. In Exhibit No. 2
the fractions of cents were dropped, whereas in Ex¬
hibit No. 15 actual fractions were used, which resulted
in an average loss of $1.34 per car instead of $1.29.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 19, "Method 3" (8383), is
a supplement to Exhibits Nos. 2 and 15—statement
showing estimated expense incident to "carriers protec¬
tive service against cold" on carload shipments perish¬
able for season 1918-1919 from Yakima, Washington, to
various points of destination in the territory Omaha,
Nebraska and west.
The following is a comparison of the items of expense
as shown under E. S. Briggs' Method No. 1 (Exhibit 2—
1242) ; Method No. 2 (Exhibit 15—6085) ; Method No. 3
(Exhibit 19—8383) :
To Spokane, Wash.
FROM YAKIMA, WASHINGTON.
To Boise, Ida.
To Salt Lake City, U.
Items
Meth. 1 Meth 2 Meth. 3 Aleth. 1 Meth. 2 Meth. 3 Meth. 1
Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs
Exh. 2 Exh. 15 Exh. 19 Exh. 2 Exh. 15 Exh. 19 Exh. 2
(1242) (6085) (8383) (1242) (6085) (8383) (1242)
Meth. 2 Meth. 3
Briggs Briggs
Exh. 15 Exh. 19
(6085) (8383)
Heater Depreciation I 2.57
Fuel 72
Labor 4.56
Overhead 3.93
Interest
Return of Heater .50
False Floors
Hazard
Extra Switching 3.00
Car Rental 5.00
Paper
Total Expense 20.31
Proposed Charge 15.00
Profit or Loss $ 5.31
Loss
.49
.55
2.57
.93
.14
.50
.72
.26
.87
2.20
4.56
1.64
.75
.59
3,96
1.42
.15
.10
.28
.50
.50
'.50
.50
1.40
1.00
3.'ÓÓ
1.00
5ÍÓÓ
5.ÓÓ
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.87
1ÓÍ9Ó
14.71
22.31
15 T3
15.00
15.00
17.50
17.50
4.10
.29
4.81
2.47
Profit
Profit
Loss
Profit
1.35
2.57
1.83
1.95
.50
.72
.51
.75
4.45
4.56
3.26
6.70
1.59
3.96
2.83
2.34
.38
.55
.59
.50
' ^50
.50
.50
1.40
1.40
3.29
• ....
6.25
3.00
4.33
4.33
6.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.87
1.87
23.33
2Í.'64
18KÍ
33.35
17.50
20.00
20.00
20.00
5.83
1.64
1.19
13.35
Loss Loss Profit Loss
FROM YAKIMA, WASHINGTON.
To Cheyenne, Wyo.
To Denver,
Colo.
To Omaha, Nebr.
Meth. 1
Meth. 2
Meth. 3
Meth. 1
Meth. 2
Meth. 3
Meth. 1
Meth. 2
Meth. 3
Items
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Briggs
Exh. 2
Exh. 15
Exh. 19
Exh. 2
Exh. 15
Exh. 19
Exh. 2
Exh. 15
Exh. 19
(1242)
(6085)
(8383)
(1242)
(6085)
(8383)
(1242)
(6085)
(8383)
Heater Depreciation
$ 2.57
2.71
2.35
2.57
2.92
2.55
2.57
3.87
2.75
Fuel
72
.76
1.00
.72
.82
1.00
.72
1.08
1.50
Labor
4.56
4.81
8.20
4.56
5.18
8.95
4.56
6.87
9.70
Overhead
3.96
4.18
2.84
3.96
4.50
3.09
3.96
5.96
3.34
Interest
.81
.73
.88
.80
1.16
.87
Return of Heater
57
.57
.57
.57
.57
.50
.59
.59
.59
False Floors
1.40
1.40
1.40
Hazard
9.12
9.92
10.42
12.91
Extra Switching
7.50
7.50
8.00
4.Í2
4.12
9.00
5.00
10.42
10.00
Car Rental
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Paper
1.87
1.87
1.87
Total Expense
23.88
2è.34
41.08
2Í.5Ó
23.99
44.15
27.82
34.95
49.93
Proposed Charge
25.00
25.00
25,00
25.00
25.00
25.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
Profit or Loss
$ 1.12
1.34
16.08
3,50
1.01
19.15
2.18
4.95
19.93
Profit
Loss
Loss
Profit
Profit
Loss
Profit
Loss
Loss
600
Bcised on the increased cost of labor and material and
for the same number of cars as moved by Pacific Fruit
Express Company for season 1917-1918, it is estimated
that the average expense per car for the season 1919-
1920 would be—
Heater depreciation $6.46
Fuel .72
1918 labor 5.24
1918 overhead 4.35
Eeturn of heater .50
Heater investment 1.93
With the item of car rental, switching and hazard en¬
tirely eliminated, makes total expense of $19.20. (Briggs,
4104.)
On basis of average revenue 1917-1918 of $14.11 pel¬
ear, Avould require an increase of thirty per cent in
charges to reimburse Pacific Fruit Express for four-
year average of hazard alone, counting no other items of
expense. (Briggs, 4105.) By using all items of ex¬
pense mentioned above (car rental, switching and hazard
included), it would require an increase of over thirty-
six per cent. (Briggs, 4105.) By using the average
hazard coupled with other items (car rental and switch¬
ing excluded) would require an increase in revenue of
approximately 166 per cent. By adding to the above
the item of car rental (switching excluded) it would re¬
quire an increase in revenue of 201 per cent. By using
all items of expense (hazard, car rental and switching
included), it would require an increase of approximately
244 per cent in revenue. (Briggs, 4105.)
Minor repairs are made to heaters during season, then
the entire sui)ply is assembled at end of season for gen-
oral overhauling. (Van Bensselaer, 3235.)
Expense of return of stoves St. Paul to Seattle by
freight 971 cents, oxy)ress $4.415. (Mooney, 2910.)
fiOl
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 17 (8383) covers estimated
labor expense of the Pacific Fruit Express Company in
connection with inspection service carload shipments
during season 1918-1919- (method No. 3) in the originat¬
ing loading territory Oregon and Washington, esti¬
mated at $2.12 per car, exclusive of expense of railroad
labor used, of which no account is taken. The expense
of intransit labor per inspection is estimated at $.744
per inspection, exclusive of railroad labor used, of which
no account is taken. This based on a through movement
from Washington to Council Bluffs.
Tong's Exhibit No. 9 (4996) outlining- theoretical
heater charges based on theoretical expense of $3 per
car for initial service of supplying false floors and paper,
Avith a road charge of $2 per 100 lbs.. (Tong, 4996.) In
addition $2 for placing stove in car. (Tong, 4998.) Also
$2 per car per day without allowance for free time while
car being loaded (Tong, 4999), and $2 per car at destina¬
tion while car being held. (Tong, 5000.) The $2 charge
based on proposed Eule 520, page 523. (Tong, 5004.)
On this casis the theoretical charge, as an illustration,
would be as follows :
To Chicago To New York
From Idaho Falls, Ida .$33.00 From Idaho Falls, Ida .$51.00
From Greeley, Oolo 23.00 From Greeley, Colo 41.00
From Princeton, Minn 13.00 Bh'om Princeton, Minn 31.00
From Waupaca, WT.s 8.00 From Waupaca, Wis 25.00
Ragatz Exhibit No. 3 (5090) shows cost to shippers of
handling protective service, Princeton, Minn., to Kansas
City of $21.61, and includes such items as false floors,
false doors, stove, paper, labor, fuel and car rental.
Changes since exhibit prepared, viz: Quotation on
false floors $1.35 per section, 8 sections, $10.80 instead
of $12.08, and stove $3.75 instead of $4.25. (Ragatz,
5091.)
f)02
Car rental of $5 should be eliminated when carrier
protects. On Northern Pacific false door, wood stove
and wood should he eliminated and substitute cost of oil
stove and fuel. (Eagatz, 5092.).
Drayage of returned stoves by Northern Pacific at St.
Paul cost approximately $25 per month. They are sent
hack to loading territory by baggage or express in pas¬
senger train service. About one and one-half hours per
day consumed by clerk in St. Paul local freight office
wlio handles stove records. (Moline, 2219.)
Great Northern heaters are consolidated at St. Paul
and returned west by train baggage in express refriger¬
ators by passenger train—this necessary to save time
and avoid purchasing additional heaters. (Mooney,
2867.)
We (shipper) pay a man $1 per hour (labor) for tak¬
ing care of cars from Princeton to St. Paul. (Farrell,
5402.) (Mileage Princeton to St. Paul 59.3 miles.)
Legitimate items of cost of heater service are depre¬
ciation, labor, switching if any, overhead (if not in line-
haul rate) (Keiser, 4489) ; use of refrigerator car
(Keiser, 4492) ; fuel (Keiser, 4454) ; hazard (Keiser,
4499).
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 8, "Method 1" (1250), is a
statement showing proposed charges on carload ship¬
ments under "carriers protective service against cold"
from Boise, Idaho, and Pocatello, Idaho, to Denver,
Colo., and Omaha, Neb.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 9, "Method 1" (1251), ap¬
plying from Ogden, Utah, and Denver, Colo., to Omaha
and Kansas City.
The above exhibits to the points named are arrived at
by use of fiat average increase, regardless of distance
603
in so far as it relates to heater depreciation, fuel, labor,
overhead and interest.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 16, "Method 2" (6086),
amends above exhibits and compiled on basis of Pacific
Fruit Express average expense for average haul of
1,120 miles, greater or lesser distances proportionately,
as explained in Note 2 of E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 15.
As an example of the comparative results of Exhibits
8, 9, and 16, giving below the figures from Boise, Idaho,
to Denver, Colo., and Omaha, Nebraska, also from Den¬
ver, Colo., to Omaha, Neb., and Kansas City, Mo.
FROM BOISE, IDAHO FROM DENVER, COLO.
To To To To
Denver, Colo. Omaha, Neb. Omaha, Neb. Kanas City, Mo.
Meth. 1 Meth. 2 Meth. 1 Meth. 2 Meth. 1 Meth. 2 Meth. 1 Meth. 2
Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs Briggs
Items Exh. 8 Exh. 16 Exh. 8 Exh. 16 Exh. 9 Exh. 16 Exh. 9 Exh. 16
(1250) (6086) (1250) (6086) (1251) (6086) (1251) (6086)
Use of Refrigerator Car $ 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Depreciation 2.57 2.10 2.57 3.05 2.57 1.23 2.57 1.46
Fuel 72 .59 .72 .85 .72 .34 .72 .41
Labor 4.56 3.73 4.56 5.42 4.56 2.18 4.56 2.59
Overhead 3.96 3.24 3.96 4.71 3.96 1.90 3.96 2.25
Switching 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Interest 77 .63 .77 .92 .77 .37 .77 .44
Return of Heater .50 . 50 . 56 . 56 . 50 . 50 . 50 . 50
Total Expense $24.08 21.79 25.14 27.51 20.08 13.52 20.08 14.65
Proposed Charge $22.50 22.50 27.50 27.50 20.00 20.00 25.00 25.00
605
Territory, Omaha, St. Paid and East.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 7, "Method 1" (1248), cov¬
ers present and proposed charges, also analysis of ex¬
pense incident to service from Hood Eiver, Ore., and
Yakima, "Wash., to Chicago, Pittsburgh, New York and
Boston.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 8, "Method 1" (1250), cov¬
ers analysis of expense incident to carriers' protective
service from Boise and Pocatello, Idaho, to Chicago,
Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, etc.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 9, "Method 1" (1251), cov¬
ers analysis of expense incident to carriers protective
service from Ogden, Utah, and Denver, Colo., to Chi¬
cago, Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, etc.
The above exhibits are based on Pacific Fruit Express
average cost per car per trip, regardless of distance, up
to Omaha (Briggs, 1262) plus figures beyond Omaha
based on estimates as the mileage beyond Omaha bears
to the mileage up to Omaha. (Briggs, 1270.)
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 16, "Method 2" (6086),
amending E. S. Briggs' Exhibits 7, 8 and 9. Figures in
this exhibit are based on Pacific Fruit Express average
expense for average haul of 1,120 miles, greater or
lesser distances proportionately.
Below will be found comparison of the total expense :
606
To To To To
From Chicago Pitts- New Boston
burg York
Hood River, Ore. (Exhibit No. 7):
"Method 1"
"Method 2"
Proposed Charge
$34.83
43.41
40.00
$41.43
51.74
50.00
$47.62
59.59
55.00
$50.51
62.95
60.00
Yakima, Wash. (Exhibit No. 7):
"Method 1"
"Method 2"
Proposed Charge
34.78
43.25
40.00
41.37
51.55
55.00
47.55
59.43
55.00
50.44
62.76
60.00
Boise, Idaho (Exhibit No. 8):
"Method 1" ;
"Method 2"
Proposed Charge
32.83
35.98
.. 37.50
40.32
44.34
47.50
47.65
52.45
52.50
50.79
55.82
57.50
Pocatello, Ida. (Exhibit No. 8):
"Method 1"
"Method 2"
Proposed Charge
33.03
31.90
.. 35.00 .
41.80
40.30
45.00
50.24
48.24
50.00
53.61
51.49
55.00
Ogden, Utah (Exhibit No. 9):
"Method 1"
"Method 2"
Proposed Charge
33.28
31.15
35.00
42.31
39.56
45.00
50.87
47.49
50.00
54.26
50.75
55.00
Denver, Colo. (Exhibit No. 9) :
"Method 1"
"Method 2"
Proposed Charge
29.32
21.92
.. 30.00
38.13
30.20
40.00
46.66
38.12
45.00
■ 50.05
41.54
50.00
The above comparisons do not include hazard, which
from Washington and Oregon to Omaha average $18.37
per car.
Seattle to Minnesota transfer fuel cost about $3.40,
Seattle to Chicago fuel cost $4.40, Seattle to Boston fuel
cost $7.10, if fires are kept burning constantly. (De
Pass, 1434.)
Cost ,to J. K. Beggs & Company, St. Paul, handling
option 1 cars in 1917-1918—eight runs total 40 cars St.
Panl to Joliet, 111. Messenger (labor) average cost per
trip $19.70—average $3.94 per car.
Six runs, average 6), cars per run, St. Paul to East St.
Louis, messenger per trip $27.40 ; average per car $4.33.
One run, total 5 cars, St. Paul to Savannah, 111., mes-
607
senger per trip fil.50; average per car |2.30. (Hubbell,
5440.)
The above figures do not include personal expenses
based on $3.50 per day salary. At present time imagine
it would be $4 or $5 per day, out of which man must pay
his own expenses. (Hubbell, 5445-5446.)
Car Heaters.
(Number, Kind, Cost, Weight and Type.)
Also Heater Supply Points.
Great Northern Railroad.
Have 3,741 oil heaters and 1,100 portable heaters, or
potato (wood) stoves (Mooney, 2853) in addition to 1,005
Moore heater cars. (Mooney 2854.) Heater attachments
on Moore cars over the old style refrigerator cars cost
in 1917, $113.75. (Mooney, 2921.) Oil heaters weigh
about 51 to 55 lbs. (Mooney, 2854.) Hold 2| gallons of
oil, originallj' cost between $5.00 and-$7.00, cost,to-day
$13.64. Sheet iron portable stoves burn wood or char¬
coal, Aveigh approximately 65 lbs. (Mooney, 2855.) Av¬
erage life of oil heater, 6 to 7 years. Portable stove life
about 3 years. Portable heater costs to-day about $4.35.
(Mooney, 2856.) Great Northern oil heaters will burn
about 72 hours without replenishing (Mooney, 2890), but
they don't trust them over 24 hours. (Mooney, 2928.) Oil
costs about 8|- cents per gallon. (Mooney, 2891.) Wood
portable stoves burn from 3 to 6 hours. (Mooney, 2905.)
On the potato traffic Great Northern tear wood stoves
out of cars at St. Paul and the Burlington put in oil
heaters. None of Great Northern stoves are allowed to
go to connecting lines. (Farrell, 5395.)
Burlington oil stoves hold about 2 gallons of water, 1|
gallons of oil, weight 20 lbs., and are placed in ice box
60S
of car by means of rope, one man on top of car, one man
in ice box. (Farrell, 5396.) Time of just placing heater
in car, 10 minutes. (Mooney, 2892.) About 5 to 10 min¬
utes to refill heater. (Mooney, 2892.) Great Northern
removes heaters at their terminals and replace with
other heaters. (Beidehnan, 2188.)
Northern Pacific Railroad.
Winter season, 1918-19, Northern Pacific had in serv¬
ice 3,500 oil heaters and 175 charcoal heaters. Weight
of oil heaters, empty, 25 to 27 lbs. Hold about 3 gallons
of oil. (Moline, 2205.) With oil added, weight about
51 to 53 lbs. Baxter charcoal heaters, weight, empty, 40
lbs.; filled, 60 lbs. Baxter heaters used by the P. F. E.
constructed heavier and weigh heavier than Northern
Pacific charcoal heaters. Life of Northern Pacific Bax¬
ter heaters about 7 years. Life of oil heaters 7 or 8 years.
(Moline, 2205.) Northern Pacific oil heaters cost $12
each. Cost to-day |15 to |18 each. Charcoal heaters
cost $16.50 in 1913 and will be scrapped after this year.
(Moline, 2225.) Would probably have to pay at present
time from $20 to $25 for heaters. (Moline, 2233.) North¬
ern Pacific send all stoves through repair shops before
beginning of each season. (Moline, 2217.) Keep one
man at Spokane about 4 months at 64 cents per hour, 8
hours per day. Two men Como shops, St. Paul, 5 months
on repair Avork. One man St. Paul, proper, 5 months.
Northern Pacific stoves make about 4 trips per winter
season. (Moline, 2220.1
While heaters may burn 36 consecutive hours, yet the
Northern Pacific won't take that chance; won't let them
run over 24 hours: inspect them every 10 or 15 hours.
(Moline, 2227.)
Yakima Valley Traffic and Credit Association paid $12
plus freight, 58 cents each, for same type of heater as
609
Northern Pacific. (Sainsbury, 1504.) The association
depreciate their small stoves 25 per cent yearly ; large
stoves and floor racks, 10 per cent yearly. (Sainsbury,
1514.)
Pacific Fruit Express Gompanp.
Started season 1917-18 with 1,750 charcoal heaters.
After close of season had 1,680. (Briggs, 1253-4118; cor¬
roborated by Van Rensselaer, 3223.) P. F. E. first pur¬
chased 50 charcoal heaters, November, 1914, which were
out of commission fall of 1918. Of second purchase of 50
heaters, November, 1915, 20 of the stoves were out of
commission fall of 1918. (Briggs, 4117.) P. F. E. heater
average life 5 years ; make average of 1^ trips per season.
(Briggs, 1269-4138.) Considerable damage done in han¬
dling on return of heaters. (Van Rensselaer, 3234.)
P. F. E. heaters weigh 60 lbs. (Briggs, 1279.) To get
proper efficiency from heaters charcoal must be specially
prepared and of proper size. (Van Rensselaer, 3234.)
Witness H. A. Huber testified as follows : Heaters
purchased in June, 1915, and November, 1915, cost $12
and $13.50 each. They are known as the 0. K. Charcoal
Heaters. The first ten purchased were $12 each and the
remaining 485 $13.50 each. In 1916 we purchased 225
Cole Heaters, costing $16 each. (Tr., 6025.) In June,
1917, we purchased 150 more Cole Heaters, costing $16
each. In 1918 we purchased 50 of an entirely new type,
known as the Simplex, Avhich cost us $16.50 each. All
of these are charcoal heaters. The Rock Island employees,
certain Rock Island employees, assisted in the develop¬
ment of heaters known as the 0. K., Cole and Simplex.
We did a vast amount of experimental work on our own
account, and as the experiments progressed we gave the
benefit of these experiments to the manufacturers. We
feel, therefore, that in all probability we get a better
610
price on the heaters which we purchased than some pur¬
chased by other carriers. I have obtained ditïerent
prices from different concerns, and they average about
$21 each for charcoal heaters for the coming winter. (Tr,.
6026.)
I will state in this connection that when we first
started to use the charcoal heaters we have a great deal
of trouble on account of the heaters being out in transit
and that experience demonstrated that the charcoal was
not a proper size and quality. Charcoal for portable
heaters must be about the size of a walnut and it is ab¬
solutely important that it be thoroughly charred, dry,
and without knots or dust. The efficiency of the heat¬
ers depends largely and practically almost entirely upon
the charcoal being of the proper size and quality. We
found that if the charcoal was too large it would not
feed satisfactorily from the magazine into the fire pot.
Furthermore, if there was any undue amount of dust
the latter would check the fire. We also demonstrated
to our absolute satisfaction that charcoal made in bee¬
hive kilns was not satisfactory for the simple reason
that it is not properly charred. If the charcoal is not
fully charred it will smoke and as the heaters are placed
in the cars and there are no stacks to take off the smoke
to the outside it is necessary that we have a charcoal
that is practically smokeless. (Tr., 6026, 6027.)
The effect of the smoke on the commodity which is
being transported in the car is that it Avould naturally
damage and taint that commodity. Our experiments
later on with different charcoals demonstrated that char¬
coal produced in retorts is the only satisfactory char¬
coal. (Tr., 6027-28.)
To witness' knowledge we have not used any other
during the past four years. Wo also found that in get-
611
ting charcoal of the right size, that is, in crushing the
charcoal to the size which we required, it resulted in
somewhat of a waste; in fact, the manufacturers have
told us that it takes from 5 to 6 tons of ordinary lump
charcoal to produce 1 ton of the size that we require.
I do not want to convey the impression, however, that
everything of the charcoal resulting from the crushing
but what we want is an absolute waste. The manufac¬
turers do find a market for what is left, but the charcoal
we require takes 5 or 6 tons for 1 ton for us.
The price of charcoal in 1916 was $20 per ton ; in 1917,
$32; 1918, $48, plus a foreign line freight rate of $2.52.
Those prices were f. o. b. at Cadillac, Mich. (Tr., 6028.)
We also found it necessary to go as far east as Rochester
for some charcoal, on which the freight rate was higher.
I am not able to state the exact freight rate to-day, but
it must have been considerably higher. (Tr., 6028-6029.)
The freight rate of $2.52 per ton was between Cadillac,
Mich., and Chicago, 111. I have no prices for 1919, but I
am frank to admit that the prices are going to be some¬
what less, but not very much. We had no contracts.
(Tr., 6029.)
The following are the heater supply points on the
Great Northern and Northern Pacific:
P. F. E. Co. Great Northern Northern Pacific
Not of record. All heaters are re¬
turned from eastern Portland
terminals of Great Tacoma
Northern to Hill- Seattle
yard. Wash., the Auburn
first point where Ellensburg
they begin to issue Yakima
them on eastboundToppenish
business. From there Pasco
they work from one Spokane
division point to an- Kootenai
other as they are Paradise
612
taken ont of car and Missoula
exchanged for new Bntte
ones. Helena
(Mooney, 2908.) Livingston
Laurel
Billings
Forsyth
Miles City
Dickenson
Glendive
Mandan
Jamestown
Fargo
Dillsworth
Lake Park
Grand Forks
Pemhina
Brainerd
Winnipeg
Staples
Duluth
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Minnesota Transfer
Edgeley
Carrington
Castleton
Sanburn
Crookston
Detroit
Aldrich
Fergus Falls
Valley City
Wahpeton
Cakes
IJttle Falls
Morris
Sauk Centre
St. Cloud
Hinckley
Carlton
Wadena
(Molino, 228Í-2)
C13
The Inadequacy of Pkesent Charges.
P. P. E. average heater revenue received per car for
business handled season 1917-18 was |14.11. The claim
payment for freezing or overheating, average of 4 years,
was $18.37 per car, or claim payment was an average of
$4.26 per car in excess of revenue received. (Briggs,
1255.) Proposed rates are not high enough. (Briggs,
1255, 1276, 1278.)
If I was in the position of the railroads I would not
want to lose money. (Keiser, 4502.)
Agrees that proper time to increase charges is when
the carrier is conducting his business at a loss. (Keiser,
4504.)
From the information I can get, and it is from reliable
concerns, the railroads are losing money hand over fist,
and I want to help them and I would be willing to suffer
for a year or two to get them on their feet. (Keiser,
4504-4505.)
Inspectors, Messengers and Inspection Points.
Some lines send messengers or attendants with trains
to look after heaters and service en route between term¬
inals. (Beidelman, 1077.)
The Great Northern railroad sends attendants with
trains. (Beidelman, 1078.)
Messengers accompany cars either from Troy or
Whitefish, dependent on severity of weather; also on
potatoes from Minnesota. (Mooney, 2869.)
The Great Northern takes temperatures 4 times daily,
6:00 A. M., noon, 6:00 P. M. and midnight. (Mooney,
2865.)
Northern Pacific records temperatures 4 times daily.
GU
inspects ventilators, stoves, fires, doors, drain pipes. Oil
stoves are handled on push cars from storage to cars.
(Moline, 2215.)
Briggs' Exhibit No. 13 (1253), statement of represent¬
ative cars, shoAving temperature record of commodities
taken inside of car and other data of inspection made by
Pacific Fruit Express Company at point of shipment
and at various points en route. Record made of date
and hour of arrival, date and hour of departure, date and
hour of inspection; record of outside temperature, also
inside commodity temperature, center of car both at top
and bottom of load. Pacific Fruit Express Company has
inspectors, but no messengers. (Briggs, 1254.)
Twenty-three regular inspection points on the Union
Pacific System Lines and many other inspections at
points of origin, destination and point of delivery to con¬
necting line. 2 additional inspection points contem¬
plated. (Van Rensselaer, 3223.)
Car, Portland, Oregon, to Council Bluiïs, Iowa, would
be inspected 12 times. At each inspection point there
are from 2 to 4 inspectors employed during winter
months. Other employees of railroad or car line are
drafted into this service. Average wage from 40 to 58|
cents per hour. Railroad bills Pacific Express Company
for actual time of railroad employees. (Van Rensselaer,
3224-3225.)
P. F. E. inspection includes—
Cleaning of cars.
Inspection of ice bunkers.
Plugging of drain pipes.
Inspection of doors.
Inspection of hatch plugs.
Inspection of hatch covers.
Taking temperature of lading after car loaded.
Taking air temperature of car after car loaded.
Each station is equipped with thermometer in perma-
615
nent location and outside temperature records taken,
record taken of side door seals broken by inspectors and
new seals applied (Van Rensselaer, 3227), making rec¬
ord of any other conditions in ofSce file (Van Rensselaer,
3228), replenishing charcoal, emptying ashes. (Van
Rensselaer, 3230-3231.)
Estimate takes one man about 40 minutes to make all
the inspection. (Van Rensselaer, 3233.)
Great Northern estimate one man 20 to 30 minutes on
one car, if more than one car, press into service any¬
where from 4 to 10 men. (Mooney, 2864.)
It would take one man about 25 minutes to install wood
stove in Great Northern car. (Farrell, 5424.) About 5
minutes to take stove out. (Farrell, 5425.)
Allow one hour for installation of a stove, which is
nearer right than 10 minutes. (Keiser, 4453-4.)
Ragatz Exhibit No. 4 (5095), statement showing cost
of firing cars, moved under Option 1 by J. C. Famechon
Company, Minneapolis, 1918-19, which is an average of
17.55 per car (for labor) exclusive of lining, stove, wood,
etc. Reference is made to cars moving to Kansas City.
Briggs Exhibit No. 18 (8383), statement showing esti¬
mated time and estimated expense for labor required to
initially equip cars for carriers' protective service
against cold ; also estimate as to time and expense at des¬
tinations or junction points at time of delivery to con¬
necting lines, in addition to which, estimate of intransit
inspection. This results in an estimated total time of
2 men, 3 hours, counting dead time, at 40 cents, or total
$1.20 for initial equipping car.
Estimated expense of service at junction points of
delivery to connecting line or at destination, including
dead time, and office labor chargeable to inspection, 2
hours and 30 minutes at 40 cents per hour, or total $1 ;
616
origmatiiig and destination or delivery to connecting
line, estimated total expense of $2.20 per car. Intransit
inspection, with dead time, estimated 1 hour and 40 min¬
utes, 45 cents, or total 75 cents per inspection. Con¬
firmed by auditor's figures of grand average at Eeith,
Oregon, and North Platte, Nebraska, 76 cents per inspec¬
tion. (Briggs, 8383.)
INSPECTION POINTS AND MEN EMPLOYED.
PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS CO.
(BRIGGS' EXHIBIT 4 (1245))
(BRIGGS' EXHIBIT 17 (8383))
Station Men
Gerber Calif. R. R.
Ashland Ore. 1
Portland " 1
Reith " 2
La Grande " (New)
Huntington " 2,
Seattle Wash. 1
Spokane " 1
Wallula " 3
A'akima " 4
Glenns Ferry... Idaho 3
Nampa " R. R.
Pocatello " 4
Montpelier. " 3
Butte Mont. R. R.
Ogden Utah 1
Salt Lake City...." 1
Green River. . . .Wyo. 4 25%
Laramie " 4 25%
Cheyenne " 4 25%
No. Platte Neb. 4 25%
Beatrice " R. R.
Council Bluffs.. Iowa R. R.
Denver Colo. 6
Ellis Kan. R. R.
Marysville " 1
Kansas City Mo. 3 50%
Omaha Neb. 1
St. Joseph. Mo. R. R.
And all points of origin and destination
and where delivered to or received
from connecting line; also any points
where cars are delayed 6 hours or more.
GREAT NORTHERN R. R.
(MOONEY 2857 to 2861, inclusive;
also 2874)
NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R.
(MOLINE 2207 to 2215, inclusive; also
2218-2223-2226-2227-2245)
Station
Seattle Wash.
Hollywood
Troy Mont.
Whiitefish
Cut Bank
Havre
Bowdoin
Wolf Point
Williston N.
Minot
New Rockford.. . .
Breckenridge... Minn.
Willmar
Minnesota Tfr....
Melrose
Barnesville
Redlands
Sioux City Iowa
Ihlen Minn.
Sioux Falls S. D.
St. Paul Minn.
Minneapolis "
Minneapolis., "
Fridley "
Superior Mich.
Lake Traverse.. Minn.
Duluth "
Cass Lake "
Sandstone "
Kelly Lake "
Judith Gap Mont.
Clancey "
Butte "
Great Falls "
Devils Lake... .N. D.
Grand Forks "
Fargo "
Men
Frt. office force
4
2
3 and Section
2
4
1 and Car Men
4
6
4
8
6
5 1/3
(Joint)
2 87i%
2 87é%
2
2
1 part
I part
I
I
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
75%
20%
25%
10%
10%
10%
I hr. day
I part
1 part
7 part
2 50%
3
1 50%
Station
Men
Seattle Wash. 2
Portland Ore. I
Auburn Tfr.... Wash. 2
Ell«»*"! • rass..""
Yakima " 2
Pasco " 3
■ rSltSSen""
Spokane -...." I
Park Water " 3
Kootenai Idaho I
Paradise Mont. 2
Missoula " 2
Helena " 2
E"'»!"» • rHiSen""'
Laurel " 3
Billings " 2
Forsyth " I
Glendive " 2
Dixon N. D. 1
Mandan " 2
Jamestown " 2
Fargo " I
Dilworth Minn. 2
Staples " 2
NorthtownTfr.... " 3
Minneapolis " I
Minnesota Tfr.... " 3 (Joint)
St. Paul " I and Helpers
Duluth " I
618
. Movement and Geowth of Business.
Great Northern.
Beidelman's Exhibit No. 9 (4079), showing total num¬
ber carloads of potatoes loaded at stations in Minnesota,
North and South Dakota; also number of such cars han¬
dled under "Carriers' Protective Service" during win¬
ter months as follows;
Season Season Season
1916-17 1917-18 1918-19
Total number cars potatoes
loaded 5853 6271 6586
Number of cars under
' ' Carriers ' Pro tective
Service" 2832 3855 5188
Percentage under "Car¬
riers' Protective Serv¬
ice" 41% 61% 79%
Total movement potatoes (carloads) loaded at stations
on Great Northern in Montana, North Dakota, South Da¬
kota and Minnesota, as follows :
Season July, 1916, to June, 1917 9,528 cars
" " 1917, " " 1918 11,099 "
" 1918, " " 1919 14,394 "
(Beidelman, 4080.)
Principal business under Option 2 is apples and pota¬
toes. (Mooney, 2877.)
Pacific Fruit Express Company.
E. S. Briggs' Exhibit No. 3 (1245). Following cars
handled by Union Pacific System Lines under Option 2 :
Apples binder Option 2
(Briggs, 6139)
Season 1914-1915 68 cars 62 cars
" 1915-1916 324 " 225 "
" 1916-1917 2291 " 1426 "
" 1917-1918 2315 " 1415 "
" 1918-1919 3261 " 2185 "
619
Total movement of all commodities for 1918-19, 3261
cars. Difference between apple movement and total
movement consists of a few cars of pears, cabbage,
onions, and balance potatoes. (Briggs, 6139.)
Keiser's Exhibit No. 4, statement showing carload
heater traffic from Stone-Ordean-Wells Company of Du-
luth, Minn., from October 15, 1918, to April 15, 1919 :
2 cars to Wisconsin
2 " " Minnesota
23 " " North Dakota
13 " " Montana
Total 40 cars
If deprived of privilege of railroad employees protect¬
ing their business en route (free of charge) would cost
them |900 yearly. (Keiser, 4457.)
Tong's Exhibit No. 1, production by carloads of pota¬
toes in various potato districts of United States as pre¬
pared by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Official estimate of production in carloads of 700 bush¬
els, weight of 60 lbs. per bushel, shows the following il¬
lustrations :
Tong's Exhibit No. 2. Number of bushels of potatoes
on hand in various producing states January 1, 1918, as
determined by the United States Department of Agricul¬
ture :
State
1917 1918
54,286 49,942
51,300 40,800
49,997 47,342
48,000 46,800
42,189 34,857
28,928 32,000
New York
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Maine
(Tong, 4682.)
620
New York
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Maine
58^0 "
60% "
507o "
55% "
60% "
58% of production
Colorado
Usually about 50 per cent of the business moves prior
to January 1st and about 50 per cent moves after Jan¬
uary 1st of each year. (Tong, 4683.)
The bulk of the potato traffic out of St. Paul via the
Burlington. (Farrell, 5391.)
Minnesota and Wisconsin seed potatoes move in Jan¬
uary principally to Texas and Louisiana, some to the
southeast. February movement gradually moves north,
points in Arkansas and Oklahoma, in March some move¬
ment to Arkansas and Oklahoma. (Ilubhell, 5438.) J. E.
Beggs & Company, St. Paul, handle from 1,000 to 2,000
cars potatoes each winter under Option 2. Average load¬
ing slightly over 36,000 lbs. (Huhbell, 5457.)
Great Northern.
There is expense in switching cars en route on Great
Northern in order to perform heater service account of
being cheaper to switch to some designated point in yard
to look after the heaters and replenish the fuel than it is
to have men carry cans of oil and sacks of charcoal over
yard between tracks. (Beidelman, 1122.)
Switch cars to designated tracks at Hillyard, Wash¬
ington, Great Falls, Montana, Livermore, Minn., St. Paul
and Minneapolis, Minn. At Whitefish heater and ma¬
terial are sent to cars and distributed by push cars. At
Havre, Wolf Point, "Williston, Minot, Now Eockford and
Breckenridge handled in the same way. (Mooney,
2862), and ;it Willmar ti'aiii lieaded in on track No. 1
Switching Sekvice on Heated Caes.
621
and use a switch engine to distribute heaters alongside of
train.
IVhen snow is had or impossible to use main line, heat¬
ers are loaded on sleds instead of push cars and sleds
are pushed up and down track. (Mooney, 2927.)
Special switching is performed and chargeable to op¬
eration of heating other than Avould be performed on
other cars drawing into the terminal or division point.
If they do not render heat it is not necessary to switch.
(Mooney, 2930.) About an average of six or seven cars
per drag at Hillyard. (Mooney, 2932.) Sometimes the
heater house is two or three miles from where Great
Northern can handle heater cars, therefore must switch.
(Mooney, 2933.)
Pacific Fruit Express Company.
E. S. Briggs' testimony corroborates for account of
Pacific Fruit Express operation as to expense of switch¬
ing cars to icing platforms and designated tracks at in¬
spection points. (Briggs, 1264.)
The switching of cars to ice house or designated
tracks is on account of the labor—must handle ladder,
rope, thermometer, fuel, etc. (Briggs, 1280.)
Trains in which cars under "carriers heater service"
are handled will average less than five cars per train
over Oregon Short Line and Union Pacific.
Switching also desiralfie to avoid personal injury risk.
(Briggs, 1281.)
Switching shown on Briggs' Exhibits 7, 8 and 9, serv¬
ice east of Omaha based on estimates or theory beyond
Pacific Fruit Express Lines. |1 per car per switch used.
Average 10 switches North Coast to Omaha, 3 switches
between Omaha and Chicago, 3 switches between Chi¬
cago and Pittsburgh, 3 switches between Pittsburgh and
622
New York, on the theory that cars will have to be in¬
spected at each divisional terminal. (Briggs, 1284-
1285.) $1 per car per switch based on Eoseville, Cab,
operations where summer conditions prevail through¬
out the year. Cost of switching average drag of 16 cars
to ice house, |5.82, or $.364 per car—on Oregon Short
Line and Union Pacific heater cars average less than 5
cars per train—divide $5.82 by 5=$1.16 switching ex¬
pense per car. However, only use $1 per car. (Briggs,
1286-1287-41-45-4146.)
Cars on Union Pacific are sometimes switched for in¬
spection but am not in position to say in how many in¬
stances it was done one way or the other—not on road
enough to say as to this. (Van Eensselaer, 3230.)
Service.
A. T. £ S. F.
At present the Santa Pe Eailroad do not provide
heater car service in transit. The only protective serv¬
ice they supply is heat at division points before depart¬
ure or at destination while car is standing on track.
If weather conditions are severe, stove is installed and
charge of $2 per day. (Nelson, 1126-9.)
Great Northern.
On eastbound business install one heater in each
bunker at Hillyard, Wash., a point about 4 miles east of
Spokane. (Mooney, 2856.)
In majority of cases cars move out of Hillyard with
both heaters lighted, in other cases they are lighted at
Troy, Montana, 135 miles east of Hillyard. (Mooney,
2857.)
AVlien Great Northern light fires, they start both
stoves. On potatoes fires are started when outside tem-
623
perature 20 degrees above, other commodities when tem¬
perature 10 degees above zero.
When outside temperature falls below 15 degrees above
zero third stove is installed in head-end bunker. (Mooney,
2866.)
Northern Pacific.
Places two heaters in cars, one in each bunker, and
when it is extremely cold three heaters are used. (Mo-
line, 2223.) The majority of stoves on eastbound busi¬
ness are lighted at Spokane and Park Water, Wash.
Sometimes lighted at loading points and ears are heated
before being set for loading; that is, at Yakima, Wash.,
sometimes at Auburn and Ellensburg. (Moline, 2224.)
Northern Pacific last winter, generally speaking, pre¬
heated all cars going into potato section, which brought
about better results than contrary practice of previous
years. (Moline, 2263.)
Northern Pacific started false flooring option 2 cars
in 1914 and started in 1918 to papering floors and sides
of cars. (Moline, 2216.)
Season 1918-19 Northern Pacific started prewarming
cars before loading or as car was being sent out to load¬
ing points. About 75 per cent of cars prewarmed. (Mo¬
line, 2221.)
Have had little complaint from shippers. (Moline,
2224.)
Northern Pacific have had cases where cars have been
held week or ten days at Spokane account temperature
on line further east being between 32 and 52 degrees
below zero. (Moline, 2222.)
624
Pacific Fruit Express Co.
Have used every avenue open to improve service, not¬
withstanding' Avhich our average claim payment was
118.37 per car. (Briggs, 1255.)
All cars on Union Pacific are handled in expedited
service. (Van Eensselaer, 3230.)
J. Curtis Robinson, traffic manager Northwestern
Fruit Exchange, Seattle, Wash., in letter December 16,
1918, addressed to Pacific Fruit Express Co., writes :
"I think that your company has been one of the
foremost in the study of this problem (he is speak¬
ing of heater service) and that you are as anxious
to determine what is the best way of keeping this
fruit in as nearly the same condition as when it left
shipping point as any of the shippers in the north¬
west." (Briggs, 6090-6091.)
At Toppenish during daytime could carry two stoves
two blocks; install in bunkers of car in half an hour.
(Plette, 1533-34.) At night it would probably require
from three-quarters of an hour to an hour, sometimes
longer. (Plette, 1534.)
No inspection at that point. (Plette, 1536.)
The shippers of Duluth preheat all cars whether mov¬
ing under option 1 or option 2. (Keiser, 4458.)
Keiser Exhibit No. 5. (4497.) Heater car card used
l)y Duluth shippers and placed on cars of perishables
requiring heater attention. (Keiser, 4497.)
Duluth shippers want option 2 service. (Keiser, 4498.)
We expect that cars moving under option 1 shall make
schedule time and where railroad delays cars they should
afford some protection. (Ragatz, 5385.)
Great Northern messengers from potato districts into
St. Paul take care of both option 1 and option 2 cars in
tlie train.
625
111 addition to his salary from the railroad, the rail¬
road messenger was also paid so much per car by ship¬
per for taking care of option 1 cars. Northern Pacific
do not send messengers. (Farrell, 5389-5390.)
The switching on the Great Northern and Northern
Pacific on option 1 cars is the same as on option 2 cars.
(Farrell, 5406.)
Option 2 service is much superior to option 1 service.
(P^arrell, 5429.)
Want optional service through to Arkansas, Okla¬
homa, Texas and Louisiana account seed stock moving
January to March. (Hubbell, 5438.)
Option 2 service operated by carriers is to a certain
extent better than option 1 service operated by carrier.
(Hubbell, 5453.)
Until the past season J. R. Beggs Company loaded
practically everything option 1. (Hubbell, 5458.)
Tong's Exhibit No. 5. (4988) Illustration of kind of
service given option 2 shipments. (Tong, 4988.)
Admits substance is a complaint as to character of
service he has been receiving, which is not in issue in
this case. (Tong, 5054.)
Tong's Exhibit No. 6. (4989) Discrimination between
option 1 and option 2 service. (Tong, 4989.)
Admits substance of this exhibit is not in issue in this
case. (Tong, 5053.)
Protection needed into Oklahoma; also Avants rates
into Texas. (Tong, 5003.)
Ragatz's Exhibit No. 5. (5097) Intended to show
discrimination by carriers in furnishing equipment for
option 1 service as compared with option 2. (Not at
issue in this case.)
626
Hazaed.
Briggs' Exhibit Xo. 3. (1245) Statement showing
risk involved and claim payments account freezing dam¬
age on cars moving under option 2 "carriers' protective
service" over Union Pacific System lines:
The average four years hazard was $18.37 per car ■
Avhile the average heater revenue for season 1917-18 was
$14.11, Avhich amount lacks $4.26 per car of being suf¬
ficient to meet the claim payments.
What Mr. Wicks says (about hazard on apples) must
be correct, because first season we were in the heater
business. While we admit we did not know as much
about it as we do now, we carried two cars into New
York as baked apples. We paid for cars account of
overheating. Our temperatures through which busineses
is handled not uniform account of going over mountains
and varying elevations. This requires great vigilance.
(Briggs, 6143-6146.)
Great Northern burned man to death at Breckenridge
year ago (1918) when heater exploded and before he
could get out of bunker. (Mooney, 2866.)
Great Northern oil heaters must be changed at each
inspection point and new ones installed for reason that
oil shi])ped in metal containers, coming in contact with
heat or cold, forms water through condensation. This
water settles at bottom of heater and freezes, which im¬
pairs the heating cfiiciency. (Mooney, 2906.)
Season
1914-15
1915-16
1916-17
1917-18
Average claim per
car for season
$24.01
10.28
18.27
19.44
General average
four seasons
for
18.37
627
Great Northern have protected by heat westbound
shipments of condensed milk. (Mooney, 2912-13-14.)
Entitled to something for hazard. (Briggs, 2188.)
Hazard should be taken into consideration in making
heater rates. (Keiser, 4499.)
Northern Pacific have had three or four fires—^burned
np one or two cars. (Moline, 2217.)
Lettuce and vegetables freeze very easily while canned
goods is less liable to freezing. (Moline, 2241.)
One claim will more than offset salary of inspector, or
claim on one car likely to amount to one man's salary
for year and a half. (Moline, 2246.)
Handling shipments under protection from cold more
difficult than handling shipments under refrigeration.
(Moline, 2247.)
The claim situation on option 1 shipments is one of
the things that has made it desirable for shippers to use
option 2. (Hubbell, 5453.)
L. Starks & Company experience about three to one
claim loss on potatoes handled in box cars than those
forwarded in refrigerator cars. A good many box cars
on which loss of four, five, six and seven hundred dollars
per car. (Moline, 5463.)
Canned Goods.
{Including Canned Milk.)
Carnation Milk Products Company has built several
condensarles in the middle west to help supply the east¬
ern demand. They ship into all sections as far east as
Maine, and protective charges proposed in Section 5
will work a serious hardship to their business account
of their competition being from manufacturers whose
G28
plants are located in the east near the markets with lower
freight rates. (De Pass, 1437.)
Condensed milk not included in present heater tariff.
Condensed or evaporated milk is not actually a perish¬
able article, not affected by age, heat or ordinary cold
Aveather, and does not need heater service. (De Pass,
1438.) Yet in few cases when shipments unusually de¬
layed, were frozen. Also a car from west moving east
delayed Avas damaged. (De Pass, 1438.)
Carnation Milk Products Company shipped approxi¬
mately 1,500 cars Avinter 1917-1918. (De Pass, 1447.)
Tavo cars sustained freezing; one car from Ferndale,
Washington, December 21, 1917, to Philadelphia, claim
$527.55, value of car approximately $5,500 (De Pass,
1448) ; one car Ferndale, Washington, to Philadelphia,
November 27, 1917, claim $2,900, value of car approxi¬
mately $5,500. (De Pass, 1451.) Both moved in a re¬
frigerator car, and value of car condensed milk will run
about $6,000 per car. (De Pass, 1452.)
Witness subsequently made an affidavit that the car of
November 27, 1917, AA'as a box car.
If canned milk set out on a porch in a temperature of
22, 24 or 26 degrees it might freeze. (De Pass, 1456.)
Witness De Pass admits that carriers cannot antici-
])ate weather to be encountered, therefore to be on safe
side carriers must be prepared to give maximum service.
(I)e Pass, 1455.)
Want privilege of asking for protection from cold,
paying Avhat it is Avorth for service accorded (De Pass,
1446-1457-1464), and if carriers would not assume re¬
sponsibility for safety of shipment, would not want pro¬
tective service. Further, they prefer to ship under
"shippers protectiA'e service." (De Pass, 1446.)
629
Kefrigerator cars were not built primarily for pur¬
pose of carrying condensed milk. Our company lias been
in business since 1899 and the business was in its in¬
fancy at that time. (De Pass, 5564.)
In making heater rates on condensed milk witness De
Pass is willing the following factors should be consid¬
ered :
Fuel—On car Ferndale, Wash., to Chicago, fuel
cost |4.40 maximum for one stove.
Kental on stove.
Expense transporting stove—Same rate as on
commodity which it accompanies.
Expense of return stove.
Labor.
Heater depreciation.
Interest. (De Pass, 1459-1463 inch, also 5568.)
Car rental improper, also labor, overhead and
switching improper. (De Pass, 5570-5571.)
Shipments made when it was fifty degrees below
zero. (De Pass, 1463.)
Charcoal for car heaters must be specially prepared
and cost largely in excess of $16.50 per ton. (Westlake,
1475.)
Bananas.
Witness W. A. Schumacher, who is largely engaged in
the shipment of bananas, testified as follows; During
the winter months the delicacy of the fruit requires the
company to stand ready at all times to heat the cars, both
before and after they have been loaded. At North At¬
lantic ports, where we are accustomed to having long
cold winters, practically all cars are heated before and
after loading by means of oil heaters, and to a large
extent this is also necessary at gulf ports. Before the
cars are loaded, they are prepared with heavy building
paper, and during extreme cold weather they are double
papered, both floor and walls and bulkheads.
630
Last winter the company nsed paper for lining cars to
the value of $27,318.65. In addition to being papered,
the cars are strewed over the floor and around the sides
and ends as a further preservative, and the company ex¬
pended, last winter, on hay and straw for this purpose,
$18,604.15. The company expended for fuel oil to
heat the cars, $1,627.74, and it had invested last winter
$8,652.50 in oil heaters, a.s per the inventory at the close
of the year. In addition to these items, the company ex¬
pended for labor in handling the paper, straw, repairs
to oil stoves, etc., more than $10,539.74 and purchased
$5,473.95 worth of lumber for building stove bins, which
are placed in the cars to provide a place for the stoves
for heating after the cars have been loaded. It will
be observed that the company spent over $53,024.49 for
labor and material in preparing cars for shipment dur¬
ing the winter months, and in addition has a large in¬
vestment in oil heaters, no mention, however, being made
of the investment in storage rooms for the stoves and
oil, which in itself is considerable. The figures covering
labor costs are incomplete as some of our divisions do
not segregate this expense and no figures could be ob¬
tained from them.
The company has found it necessary not only to ex¬
pend the sums mentioned in preparing cars hut also to
maintain and operate several fruit warming houses at
great expense. These are located at Mounds, 111., Du¬
buque, la., and Eouses Point, N. Y., with others in con¬
templation. When the cars pass these points, such of
them as require heating are placed in the fruit house and
warmed up. After the cars get beyond the fruit houses
and need heat, the only thing that can be done is to place
oil heaters in cars or get them under warm cover.
All cars shipped by this company are, of necessity,
placed in charge of messengers or caretakers who care
631
for the fruit, icing, ventilating or heating it as conditions
require. These caretakers must be highly trained spe¬
cialists as to the conditions affecting a proper delivery
are so numerous as to make it entirely impossible for
shippers to give any general instructions that will en¬
able inexperienced persons to care for the fruit properly.
Each car of bananas is an individual case and requires
individual handling. Generally speaking, a banana mes¬
senger should have a year's experience, including all
seasons, in order to become a full-fledged competent mes¬
senger.
As stated above, all cars shipped are under the pro¬
tection of messengers and the total-expense for this serv¬
ice for one year, ending June 30, 1919, was $242,777.96.
In addition to the figures I have quoted, there was also
heavy expense for messenger service absorbed by our
customers, as some of them furnish their own messenger
service. In some cases this is done for the entire dis¬
tance the fruit travels and in other cases we bring it to
a certain point and deliver it there to the consignee's
own messengers, but we are unable to give any figure
of their expense.
Our messengers are employed for the sole purpose of
caring for the fruit in their charge and to render the best
possible service they can to deliver the fruit in good con¬
dition. As traveling messengers remain with their cars
in the railroad yards or wherever they may be, it is im¬
possible to reach them for giving them necessary instruc¬
tions except by means of the carriers' telegraph wires,
but in such cases the telegrams are addressed to the
railroad companies who give the information to the mes¬
sengers, they being the most competent to carry out the
instructions. Any messenger found to be incompetent,
unreliable or furnishing false reports is dismissed and
the company at all times solicits the co-operation of the
632
carriers in keeping its messenger service up to a high
standing of efficiency and integrity. (Tr., 8499-8502.)
deferring to expenditure of about |240,000 for a given
period for messenger service. I could not approximate
the number of cars involved. I don't know how much
that is in the Northwest. "When I spoke of an invest¬
ment in heaters, I had reference entirely to the port of
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Mobile,
New Orleans and Galveston, Avhen we are in service there.
"We are not using it right now. (Tr., 8506-7.)
At the ports, before the cars are loaded, the stoves
are placed in a row down the center of the car. After
the fruit is loaded, Ave build a stove bin that is the width
of the door, and about two or three feet in depth. That
is used as a place for the stoves, after the cars have
been loaded. Now, that situation is not so pronounced
at Ncav Orleans. In other words, the temperature is
milder and we do not have to heat them after they are
loaded. Now, when the cars move into the interior and
stoves are needed, they are placed in the ice hunkers.
(Tr., 8510.)
When I refer to |5 for stoves, that was just a gen¬
eral figure I heard talked there in the East. I do not
know whether we could get them to-day at that price.
(Tr., 8513.) I am willing to admit that the cost of the
Pacific Fruit Express stoves is more than ours, because
we use a very cheap stove in the East. The stoves we
use are similar to that used by the Pacific Fruit Express
Co. (Tr., 8514.)
On shipments out of New Orleans the caretakers do not
generally go to destination of the cars. These messen¬
gers are handled in relays as witness finds that he gets
better service tiiat Avay. On a car moving via St. Paul,
the first messenger tin vols from Noav Orleans to Mounds
633
and another messenger travels from Mounds to Du¬
buque ; a third messenger from Dubuque to Minneapolis,
and a fourth messenger for the car, if it goes beyond
Minneapolis. (8504-8505)
The Fruit Dispatch Co. does not give free messenger
service to all territories on account of the long hauls
and the expense. We give free messenger service to
Kansas City, St. Paul, Chicago and Milwaukee, Cleve¬
land, Detroit, Southeastern territory, and that territory
in between there generally speaking is all free messenger
service. If the ear goes beyond these points and we fur¬
nish the messenger we make a pro rata charge for his
time. But on the other hand there are some shippers
who do not want us to furnish the messengers at all.
They prefer to use their own service, particularly ship¬
pers in the Northwest. They accept the fruit right here
on the wharf in New Orleans and run their own mes¬
sengers all the way through. Then we have other con¬
signees, particularly our Denver trade who send their
messengers down to Ft. Worth. We carry the fruit to
Ft. Worth using our own messenger, and deliver the fruit
there to the Denver consignee's messenger. That is the
way it is handled.
According to the practice in the Pacific Northwest, in
so far as shipments in the United States are concerned,
messengers accompanying cars of bananas are provided
by the purchaser of the fruit. When business moves into
Canada via Calgary and such points, witness' concern
supply those messengers all the way through.
CONCLUSION AS TO SECTION FIVE.
On carload business there is no dispute about the pro¬
priety of stated charges. There has been some difference
in practice as between a stated charge per car and a ton¬
nage basis, but the reason Avhy the committee adopted
634
the stated charge per car basis is clearly, and we think
convincingly, stated by Mr. Beidelman (1024-7) as set
forth above.
As has been stated, aside from the northern New Eng¬
land territory, there has never been a heater car service
in Official Classification territory. It is needless to say
such service is unknown in Southern Classification terri¬
tory.
In Western Classification territory, heater car service
came into being on January 1, 1914, scarcely six years
ago. For this reason, it is obvious that the line-haul
rates in Western Classification territory, which nobody
suggests have been increased since 1914 to cover heater
service, were never predicated upon the cost of such
service. Much less can it be said that the present West¬
ern Classification rates which have remained practically
unchanged since before heater service began except for
the universal percentage increases, were never predi¬
cated on such service.
Practically all the heater car service in the country
is rendered in the Western Classification territory, and
when we consider the widely different climatic conditions
in that territory as between the Canadian border states
wliere the lowest temperatures in the country are found
in winter, and southern states, where there are seldom
harmful temperatures, both of which are embraced in
that classification, it is obvious that the classification
ratings applicable to all of the southern part of the ter¬
ritory coidd not have been made on the basis of including
expense of heater car service on a comparatively few
roads in the northern part of the territory. It is evi¬
dent, tlierefore, that where heater car service has been fur¬
nished it was a question with the individual carriers, ap¬
plicable to a comparatively small area of the country,
635
during a comparatively short period of the year, and
that such service was furnished, where no charge was
made in addition to the haulage rate, for competitive
or other practical reasons.
In so far as carload business is concerned, this service
began in January, 1914, under separate stated charges,
in cents per hundred pounds of freight. In December
of the same year the service was inaugurated from the
North Pacific Coast on a stated charge per car basis.
The service was new and experimental and in both in¬
stances there was marked uncertainty as to just what
would be a compensating charge.
The cost of the service rendered by the railroads was
not segregated from the regular operating costs and
they have not been in position to obtain accurate fig¬
ures. It was only one private car line that was able to
determine to any degree of certainty just what this serv¬
ice cost.
It is for this reason that the carriers have been able
to submit in this case what may seem to be meagre tes¬
timony on the cost of heater service.
The Pacific Fruit Express Company, however, has
gone into the cost question thoroughly and in detail,
and Briggs Exhibits Nos. 2 (1242), 15 (6085), and 19
8383) are all that could be desired in the way of details.
The degree of progress accomplished by Mr. Briggs in
working from his Exhibit No. 2 to his Exhibit No. 19
shows a commendable and earnest desire to develop, with
what information is available, as near as possible, the
actual cost of the service.
These exhibits are fully described above, and need
comment here only to point out sharply the facts shown
in Briggs Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, viz:
636
1.
On 2,315 cars, the entire business for the year,
1917-18, the average revenue per car was $1411
The average loss and damage claims paid for
the four seasons 1914-1915 to 1917-1918, in¬
clusive, per car amounted to $18.37
The average loss and damage claims paid for
the season of 1917-1918, per car, amounted to $19.44
Nothing could show more vividly the hazard involved
in this class of service. It is not the failure of the heat¬
ers, alone, that must be considered, but also the dan¬
ger of overheating or smoking the contents of the car.
2.
Briggs Exhibit No. 2 shows that, from an oper¬
ating standpoint alone, and without consider¬
ing the question of hazard at all, there was an
average deficit on the 1917-1918 business of,
per car $1.29
Amazing as it may seem, it is nevertheless the nncon-
troverted fact that, in spite of the use of the most mod¬
ern methods and equipment on the P. F. E. business, as
shown by four years' record in Briggs Exhibit No. 2, an
increase of 201 per cent would be absolutely essential to
make the P. F. E. heater car service self-supporting, to
say nothing of remunerative. (4105)
Corroborative testimony concerning the high cost of
rendering heater car service is found in the foregoing
figures submitted by shijipers' witness W. A. Schu¬
macher. (8499 to 8505)
The average increase in heater service rates contem-
])lated by this tariff was 25 per cent. It appears, how¬
ever, from Briggs Exhibit No. 14 (4095) that on load¬
ings of 45,000 pounds the proposed rates would in many
cases effect actual reductions; that on loadings of 40,000
637
pounds the average increase is very small, ranging from
1-4/5 per cent up to, but in no case exceeding 25 per
cent. If the cars are loaded with potatoes, to the estab¬
lished minimum (36,000 pounds) the proposed rates will
effect an increase in a majority of cases below 16 per
cent.
Upon such a conclusive showing of fact, it seems to us
that there can he no doubt that the measure of the pro¬
posed charge is amply justified.
Since heater car service was inaugurated on the west¬
ern lines in 1914, there has been more or less controversy
between the western and Official Classification lines which
refused to furnish heater service or to participate in
the settlement of loss and damage claims on heater pro¬
tected shipments originating in Western territory.
The situation thus created is somewhat anomalous,
and as one witness said, was like starting a man off from
the Pacific Coast on a transcontinental trip in mid¬
winter and taking his overcoat away from him at Chi¬
cago.
As has been stated, the heater service provisions of
this tariff are not made applicable in the East because
tlie Official Classification lines (with the exception of the
Xew England lines) are not equipped to render the
service. The unremunerative heater service rates that
have existed and still exist, have offered no encourage¬
ment to the western carriers to make any substantial in¬
vestments to improve the service, or to the eastern car¬
riers to inaugurate the service.
If the heater service as now rendered by the western
lines is insufficient or inefficient, it is certain that an in¬
crease (where such increase is contemplated in the pro-
jmsed tariff) in the rates will enable those carriers to
make smdi improvements in the service as may be neces-
638
sary to remove the grounds of criticism of the shippers,
as to the alleged defects in the present service, and, until
heater service rates are established upon an adequately
compensatory basis, there is no reason to expect the east¬
ern carriers to incur the expense of establishing the
service or to assume the risks attendant upon its opera¬
tion, either within Official Classification territory, or, in
conjunction with the western lines, for transcontinental
movement of perishable freight during cold weather.
SECTION 6—LESS CABLOADS.
Although the heater car service on 1. c. 1. shipments
of perishables is provided for in Section 6 of the tariff
(Tables Nos. 118 to 126, pages 592 to 618, inclusive),
this service is handled in the same way as heated car¬
load freight (2230) and therefore the subject is so closely
analogous thereto as to render its discussion here more
convenient than elsewhere.
What has been said at the beginning of this subject
with respect to the portions of the country to which Sec¬
tion 5 of the tariff is applicable, applies also to the 1. c. 1.
heater car service provided for under Section 6 thereof.
What we have said heretofore regarding the propriety of
stated charges for carload heater service, applies with
equal force to the propriety of 1. c. 1. heater service, and
need not be repeated.
While the tariff does not apply to New England terri¬
tory, this class of service is so novel as to afford few ex¬
amples from which authoritative cost figures can be ob¬
tained without directing our attention to the New Eng¬
land roads, where twenty years of the service has given
them experience that will doubtless be valuable to the
Commission in determining the reasonableness of the
proposed 1. c. 1. charges.
639
Witness George E. Wicks testified (6127) that for ten
years he was general freight agent of the Bangor &
Aroostock Eailroad, and has been in railroad traffic
business since 1882 (6128); that the Bangor and Aroos¬
tock Eailroad furnishes heater car service for 1. c. 1.
shipments (principally fruit, canned goods and various
freight apt to be damaged by frost), northbound from
Boston," Portland and Bangor to Houlton, Presque Isle,
Fort Fairfield, Caribou and Van Buren, Maine (6132),
by means of the use of the heater cars of the Eastman
Heater Car Company. The Eastman Company furnishes
and maintains the cars and gives all necessary attention
to the heating of the cars and the supervision of the
service. A protective service charge in addition to the
freight rate is made and the railroad assumes liability
for freezing or overheating of the freight. (6199)
Wick's Exhibit No. 1 is a statement of 1. c. 1. move¬
ments under heater service for the month of February,
1919, segregating the traffic into classes, and showing
the charges for the heater service, the cost of the service
and a comparison with the heater protective service
charges shown in Section 6 of the proposed tariff. (6132)
This exhibit covers 39 cars containing an aggregate of
341,000 pounds. For this heater service the railroad re¬
ceived $434.11 (in addition to the freight charges) and
paid to the heater car company $363 for the car, heat
and supervision, leaving to the .railroad $71.11, or an
average of $1.82 per car for its hazard and profit.
The heater charges proposed in this tariff on the
shipments involved would yield approximately $100 less
than the amount the carrier received under existing
charges. (6133) To be more specific, among these 39
cars were 15 moving from Bangor, including one car¬
load, on which the direct service charge was $105 or $7
per car, payable to the heater car company. The ex-
640
isting protective tariff charge was $115.32, or a differ¬
ence on the 15 cars of $10.32. This gave the carrier
68.8 per car cents for profit and hazard. (6134) Un¬
der the proposed tariff the charges on these cars would
have aggregated $91.62 or $23.70 less than the present
rates. On the 12 Portland cars the direct service charge
payable to the heater car company was $114, and the ex¬
isting tariff charge was $78.11, producing a deficit to
the carrier of $35.89, or $2.99 per car. The proposed
tariff rates on this traffic would have aggregated $79.68
or $1.57 more than the present charges. On the 12 Bos¬
ton cars the direct service charge paid to the heater'
car company was $144, and the existing protective tariff
charge was $240.68 (6135), leaving $104.68 (or $8.75 per
car), to the carrier for profit and hazard. The proposed
tariflf charges would have aggregated $165.10 or $75.58
less than the existing charges.
The large margin on the Boston cars was due to their
heavier loadings and to the higher rates from Boston.
(6136) The present heater car rates on the Bangor &
Aroostook E. E. were approved by the Commission in
1912 in the case of Boston Potato Receivers Assn. v.
Bangor & Aroostock R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C. 159. (6161)
The direct service charge which the carrier pays the
heater car company does not necessarily represent the
cost of furnishing the service. (6162) The heater car
service under the present tariff is a straight percentage
of the class rates applicable to the commodities shipped.
The percentage is 20 per cent from Bangor and 25 per
cent from Portland and Boston. This percentage method
of charges has been in effect for 20 years. It com¬
menced with at 10 per cent and when it was found that
they were doing hi;sincss at a loss, it was increased to 15
per cent and later to 20 per cent. Then they left Bangor
at 20 per cent and the Boston and Maine, and the Maine'
641
Central Railroads, which are the originating roads south
of Bangor increased their rates to 25 per cent. (6168)
The percentage basis was thought to he proper because
the higher the class of freight the higher are the claims
for damage from frost. The effect was to apply higher
charges to higher rated commodities and lower charges
to lower rated commodities. (6169)
As stated in the discussion under Section 5 of the'
tariff, when the proposed tariff was originally prepared
it was the intention of the committee to apply to the ter¬
ritory east of the Indiana and Illinois state line, as well
as to the territory west. An exception, however, was
proposed with respect to carload service in New England,
the idea being" to let the situation, in that respect, in
that territory remain as it is at present, but the inten¬
tion was to have the tariff apply to New England on
1. c. 1. business. This application has already been elim¬
inated from the tariff for reasons stated by witness P.
B. Beidelman, and above referred to.
Witness Beidelman stated that while there are some
slight differences in the rules and charges in the New
England territory as compared with those proposed in
this tariff for the territory west of the Indiana-Illinois'
state line where the service is now offered, there is not
and still will not be any competition on this L c. 1. traf¬
fic, which is generally confined to short hauls ; that under
all circumstances and considering the climatic conditions
existing in the New England territory, it is felt best to
continue for the present the rules and charges framed
by the New England lines to suit their peculiar condi¬
tions in the territory and which, so far as is known,
are satisfactory to the New England shippers. (Tr.,
XXXI, 6124-5.)
Much of the testimony referred to in the discussion of
G42
Section 5 of the tariff, relating to cost and character of
equipment, hazards and conditions of the service, is
equally applicable to this discussion and will therefore
not be repeated.
Considering the heater car service as a whole, there
is no testimony in the record that Avould support a sug¬
gestion that the haulage rates ever included compensa¬
tion for 1. c. 1. heater service. Hence there is no opposi¬
tion to the propriety of stated heater charges.
The only objection to the proposed tariff provisions
respecting 1. c. 1. heater service was based on the theory
that to charge for the service would constitute an in¬
crease in the cost of transporting the commodities in¬
volved. We think this objection is disposed of by the
discussion elsewhere of the subject of separate stated
charges for all special or accessorial services, and that
we need here discuss merely the reasonableness of the
proposed charges.
On this point we are content to rely upon the show¬
ing made in the testimony cited in our discussion of Sec¬
tion 5 of the tariff.
The New England heater car rates to which Mr. Wicks
testified have had the approval of the Commission, as
above cited. They are on the whole much higher than
those now proposed. In the absence of testimony to'
show dissimilar conditions requiring lower rates in West¬
ern Classification territory than in New England, we
feel justified in urging upon the Commission the approval
of the 1. c. 1. heater car rate proposed in Section 6 of this
tariff as entirely just and reasonable.
643
SECTION SIX.
DESCRIPTION.
Section 6 of the tariff (found at page 535 thereof)
proposes special rules and charges for refrigeration and
for protective service against cold to apply as provided
in Rule No. 600, on perishable freight in less than car¬
loads, subject to general rules and regulations in Section
1 of the tariff, except as otherwise provided in Section 6.
This section does not apply for account of carriers
within the Dominion of Canada, except as to traffic pass¬
ing through the Dominion of Canada having both point
of origin and destination within the United States,
Table 104 on page 539 of the tariff gives the stated
charges for refrigeration and for protective service
against cold (including artificial heat where available
and necessary), in cents per hundred pounds of freight,
from points of origin in the states specified, to any desti¬
nation under 400 miles on a mileage scale blocked in
distances of 200 miles or less and of over 200 miles and
under four hundred miles.
Tables 105 to 117, inclusive, found on pages 540 to 592
of the tariff, state the proposed charges for refrigera¬
tion for distances of 400 miles or over, between groups
of origin and destination groups therein shown.
Tables 118 to 126, inclusive, found on pages 592 to 618
of the tariff, state the proposed charges for protective
service against cold for distances of 400 miles and over,
between groups of origin and destination groups therein
shown, and are discussed herein in connection with Sec¬
tion Five.
644
KTJLE NO. 605.
This rule relates to shippers' instructions having to do
with less-than-carload shipments of perishables protected
eitlier against cold or heat.
AVitness Mb. L. F. Berry :
The requirement to place an order for one car or an¬
other on every shipment, small or large, package, would
mean that we would have to practically double our force
of clerks who made out the bills of lading. AVe have on
an average of about 5,000 bills of lading every week the
year round. I would suggest a rule relieving the carriers
of the necessity of furnishing protective refrigeration ex¬
cept when specifically requested in writing. (Tr., 9071-
9072.)
If we were permitted to place on our bills of lading
when we require protection that ought to be sufficient
notice and the only notice required that that particular
shipment should be loaded in a protected car. (Tr.,
9072,)
I can undertake to furnish the suggested rule cover¬
ing this requirement as to furnishing the protection to
the refrigerator service. (Tr., 9077.)
AATtness L. F. Berry later submitted the following sug¬
gested rule:
"The shipper may specify on shipping order and
bill of lading one of the following quotations :
'Eefrigerator car' when shipper desires protection
from heat. (See Rules 610-615 and 620.)
'Heater car' when shipper desires protection from
cold. (See Rule 610-615 and 620.)
In case shipper neglects to specify on shipping or¬
der and bill of lading the character of service de¬
sired, it will bo understood that the shipper does
not desire refrigeration or heating service and the
shipment will be given 'common box car service.'
645
Exceptions: See Eules Nos. 615, 625 and 630." (Tr.,
9495-6.)
Witness W. E. Scott :
There are so many of the grocery items included in this
list of perishables, that it would be really an arduous
task for the grocers having a big business to go down into
tlieir bills of lading and mark every item that is named
in this tariff. Large concerns like Mr. Berry's, use on
an average of 5,000 bills of lading in a week, and would
have perhaps five times that many items to examine. I
think that would be a very conservative estimate, be¬
cause the average grocers' bills of lading include a large
number of items. They have suggested that if it would
be possible and practicable, it would be much better to
indicate only those items which they think require pro¬
tective service, and not those which they estimate box
car service for. This would be quite consistent with the
theory of this tarifp, it would seem. The charge can only
be made for this special service, and if it is a special serv¬
ice it ought not to be applied, except where it is called for
the shipper. (Tr., 9099-9100.)
Witness Kenneth Fowher:
We object to this rule which forces the shipper of
less-than-carload shipments to elect between scheduled
refrigerator car service and box car service.
Answer.
In connection with Eules 605 and 615, the witness,
Mr. C. E. Bell made the following statement :
Eeferring now to Eules 605 and 615, in the interest of
clarity, that it may appear that scheduled refrigerator
services are referred to, we will amend Eule 605 by in¬
serting at the beginning of the rule the words :
"When scheduled refrigerator service is available
under the provisions of Eule 610."
G-16
We will change paragraph A, Rule No. 615, to read:
"Carriers are not obligated to accept for trans¬
portation in scheduled refrigerator cars any com¬
modity the odor or nature of which may contami¬
nate butter or other freight in the same car."
AVe Avill add to paragraph B, Rule No. 615, the fol¬
lowing :
"Unless the shipper specifies on shipping order
and bill of lading the notation 'box car service, own¬
er's risk of damage by heat or cold,' as provided
in Rule No. 605, except, however, as otherwise pro¬
vided by paragraphs C and D."
In rule No. 615-D, we will substitute for the word
"fish" the term "fish, fresh or frozen."
Mr. AA/'estlake: Is that satisfactory to the people in¬
terested, Mr. Bell, so far as you have discussed it with
them ?
The AATtness: The change in Rule No. 615-D is not
entirely satisfactory to the fish interests, but I feel that
that is as far as we can go at this time. (Tr., 7336-7.)
This rule is covered by Avitness McPike's Exhibits Nos.
56 and 58, to which reference is hereby made.
RULE NO. 610.
This rule defines "Scheduled Refrigerator Car Serv¬
ice" and sets out under Avhat circumstances less-carload
perishable shipments moving under refrigeration will be
subject to the refrigeration charges set forth in Section
6 of the tariff and ivlien such shipments, Avhen protected
against cold, Avill be subject to the charges provided in
Section 6, for this service.
AATtness Pbeston McKinney:
The rule under Section 6, 6l0, seems to give the car¬
rier the right at all times to put our commodity into
refrigerator cars whenever he may desire. 610 reads:
647
"Where carriers provide and operate 'scheduled
refrigerator car service' as protection against cold,
including artificial heat where available and neces¬
sary, shipments of perishable freight will be sub¬
ject to the stated charges for such protective serv¬
ice against cold as shown in Table No. 104, page 539,
or in Tables 118 to 126, inclusive, on pages 492 to
618, inclusive, from and to points which such service
is operated."
AVe infer that shipping less than carloads from here
in a box car, when it reaches a section of the line where
there was an open car refrigerator service we would,
whether we willed or not, be required to pay for that re¬
frigerator service.
Examiner AVagner : AVould that be true in view of Rule
605, Avhich provides that "the shipper must specify ou
shipping order and bill of lading one of the following
notations 'box car service,' owners' risk of damage by
heat or cold."
A. AVe cannot specify in both cases. At the point of
origin we can specify. But apparently, as we see it,
after they leave our hands the carrier has a right to
switch them into refrigerator cars at his option and at
our expense.
Mr. AVestlake: As I understand Rules 605 to 630, that
gives you the option to accept box car service provided
you so desire?
A. It does, at the point of origin; but the other
rules, as we see them—Ave may be wrong—but we have
only Inad a short time to study them—
Mr. Westlake: You are Avrong on that, I think. That
certainly was not the intention.
A. That is a point I would like to make clear here if
possible. We feel that probably in the past that more of
tlie canned goods had gone in refrigerator cars than is
648
necessary. We are not prepared to state at all that it
should be taken from the perishable list. We are not
in that position at all. (Tr., 753-754.)
Witness Preston McKinney:
Mr. Gregson: Now, you have got 16,000 cars of
canned goods. You are here protesting against certain
rules in this tariff regarding the shipment of canned
goods. I Avill now ask you this question : Is it necessary
for the transportation of the commodity known as canned
goods, in order that they be preserved, that they be
shipped in a refrigerator car,—is it on account of protec¬
tion from the cold, or is it against heat at any time of
the year?
Mr. Westlake : Now, I think we will get what we want.
A. I will simply ansAver that by saying that we are
making no effort to adAmcate the removal of canned goods
from the perishable list. We believe in many instances
it is safe to ship in box cars. We feel that in this tariff
or parts of it, we should be given the freedom to choose
for ourselves whether or not Ave shall use box cars or
refrigerators.
Mr. Westlake: You Avill have that privilege. (Tr.,
755-756.)
Mr. Gregson : Take a customer at Cheyenne. You de¬
sire to ship in the month of February; and to reach
Cheyenne you route the car Central Pacific and also the
Union Pacific. The Aveather is extremely cold. Would
you feel safe in filling that order and transporting the
commodity in the ordinary equipment of the transporta¬
tion company?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Do you feel that the transportation company, for
the safe carriage of that commodity, should furnish a car
649
that will protect you? A. They should if we call for it.
(Tr., 757-758.)
Witness W. H. Young:
Referring now to Rule 610, Section A, it provides that
the term scheduled refrigerator car sendee means in¬
sulated car service. Now, the term insulated car service,
under item 15, as used in the tariff, means cars having
insulation in the walls, ends, ceiling and floor. It has
nothing to say in regard to the insulation in the doors.
In our country where the cold becomes intense, at
times as low as 20 to 25 degrees below zero, it is fre¬
quently necessary that the cars be insulated in the doors
or else proper protection will not be given to commod¬
ities, and it is our suggestion that this term "scheduled
refrigerator car service" be amended to read, "means
fully insulated car service."
Again with regard to Section D in the same rule, it is
provided that the carriers are not obligated to perform
any refrigerator car service upon the basis of less than
the established minimum weights per car as provided in
Ride 630, which provides for a 15,000 pound minimum.
1. c. 1. refrigerator schedule line cars have been operated
in Nebraska and Iowa for a great many years, longer
than" I have been able to ascertain, and we have found
them necessary for the proper conduct of our business.
We have many commodities in the State of Nebraska run¬
ning from 100 persons up to a thousand, and if it is in¬
sisted that no scheduled refrigerator car service may be
furnished unless 15,000 pounds are contributed for that
car, these communities cannot be served with fruits and
vegetables during either the hot season of the year, or
during the cold season of the year because the require¬
ments of the population are such that one community
conld not nse 15,000 pounds of fruits and vegetables, and
650
all classes of perishable freight, in a month, to say noth¬
ing of a week. We feel that tlie carriers should be re¬
quired to furnish, Avhere climatic conditions render it
necessary this particular service. (Tr., 4388 to 4390.)
Witness John F. Waddelh:
This is not proper unless an alternative is provided of
Avhich the shipper may take advantage. (Tr., 9434.)
The burden of the responsibility is unduly aggravated.
(9434) Under this paragraph the carrier reserves the
right to operate or not operate scheduled refrigerator
line cars. The shipper either is to ship at his own risk
and the carrier aaTU not undertake to protect and yet the
carrier reserves the right to refuse the service. In other
Avords, we believe that that rather aggravates the burden
placed upon the shipper. (Tr., 9434-35.)
Answer.
Witness H. C. OuArEE;
Rule 610 is built on the requirements of the present
practice and offers just what the carriers are prepared
at the present time to offer.
In paragraph "B" of the rule the term "scheduled re¬
frigerator car seiwice" is qualified by the words "Under
refrigeration." That plainly means an iced car. No
offer is made in this rule to furnish a dry refrigerator
car for the movement of perishable freight in lots of
less than 15,000 pounds.
In paragraph "D" of the rule the carriers do not
obligate themselves to operate refrigerator car service
on the basis of less than the established minimum weights
per car, as provided in Rule No. 630, and that when
scheduled refrigerator car service is not operated by the
carriers less-than-carload shiiAments will be subject to
box car service as provided in Rule No. 620.
651
Eule No. 680, in substance, provides that a refrigerator
car will be furnished at a minimum weight of 15,000
pounds. It is not practical to offer both dry and iced re¬
frigerator cars in the same service for protection against
heat, for perishable freight in lots of less than 15,000
pounds is subject to that minimum weight, (p. 3813.)
This is all the year round service. Weather conditions
are not sufficiently stable to establish different rules and
rates for service according to the season. It would be to
the interest of the carrier as well as the shipper to move
this traffic without delay and deterioration.
The pick-up service is regular, scheduled, dependable
and well-advertised matter, the observance of which is
essential to the shipper and is relied upon by him in
making his sales and conducting his business. During the
cold weather there may be, along the route of a pick-up
car, one or several shippers ready to take a chance and
send traffic forward in a dry car. These shippers want
refrigerator car service regardless of the quantity moved
to the consolidation point, and tliey want preferred move¬
ment beyond. The next man along the route Avill not
chance the possibility of a sudden rise in the tempera¬
ture. He wants ice in the car. It is protection against
the action of the weather upon perishable freight that
the carriers offer. The load to the point of consolida¬
tion is invariably below normal. They cannot afford to
employ more than one car in each run. It is never safe
to run this pick-up car without ice, and that is not done.
(Tr., 3814.)
The carriers hold themselves out to furnish refriger¬
ator car service which includes necessary ice. If the
choice were with the shipper and two separate charges
were established, depending upon whether ice is or is
not furnished, it would split the traffic so badly that the
service would have to be withdrawn. If the imposition
652
of the full charge is left to the judgment of individual
lines, as to the necessity of ice at the time of shipment,
and the possibility of getting the freight delivered be¬
fore the warm day comes, there are the evils of close com¬
petition between the carriers, and a tariff constructed
with this end in view would be susceptible to all kinds of
manipulation.
Any tariff according to the season, one that is based
upon weather conditions according to the judgment of
either shipper or carrier, is impracticable. The same sit¬
uation prevails at consolidation points, such as Chicago.
There are not more than three destinations where the
amount of traffic available would justify offering daily
or regular both dry and iced car service. In these excep¬
tional cases there is usually a last car with a lighter
load. If two classes of service were offered this would
split the last car two ways and then, too, the optional
service would discriminate against many shipping and
destination points in favor of one origin point, or two
or three destinations. (Tr., 3815.)
At the present time the carriers offer only completely
protective service which includes ice, and if for any rea¬
son a shipment is loaded in a dry car the charge does not
apply under the tariff because the service cannot be of¬
fered to the shipping public. (Tr., 3816.)
If a shipper wants a refrigerator car without ice and
is willing to pay for the car there is no way in which a
tariff can be worked out to give this service. There is
not enough of that tonnage offered to pay any railroad
for supplying both an iced car and a dry car. The iced
car is the car most in demand. Therefore, that is the
car which is offered to the public. If it was the other
way around and the shippers demanded a dry car and
Jiot an iced car, the dry car might be furnished. (Tr.,
3850.)
653
Mr. E. F. McPike discussed this rule under his Exhibit
No. 57.
RULE NO. 615.
This rule relates to the right of the carrier to refuse to
accept freight and restricted articles in scheduled re¬
frigerator cars.
Witness B. W. Edwards :
Page 537, Eule 615-D : This is the rule which states
that shipments of dressed veal, hearts, livers, kidneys,
brains, sweetbreads, beef loins, pork loins, trimmings,
and fish requiring extremely low temperatures will be
accepted only at owners' risk of loss or damage by reason
of insufficient refrigeration.
The theory of that rule is that those commodities speci¬
fied, require a high degree of refrigeration, such as is not
maintained in schedule refrigerator cars. Under that
theory we ask that the word "fish" be changed to "frozen
fish." The only fish which require a high degree of re¬
frigeration such as is required by the other articles men¬
tioned there is frozen fish. Our fresh fish, which would
be included under the general term of "fish,"—the tem¬
perature can be made too low for them, and do not need
a high degree of refrigeration such as these other articles
need, and, therefore, under the theory of that rule we
ask that "fish" be changed to "frozen fish." And if it
read "frozen fish" we would have no further objection
to the rule. Frozen fish are the only kind of fish that
need salt refrigeration. (Tr., 4537-38.)
Witness Kenneth Fowler:
Our next objection is to Rule 615 and additional rules
in that section. Eule 615-A applying to schedule refrig-
ator car service and providing that carriers are not ob-
654
ligated to accept any commodity, the odor or nature
of which may contaminate butter or other freight in the
car. Eule 615-B ^^hich in effect provides that carriers
are not required to accept perishable freight in less than
carloads for points to Avhich or on days when no sched¬
uled refrigerator car service is aAmilahle. And Eule
615-D which provides that as an extremely cold tempera¬
ture is not maintained in scheduled refrigerator ears un¬
der ice intended for loading Avith less-than-carload ship¬
ments of miscellaneous commodities and as such cars are
opened frequently in transit, shipments of dressed veal,
hearts, livers, kidneys, brains, sweetbreads, beef loins,
pork loins, trimmings and fish, requiring extremely low
temperature, will be accepted only at owner's risk of loss
or damage by insufficient refrigeration.
We belieA'e under any reading or construction of those
rules the fish industry will be placed first Avhere the small
amount of scheduled refrigerator car service which we
are getting in some sections of the country will be largely
AvithdraAA'n; that no attempt will be made to build up
any increased scheduled refrigerator car service, and
that under those rules, particularly B and D of Eule
615, we AAÛll be actually forced to box car service, OAAm-
er's risk of damage by heat or cold.
We also take issue AAÛth the attempt in this tariff by
Eule 615-D to classify and term fish as an extra perish¬
able product requiring extremely low temperatures in
transportation as against the other flesh food perish¬
ables.
On cross-examination of Mr. MePike I think last week
I specially asked him Avhat kinds of fish or AA'liat com¬
mercial classifications of fish were coAmred by that broad
language "fisli" in this Eule 615-D. , As I understood his
ansAAors it was ai)parontly intended to cover all our
655
commercial classifications, fresh, frozen, preserved and
smoked.
Mr. Beidelman has called my attention to the fact that
i\Ir. McPike in his testimony regarding the Eule 615-D
on cross-examination last week did not state that it was
the intention of the committee by the word ''fish" to
cover all our commercial classifications but that appar¬
ently the rule as drafted would naturally comprehend all
those commercial classifications. Our contention is that
none of our fish products should be in any way desig¬
nated by that rule as extra perishable or in the same
class with sweetbreads and the few of the very perish¬
able packing-house products. Our contention is that ob¬
viously from the practical workout of fish transportation
and also from the scientific work done on fish transporta¬
tion by the Departure of Agriculture and other federal
departments that fish, either fresh, frozen, pickled,
smoked or in any other way preserved is no more per¬
ishable than any of the other fiesh food products of the
country, including beef and poultry, and that it is abso¬
lutely not in accordance with the facts to so classify
fish in the Eule 615-D. Our objection goes to the use of
the word fish in any way in that paragraph and classify¬
ing either fresh or frozen fish or any of our preserved
products as extra perishable and requiring extremely low
temperatures in transportation.
Q. (By Mr. Minard.) Is not your objection directed
primarily to tlie last words "at owner's risk"! A. Our
objection is in both directions and particularly in the di¬
rection I have just emphasized, that for all time in this
tariff you in measured language for the benefit of all
the local freight agents of the country desigmate fish as
requiring extremely low temperature in the same way
as sweetbreads, when as a matter of fact in practical
operation and in the practical transportation of fish it
65ß
does not require, that is, fresh and frozen, any more
extremely low temperatures than beef products or poul¬
try, than fresh beef or frozen beef or frozen or fresh
poultry. Our objection goes both ways, as I have stated,
to the language and to that language qualifying the clause
"will be accepted only at owner's risk." (Tr., 7395-7400.)
Witness John F. Waddelh:
What has been said as to paragraph D of Rule 610 ap¬
plies equally to paragraph B of Rule 615.
As to paragraph C of Rule 615, witness referred to a
letter sent to the McLaughlin Committee regarding the
right of carriers to refuse perishable goods under tem¬
perature prohibitions. (Tr., 9435.)
The question of this right so far as interstate traffic
is concerned was involved in I. & S. 1156. At that time
there was a publication in Western Trunk Line Com¬
mittee Circular 12 series, under which carriers reserved
the right to refuse acceptance of perishable goods in less-
than-carload quantities when the temperature was zero
or lower. No decision was ever rendered by the Commis¬
sion in I. & S. 1156, due to the fact that the objection¬
able publication was withdrawn. We are willing to ac¬
cept this rule as it now stands provided that it is under¬
stood that where carriers are so equipped that they may
safely handle perishables at lower than five degrees, or
five degrees below zero, or lesser temperatures, they be
pei'mitted to do so.
In other words, as long as the rule is mandatory in
requiring the carrier to accept down to five degrees, and
permissive with respect to lower temperatures, we have
no objection. (Tr., 9435-36-37.)
The rule in its wording is proper. I would like to
emphasize only that question, or that phase of it, that
657
it is mandatory to a certain indicated degree of tem¬
perature and permissive below that degree.
The word "zero" shouVl hp inserted after the word
"below." (Tr., 9437.)
Witness E. F. McPike :
(7) Mr. Burchmore seemed to think .that the rule was
too broad in giving carriers the right to refuse so-called
semi-perishable freight, such as canned goods, bluing,
ink, and mineral waters, which he considered is in a
sense ordinary freight, but witness McPike denied that it
is ordinary freight. Mr. Burchmore objected also against
paragraph (B) of Eule No. 615 as permitting carriers to
refuse freight for stations on branch lines Avhere no cen¬
tral refrigerator car service at all is operated. Wit¬
ness said that carriers would probably not refuse such
freight during any spell of mild weather and would have
no motive in so refusing when there would be every rea¬
sonable chance of goods reaching destination without
damage. (Tr., 2429.)
Witness thought that western and eastern lines already
have in effect tariff rules similar to paragraph (B) of
proposed Eule No. 615. (Tr., 2429-2434.) Witness pointed
out that under Eule No. 605, about shipper's instructions,
the shipper was given the privilege of calling for com¬
mon car service at owner's risk.
Witness A. E. Helm:
Witness objected to paragraph B, which reads "car¬
riers reserve the right to refuse to accept perishable
freight in 'less than carloads' for points to which, or on
days when no 'scheduled refrigerator car service' is avail¬
able," asking that it be amended by adding the follow¬
ing, "except in cases where box car service is accepted
by the shipper," his reasons being if the shipper is will-
658
ing to ship in box car service, carriers should receive
his freight. (Tr., 2013-14.)
Ansiver.
The witness E. F. McPike has discussed this rule at
length in his Exhibit No. 58 and refers to the fact that
for the most part, the several provisions of the tariff
are published in the current tariffs of carriers in certain
sections of the country. Specific reference is given to
some of those tariffs.
In addition to the above, the carriers now direct at¬
tention to their answer to Rule No. 605, regarding certain
modifications jjroposed by witness Bell and repeated in
the letter addressed to the examiner in behalf of carriers
under date of October 23,1919, in Appendix A.
RULE NO, 620.
This rule relates to "box car service" when "sched¬
uled refrigerator car service" is not available over all
or a portion of the route.
Freeman Bradfoed :
The next objection will be on Rule 620, Section 1, read¬
ing:
"Ordinary box car service or its equivalent will
be given at owner's risk between points from and to
which there is no ' Scheduled Refrigerator Car Serv¬
ice' available over any portion of the route. lu such
cases bills of lading and -waybills should carry the
following notation."
My objection to that rule is that a shipment moving on
two lines, the consignee is not in a position to know as to
the refrigerator car service on the connecting lines and
in the majority of causes the originating line is not in a
position to notify him. (Tr., 6971.)
659
Witness John F. AVaddell:
This rule reserves to the carrier the right to refuse or
accept shipments dependent on the operation of sched-
ide refrigerator line cars. Under paragraph 2 it is pro¬
vided that certain forms of notation may be made where
a schedule line service is provided only to cover part of
the route.
It is oiir contention that with respect to a shipment
offered for transportation to a carrier, for transportation
over a route over which schedule line car service is oper¬
ated only for a portion of the distance, the carrier cannot
reserve its liability by the statement contained in para¬
graph 3 of that rule which says that the absence of any
such notation from a bill of lading must not be consid¬
ered as any waiver of the condition of the rule under
which it accepts liability only for such portion of the
route traversed as is covered by schedule line service.
In other words, it must make its reservation at the
time, and a failure to do so cannot otherwise operate to
relieve it of the liability. (Tr., 9438-39.)
Answer.
For a comprehensive discussion of this rule, see AVit-
ness McPike's Exhibit No. 59.
As an illustration of current tariff^ rules relating to
such cases, the following extract is given from Agent E.
Atorris' I. C. C. No. 736, page 156, item No. 1770 :
"Bills of ladings and Avaybills must bear imprint
of stamp or written notation reading: 'no refrig¬
eration service; loaded in box cars entirely at own¬
er's risk,' in case of shipments for which no refrig¬
eration service is obtainable in accordance with the
foregoing."
Rules similar to the one last cited above are contained
in many tariffs; see for example Agent E. B. Boyd's
6G0
I. C. C. No. A-1020, page 22, item No. 550, which pro¬
vides for box car service at owner's risk in connection
Avith less than carload shipments of perishable freight
aa'hen scheduled refrigerator car service is not available.
The carriers consider that such tariff rules were clearly
upheld as reasonable by the Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission in the case of M. Longo & Co., Docket 7454 (38
I. C. C., 487-489), Avherein the Commission declared in
substance that carriers are not obligated to furnish or
operate refrigerator cars for less than carload shipments
of perishable freight when the aggregate weight offer¬
ing for transportation is insufficient. In many such
cases, the total freight charges per car would be less than
the cost of the special service. It follows logically that
the carriers are not liable for damage arising from the
consequent use of box cars for such traffic provided al¬
ways that negligence by carriers is not the proximate
cause of such damage.
kxjle no. 625.
This rule deffnes the term "meat peddler cars," and
provides that aa'hen, under carriers' tariffs applicable,
such cars are operated, shipments handled therein will
be subject to the charges for ice and/or salt used in the
serAuces of icing or re-icing, published in Section 4.
"Witness T. D. Guthrie:
By inserting the word "etc.," in this rule it makes it
indefinite. We should know the commodities that are
going into these meat peddler cars, or, in other words,
the packing-house products coming under the term
"etc."
Witness II. T. Strubel, appearing for the Oklahoma
Wholesale Oxocers' Association, testified as to the al-
661
leged discriminations created by Eules 625 and 630 of
the proposed tariff.
Ansiver.
Witness C. E. Bell:
After the Denver bearing, beginning at page 2018 of
the record, Mr. H. T. Strubel, appearing for the Okla¬
homa Wholesale Grocers' Association, testified as to the
alleged discrindnation created by Eules 625 and 630 of
the proposed tariff, due to the fact that under Eule 625
it is proposed to continue existing arrangements for
the handling of so-called peddler cars, covered by pub¬
lications of individual lines, whereas under Eule 630 it is
proposed to require a minimum of 15,000 pounds for the
loading of refrigerator cars and any deficit necessary to
make up this minimum will be charged for at the highest
rated article in the car. (Tr., 9401.)
Mr. Strubel's testimony dealt altogether with alleged
discrimination and not with the reasonableness of Eule
630. The question of rates on shipments in peddler cars
versus shipments in other cars between all points in the
United States is now before the Commission in I. C. C.
Docket 10745, National Wholesale Grocers' Association;
also Docket 10745, Sub-1, Southern Wholesale Grocers'
Association. In the last mentioned complaint, the Hale-
Halsell Grocery Company, by whom Mr. Strubel is em¬
ployed, as well as other Oklahoma wholesale grocers, are
specifically named as complainants.
In view of the fact that this whole question of dis¬
crimination of rates will be covered by the Commission
in a separate proceeding, in Docket 10745, I do not con¬
sider it proper to present any testimony as to alleged
discrimination in the instant proceeding.
As I have said, Mr. Strubel did not complain of the
reasonableness of the proposed rules. In this connection.
G62
Mr. Clifford Thome had some testimony introduced on
the same subject, and our position is the same with re¬
spect to that testimony. (Tr., 9402.)
RULE NO. 630.
This rule relates to shipments of individual cars for
one consignee at one destination and has been materially
modified in accordance with the statement heretofore
made in this brief. (See Appendix A.)
Shippers' Vietvs.
Witness R. O'Haea:
Why is hutterine or oleomargarine made an exception
to the 15,000 pound rule. (Tr., 6637.)
If this rule is to be approved, we know of no justifica¬
tion for charging a deficit in the weight at the highest
and suggest that this be charged for at the lowest ^j-ated
article in the car. It is our contention, in connection
with the general application of Section 6 that the less
carload freight rates applied throughout the entire coun¬
try have included refrigerator service for a great many
years and do now include refrigerator service, and that
until it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commission
that the freight rates do not include the service which
has been accorded for a great many years past, this sec¬
tion should be disapproved by the Commission, so far
as the assessment of refrigerator charges in connection
with less carload rates go.
Stated charges applied from Reno, but not from Salt
Lake (where onr competitor is located), to California
points, nor to eastern points. Discrimination against
South San Francisco, Reno and North Portland.
(Tr., 6637-8.)
663
Witness John F. AVaddell:
Knie 630, paragraph B: AVe object to the statement
that the dehcit in weight in connection with the opera¬
tion of special refrigerator cars shall be based upon the
highest rated article. In our opinion the proper basis
would be to charge the deficit at the lowest rated article.
In AA^estern Classification territory in general it might
be stated that that is a standard rule, and further, it
is logical; it does not necessarily burden the traffic; and
it yields the carrier practically the maximum revenue
which it would receive if the deficit were a matter of but
a few pounds. (Tr., 9439.)
AA'itness AV. E. Scott:
AA^. R. Scott's Exhibit No. 10 was here received in evi¬
dence. (Tr., 9100.)
The AVitness: AA^e now come to another item in Sec¬
tion 6 which has been protested by our people. This is
Kule 630, which contains the provision upon which an in¬
dividual car will be furnished, as it is said, for one con¬
signee at one destination. The tariffs of the carriers
quite generally carry provisions that where shippers
cannot or do not avail themselves of the regular sched¬
ule service, a special car will be furnished by the car¬
riers subject to a specified minimum. Now, this rule
seems to propose a general regulation for application over
the conntry and probably is intended to supersede those
in the individual tariffs. The rule, if adopted, would
have the effect of increasing the freight charges in a
great many cases. It is provided now in this proposed
tariff, that the carriers will furnish or will allow the
shippers to use refrigerator or insulated cars, to be han¬
dled for one consignee at one destination, when the
aggregate weight is not less than 15,000 pounds per car;
or wlien freight charges are assessed on the basis of the
664
freight rate applicable to the highest rated article in the
car.
Now, this Exhibit No. 10 is a statement showing a
comparison of this proposed rule with various other
rules now in effect in various parts of the country, and
you will perceive from an examination of this exhibit
that the proposed rule would have the effect of increas¬
ing the freight charges applicable to such a car.
In Western Trunk Line territory, in E. B. Boyd's Cir¬
cular 12-G, there is a rule in effect at the present time
which permits such a car to he furnished at a minimum
of 15,000 pounds, hut providing that the deficit will bo
charged for on the basis of the fourth-class rate; the
lowest class rate, from the loading point to the first un¬
loading station, on the car. That rule permits the ship¬
ments for more than one destination and more than one
consignee to be put in the car. The proposed rule, how¬
ever, limits the shipments to one consignee and one des¬
tination, making it more difficult to use in that respect,
besides increasing the freight charges.
Now, observe in Section A of that rule, that it is pro¬
vided that it will not apply to meat peddler cars, for
which see Rule 625. No change apparently is provided
for the handling of those cars.
Now, the same Western Trunk Line territory to which
I referred, in that there is provided in the same tariff
a rule governing these cars, providing for a minimum of
only 10,000 pounds. In those cars there might be shipped
miscellaneous freight for a large number of consignees,
at various destinations along the way, and in that case
also it is provided that the deficit in weight shall be
charged for at the first-class rate to the first station for
which the car contains a shipment. Observe there those
distinctions : The difference in the minimum weight; the
665
difference as to consignees, and the difference in the
manner of making np the deficit in the minimum weight.
The matter of the competition of meat peddler cars
containing canned goods and other miscellaneous items,
is now before the Commission in another case, but we
want to call the attention of the Commission on this
record to this difference. Without any change in the
peddler system, by which grocery items can be handled
in those cars, it is yet provided an increase in the gen¬
eral rule available to the general public, who neither
have cars nor meat to ship. (Tr., 9100 to 9103.)
The Witness (continuing) : That would absolutely re¬
sult in unjust discrimination. The two interests are
competing with each other in the sale of the same class
of goods, between the same points of origin and at the
same destination and the conditions are exactly the same
except in this matter of the transportation item. (Tr.,
9103.)
Now, another thing in connection with that same propo¬
sition is that these proposed charges for refrigeration
and protective service, as applicable to 1. c. 1. freight
generally, are not proposed to be applied to the ship¬
ments' in the peddler cars, still further increasing the
difficulties under which the general public operate in
competition with that system. (Tr., 9103.)
Another item which I should have alluded to before is
paragraph C of Rule 630, which provides that the ship¬
per shall furnish ice, or pay for the service of icing and
re-icing these cars on the basis of 15,000 pounds mini¬
mum. That is something that is not required generally
under the present rules and particularly in the Western
Trunk Line territory. That would be a very hard rule
to comply with. Our people find it practically impos¬
sible to use the present rule. It is hard enough to use
666
it, but under the rule such as is proposed here, it would
he out of the question for us to use it.
There is no line of business that will he harder hit
by these proposed charges for 1. c. 1. shipments than
the grocery trade, and Ave think it is AAdiolly unjustifiable
that the rates for a great many years—ever since there
haA'e been refrigerator serAÛce, have been made in con¬
templation of furnishing that service for particular items,
and the classifications surely have been adjusted correctly
by this time. (Tr., 9104.)
The principal reason why it affects them more seriously
is because their principal competitors won't have to pay
it, but it is hardly secondary that the items in the so-
called perishable list are largely grocery items with the
exception of the fruit and vegetable business. There are
more grocery items than any other line. (Tr., 9104-9105.)
Mr. O'Hara: Just a minute, Mr. Thorne. Mr. Scott
has testified that Ave ought to pay the same amount for
the refrigeration service in a peddler car as the whole¬
sale grocer pays for refrigeration service between any
given origin and destination point. Now, if a $5 bunker
damage charge is included in the 1. c. 1. scale a\diich
the wholesale grocer pays, and the payment for the use
of private cars in which the peddler car traffic moves
is inadequate, as you knoAv, to take care of even that fS
bunker damage charge, do you think we should be re¬
quired to pay for that charge and assume the expense of
repairing the bunkers in addition there?
A. I think you should start with the premise that
both charges ought to be the same, or substantially the
same. Noav, your question is one of the degree of weight
to be given to one particular item, and tbat is a pretty
hard thing to do, considering that one item. (Tr., 9120.)
The Witness (continuing) : It should not be paid twice
667
by anybody. Even if the packer would agree to pay
the 1. c. 1. scale on their peddler car traffic, I do not
know without figuring it up whether or not that would
satisfy the complaint of the grocers. (Tr., 9120-9121.)
(By Mr. O'Hara): That is the suggestion of the
Commission, and the examiner will, no doubt, recall that
in my testimony at New York, Swift & Co. agreed to do
that. It would reduce our peddler car charge for 100
pounds for refrigeration, materially, if the 1. c. 1. scale,
as proposed, were adopted for our traffic.
Mr. Westlake: You will agree to that reduction, will
you, Mr. O'Hara!
Mr. O'Hara: Yes, sir, we are acquiescing in that re¬
duction here as well as in the New York hearing. (Tr.,
9121.)
Answer.
AVitness C. E. Bell:
Eeferring to Rule 630, page 538, Section 6, of the taritf,
which provides that upon reasonable notice carriers will
furnish or Avill allow shippers to use, or will participate
with connecting carriers in handling refrigerator cars for
a minimum of not less than 15,000 pounds per car; and
which rule, in so far as Official Classification territory
and Southern Classification territory is concerned is re¬
stricted to the so-called dairy products, the situation has
developed that in the producing section of Eastern Trunk
Line territory it is now customary to furnish refrigerator
cars for lots of 10,000 pounds or more.
In this eastern territory the preponderance of the
empty refrigerator car movement is westbound. There
is a large movement of fruits and vegetables westbound,
and, to a lesser extent, within the territory. So, on
behalf of the Administration I have said to the fruit and
668
yegetaLle interests that we would amend this rule so as
to permit the loading of not less than 15,000 pounds of
fruits and vegetables in refrigerator ears for movement
under ventilation, the points of origin being in the East¬
ern Trunk Line territory, including the western termini
of the Eastern Trunk Lines, which will, of course, take
in Buffalo and Pittsburgh. If a $5 charge for the use
of a refrigerator car is allowed in accordance with Eule
40, we make the |5 charge for the use of the car with
the 15,000 pound minimum.
We have said, furthermore, that should it he neces¬
sary to move these shipments under ice, we would apply
the stated charges shown in Section 2 of the taritf ap¬
plicable to carloads.
The fruit and vegetable interests with whom I have dis¬
cussed this matter have said to me that that would be
entirely satisfactory. I do not say it will he satisfactory
to everybody, hut those that took it up with me are
satisfied. (Tr., 7355-6.)
This rule is covered by E. F. McPike's Exhibit No. 61.
(See also letter in behalf of carriers, addressed to the
Examiner, under date of October 23, 1919, in Appendix
A).
HOW SECTION SIX WAS CONSTRUCTED.
Witness E. P. McPike, manager perishable freight,
I. C. Eailroad, who was a member of the committee which
compiled the proposed tariff, testified that the stated
cliarges in Section Six of the tariff are not on a mileage
basis, hut on the basis of the different territorial groupä
in the tariff. This arrangement permitted considera¬
tion being given to the divisions in cost of icing north
point shipments, for example, as compared with south
point shipments between different territories. (2451-52.)
669
Beginning at page 8960 of the record, witness McPike
made a statement as to how the 1. c. 1. refrigeration
charges of Section Six of the proposed tariff were ar¬
rived at:
"The refrigeration committee compiling the tariff had
general knowledge and actual figures as to the cost of
furnishing refrigeration service for carload shipments,
and were aware that the expense of refrigeration of cars
containing less than carload shipments was practically
as much as for carload traffic during a large part of the
year.
The committee also knew that the Interstate Commerce
Commission had recognized the reasonableness of an
1. c. 1. refrigeration charge of at least 30 cents per 100
pounds of freight from points in eastern Louisiana to
Chicago, involving an average haul of about 876 miles,
in which case interested carriers presented testimony,
showing that the charge of 30 cents per 100 pounds for
refrigeration was less than gross cost of furnishing that
special service. (31 I. C. C., 637-640.)
Furthermore the committee had the benefit of an in¬
vestigation made covering the icing and re-icing of less
than carload shipments from Chicago to various points
in the south and southeast during the season of 1913-
1914, indicating the total quantities of ice used in such
cars from Chicago to ultimate destination. (See Wit¬
ness McPike's Exhibit No. 84.)
With the foregoing facts in mind, and with the gen¬
eral knowledge and experience of the committee, numer¬
ous test figures were made by the committee, taking into
consideration the varying prices of ice in different sec¬
tions of the country, and the fact that a maximum refrig¬
eration or full bunker icing was not always furnished
670
or absolutely necessary at all seasons oí the year and
on all classes of freight.
There were no regular working sheets made hy the
committee nor were the numerous test figures preserved,
but the committee found, by matching up its figures, that
it was possible to arrive at a charge per 100 pounds of
freight for 1. c. 1. refrigeration service w^hich would
fairly represent a reasonable charge to establish by di¬
viding the lowest carload refrigeration charge in Sec¬
tion 2 of tariff between the same points by 30,000 pounds.
This plan maintained the proper relative adjustment
with due regard to the Fourth Section of the law, and
took into consideration the different conditions and ice
prices existing in various parts of the country because
these conditions had been given consideration in formu¬
lating the tables of stated refrigeration charges in Sec¬
tion No. 2 of tariff.
The final result of the method of computation used, as
explained above, was to secure a charge which would
yield an aggregate refrigeration revenue per car of 1. c. 1.
perishables, amounting in practically all cases to con¬
siderably less than the full carload refrigeration reve¬
nue, because the average aggregate weight per car of
1. c. 1. perishable freight throughout the country as a
whole is about 15,000 pounds or less.
Although as above stated, the expense of refrigerating
cars containing loss than carload shipments is practically
as much for carload traffic during a considerable portion
of the year (31 I. C. C., 637) ; it is now sub¬
mitted, in behalf of the carriers, that their
numerous exhibits covering less than carload refrigera¬
tion charges in Section No. 6 of the tariff have fully
demonstrated the reasonableness of the proposed fig¬
ures, and therefore, the correctness of the method em-
671
ployed by the refrigeration committee in making the
check of snch charges, which in many instances will, the
carriers regret to say, be less than the actual cost of
the refrigeration service. The individual exhibits pre¬
sented by carriers will speak for themselves in this re¬
gard.
The refrigeration committee, in figuring the less than
carload charges, took into consideration the general com¬
mercial conditions and endeavored to proceed in such a
Avay as not to result in a radical revolution in the han¬
dling of that business. We did not want to disturb com¬
mercial conditions unduly by seeming to adopt any ex¬
cessive figure, although higher charges would have been
justified.
The foregoing explanation relates chiefly to tables
Nos. 105 to 117, on pages 540 to 591, both inclusive, in
the proposed tariff.
As to the minimum charges provided in Table 104, on
page 539, for refrigeration, when the distance that ship¬
ment is hauled is less than 400 miles the refrigeration
committee inserted this Table 104 as a special conces¬
sion to the shippers on short-haul traffic, but it is evident
that such minimum charges Avill, in almost all cases,
lie less than the cost of the special service.
If the committee had divided by the actual loading, in¬
stead of a 20-cent rate between Chicago and New York,
tliey would have gotten a rate of at least 30 cents per
100 pounds of 1. c. 1. freight, and on a carload basis it
would have been still higher, and on the 200 to 400-mile
haul, set forth in Table 104 of the tariff, the charges are
really less, according to the nominal rate of progression,
than the charges for distances of over 400 miles. That
was a special concession in thé actual grading of those
charges, one-half cent here and there may be found that
672
lias been necessary to grade the charges; sometimes it
is less, sometimes it is more. (8960-8966)
Witness CHAEnEs E. Bele, of the traffie section of the
United States Railroad Administration, and who repre¬
sents the Administration as the proponents of the pro¬
posed tariff stated that as to the date to which the 1. c. 1.
icing figures in Section 6 were agreed upon the com¬
mittee submitted certain figures in February and they
were discussed in the Washington conference in that
month. They were gone over again and reviewed arid
considerable reductions were made in the figures then
proposed. The tariff was finally formulated in this re¬
spect some time after the February conference,'probably
some time in April. (9415)
PROPRIETY OF SECTION SIX.
The character and cost of 1. c. 1. refrigerator service
as now rendered throughout the country is shown by the
following testimony:
Southern Territory.
In Southern Classification territory, the situation is
governed by Rule 31 of the Southern Classification No.
43 (I. C. C. No. 22) reading:
"Less than carload or any quantity ratings, ap¬
plying on freight requiring protection against heat
or cold, do not obligate the carrier to provide
specially equipped cars; nor to furnish heat or re¬
frigeration, unless the carriers' tariffs so provide."
No exceptions to this Rule have been filed, and the
southern carriers have filed no tariffs contrary thereto,
except on certain inbound shipments received from con¬
necting carriers at the Ohio, Potomac and Mississippi
Rivers.
673
The southern carriers, on shipments originating in
Southern Classification territory moving locally within
their territory, or outbound therefrom to other terri¬
tories, do not and never have absorbed the expense of
initial icing or re-icing of less than carload shipments of
dairy products or other perishable freight but on the
contrary, the initial icing has always been performed
by or at the expense of the shippers, and extra charges
above the freight rate for re-icings, if necessary, per¬
formed in transit by southern carriers. The Interstate
Commerce Commission itself recognized that the freight
ratings in Southern Classification territory were never
predicated upon the inclusion of any expense of icing or
re-icing. {Hill Produce Co. v. N. C. & St. L., 44 I. C. C.,
582.) It is true that, as stated, on southbound ship¬
ments of dairy freight transported on the basis of less-
than-carload or any-quantity freight rates moving into
territory south of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers and east
of the Mississippi River, the carriers in the latter terri¬
tory have been absorbing the expense of re-icing such
cars on their own rails and their published authority
for such absorptions is in their own individual or local
tariffs, but this practice has grown up from competition
along border territory which eventually spread, or it was
caused by a desire to foster or stimulate the traffic and
to effect a wider distribution of such perishable com¬
modities. Conditions, however, have materially changed
since this service and practice was first inaugurated.
The traffic in question has developed into a regular move¬
ment of large volume.
In 7. é S. Dachet No. 369 (31 I. C. C., 637-640), the
Commission upheld the reasonableness of some stated
refrigeration charges per 100 pounds of freight on fruits
and vegetables originating at stations on the Illinois Cen-
674
tral Eailroad and on the Yazoo and Mississippi Valley
Railroad in Louisiana, etc., including a refrigeration
charge of 30 cents per 100 pounds of such freight from
Kenner, La., to Chicago, an approximate distance of 901
miles. (See Illinois Central Tariff 1. C. C. 5008, Rule
w.)
The carriers operating from points in eastern Tennes¬
see to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City and Bos¬
ton, for example, have recently published, under Mr. Ed-
Avard Chambers' Freight Rate Authority No. 8788, dated
June 3, 1919, a scale of stated refrigeration charges on
eggs, butter, cheese and dressed poultry, on the follow¬
ing basis : To Baltimore, 36| cents ; Philadelphia, 36|
cents; New York City, 36| cents, and Boston, Mass., 40
cents per 100 pounds of freight, this being done in con¬
nection with the inauguration of refrigeration service to
accommodate such traffic.
McPike's Exhibit No. 79 is a statement of carloadings
from Chicago to points south of the Ohio River, averag¬
ing per car:
1916 11102 lbs.
1917 13845 lbs.
1918 16912 lbs. ( )
McPike's Exhibit No. 80 is a statement of proposed
stated charges for 1. c. 1. shipments under scheduled re¬
frigerator car service (including icing and re-icing, when
required) as provided in Proposed Perishable Protec¬
tive Tariff No. 1 from Chicago to various points there¬
in named for distances given. (2108-2109)
McPike's Exhibit No. 81 is a statement of represen¬
tative cars (40 in number) operating during 1918 under
refrigeration scliodule from Chicago to Cairo, 111., 365
675
miles, based on 1919 ice costs. The average ice consump¬
tion per car Avas 6,500 lbs. and cost $18.20
Bunker damage 5.00
Ice haulage 2.06
(Av. weight 4,875 lbs.)
Supervision 4-00
Total cost per car $29.26
Av. total cost per 100 lbs. ($29.26-f-15000) .20
Proposed tariff rate Chicago-Cairo .12
Déficit (100 lbs.) .08
Without bunker damage, ice haulage, switching or
supervision (2109-2110), and by simply dividing your
ice cost of $18.20 by 15,000 lbs. you would get 12 cents
per hundred pounds, which is the proposed rate.
McPike's Exhibit No. 82 is a statement of representa¬
tive cars (38) operating during 1918, under refrigerator
schedule from Chicago to Birmingham, Ala., 686 miles,
based on 1919 ice costs.
Average cost of ice per car $29.41
Average cost of ice per 100 lbs. freight
$29.41^15000 lbs. .20
Proposed refrigeration rate .20 (2110)
These figures include nothing for bunker repairs,
ice haulage, or supervision.
Witness said that Avinter of 1918-1919 was of course
abnormal, and both natural and artificial ice costs Avere
above normal in 1919. There might be some slight re¬
duction in costs of ice, ignoring other factors of expense
such as labor. (2385-2386) The Birmingham cars do not
serve intermediate points but break bulk at Birmingham.
They do not cost more to refrigerate than carloads.
(2387)
McPike's Exhibit No. 83 is a statement of representa¬
tive cars (34) operating during 1918 under refrigeration
676
schedule from Chicago to New Orleans, La., 931 miles.
based on 1919 ice costs.
Average cost of ice per car $39.74
Average cost of ice per 100 lbs. freight
$39.74^15000 lbs. .26
Proposed tariff charge per 100 lbs. freight .215
Deficit .045,
without anything for bunker damage, ice haulage, switch¬
ing or supervision. (2112)
McPike's Exhibit No. 84 is a recapitulation of tonnage
and icing records on representative cars (255) moved
nnder various Illinois Central refrigerator schedules in
December, 1913, January, February, June, July and Au¬
gust, 1914, based on 1919 tariff rates per ton of ice.
Average weight of perishables per car 11,114 lbs.
Average amount of ice used per car 9,857 lbs.
Average cost of ice per car $21.23
Average cost of ice per 100 lbs. of freight .19
Average cost of ice per 100 lbs. of freight on
estimated average of 15,000 lbs. freight .14
Proposed.tariff charge per 100 lbs. freight .20
(This allows a margin of 6 cents without anything for
bunker damage, switching, ice haulage or supervision.)
(2112)
Western Territory.
The ratings in Western Classification were based upon
common car service and were never predicated upon the
inclusion or absorption of any expense of icing or re-
icing, although generally speaking the current tariffs or
exception sheets issued by western roads had author¬
ized such absorption on basis of 1. c. 1. or any-quantity
freight rates.
This practice in the West grew out of competitive con¬
ditions—or was based upon a desire to stimulate traffic
677
to promoto the wider distribution of the commodities
involved. The freight rates, however, are based upon
common car service and the absorptions above mentioned
liave up to the present time been solely in the nature
of gratuities and intended for the purposes mentioned.
(McPike's Exhibit No. 54 at page 67 of the pamphlet
copy of McPike's Exhibits Nos. 1 to 66, inclusive, and
page 81 of the record.)
An instance of where the western carrier absorbed the
refrigeration charges on 1. c. 1. shipments is found in
Refrigerator Charges on the Kansas Citg Southern,
I. & S. Docket 210, 26 I. C. C., 618. That proceeding in¬
volved the reasonableness of the proposed rates on straw¬
berries moving under refrigeration from the stations
Joplin, Missouri, to Shady Point, Oklahoma, inclusive,
on the Kansas City Southern Eailway, to Topeka, Kansas.
The rate involved was an advance resulting from the can¬
cellation of Supplement No. 4 to Kansas City Southern
Tariff, I. C. C. No. 3124, of the following rule in trans-
Missouri Circular 1-B :
"When shippers cannot avail themselves of the
regularly scheduled refrigerator car service, refrig¬
erator cars may be furnished, provided 10,000 pounds
or more is loaded therein at the 1. c. 1. rates. Under
such circumstances no charge will be made for ini¬
tial icing or re-icing. (This rule will not apply on
peddler cars.)"
In that case the Commission found that the proposed
increase was not unreasonable and should be permitted
to go into effect on the ground that "strawberries, per¬
haps more than other perishable commodities, require
the highest standard of both freight and refrigeration
service, and frequently subject the carriers to substan¬
tial claims for damage when that service is not rendered
according to schedule. '' (Page 620 of the decision.)
678-
While it has been referred to elsewhere in the brief,
it is nevertheless important and significant in this con¬
nection to note the following portion of the Commission's
decision as it appears on page 619 thereof :
"It will be observed that the present charge for
refrigeration under the rule involved is a part of
the first-class rating; that is, it is merely a part of
the composite freight and refrigeration charge, the
component factors of Avhich are not stated. The
laAV requires that the carriers shall state separately
in their tariffs all charges for refrigeration and
similar services in connection with the receipt, han¬
dling and delivery of traffic, and we shall deal with
these charges separately in this case."
Our understanding of this situation is that the Kansas
City Southern Eailway did not offer or furnish refrig¬
eration service on any basis less than the full carload
minimum weight, and it then applied a stated carload re¬
frigeration rate, Avhich in this case happened to be $35.70
between the points involved.
Witness J. Vast Eensselaer, district superintendent of
Pacific Fniit Express and has had 36 years' experience
in handling perishable freight.
Witness Van Eensselaer's Exhibit No. 1 covers sched¬
uled refrigerator car line No. 13 on the Union Pacific
Eailroad. It shows one car each week for the period
of from April 15, 1918, to October 15, 1918, from Omaha
to Grand Island containing 1. c. 1. perishable freight and
is compiled on the basis of maximum refrigeration.
The service between Omaha and Grand Island consists
of two cars per week leaving Omaha Mondays and
Thursdays. The Monday car of each week was selected
(with the exception of two Mondays when the record of
the movement was not complete) for the reason that it
carries heavier tonnage than the Thursday car. (3214)
679
P. F. E. cars have a bunker capacity of approximately
11,000 pounds. With one or two exceptions, the full
bunker capacity was furnished in the cars covered by
this exhibit and paid for to the ice company. (3214)
The exceptions mentioned relate to three cars in April
and two in May where 5,400 pounds of ice was used be¬
cause in the early spring and during the fall months it
is the practice to ice these cars to half of the bunker
capacity on account of the cooler weather.
The figures shown under the column "Initial Icing"
represent the actual quantities of ice furnished with the
exception that on May 20th P. F. E. car No. 1673 re¬
ceived 9,300 pounds, and on May 27th P. P. E. car No.
14617 received 8,000 pounds, and on July 15th P. F. E.
car No. 2064 received 4,000 pounds, and on September
23rd P. F. E. car No. 13836 received 9,600 pounds. (3215)
None of these cars received any re-icing betAveen Omaha
and Grand Island.
The ice cost was figured on the contract price in effect
at the time, namely $3.50 per ton of ice delivered into the
bunkers of the cars.
At the bottom of his Exhibit No. 1, witness has figured
the cost of rendering this refrigerator service on the
basis of proposed tariff rate of 10c per 100 pounds of
freight on an assumed average loading of 15,000 pounds
per car. It shows that on this traffic the cost of service
was $27.48 as compared with the proposed refrigeration
charge of $15. Deficit, $12.48.
Van Kensselaer's Exhibit No. 2 shows one car of 1. c. 1.
scheduled refrigerator service for each week from April
15, 1918, to October 15, 1918, in refrigerator scheduled
line No. 2 of the Union Pacific Railroad from Council
Fluffs transfer to Cheyenne, Wyo., for 1. c. 1. perishables,
680
distance, 510 miles. (3217) The quantities of ice charged
for on these cars is on the same basis as shown in Van
Eensselaer's Exhibit No. 1 with the following exceptions:
P. F. E. Car 1266-A on May 20th received 7,200 pounds
of ice.
P. F. E. Car 9351 on September 9th received 9,800
pounds of ice.
P. F. E. Car 1419-A on October 1st received 3,600
pounds of ice.
P. F. E. Car 15237 on October 11th received 7,800
pounds of ice.
The total amount of ice actually furnished for the ini¬
tial icing of the cars on this exhibit was 249,800 pounds.
In Column 5 of Exhibit No. 2 the figure |9.10 should
be changed to $9.40, thus making the total ice cost $460.95.
(3218) The average cost of rendering the service on
the cars covered by this exhibit was $35.40 per car as
compared with proposed revenue of $24.75. Deficit,
$10.65.
Van Eensselaer's Exhibit No. 3 is a statement of ton¬
nage freight revenue, and refrigeration revenue ac¬
cruing on perishable freight on cars operated in the
schedule line shown from April 15th to October 15, 1918.
(3290) The actual tonnage shown on line No. 13 was
13,008 pounds as against the minimum of 15,000 pounds.
Van Eensselaer's Exhibit No. 2 shows a revenue, un¬
der proposed tariff, of $24.75 per car while Exhibit No.
3 shows the refrigeration revenue under the proposed
tariff rate, on the actual tonnage in the cars, would be
$11.56 per car. The freight revenue figures both as to
tonnage and earnings were furnished by the Union
Pacific Eailroad freight auditor from the waybills or
freight bills. The refrigeration revenue on each car was
681
figured by witness' office and was based upon the actual
amount of perishable tonnage in each one of the cars.
(3221)
These statements are representative of the average
movement of perishable commodities in scheduled re¬
frigerator cars over the lines mentioned. (3222)
The Union Pacific refrigerator service out of Omaha
is not a year round service. During the period between
October 15th and April 15th of each year these com¬
modities are transported either in dry cars or under
heat. (3229)
The amount of ice remaining in the bunkers on ar¬
rival at Grand Island and the cars shown in Van Ken-
sselaer's Exhibit No. 1 goes with the car in westward
movement into the loading stations from carload periods
in California. (3240) It is broken up in small pieces
and would cost more to remove it from the tanks than
it would be worth. It represents a loss or wastage.
(3241)
Most of the freight moving in these cars on the Union
Pacific is fresh meat and the aim is to give the best re¬
frigeration necessary or possible to protect that highly
perishable commodity. No salt is used in these cars.
The carrier does not know in advance how much
freight or what kind of freight is going into these sched¬
uled refrigerator cars. There might he a very heavy
ear one day that would take a maximum quantity of ice
to properly cool it. (3242)
Witness thinks that if maximum refrigeration is not
given there is likely to be a burden of excessive claims.
Witness considers that proper refrigeration requires the
bunkers to be kept as full as they can at all points. To
put the cost of ice at something near the amount actually
682
used Avould not be fair. Tbis ice is nsed and there is
no salvage of that which remains in the hunkers at
destination. (3243)
Aside from the question of claims it was witness' opin¬
ion that as an operating proposition the cars from Omaha
to Grand Island could be run with less ice but they could
not get along without at least icing the tanks to half
capacity. It would not temper the car originally. This
amount at least is necessary in order to cool the car
sufficiently for the protection of the contents. Sched¬
uled refrigerator cars leaving the different terminals in
the mornings are iced the preceding night and those that
leave at night are iced either the previous night or early
in the morning, before they are sent down to the freight
house for loading. (3246) They have already been iced
several hours before loading begins. Usually there are
regular hours for the receipt and loading of perishable
freight and to that end they are usually set in at the
freight house at a particular time. (3247)
Witness has also figured that in the interest of giving
good service it was necessary to ice these cars to capacity
during the hot summer season. Claims for damage to
fresh meat or other perishable commodities are filed with
the freight claim agent. His practice has been to base
proper refrigeration on the ice tank conditions. If the
ice tanks are found to be less than half full it is the
practice of the freight claim agent to assume that the
responsibility is on the carrier for the improper refrig¬
eration. It is absolutely the fact that 10,000 pounds of
ice in the bunkers gives greater refrigeration to a ship¬
ment than if it started out with 5,400 pounds or any
amount less than 10,000 pounds. (3249)
If the cars do not contain fresh meat it is not neces¬
sary to have so much ice. Claims on fresh fruits and
688
vegetables do not give so much trouble. The percent¬
age of fruits and vegetables loaded in these 1. c. 1. sched¬
uled refrigerator cars is less than that of fresh meat
shipments and the percentage of claims on fruits and
vegetables is less than the claims on fresh meat ship¬
ments.
In the cars covered by witness' exhibits about 75 per
cent of the tonnage consists of fresh meats and packing
house products. (3251) The same percentage of fresh
meat and packing-house product tonnage applies to the
Cheyenne car shown in witness' Exhibit No. 2. (3252)
The Cheyenne car shown in witness' Exhibit No. 2
runs thrice each week, on Monday, Wednesday and Fri¬
day and the greater proportion of freight in those cars
is packing-house products including' fresh meats. The
cars include perishable freight for points Cheyenne and
west, and some of the freight goes forward to western
points from the main line as far as Eock Springs, the
first station east of Green Eiver. Another car contain¬
ing shipments from this car goes forward via main line
to Ogden and another goes through Green Eiver, Poca-
tello and points on the Oregon Short Line. This is a
combination car not only for Cheyenne proper but for
all points west. (3252)
Omaha competes with Denver with this 1. c. 1. meat
traffic. This schedule is elaborate and is due to competi¬
tion and ever since its establishment it has been a losing-
proposition. Figures made from time to time for the
completed schedule have shown that the percentage of
revenue to the cost has not been commensurate with the
expense. Still, the service has been left in for the pur¬
pose of giving good service to the shipper and meeting
the competition of other lines. The running time of a
scheduled refrigerator car from Omaha to Cheyenne is
G84
approximately 36 to 40 hours. The run from Denver
to Cheyenne is a night run of about 106 miles. (3253)
If there is room in the refrigerator cars covered hy
Exhibit No. 2, dry freight is loaded to fill out.
Van Eensselaer's Exhibit No. 3 represents only perish¬
able tonnage in those cars. (3254) Perishable freight
is usually very bulky. If it is crated cabbage or some¬
thing like that it takes up considerable room. The same
is true of sacked potatoes or bags. (3258)
The maximum loading of miscellaneons commodities
of perishable freight would never run over fifteen to
eighteen thousand pounds. (3259) If you load up only
to 7,000 pounds there would be some space left. (3260)
The Union Pacific schedule calls for 268 scheduled re¬
frigerator cars per week on the run to Grand Island and
Cheyenne. There are 98 individual runs. The two runs
from Omaha which witness has selected represents one
short haul and one long haul.
These different runs are solely established for the
various commodities loaded in the communities served hy
these cars. Some communities produce dressed meats,
others dairy and others fruits and vegetables so that
the loadings will vary considerably in the various runs.
(3260)
In the month of August, 1917, witness recalls one car
that showed a loss of over $700 in one month. The cost
of the ice was in excess of the revenue, (3261)
Witness' line has not much easthound perishable traf¬
fic as compared with westbound. Refrigerator cars are
usually not run prior to April 15th unless there is a warm
spell of weather. Witness thinks it is as high on those
runs as it is between Kansas City and St. Louis as they
have temperatures running up to 110 and 120. (3263)
685
Ice cakes weigh a little more than 300 pounds each,
hut they are charged up at 300 pounds. The 1918 price
of ice at Omaha was $3.50 per ton. (3265) The 1917
price at Omaha was $2.50 and $3, both for artificial and
natural ice. (3266)
AVitness' jurisdiction on Union Pacific Railroad ex¬
tends from Green River eastward from Ogden eastward
and includes the Kansas and Nebraska divisions and in
a general way the St. Joseph and Grand Island Railroad.
(7279)
The Union Pacific Railroad operates a scheduled re¬
frigerator car one day per week on AVednesday for the
line from Grand Island to Ord, Neb. (3279) A sched¬
uled refrigerator car is also operated from Grand Island
on the Karney and Black Hill Line on AVednesday and
Thursday of each week, and another car on Saturday
and AA^ednesday goes from Grand Island through the
North Platte Branch up to Hague. (3280) Another
scheduled refrigerator car runs locally on Monday, Tues¬
day and Thursday from Grand Island to North Platte.
(3281)
These are P. P. E. cars and the P. P. E. Co. has nothing
to do with them except to ice them and the P. P. E. in¬
spector inspects the tanks to see about the amount of
ice. This is a joint inspection, the P. P. E. inspector
exercising his jurisdiction over part of the trip and the
railroad inspector over the remainder of the trip. At
Grand Island the P. P. E. Co. inspects the cars hut the
icing is done by the railroad employees. (3286)
Van Rensselaer's Exhibit No. 1-A is the Union Pacific
statement showing ice remaining in tanks and disposi¬
tion of cars after completing the run in schedule line
No. 13, as shown in Van Rensselaer's Exhibit No. 1. It
also shows perishable and nonperishable tonnage loaded
686
at Grand Island and the time and date of arrival of
cars shown on Van Rensselaer's Exhibit No. 1, at Grand
Island the amount of ice remaining in tanhs as shown
in that exhibit and the time of the next departure of
these cars from Grand Island. It shows that a majority
of these cars were used in schedule line No. 27 Grand
Island to Ord, a distance of 61 miles. There was no ad¬
ditional tank inspection made after their arrival at
the end of schedule line No. 13 or at Ord and no ice was
furnished at Grand Island. (8374) The inference might
be that such cars showed a through movement from
Omaha to Ord out of which the Grand Island freight had
been taken at Grand Island. This is not a fact, how¬
ever, as there is an Omaha to Ord car leaving Monday
and Thursday under schedule line No. 15. Consequently
the cars provided for in schedule line No. '27 are the
ears for Grand Island shipments only, destined to Ord
at intermediate stations.
Van Rensselaer's Exhibit No. 2-A is a Union Pacific
Railroad statement showing ice remaining in tanks and
disposition made of cars after completion of run of sched¬
ule line No. 2, as shown on Van Rensselaer's Exhibit
No. 2; also perishable and nonperishable tonnage loaded
at Cheyenne. There was only one car on Van Rensse¬
laer's Exhibit No. 2 that was used in filling another sched¬
ule. (8375)
No check was made of the ice in the bunkers at the
time the cars moved out on the new schedule run or of
the cars at the time they arrived at Ord.
Van Rensselaer's Exhibit No. 1-A merely shows the
amount of ice in the cars on arrival at Grand Island.
(8376) The 27 cars from Grand Island to Ord carried
an aggregate tonnage of 90,114 pounds or a little less
than 3,350 pounds per car. Under the proposed tariff
687
rate of 10c per 100 pounds of freight for this mileage,
the refrigerator revenue on these cars would be an aver¬
age of $3.35 per car. On the cars shown in Van Eensse-
laer's Exhibit No. 1 figured on the minimum there would
be a deficit between the refrigeration cost and the re¬
frigeration revenue of approximately $12.48 per car. If
the additional revenue from Grand Island to Ord was
figured in the deficit would be reduced to $9.13 per car.
(8377)
The first two cars on Van Eensselaer's Exhibit 2-A
moved west empty; the next two were loaded with non-
perishable freight; the next two moved west empty; an¬
other was not used until three days after reaching its
original destination; another not until four days tliere-
after; the next Avent west empty; the next one was not
used until four days after reaching its original destina¬
tion; the next moved Avest empty and the next AAms used
in schedule line No. 39 and had in it on its new moA^e-
ment 6,282 pounds of perishable freight; then six more
nioA^ed AA'est empty; another Avas not used for six days;
the next moved Avest empty ; the next three Avere not used
until six, four and four days respectively; the next moved
Avest empty and the last one Avas not moved until fiiAm
days after it had reached its original destination. (9379)
Witness T. H. Gormax, general freight agent, Amer¬
ican Eefrigerator Transit Co.
Gorman's Exhibit 31 consists of one car of 1. c. 1.
freight for each Aveek for the year 1916 from Chicago
to St. Louis, operated as scheduled refrigerator service.
These cars used an aggregate of 325,500 pounds of ice
or an average of 6,260 pounds per car, Avhich cost an
average of $23.75 per car. The average loading per car
was 27,102 pounds of perishable freight. The proposed
refrigeration rate on this movement AAmuld be $32.53
per car.
688
By adding $4 car supervision, $23.75 wortli of ice,
$10.31 for hauling an average of 3,134 pounds of ice 286
miles, $5 bunker damage, would make a total of $33.06,
which compared with the proposed charges would show
a deficit of the 52 cars involved in this exhibit of $1.25
per car. (2934-42)
These cars were initially iced at Chicago at a cost
of $7.59 computed on present day costs to American Ee-
frigerator Transit Co.
These cars Avere selected by taking the first car each
week for the same day each week throughout the year
unless that day happened to fall on Sunday. For in¬
stance, witness took the first car of the first day of the
month and the first car on the 8th, 15th and 22nd, of
each month. (2935)
Due to an oversight in making up Gorman's Exhibit
No. 31, it contains no figures for switching.
Gorman's Exhibit No. 32 is a statement of the move¬
ments of 52 scheduled refrigerator cars of 1. c. 1. freight
from Kansas City to St. Louis in 1916, based upon 1919
ice costs, which is $7.57 per ton at Kansas City. No
switching charge is included in this statement. These
cars were selected in the same manner as those in Gor¬
man's Exhibit No. 31 and the exhibit shows the same fac¬
tors, Avhich, compared Avith the proposed tariff charge
applicable to these cars, would show a deficit of $4.59
(2938-42) per car for handling this freight.
Gorman's Exhibit No. 33 is made up in the same man¬
ner and includes the same factors as his Exhibit No.
31 and covers one car of 1. c. 1. scheduled refrigerator
freight each week for 52 weeks, from St. Louis to Laredo,
of perishable freight exclusively.
These cars Avere initially iced at St. Louis where ice
689
costs $4.52 a ton. Some were re-iced at' North Little
Eock Avliere ice costs $3.75 per ton, others were re-iced
at Austin, Texas, where ice costs $5.50 per ton. This
exhibit includes an item for switching. This exhibit
shows by applying the proposed tariff charge applicable
there Avould be a deficit of $3.25 per ear for furnishing
this refrigeration service. (2939)
Gorman's Exhibit No. 34 covers one car each week for
1916 of 1. c. 1. scheduled refrigerator freight from St.
Louis to Fort Worth and is prepared in the same manner
and covers the same elements and factors as Gorman's
Exhibit No. 31, except that it does include switching.
These cars were originally iced at St. Louis where ice
costs $4.52 per ton; part of them were re-iced at Little
Eock where ice costs $3.75 per ton and others were re-iced
at Texarkana where ice costs $4.50 per ton. By apply¬
ing the proposed -tariff it shows an average deficit of
$4.21 per car. (2942)
In compiling these exhibits operations for the year
1916 Avere used because that Avas the latest year for which
AA'itnsss has data from which to make accurate figures.
The ice costs Avere computed by actual performance,
namely, the actual amount of ice used for the initial icing
and the re-icings where there was transit re-icing. (2942)
Tlie American Eefrigerator Transit Co. no longer has
supervision of the less than carload refrigerator service
and that is the reason there have been no records or re¬
ports since 1916. (2945) Since 1916 the railroads have
tliemselves handled the 1. c. 1. refrigerator service.
(3946)
The tabulation under the heading "Bunker Capacity,"
Gorman's Exhibits 31 to 34, inclusive, is not the true
indication of the bunker capacity of those cars nor does
it indicate that the cars were loaded to bunker capacity
690
ill each instance. This tabulation merely shows the
amount of ice actually put in the hunkers and does not
include any ice that may have been left in the hunkers
from previous icings. (2950) The quantity of ice put
in the hunkers is determined by multiplying the number
of cakes used by the weight of the cakes.
The 1. c. 1. refri gerator car service from Chicago to
St. Louis is a daily service and refrigeration is fur¬
nished during the winter months as well as during the
summer months. (2967)
In Avitness ' opinion full and effective refrigerator serv¬
ice from Chicago to St. Louis would require as much ice
in December as in July. (2996)
Witness expressed the opinion that the collection of
])roposed 1. c. 1. refrigerator charges would have no
effect upon the service, except possibly to eliminate from
refrigerator cars some freight AAdiich could move in box
car equipment. , Witness thinks that the establishment
of 1. c. 1. refrigerator charges would enable carriers to
give better 1. c. 1. service, as it would produce a revenue
that would enable the carriers to better supervise the
business. (1944)
Witness T. R. Kinneesley, car service agent of the Ore¬
gon Short Line (1951) testified as follows:
Kinnersley's Exhibit No. 1 is a statement of the cost
of refrigeration of 1. c. 1. perishable freight and the per¬
formance of representative scheduled cars from Salt
Lake City to Pocatello on the Oregon Short Line from
June, 1918, to October 14, 1918 (1952), showing one car
out of the line each week for the period during which the
Short Line operates refrigerator cars under refrigera¬
tion (1953) ; also shoAving freight revenue to ultimate
destinations as Butte, Bliss, Parma and Pocatello, fig-
69Í
ured ou mileage pro rata; 19 ears are shown. The cost
was 116.34 per car, or $310.46 refrigeration charges, in¬
cluding the cost of 5,000 pounds of ice at $2.50 per ton,
$6.25 ; 35 cents switching to ice house, $5 bunker damage,
$4 for supervision, and ice haulage of 74 cents for 3,750
pounds of ice for a haul of 170 miles from Salt Lake City
to Pocatello. (1954) Figured on the short mileage basis
the average freight revenue from perishable freight in
those cars was $20.66 in comparison with the freight reve¬
nue tariff on a through haul.
Kinnersley's Exhibit No. 2 covers 19 1. c. 1. schedule re¬
frigerator cars moving from Salt Lake City to Malad,
Idaho—109 miles. The average cost of this refrigera¬
tion service was at $16.11 per car, and the average freight
revenue on the contents of those cars figured on the same
mileage basis, in comparison with the freight revenue
on the through haul was $11.43 (1955), or $4.68 less per
car than the cost of refrigeration. Kinnersley's Exhibits
Nos. 1 and 2 are fairly representative of the schedule
1. c. 1. car service. Generally on the Oregon Short Line
when the cars get to Pocatello there is a new service be¬
yond ; that is not true of the cars going to Malad, except
occasionally if anything happens to be freighted for re¬
turn from Malad ; that is the end of a branch. Pocatello
is the end of the particular schedule run. Exhibit No. 2
shows the entire business to Malad. (1956)
In order to get a representative statement in these ex¬
hibits, witness included the long haul and the short haul,
and in cases where there was a short line haul he has
shown intermediate hauls. (1957) The Pocatello car
docs not pick up any perishable freight en route. It
represents one car per week, or one car out of a desig¬
nated line operating semi-weekly or tri-weekly, as the
case may be. (1958) These exhibits simply shoAv one
692
car per week on the various lines and is not a setout car.
The cars in Exhibit No. 1 break bulk at Pocatello; they
operate from a local point to a local point which is, how¬
ever, from the largest jobbing center to a break bulk
point and represent the ordinary published car used by
Avholesalers in distributing their goods to the retailers
along the line. The Oregon Short Line would not operate
refrigerator cars to stop at every point.
Exhibit No. 1 contains shipments for points in Idaho
beyond Pocatello. (1859.) The second exhibit shows
shipments picked up at Brigham, a junction point on the
Malad line; such shipments are practically only nomi¬
nal, and exhibit shows only some five or six shipments
from Brigham. The revenue on the pickup business
at that junction is included in the exhibit. The cars in
Exhibit No. 1 are operated in through trains to Pocatello,
and the shipments go on local from there beyond. The
cars shown in Exhibit No. 2 are operated in a through
train to the main line junction beyond, and from there
on the locals. The peddler cars usually move in through
trains to certain points part of the way over the divi¬
sion. They are usually operated, as far as possible, on
through trains before they go into the locals. (1959.)
The shipments shown in Kinnersley's Exhibits Nos. 1
and 2 are representative of ordinary refrigeration serv¬
ice furnished under schedules used by wholesale mer¬
chants generally. The exhibits are representative of
the railroad serving the wholesale point with stations
all along its line, perhaps from five to ten miles apart.
Occasionally at these stations perishable commodities
like eggs, fruits, etc., are offered in small quantities.
The tariff revenue derived from this pickup business is
not considered on these cars because there is practically
no such business offered from the routes where those
cars go, and the pickup business is not shown on these
693
exhibits. (1961.) There was other freight loaded in
these particular cars ; their loading ran from six to seven
tons total, both perishable and nonperishable. (1968.)
AVitness states that the use of the refrigeration cars
shown in his Exhibit No. 1 displaces a car which would
otherwise have been set for dead freight moving between
Salt Lake City and Pocatello. (1969.)
AATtness P. B. Beidelman, assistant general freight
agent of the Great Northern Kailroad was a member of
the committee which compiled the proposed tariff. He
states that the rates in Section Six of the proposed taritf
are published from and to specific points 1. c. 1. the same
as carloads, for the reason that the committee endeavored
to reflect the cost of the service, and the cost of service
in the opposite direction is not always identical owing
to the varying prices of ice, and the initial icing is the
heavy part of the cost, for instance, on the Great North¬
ern points prices in Montana are higher than in Minne¬
sota, and, therefore, the committee did not undertake to
publish tlie same 1. c. 1. charges from Montana to Minne¬
sota as it did from Minnesota to Montana. (1971.)
AVitness George H. Nelson, manager of the Santa Fe
refrigerator department, testified, as follows ; At Los
Angeles, California, schedule car service is figured on an
arbitrary basis of 15,000 pounds loading, which witness
thought was a little high, cost for ice per car, as fol¬
lows :
These figures include the cost of repairs to refrigerator
Schedule No. 90, May, 1919
Schedule No. 90, June, 1919
Schedule No. 90a, May, 1919
Schedule No. 90a, June, 1919
Schedule No. 90b, May, 1919
Sehetjule No. 90b, June, 1919
Schedule No. 90c, May, 1919
Schedule No. 90c, June, 1919
$16.29
16.99
15.58
16.99
18.17
19.70
17.37
18.13.
694
devices and haulage of ice. (936.) The average of the
above figures represents a cost of 17.2 cents per 100
pounds of freight. For this service the tariff in question
proposes 12 cents per 100 pounds, or 5.2 cents less than
the actual cost of rendering the service at the times
above m'^^ntioned. (937.) On four cars of 1. c. 1. perish¬
able freight each month for the twelve months of 1918,
from Kansas City to Emporia, the average cost shown
for the service was $21.63, including supervision, cost
of ice, ice haulage and bunker damage. Under this tar¬
iff the proposed charge for this service is $19.21, so that
if these shipments had moved under the proposed tariff
they would have represented a loss of $2.42 per car. (Nel¬
son's Exhibit No. 25, p. 1718.)
On four cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight each month
for the twelve months of 1918 from Kansas City to
Oklahoma City, the cost of the service, including the
same items above mentioned with respect to Nelson's
Exhibit No. 25, was an average of $30.62 per car. The
proposed tariff provides a charge for this service of
$23.04 per car, and if applicable at the time would have
represented a loss to the carrier of $7.58 per car. (Nel
son's Exhibit No. 26, p. 1719.)
On four cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight each month
for the twelve months of 1918 from Kansas City to Hous¬
ton, the service cost, including the same elements above
mentioned, was $41.74. Under the proposed tariff the
revenue for this service would be $32.76, or a loss to the
carrier of $8.98 per car. (Nelson's Exhibit No. 27, p.
1719.)
It was afterwards discovered that in Nelson's Exhibit
No. 24, he had used a 12-eent rate in the proposed tariff
as applicable between Kansas City and Emporia, where¬
as, in fact, the 10-cent rate applied, so that instead of
proposed tariff yielding a revenue of #19.21 per car, as
695
shown on Nelson's Exhibit No. 24, it would render a
revenue of |16, and, therefore, show a loss to the carrier
of 7.2 cents per 100 pounds of freight. (1725.)
In these exhibits the figure of |4 per car was used
for supervision cost. This is the average cost of super¬
vision per car. (1727) The ice haulage shown in these
exhibits was computed on the basis set forth by the Inter¬
state Commerce Commission in Arlington Heights Fruit
Exchange v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C., 106, as 25 cents per
hundred pounds for a haul of 2,164 miles. (1732)
The tendency of the application of the proposed tariff
to 1. c. 1. perishable freight would be to diminish the
tonnage of that class of freight shipped in refrigerator
cars, for the reason that shippers would no longer, as
now, insist upon a refrigerator car service for com¬
modities that do not require it, and the cars would, to
that extent, be released for essential service. (1741)
By way of illustration: on the commodities shipped in
refrigerator car service that do not require refrigeration,
Avitness referred to potato shipments in September or
October, also to shipments of groceries which may in¬
clude cheese. Shippers also have the idea that refrig¬
erator car service is expedited service and makes better
time than box car service. In Western Classification
tariff there is no charge at the present time for the 1. c. 1.
refrigeration service, and there never has been any such
charge there. (1742) There is in Santa Fe tariff 8123-J,
I. C. C. 7370, Item 80, providing that a special car will
be supplied for 10,000 pounds, or more, at the second-
class rate from point of origin to final destination on
which no charge will be made for initial icing or re-icing.
(1744) The theory of the proposed tariff is not that the
carrier should sell ice, but that it should sell and fur¬
nish refrigeration. (1747)
In the figures submitted by the witness he has included
696
the $4 item for supervision cost. It is the theory of
the proposed tariff that supervision should be included
in the cost of rendering 1. c. 1. refrigeration service, as
well as in rendering of c. 1. refrigeration service, and it
was witness' judgment that 1. c. 1. service cost more to
supervise than the c. 1. service. (1749)
Witness has been with Santa Fe Befrigerator Depart¬
ment twenty-one years, about ten of which were spent on
the road supervising the icing of the cars. (1766)
Nelson's Exhibit No. 28 was prepared at the request
of the Examiner, and shows the cost of rendering sched¬
ule refrigerator service on 17 cars of 1. c. 1. perishable
freight from Los Angeles, California, to Search Light,
Nevada, during the months of May and June, 1919. The
cost of ice supplied to those 17 cars averaged $18.02 per
car. The rates of the proposed tariff applicable to that
service are $15.05 per car, and, therefore, $2.97 per car
less than the service cost the carrier. (2135)
Witness H. A. Huber, superintendent refrigerator
service of the Chicago, Bock Island and Pacific Bailroad,
testified that he has been engaged in railroad transporta¬
tion service since 1886.
His Exhibits No. 10 (1809) and 10-a cover one car each
week for 52 weeks commencing May 1,1918, from Kansas
City to El Beno ; the same number from Kansas City tô
Tucumcari, and the same number from Kansas City to
Denver. (6012-6013) They give the details of the ice
and salt, the average weight of the freight in the car,
and the total revenue and average per car revenue. The
rate in the proposed tariff applicable to these shipments
would have been 12 cents per hundred pounds on the cars
to El Beno, 20 cents per hundred pounds on the cars to
Tucumcari, and 16| cents per hundred pounds on the
cars to Denver, and under those rates the refrigeration
697
revenue would have amounted to $2,679.09, or $226.76 less
than the service actually cost the carrier, without tak¬
ing into consideration the other factors that enter into
the cost of remedying the service. (6013-6014)
The same business handled between May 1, 1919, and
May 1, 1920, would, at the prevailing ice cost, cost ap¬
proximately $540 more than it did when that service
was rendered, assuming, of course, that the ice price
does not increase between now and May 1, 1920. Pres¬
ent ice prices which witness pays at Kansas City will
prevail until January 1, 1920, after that he does not
know what the prices will be. (6014-6015)
Huber's Exhibits No. 11 (1811) and 11-a show the de¬
tails of 59 cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight moving from
Hutchison, Kansas, during the m^onths of June and July,
1918, to the following stations:
16 to Bucklin, Kansas.
17 to Arkalon, Kansas.
17 to Tueumcari, New Mexico.
9 to Delhart, Texas.
If all the freight handled in these cars had gone to
destination of the car the rate applicable under the pro¬
posed tariff would have been 10 cents per 100 pounds
of freight to Bucklin and Arkalon, and 12 cents per 100
pounds to Tueumcari and Delhart, and would have yielded
a refrigeration revenue of $878.04, or $165.01 less than
the cost of the ice alone. If the 1919 price of ice were
applicable to this tariff the service would have cost $300
more than it did, and the deficit would have been $465.01.
(6016)
Huher's Exhibits No. 12 (1812) and 12-a (6016) cover
34 cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight moving from Den¬
ver, Colorado, during June and July, 1918, to Goodland,
Topeka and Colorado Springs. According to practice on
this traffic these cars were not iced to hunker capacity.
698
If the freiglit handled in these cars had been destined
to the destination of the cars, the refrigeration revenue
based on the proposed tariff would have been as fol¬
lows :
12 cents per 100 pounds to Goodland, or total of
$288.39.
10 cents per 100 pounds to Colorado Springs, or
total of $57.24.
15 cents per 100 pounds to Topeka, or total of
$107.74.
The aggregate, $453.35, would have exceeded the cost
of the ice alone by $148.47. This is, of course, without
taking into consideration any other items of the cost of
rendering 1. c. 1. refrigeration service. The average haul
of all freight in those cars was only 200 miles, therefore,
the amount applicable for refrigeration under the pro¬
posed tariff rates would have been only $369.46; there¬
fore, the carrier's refrigeration revenue was $91.50
more than the hare cost of ice. At 1919 prices the ice
for this tariff would have cost $413.50.
It was witness' opinion that if the carriers get the
refrigeration charges, as contemplated by the proposed
tariff, it obviously would justify or permit the carriers to
furnish a better service. (1824) Mr. Huber also thought
that there were some commodities now offered for re¬
frigeration service that would go into ordinary box cars
where they belonged if the proposed charge was made for
refrigeration service. (1825)
The witness estimated that the Eock Island Kailroad
in 1918 furnished $57,000 worth of ice to schedule re¬
frigerator cars operated for 1. c. 1. perishable on which
that railroad received no revenue other than the regu¬
lar haulage rate of the freight. For 1919, witness esti¬
mated that the Eock Island Eailroad will expend $80,000
for ice "furnished for this traffic without revenue other
than the haulage rate on the freight. (6024) About ten
699
or eleven thousand pounds of perishable freight, of the
kind handled in the cars referred to in Huber's Exhibits
Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and 10a, 11a and 12a, is nearly all
that can be handled in one car on account of the meas¬
urements of various kinds of packages. Exhibits Nos.
10 and 10a covered mostly fruit and some meat. (6030)
The packages range all the way from banana racks to
strawberry packages and on account of their lack of
uniformity take up most of the room. (6031) When
the packages are of uniform size the car can be loaded
much more heavily. If the schedule cars are used for
other freight such as butter, eggs, etc., the average load
will be greater. (6031) Some of the 1. c. 1. schedule cars
are not loaded to capacity. In some cases this space is
left empty and in other cases the space is filled out with
dead freight, but there was no dead freight loaded in
any of the cars covered by these exhibits. (6032) In
selecting the cars used in Exhibits 10 and 10a the first
car each week of three runs or lines was taken. (6033)
Because these cars handle some fresh meat it is neces¬
sary to ice them in th^ winter months as well as in ths
summer months. The cars covered by this exhibit were
published cars, although not carriers' published cars.
(6034) They wei'e opened at different points along the
line until they reached final destination. Opening a car
in that manner affects the ice meltage. The practice with
reference to the initial icing and the amount used therein
is different in the winter months from that of the sum¬
mer months. In some cases less ice is used in winter, but
not very much, if any, in cases where fresh meat is in¬
volved. (6034) Some fruits and vegetables are not
iced at all in winter time, but they are supplied with
heater service. (6035)
Schedule refrigerator cars are iced early in the morn¬
ing or the night before they are loaded, and they stand
700
at the freight house during loading. This is done to se¬
cure a certain amount of ice meltage before loading in or¬
der to cool the cars. These cars, however, are not al¬
lowed to stand open all day. (6036) They are placed
for loading in the morning, and they leave point of origin
in the evening. In large centers perishable 1. c. 1. freight
begins to appear at 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. (6039)
In Huber's Exhibits Nos. 13 and 13a the car from
Wathena, Kansas, to Minneapolis, on August 22nd, took
25,400 pounds of ice, and the car between these points
on September 29th took 13,400 pounds. This ditference
in quantity of ice would not indicate any delay of the first
car in transit, but is explained by the fact that the first
car moved in August when it was very hot, while the
second car moved in September when it is comparatively
cool. (6040)
While Huber's Exhibits Nos. 13 and 13a show dispar¬
ities in the amount of ice used on different cars between
the same points on the same day, as, for instance, on Sep¬
tember 29, 1917, witness said that these differences in
ice quantities occur right along, even though the records
do not show any detention of the car which took the
larger amount. He thinks, however, that his exhibits are
representative of the traffic as a whole on the Rock Island
road. (6043) Owing to climatic conditions it is the
practice of Rock Island road not to ice to full capacity
any schedule refrigerator cars originating in Colorado.
It is generally quite cool during the day and very much
cooler at night. (6045)
Witness Fred Wilde, Jr., testified that he has been
freight traffic manager of the Denver and Rio Grande
Railroad for 20 years and in the railroad business 39
years.
That the Denver & Rio Grande 1. c. 1. schedule refrig¬
erator cars operated on the 15th, 17th and 19th of July,
701
■were as follows: Schedule car No. 10-C was operated
from Denver to Pueblo; containing about 16,070 pounds
of perishable tonnage, on which the carrier's revenue was
$6.69. The cost of the ice in the bunkers at Denver was
$5.16; the second car contained 3,355 pounds of perish¬
able freight on.which the carrier's earnings were $15.99;
the charge made for refrigeration was the same amount
and was based on $1.90 per ton for ice in the ice house,
and 68 cents per ton for taking it from the ice house and
placing it in the bunkers of the car. ,(1841) The third
car contained 3,000 pounds of perishable freight upon
which the carrier received a revenue of $10.53, and the
charge for ice entered for refrigeration was $5.16.
Refrigerator schedule car No. 11-C is operated daily,
except Sunday, between Denver, Colorado Springs and
Manitou ; six of these cars were used, and they contained
from 3,160 pounds minimum to 8,792 pounds maximum of
perishable freight. The freight earnings on those cars
Avere $7.09 and $34.61. The cost of refrigerating those
cars at Denver was $5.16 per car. Under refrigerator
schedule 12-C, five cars were taken; they carry perish¬
able freight from Denver to points west of Salida. These
cars are initially iced at Denver and re-iced at Pueblo and
Salida. At Pueblo the contents of the Denver car are
transferred to the Pueblo car, and at Salida the contents
of the Pueblo car transferred to the Salida car. The
cost of refrigerating in Denver was $5.16 ; at Pueblo $6.06
per car; at Salida $11.12 per car, making a total of
$22.34 per car. The cars contained from 2,733 pounds to
24,590 pounds of perishable freight, on which the freight
reA'enues were from $40.85 to $95.45 per car. (1842)
The Western Classification makes no provision for any¬
thing except the transportation or haulage charge.
(1843) The additional service is provided for by the in¬
dividual line.
702
"Witness thinks that the exception to the classification
provision by the individual lines came about by some one
line originating the scheme and every other line getting
into line. It was a case of competition. The original
rates were predicated on the original amount of commod¬
ities of that character in box-car equipment, and not in
any of these more expensive special cars. When witness
came to this part of the country, namely, Denver, he v;as
employed in the general freight office of what is now
known as the Colorado and Southern, in those days called
the Denver, Texas and Fort Worth Railroad. They had
no refrigerator cars Avhatever, every pound of freight
and perishable commodities that the railroad carried
were moved in ordinary cars. The refrigerator move¬
ment, both 1. c. 1. and c. 1. is a growth of later years, and
developed long after the freight rate was established.
(1844)
McPike's Exhibit No. 78 is a statement of weights
and perishable freight handled in regular refrigerator
schedules on the Illinois Central Railroad (northern and
western lines) during the calendar years 1916, 1917, and
1918 between points on or north of Ohio River, averaging
per car:
1916 9653 lbs.
1917 9535 lbs.
1918 12606 lbs. (2106-2108)
McPike's Exhibit No. 114 is a statement of representa¬
tive cars (52) operating during 1918 under refrigerator
schedule from Chicago, breaking bulk at Ft. Dodge (375
miles) running out of Sioux Falls (547 miles) average
haul, 461 miles, based on 1919 ice costs.
703
Average cost of ice (5,172 lbs.) per car
Damage to refrigerator devices per car
Ice haulage (av. weight 3,879) per car
Supervision per car
$14.48
5.00
2.07
4.00
Total
$25.55-^15000 lbs.
$25.55
$0.17 per 100 lbs. frt.
Proposed tariff charge, Chicago to
iff. Dodge .12 per 100 lbs. frt.
Proposed tariff charge, Chicago to
Sioux Falls .185 per 100 lbs. frt.
This exhibit consists of one car each week for the year
1918. None of the cars were iced before April 17th. The
ice averages were arrived at by dividing the quantity of
ice used, 150,000 pounds by the 29 cars that were iced.
klcPike's Exhibit No. 115 is a statement of representa¬
tive cars (53) operating during 1918, under refriger¬
ator schedule from Chicago, breaking bulk at Dubuque
(183 miles) and running out at "Waterloo (276 miles)
average haul 229 miles based on 1919 ice costs.
Average cost of ice (5333) lbs.) per car |14.93
Damage to refrigerator devices per car 5.00
Haulage of ice (av. weight 3,400 lbs.) .90
$24.83-^15000 lbs.—$0.17 per 100 lbs. of freight.
Proposed tariff charge to Dubuque 10c per 100 lbs.
Proposed tariff charge to Waterloo 12c per 100 lbs.
Of the cars on this exhibit none were iced until May
Sth. (8966-69)
A grand average on all refrigerator car movements
north of the Ohio River for three entire years shoAved a
little over 12,000 pounds of perishable freight per car
even under war conditions of heavy loadings and econo¬
mizing of equipment, so witness felt that an average of
15,000 pounds of freight per car was giving the shippers
Supeiwision per car
Total
$24.83
4.00
704
the benefit of every doubt. (See McPike's Exhibit No.
78.)
The Illinois Central being a north and south road and
subject to all climatic conditions, witness thinks it is
about as nearly representative as can be found, to make
an average.
Referring to his Exhibit No. 115 witness stated it was
the practice of the Illinois Central and other railroads,
on westbound schedule cars, to graduate the initial icing
from nothing in winter to a reasonable amount as the
spring advances and the summer comes on.
Merritt's Exhibit No. 43 is a statement of less-than-
carload perishable tonnage and the cost of ice on ship¬
ments moving from St. Paul, Minn., to Jamestown, N. D.,
to Billings, Mont., and to Seattle, Wash. (Tr., 8310.)
The following is a statement of the average cost of ice
per car, the average freight revenue per car and the
perishable revenue per car under the proposed tariff':
Av. per-
Av. ice cost Av. frt. ishable
Origin—Destination per car Revenue Revenue
'St. Paul to Jamestown $19.28 $31.16 $ 6.95
St. Paul to Billings 31.07 126.08 13.22
St. Paul to Seattle 51.56 151.70 15.68
(Tr., 8310-11)
Witness Edward E. Betts is superintendent of trans¬
portation of Chicago and North Western Railroad, and
has been in charge of these matters for about twenty-two
years. (3931)
Rett's Exhibit No. 1 consists of statements one to ten,
inclusive. Statement No. 1 covers 50 cars of 1. c. 1. per¬
ishable freight loaded at the C. & N. W. State street
freight house, Chicago, with an aggregate of 234,666
jionnds of perishable freight, or an average of 4,693
pounds per car. The average revenue taken from the
705
billings on this freight was $16.96 per car. The average
cost of ice two and one-fortieth tons at $7 per ton was
$14.70 exclusive of bunker damage or ice haulage. (3932)
The cost of switching these cars which would not have
been necessary if freight had been loaded in box cars
was 87 cents per car ; determined by an actual test made
at the freight house one evening during the progress
of the hearing of this case .in Chicago. This switching
cost was determined by multiplying the actual extra time
required by $11.85 per switch engine hour. The average
excess weight of these refrigerator cars over box cars
was 8,000 pounds. The weight of the ice in these cars
was 2,000 pounds per car, making a total excess weight
per car of 10,000 pounds. (3933) The total gross ton
miles of these two items is 50 tons, which if multiplied by
the average car mileage on these cars equals 1,205 ton
miles. The C. & N. W. operating cost is approximately
six mills per ton mile. The cost of handling five tons ex¬
cess weight (for excess weight of car and ice) (3933) for
241 miles at six mills per ton mile is $7.23, which to¬
gether with switching and the cost of the ice showed the
cost on these cars of $27.27, as compared with the reve¬
nue of $16.96 derived from the movement of this freight.
There was, therefore, a deficit of $10.31 per car exclu¬
sive of supervision or any necessary re-icing or the use
of the property taxes or additional interest for the addi¬
tional cost of refrigerator over box cars. (3934)
Statement No. 2 covers 50 cars of 1. c. 1. perishable
freight loaded at Grand avenue freight station, Chicago,
and is made up in the same manner as statement No. 1,
and consists of the summary on the front sheet and
three subsequent pages in detail showing an average
cost of $29.25 as compared with the average earnings
of $48.65 per car. (Gross earnings per car, $19.50.)
706
Statement No. 3 covers 50 cars of 1. c. 1. perishable
freight loaded at Milwaukee in July, 1919, and consists
of a summary on the first sheet and two sheets of details.
It shows an average cost of $22.23 per car as compared
with average earnings of $28.45 per car. Gross earnings
per car, $6.22.
Statement No. 4 covers nine cars of 1. c. 1. perishable
freight loaded at Sioux City and consists of a summary
on the first page and one page of details. It shows an
average cost of $35.01 per car as compared with the
average earnings of $33.70 per car. (Deficit $1.31 per
car). (3936)
Statement No. 6 is a recapitulation of statements one,
two, three and four, and shows gross earnings of $4.74
per car on the 159 cars involved. (3938)
Statement No. 5 shows that the C. & N. W. ice costs
at Chicago at present time are $7.02 per ton in hunkers,
and $3.21 per ton at Mihvaukee and $7 per ton at Sioux
City, Iowa. (3937)
Statement No. 7 is an analysis of the 159 cars above
mentioned, showing which of them go the entire distance
vdth all of the freight, and are, therefore, straight cars
to destination (3940) ; and those that unload at the first
way freight division and those that go beyond the second
way freight division.
Statement No. 9 shows that on the handling of these
159 1. c. 1. refrigerator cars the cost of handling the
freight was $24.50 per car, after deducting the gross
earnings of $4.74 per car shown in statement No. 6. This
figure shows a loss of $19.76 per car on 1. c. 1. refrig¬
erator service. (3941)
The C. & N. W. Railroad operates 1. c. 1. refrigerator
cars from Omaha to Chicago. Five of tlicse cars loaded
between June 18th and 26, 1919, contained an aggregate
707
of 2,222 pounds, or 444 pounds per car. One of these cars
contained 3t0 pounds of perishable freight that earned
12.33—another contained 1,912 pounds, earning $22.02.
Three others contained no perishable freight and, there¬
fore, had no earnings. The total earnings on these five
cars was $24.35, or an average of $4.87 per car. They
were scheduled refrigerator cars, available for such ton¬
nage as they could get (3943) ; and that is all of the per¬
ishable freight that they got. They did, however, carry
some dead freight. (3944)
At the C. & N. W. State street station, Chicago, per¬
ishable freight is loaded at the same depot and over the
same platform as freight loaded in box cars. In prepar¬
ing witness' statement No. 1 in Betts' Exhibit No. 1, he
did not select any particular days or any particular car.
(3944) He included all cars containing perishable freight
loaded at that station on July 7th and July 8, 1919.
There is a material cost for the supervision of 1. c. 1.
perishable freight, but the witness had been unable to
ascertain the exact amount of this cost per car. (3947)
It costs from $600 to $700 a month. There are inspec¬
tion costs at each re-icing point and considerable labor
involved. The witness did not know the exact amount,
consequently he did not include anything for supervision
in his Exhibit No. 1. (3948)
Illinois Territory.
As applying to Southern Illinois including the move¬
ment from St. Louis and East St. Louis to Chicago, see
Illinois Central Railroad Tariff I. C. C. A-8383; Illinois
Central Railroad Tariff 7991-B (intrastate only) ; Wa¬
bash Railroad Tariff I. C. C., 4579, Item 220; those is¬
sues containing stated charges above the freight rate,
for refrigeration.
708
Official Classification Territory.
The testimony of D. T. Laweence, a member of the
Official Classification Committee, showed the following
situation with regard to the history of rates and rat¬
ings on perishable commodities in Official Classification
territory :
1. General history, intention and meaning of classifi¬
cation provisions in Official Classification territory with
respect to protection from cold and heat.
In so far as the Official Classification is concerned,
the carriers have never been held out as furnishing free
protection from cold, or in fact, as furnishing protection
from cold. (3079-80) (Lawrence Exhibit 1.)
With respect to protection from heat, the provision was
that the railroad companies may furnish ice for property
of third or a higher class when loaded in refrigerator or
other cars. This phraseology distinctly meant that the
carriers may not furnish ice for property rated lower
than third class. (3081) (Lawrence Exhibit 2.) A rule
of this nature appeared in classifications prior to Official
Classification No. 1. Effective April 6, 1885, the Official
Classification for eastbound freight provided that rail¬
road companies may furnish ice for property of fifth or
a higher class when loaded in refrigerator or other cars.
(3090) On that date the eastbound rate, Chicago to New
York, was 50c per hundred pounds, fifth class, while on
April 1, Í887, when Official Classification No. 1 became
effective providing only for ice for property rated third
class or higher, the third class rate from Chicago to New
York was 50c. (3091)
The word "may" has always been construed by Official
Classification men and the traffic officials as meaning that
the cari'iers Avere permitted to furnish ice but were not
709
obligated to do so. (3082) The view of the Official
Classification Committee in 1897 is shown in a letter dated
July 25, 1897, signed by C. E. Gill, chairman of the Offi¬
cial Classification Committee, in reply to a letter dated
January 22, 1897, from the Provincetown Cold Storage
Company, Provincetown, Mass. (3082) This letter from
the Provincetown Cold Storage Company is in the record
at page 3083, the reply at pages 3084-5-6. The reply
states "Hence, you will notice that it is not obligatory
lipon the carriers to furnish ice." (3085)
In January, 1908, it was proposed that the word "may"
be corrected to read "will." This was opposed by many
carriers. The consensus of opinion seemed to be that
the rule might well be revised in some proper way so
that it would be specific in its statement as to what the
carriers would or would not do, but the method pro¬
posed, that is, to make it obligatory upon the carriers
to furnish ice, met with considerable opposition. (3087)
The opposition came from carriers who were not furnish¬
ing ice under the permission granted by the word "may"
or who were not participating in the expense of ice fur¬
nished by other carriers. Both features were involved.
The fact was that at that time there were carriers who
were not participating in the payment of these charges
(3087), but were placing the burden of the payment of
them upon the shippers. (3088) The difference of opin¬
ion among carriers did not center entirely about the ques¬
tion of prorating the cost of ice among the several car¬
riers participating in the haul. (3140-41)
As early as the year 1900 the Central Vermont Eail-
way made a charge of 10c per hundred pounds for the
icing of perishable property in pickup cars from points
on its line or points on certain connections to Boston,
Worcester and Providence. This charge was at first
published in a circular not filed with the Interstate Com-
710
merce Commission. As early as 1904 the New York Cen¬
tral Eailroad issued a similar circular to its agents with
respect to a charge of 10c per hundred pounds on perish¬
ables from its E. W. & 0. division to New York or Boston.
This circular was not given an I. C. C. number until 1906.
In 1913 the New York Central Eailroad established a
refrigeration charge of 10c per hundred pounds on lim¬
burger cheese from Booneville/; N. Y., and in 1917, made
that charge apply from Alder Creek and Booneville, N.
Y. This was for refrigeration to New York City. (3089)
The New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad so far
as the witness was able to ascertain, never did supply
free ice. It was brought out in the oyster cases, 39 I. C.
C., 690 and 43 I. C. C., 504, that the New Haven road
did not furnish free ice for oysters, and statements have
been made to the Official Classification Committee by
oyster shippers that as to the local business of the New
Haven road moving from oyster shipping points to New
York City, the New Haven did not furnish the ice, where¬
as the Long Island Eailroad operating on the other side
of the sound did furnish the ice. (3089-90) Where car¬
riers did not furnish ice free years ago it is very diffi¬
cult to give reference to the arrangements specifically,
for the reason that where a charge was to he made in the
old days, it was not a tariff matter. The carriers con¬
sidered that they had no tariff obligating them to fur¬
nish ice, and Avhere they did not intend to furnish ice
(free) they would tell their agents to make a charge for
it. It is difficult for the witness to trace back and get
those records. (3124)
2. History of easthonnd rating on dairy products.
Previous to the effective date of Official Classification
No. 1 and for some years thereafter, eggs and dressed
poultry and many other articles Avere carried at so-called
owner's risk or released rates. This did not include hut-
711
ter or cheese. (3091-92) The classification ratings only
applied when the articles were shipped at owner's risk.
When shipped at carrier's risk, very materially higher
ratings applied. (3092-93)
In 1871 the practice was to issue tariffs from the indi¬
vidual middle western cities to seaboard cities. These
tariffs of class rates embodied the classification in them.
Effective July 10, 1871, the St. Louis, Vandalia & Terre
Haute Eailroad published such a class rate tariff from
Terre Haute, Ind., to eastern cities. (3093) This tariff
showed butter taking second-class rate. A portion of
the tariff is missing. The portion of the classification
contained therein which is available is identical with a
classification effective from Chicago November 20, 1872,
and presumably eggs, cheese and dressed poultry were
all rated second class in 1871. (3094) Effective Novem¬
ber 20, 1872, the National Line operating from Chicago
over the Pittsburgh, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad issued"
a tariff from Chicago to seaboard cities. This taritf
contained its classification and showed butter, eggs, cheese
and dressed poultry as taking second-class rates. (3094-
95) A complete list of all article^ taking second-class
rate in the classification contained in this tariff appears
at pages 3096 and 3097. The second-class rate Chicago
to New York at that time was $1.25 per hundred pounds.
(3097) This tariff is intact and said nothing about re¬
frigeration. (3098) Tariff of the Pennsylvania Com¬
pany effective April 17, 1876, showed butter, eggs and
dressed poultry still taking second-class rate, cheese in
lots of less than 10,000 pounds. Third class, and cheese
in quantities of 10,000 pounds or more, 65c per hundred
pounds New York to Chicago. The rates then were—
Chicago to New York—second class, $1.10; third class,
85c ; fourth class, 40c. (3098) Tariff of the Pennsyl¬
vania Company effective January 15, 1887 (should be
712
1877) included butter, eggs and dressed poultry in the
third-class group. Cheese in lots of less than 10,000
pounds was in the third-class group while cheese in lots
of 10,000 pounds or over was rated 55c Chicago to New
York. (3099) Tariff of the National Line effective April
18, 1881, showed butter and eggs third class, cheese
fourth class. A sheet of the classification contained in
this tariff is missing and the rating for dressed poultry
is not given. Classifications from the various middle
state cities to the East were at that time kept uniform
and contemporaneously classifications from Louisville
and St. Louis made dressed poultry second class. At that
time the class rates were Chicago to New York third class,
70c, fourth class 60c. (3099) Official Classification of
Eastbound Freight No. 21, effective October 22, 1886,
showed the same ratings for butter, cheese and eggs as
were effective in National Line tariff in 1881, the rating
on dressed poultry in 1886 being second class. Official
Classification No. 1, effective April 1, 1887, made butter
and eggs second class, cheese third class, dressed poultry
first class and the rates then established we're—Chicago
to New York—first, 75c; second, 65c ; third, 50c. (3100)
In 1872 the rate on all four commodities (butter, eggs,
cheese and dressed poultry) from Chicago to New York
Avas $1.25 per hundred pounds. In 1887 when the ratings
Avere increased the actual rates on butter and eggs were
reduced from 70c to 65c, making a reduction in actual
rate since 1872 of 60 per cent. The rate on dressed poul¬
try was decreased from 85c to 75c, making a decrease in
rate since 1872 of 40 per cent. (3102)
At the time of the establishment of the original Official
Classification No. 1 in 1887 the ratings on various com¬
modities eastbound Avere not the same as the ratings on
the same commodities westbound. The ratings in the
Avesthound classification Avere, generally speaking, higher
713
than the ratings in the eastbound classification, and when
Official Classification No. 1 merged the eastbound and
westbound and various other classifications into one is¬
sue, an apparent attempt was made to get a compromise
in classification ratings. The result was an increase in
very many classification ratings eastbound. It must be
remembered, however, that at that time the eastbound
rates were reduced. (3100-3102)
3. Eistory of refrigeration of dairy products.
In absence of more definite records, the witness re¬
ferred to circulars issued by an agent of the Star Union
Line operating over the rails which are now included in
the Pennsylvania System. The lines that are now included
in the Pennsylvania System were the pioneers in re¬
frigeration as connected^ with transportation. On No¬
vember 10, 1874, Mr. W. W. Chandler, agent of the Eed
Star Department of the Union Line, issued a circular as
agent of the Pittsburgh & Western Eefrigerator Line of
cars announcing that that line had just decided to estab¬
lish a daily service for poultry, game, dressed meats,
etc. (3104) He noted on this circular the fact that the
Star Union Line still existed. (3105) On November 9,
1875, Mr. Chandler issued another circular with respect
to the service of these refrigerator cars, announcing that
the time Chicago to Jersey City was to be increased from
about 37 hours to about 61 hours, and that the rate was
to be reduced from $2 per hundred pounds to $1.50 per
hundred pounds coincident with the increase of the length
of the schedule. In that circular he mentioned the Star
Union Line as a very fine line for eastbound high class
merchandise, but said not a word about the Star Union
Line furnishing refrigeration. (The witness failed to
make it clear at this point that the expedited service for
which the rate of $2 or $1.50 per hundred pounds were
714
assessed "was hy passenger train. The time in transit
mentioned and later discussion of this subject can mean
nothing else.) On November 10, 1874, Mr. Chandler had
issued a circular regarding the Star Union Line announc¬
ing that it Avas the pioneer line in running through cars
from Chicago to the east and gave high class service,
but he made no mention of refrigeration. (3105) IIoav-
ever, in 1873 the Star Union Line issued a document
half tariff and half advertising, in "which it named class
rates and told about its service. Printed in red ink on
the margin of that tariff "v\ms a statement that the Star
Union Line ran refrigerator cars from Chicago to New
York in the summertime. The witness expressed grave
doubt if this circular or tariff really meant that the Star
Union Line ran refrigerator cars in freight service, his
doubt being based upon the fact that Mr. Chandler was
agent both for the Star Union Line and for the Pitts¬
burgh & Western Eefrigerator Line Avorking in the same
interests, over the same rails, and that in literature is¬
sued primarily Avith respect to one line he had a habit of
mentioning the other line.
4. Consideration of refrigeration by the classification
committee as an element of classification.
The Avitness gave an illustration (3109-3110) of cir¬
cumstances in which classification cannot be exact but
must fairly consider average conditions, but stated that
on the other hand Avhere a difference in characteristics is
cleaidy marked and may be clearly defined, it is the duty
of the classification men to pay attention to if. Eefrigera-
tion is serA'ice more or less expensive and clearly de¬
fined. Traffic is refrigerated or is not refrigerated and
in every instance the facts are known. In all fairness the
carriers in making the classification never could have
considered that refrigeration should be an element by
715
which they could reach a deterinination as to classifica¬
tion ratings. They would have knowledge that some
traffic Avould be refrigerated at carrier's expense, some
traffic refrigerated at shipper's expense, some traffic not
refrigerated at all, certain traffic in the same hauls re¬
frigerated at some times of the year and not at other
times of the year. The witness believes the classifica¬
tion representatives have adhered to their duty and taken
no account of refrigeration in classification ratings, leav¬
ing to the carrier's own individual judgment that which
could only be properly carried in the carrier's tariffs.
(3110-11) Had the classification attempted to provide
for refrigeration, the question of the measure of the
charge would have arisen, which the Classification Com¬
mittee had no way of averaging. (3111) The Classifi¬
cation Committee has not considered the matter of re¬
frigeration in making its ratings. (3133)
In witness' opinion the makers of Officiai Classifica¬
tion No. 1 when they included the permissive refrigera¬
tion rule considered what the previous rule was, stating
the details. They did not interfere with the practice of
the individual carriers. (3138-3139-3140) On July 15,
1887, the date the permissive refrigeration rule was
amended so as not to apply on dressed meats (Exhibit 2).
the rates Chicago to New York were on dressed meats.
65c ; on butter and eggs, 65c ; on dressed poultry, 75c; on
cheese, 50e per one hundred pounds. (3150) In consid¬
ering from day to day the classification refrigeration
rule, the Official Classification Committee only considered
the question in so far as it might make a rule which
would justify and authorize the practices which the car¬
riers were carrying on. (3171)
716
5. Refrigeration service tvlien given ivithout charge
has been given as a gratuity.
As showing the general atmosphere surrounding the
making of rates and arrangements from Chicago to the
East when refrigeration in connection with transporta¬
tion was in its infancy, the witness quoted from a circular
issued November 23, 1875, by W. W. Chandler, wherein
he referred to the Star Union Line as having done a
large portion of its through business for the previous six
months or more at less than half actual cost. (3107-3108)
The witness' expressed opinion was that in the early
days of refrigeration traffic from Chicago to the East was
largely the subject of a struggle for supremacy and pres¬
tige rather than revenue, and that the refrigeration when
given free was given to encourage and develop the traffic
as a gratuity. (3109) The witness believes that the
railroads installed refrigerator car service in order to
encourage and develop industries which required it.
(3131) The principle of temporarily transporting com¬
modities at a figure which might be considered low in
order to develop tonnage and volume was freely em¬
ployed in the old days. (3131-3132)
6. Scope of the proceeding ivith respect to protection
from cold and heat.
Exhibit No. 3 (3112) is a history of ratings on various
articles listed in Item 15 of Proposed Protective Perish¬
able Tariff No. 1. Lest the inference be gained that the
carriers are attempting to effect an increase in the ship¬
per's charges on all of the commodities therein men¬
tioned, the Avitness called attention to eliminations from
consideration which should be made as follows :
1. Item 15 provides with respect to many com¬
modities, protection from cold only. As this is not
involved in so far as the Official Classification is con¬
cerned, all of those items should be eliminated. (3113)
717
2. No question arises as to any traffic rated lower
than third class, and all such ratings should be elim¬
inated. (3113)
3. Eule 12 very early eliminated dressed fresh
meats, packing-house products and fruits. Therefore,
the ratings on those articles should be eliminated.
(3113)
4. The rule specifically mentions protection from
heat on articles packed in glass. It is difficult
to conceive that there is a movement of articles
packed in glass requiring protection from heat. Con¬
sequently, all such items should be eliminated. (3113-
3114)
5. Eefrigeration in addition to the rate has been
found proper on oysters. Consequently oysters
should be eliminated. (3114)
6. "Wine will doubtless disappear as an article of
commerce and mav be eliminated from consideration.
(3114)
7. Gireen melons, vegetables and nursery stock
have ratings and minimum weights so arranged that
a 15,000 pound shipment would be handled as a car¬
load, and these items may be eliminated. (3114)
A list of articles technically proper for consideration
on this record appears at pages 3114 and 3115.
It will be noted also that the Proposed Consolidated
Freight Classification No. 1, which has been proposed
by the United States Eailroad Administration to consoli¬
date and supersede Official Classification No. 44, South¬
ern Classification No. 43 and Western Classification No.
55, contains at page 10, the following rule:
"Rule 31—Section 1:
Unless otherwise provided, carload ratings do not
include the expense of refrigeration. Charges for
refrigeration when furnished by the carrier, will be
found in the carrier's taritfs.
Section 2 :
Eatings provided for freight in carloads do not
obligate the carrier to furnish heated cars, nor to
maintain heat in cars for freight requiring such pro¬
tection except under conditions where the carriers'
tariff provides.
718
Section 3:
Less than carload or any quantity ratings ap¬
plied on freight requiring protection against heat or
cold do not obligate the carrier to provide refrigera¬
tion, or refrigerator or lined cars; heated or heater
cars, or cars otherwise specially equipped for such
protection except under the conditions which the car¬
rier's taritf provide."
While it is true that the Commission refrains from
expressing its approval of the classifications and ratings
in this proposed Consolidated Freight Classification No.
1, the Commission nevertheless did give its official ap¬
proval of the rules, including the above quoted Rule No.
31. (I. C. C. Case No. 10204, 54 I. C. C., 471.)
The effect of this rule, which is very similar to Rule 31
in the Southern Classification No. 43 above quoted, and
to Rule 12 of the Official Classification No. 43 and Rule
31 of the Western Classification No. 55, is that unless
the carriers file exceptions to this rule, or issue tariffs
contrary thereto, the rule will govern and inasmuch as
it is the purpose of Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 to
provide uniform rules and rates for the furnishing of pro¬
tective service for and on behalf of practically all of the
carriers in the United States, Rule 31 of the' Proposed
Consolidated Freight Classification No. 1, and Proposed
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 will govern the situa¬
tion completely and uniformly throughout the different
sections of the United States.
Mr. p. C. Sprague is division freight agent Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, Richmond, In¬
diana. He began in traffic department in 1900; division
freight agent since 1912; devoted considerable time to
study of refrigerator car traffic in C. F. A. territory and
participated as a witness in the National Butter, Poul¬
try & Egg case (I. C. C. Docket No. 7969) and is fully
informed on tlie subject of the relation between freight
719
rates and accessorial service furnished to perishable
commodities. (3295)
Spragne's Exhibit No. 1 was prepared on behalf of C.
P. A. lines to show information with respect to changes
proposed by Perishable Protective Taritf No. 1, the his¬
tory and development of refrigerator car service and the
separation of the cost of refrigerator car service from
the haulage rate. (The cover is treated as page 1.)
(3296)
Page 2 shows general picture of situation existing at C.
F. A. territory at this time as compared with changes
proposed in the taritf. Item No. 1, page 2 of this ex¬
hibit shows proposed |5 rental charge under Eule 40 of
the taritf for use of dry refrigerator car, and that there
is now no such charge for this equipment except from
points in Michigan and Illinois, where a $5 charge is
now and for many years has been charged for the use
of a dry refrigerator car per trip. (3279)
Item 2 of this exhibit shows proposed stated refriger¬
ator charges on fruits, vegetables, berries and melons
under Section 2 of the taritf. At the present time car¬
riers do -not absorb refrigeration expense on fruits,
grapes, berries, dressed meats, packing-house products,
or other articles rated lower than third class in car¬
loads.
Item third on page 2 of the exhibit shows proposed
charges on meats, packing-house products, on the basis
of cost per ton of ice and salt. At the present time on
property rated lower than third class $4 per ton is
charged for ice and 75c per 100 pounds for salt except at
Ohio River crossings, where this charge is |4.50 per
ton for ice and 7oc per 100 pounds for salt. These
charges per. ton on ice and per hundredweight on salt are
not assumed by the carriers but paid by the shippers.
720
Item 4 on page 2 of this exhibit shows proposed 1. c. 1.
refrigeration charges on perishable commodities grad¬
uated on a mileage scale. At the present time on 1. c. 1.
traffic rated lower than third class refrigeration charge
is not absorbed by the carriers. On 1. c. 1. traffic rated
third class or higher, except fruits, grapes, berries,
dressed meats and packing-house products the carriers
assume expense of refrigeration for perishable com¬
modities moving in scheduled refrigerator car service.
Page 3 of this exhibit classifies the information or ex¬
perience of the C. F. A. Lines with respect to certain
periods according to occurrences during these periods
Avliich mark changes in that practice or experience. To
gain a clear understanding of the rates and practices of
C. F. A. carriers governing perishable commodities re¬
quiring refrigerator service, it is necessary to consider
the development of the practice during the following
periods :
Prior to 1897—Refrigerator car service was inaug¬
urated and individual classifications were published.
From 1897 to 1913—Rates were practically stationary
and many practices and additional services were estab¬
lished without additional charge.
From 1913 to June 1, 1917—Freight rates were in¬
creased 5 per cent. Carriers undertook to eliminate
unremunerative rates and practices or place them on a
more remunerative basis. Refrigeration charges were
established on all carload and less than carload traffic by
the carriers.
From June 1, 1917 to June 25, 1918—Further increase
in class rates were made.
Effective June 25, 1918, to date, 25 per cent increase
in all rates was made under General Order 28. (3298)
721
The subsequent pages of this exhibit give a detailed
explanation of each of the above periods, which are sum¬
marized as follows :
Prior to 1887—in the complaint of the National Poul¬
try, Butter S Egg Association v. B. S 0. 8. W. R. R.,
et al, (I. C. C. Docket No. 7969), the Interstate Com¬
merce Commission investigated the conditions of this
period and rendered their decision in 51 I. C. C., 37-38,
in which they found that during this period separate
classifications were in effect in C. F. A. territory. Trunk
Line territory. New England territory and from C. F. A.
territory to Trunk Line territory. These separate classi¬
fications were in 1887 merged into Official Classification
No. 1, covering these combined territories. The rates
prior and subsequent to this consolidation are shown in
tables on page 4 of this exhibit. In 1875 the rate for
refrigerator car service given in connection with passen¬
ger train movement from Chicago to New York was re¬
duced from |2 to $1.50 per 100 pounds. At that time
rates on fast freight lines without refrigeration for first
three classes from Chicago to New York were $1.50,
$1.10 and $ .85 respectively. In 1878 these were reduced
to $1.20, $ .90 and $ .70 and in 1881 to $1, $ .85 and $ .70,
and in 1887 when the Official Classification No. 1 was
adopted the $.75 scale was established and remained in
effect until increased in 1915 to $ .78. In 1917, the $ .90
scale was established and this in turn was increased by
General Order 28 to $1.12^.
The first attempt at refrigeration was made about 1867
by the Pennsylvania Lines by refitting thirty box cars
with double sides, roofs and floors and packing the inter¬
stices with sawdust. Ice boxes were placed inside the
doors after the cars were loaded. Later on ice box was
suspended in each end of the car. Other railroads,
private car conipaiiies and large shippers of perishables
took up the idea and constructed cars. Gradually the
t.ype improved and the tonnage increased, though slowly.
In tiie early seventies only one ear a day from Chicago
to New York was required by the New York Central and
in 1884, nearly twenty years after the refrigeration serv¬
ice was established, only about 77 tons a day moved be¬
tween these points over the Pennsylvania Kailroad. In
the early years the cost of the service was not great,
and not called sharply to the attention of the carriers
as an encroachment upon their revenue under the class
rates, and later, as the traffic increased class rates were
made to cover both line haul and refrigeration to stimu¬
late the use of the service.
Page 5 of the exhibit, relating to the same period prior
to 1887, shows ratings and class rates on the Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Kailway, Local Freight
Tariff No. 2 effective September 1, 1881, where higher
ratings are specified on perishable commodities shipped
at carrier's risk than those applying on the same com¬
modities shipped under owner's risk. This page also
shows the class rate scale of the P. C. C. & St. L. E. R.
for various representative mileages. At this point the
witness called attention to the scale shown on page 11
of his Exhibit No. 1, so that a comparison might he had
of the C. F. A. scale on September 20, 1917, shown in
the right hand column of that page, with the scale in
effect in 1881. From this comparison it will appear that
at 200 miles first-class rate in 1881 (3299) was 50c, and
in 1917, 4Gc. At 300 miles the first-class rate in 1881 was
60c and in 1917, 52c. At 400 miles the first-class rate in
1881 was GOc and in 1917, 57.5c.
Pago 6 of the exhibit gives tlie details of the period
from 1887 to 1913. The Official Classification and rates
723
conforming tliereto were established April 1, 1887.
(8300) This classification contained a rule as follows
with respect to icing:
"Kailroad companies may furnish ice for prop-
ert}^ of third or a higher class when loaded in re¬
frigerator or other cars. * » * Shippers must
furnish ice, if used, for property lower than third
class, carload. No freight will be charged on weight
of ice so used."
This rule was never changed from permissive to man¬
datory form, nor was it ever changed to include com¬
modities rated lower than third class. In Official Classi¬
fication No. 40, effective July 1, 1913, the icing rule was
changed to read as follows:
"Ice and salt when required for protection of
property will not be furnished by railroad companies
except as provided for in tariffs of individual car¬
riers."
During this period many carriers published individual
tariffs providing for the absorption of the refrigeration
expense on traffic rated third class or higher. Some in¬
dividual lines added the refrigeration expense on all
traffic as indicated by the Interstate Commerce Commis¬
sion decision in the National Poultry, Butter & Egg case
(I. C. C. Docket No. 7969), reported 51 I. C. C., 38, read¬
ing in part as follows: (3301)
"It is further said that throughout the period of
tlie development of this dairy refrigerator car traffic
there was no uniformity of practice among the car¬
riers regarding the inclusion of the service and cost
of icing in the class rates. Certain illustrations are
given and attention is invited to correspondence on
the subject between the chairman of the Official
Classification committee and certain of the carriers,
two of which registered objections to the proposal
to change from 'may' to 'will' the wording of the
rule, referred to in the original report, regarding
the obligations of the carriers to ice free of charge."
724
From C. F. A. territory to Trunk Line territory the
rates Avere controlled by the Chicago-New York basis,
which was
1 2 3 4 5 6
75 65 50 35 30 25
which remained in etïect the entire period and repre¬
sented substantial reductions in so far as eastbound
rates were concerned. The rates in effect between Chi¬
cago and New York immediately prior to April 1, 1887,
Avere :
Spe-
1 23456789 10 11 12 13cial
AA'estbound.. . .75 65 45 35 30 25
Eastbound...1.00 85 70 60 50 45 40 35 30 25 25 30 30 ..
It Avill be noted from this page 6 of the exhibit that
effective April 1, 1887, the westbound scale controlled the
rates that Avere made at that time, and in that connection
the Avitness read into the record the minutes of the meet¬
ing of 1887, where the 75c scale, Chicago to New York,
Avas made. These are the minutes of a meeting of the joint
executive committee of the railroads held in New York
March 2, 3, and 4, 1887, the pertinent parts of which are
as folloAvs;
"The committee appointed by the joint committee
at the meeting February 18th, to revise the different
classifications being used in the eastern and middle
and Avestern states, and, if possible, consolidate them
would respectfully report as follows, viz.;
At the first session of the committee it was decided
that it would be necessary to use in the revision, and
to consolidate if possible (3302) :
The Official Classification of eastbound freight.
The Official Classification of westbound freight.
Middle and western states classification.
Joint merchandise classification, middle states as¬
sociation,
])eing the four i)rincipal classifications in use within
the prescribed territory. It Avas then decided, after
careful deliberation, tliat before proceeding with
the classification, it Avould be necessary to not only
725
fix the number of classes to be used, but also the
rates that might be used or adopted after the classi-
ficatious should be completed. To this end it was
decided to adopt as a working basis the existing
westbound rates, New York to Chicago, introducing
an extra class between the present fourth and spe¬
cial. That is : 75, 60, 45, 35, 30 and 25 for the six
classes.
During the first session of your committee, it
seemed as though it would be almost impossible to
reconcile the ditferences existing between the east
and the westbound classifications. An examination
of the statistics showed that the first six classes of
the thirteen comprised but six per cent of the east-
bound tonnage; bearing this in mind, the task be¬
came easier as we neared the end.
In revising and consolidating we have been led to
adopt the theory that to all intents and purposes
the first three classes might be termed fixed classes,
and the three lower ones, rates that could be changed
at any time. (3303)
We have classified all articles under the six classes
except cotton, live stock, c. 1. and dressed meats c. 1.
This may require for some roads special tariffs be¬
tween certain points on certain crude articles such
as pig iron, rough stone, land plaster, petroleum,
etc., but as a rule the classification, as prepared, can
be adopted and used, and it will be found beneficial
to have every article named in a class to use between
points where special tariffs are not necessary.
At first, it was thought we would have to adopt
special classes for staple articles such as grain pro¬
visions, lumber, etc., but on carefully considering the
question it was decided best to place them in classes
already provided so that local rates and classifica¬
tions could be fixed, and in cases where necessity re¬
quired a change on certain articles, could, by circu¬
lar, be taken from its class (as has been done in sev¬
eral instances in the past) and a special class or
tariff provided." ((3304)
"Thus we have given briefiy the principal fea¬
tures of the obstacles we have met in our labors, and
how these difficulties have been bridged over, and as.
726
during the whole period in which we have been thus
engaged, the question of rates which should govern
the classification as proposed, has been constantly
in mind, therefore having thoroughly and carefully
considered the subject in all its bearings on the basis
of rates between Chicago and New York in both di¬
rections, we respectfully present to the joint com¬
mittee the conclusion to which we have arrived;
First. That, if the westbound rates from the sea¬
board to Chicago cannot be advanced, we do not
think that necessarily the rates on the three upper
classes, east and westbound, should be alike on ac¬
count of the inequalities in the movement of the dif¬
ferent classes of freight east and westbound.
Second. The articles in the three lower classes
practically representing both east and westbound
business in average proportions, we suggest that
they be uniform in both directions.
AVe respectfully submit the following rates, or
as near to them as possible, for your consideration,
viz. : New York to Chicago, 75, 60, 45, 35, 30, 25.
Chicago to New York, 85, 65, 50, 35, 30 and 25,"
That report was considered by the "General Com¬
mittee" and after a recess the report continued as
follows :
"The committee do not consider it advisable or
practicable to establish as a principle that eastbound
and westbound rates shall necessarily be the same,
but recommends that, under the conditions now exist¬
ing, taking etfect April 1, 1887, and until thereafter
changed, the rates be :
New York to Chicago, 75, 65, 50, 35, 30 and 25.
Chicago to New York, 75, 65, 50, 35, 30 and 25.
The report of the committee was unanimously
adopted, and the committee discharged Avith thanks."
The AAutness called attention to two significant fea¬
tures of that report. 1st, that the eastbound movement
of the six classes Avas but 6 per cent of the total east-
bound tonnage, and 2nd, that the westbound rates al¬
most entirely controlled the eastbound rates. ,
Pages 7, 8, and 9 of Sprague Exhibit No. 1 were pre-
727
pared for the purpose of showing a comparison of class
rates in C. F. A. territory from and to various repre¬
sentative points as between 1886 and 1900. Our only
concern is Avith the first three classes because on the
other three classes the refrigeration expenses were not
absorbed by the carriers. All classes were included
merely to round out the exhibit.
The exhibit shows that in almost every instance there
Avere reductions betAveen 1886 and 1900. In addition to
these tables, the a\dtness referred to other reductions
in class rates that have been made. In 1892, the first
class rate to Ncav England, a large consuming territory
of dairy products, was reduced from IGc to 7c, under
the Commission's order in 5 I. C. 0., 155. In addition
there Avere several reductions made in the general basis
of rates to and from Illinois points, Avhich state produces
a large amount of this traffic. "Witness referred also to
cases involving class rates to and from Mississippi
Eiver, to and from Eockford, Freeport, Aurora, Elgin,
Springfield, etc., etc. (3307)
Effective in the fall of 1903 tariffs were issued by
C. F. A. Lines providing as follows:
"An additional charge of five (5c) cents per 100
pounds Avill be made on less than carload shipments
of cured meats and other articles taking less than
third (3rd) class rating, as per Official Classifica¬
tion or exception thereto, Avhen loaded at shipper's
reqnest in refrigerator cars, and when traffic of the
character indicated is tendered railroad companies
Avhich, in the judgment of the receiving clerks, re¬
quires refrigerator services the Avishes of the ship¬
per in the premises must be ascertained before re¬
ceipting for the property."
This tariff shoAvs what aa'us in the minds of the people
in those days. The receiving clerk could, under that rule,
make a charge against some commodities and not against
728
others, because there was no rule to bind him one way
or the other. The above quoted rule remained in effect
until the latter part of 1907 when the Hepburn Law took
effect and it was canceled. (3308)
Page 10 of Sprague's Exhibit No. 1 gives detailed in¬
formation with respect to the period from 1913 to June
1, 1917. During the latter part of 1913 the carriers in
Official Classification territory made application to the
Interstate Commerce Commission for a 5 per cent in¬
crease in their rates. As a result of this application the
Interstate Commerce Commission made a very extended
investigation into the operation of the railroads as a
Avhole, with the result that the carriers were permitted
to increase their rates 5 per cent, and their attention
was called to the existences of many practices apparently
unremunerative. The Commission suggested that the
carriers fully examine their rates, rules and regulations,
specifically including refrigeration service, with a view
to increasing rates and eliminating practices found to be
unremunerative.
In conformity with this suggestion carriers filed, ef¬
fective March 20, 1915, tariffs providing for the follow¬
ing charges on perishable traffic :
Carloads—$2.50 per ton of ice furnished.
Less-than-carloads—based upon a sliding scale
AAffiich made the charge within C. F. A. territory 5c
per 100 pounds, and from Chicago to New York 8c
per 100 pounds. (3309)
As it had only been the practice to absorb refrigera¬
tion expense on property third class and higher, except
fruits and berries (and there are other exceptions now),
and as berry traffic and dressed poultry were substan¬
tially the only traffic within this category the tariffs were
attacked by the National Poultry, Butter and Egg Asso¬
ciation (I. C. C. Docket No. 7969), and as a result of the
729
hearing in that case the carriers were required to cancel
these tariffs because they had not established the pro¬
priety of the rates which resulted in the increased charge.
The less-carload rate within C. F. A. territory of 5c
per 100 pounds and from Chicago to New York 8c per
100 ponnds was the rate per 100 pounds of freight, for
the ice furnished and not 5c (and 8c) per 100 pounds of
ice.
Page 10 of the exhibit quotes a portion of the Inter¬
state Commerce Commission's finding as above indicated.
(43 I. C. C., 392.) As a result of this decision the car¬
riers canceled their tariffs effective June 1, 1917. The
case was reheard and the Commission reversed its for¬
mer finding in an opinion recorded in 51 I. C. C., 34,
a syllabus of which decision reads in part as follows :
"Upon rehearing class rates for the transporta¬
tion in Official Classification territory of dressed
poultry, butter, eggs and cheese, in any quantity,
found not to have been sufficiently high to include
refrigeration during the period from March 20,1915,
to June 1, 1917, when an extra charge for service
was made. Finding in original report (43 I. C. C.,
392), that the class rates plus the separate refrigera¬
tion charge for the combined services of line haul
and refrigeration during the period mentioned had
not been justified accordingly reversed, and claims
for reparation in the amount of the icing charge on
shipments that moved during that period denied."
On page 45 of that decision the Commission said:
"Doubtless the finding here reached would have
been made in the original report had the carriers
made upon the original hearing the presentation that
they now make upon the rehearing. The previous
finding, which was merely that the carriers had failed
to meet the burden of proof which was upon them,
stands upon the rehearing, subject to the reversal
here suggested upon the required presentation now
made of that proof."
On page 11 of the exhibit is shown a comparison of
730
C. F. A. class-rate scale for representative' distance,
prior to September 20, 1917. Also the Disque scale as
fixed in 45 I. C. C., 1917. The zone A scale for the
normal period, the second one shown. on that page
(namely, the Disque scale) never became effective in C.
F. A. territory because immediately after it was printed
the 15 per cent increase was authorized and added to
that scale. From Chicago to New York the rates were
increased 15 per cent (3311), making the scale effective
July 15, 1917, 90c, 79c, 60c, 42c, 36c and 30c. The signifi¬
cant feature of this information is that the hearing in
the C. F. A. class-scale case Avas concluded some time
before the separate refrigeration charges AA^ere canceled,
effectAe June 1st. The AAutness participated in the C. F.
A. class hearing and asserts this is a fact. The hearing
in the Fifteen Per Cent Case Avas concluded about that
date, and as the evidence in neither case related to the
inclusion of a refrigerator serAuce in the class rates, it
is evident that the class rates were prescribed indepen¬
dently of refrigerator service and do not include that ele¬
ment of expense. The information with respect to the
Fifteen Per Cent Case is taken from the decision which
is silent upon the question of refrigeration, and wit¬
ness, although not participating in that case, assumes it
did not appear in the record.
Page 12 of Sprague's Exhibit No. 1 deals AAÛth the pe¬
riod from June 25, 1918 (Avlien the 25 per cent increase
made by General Order 28 became effective), and shows
the reason given by the Director General for this increase
as folloAvs :
"* * * In order to defray the expense of Fed¬
eral Control and operation fairly chargeable to rail¬
way operating expenses, and also to pay railway tax
accruals other than AAmr taxes, net rents for joint fa¬
cilities and equipment, and compensation to the car¬
riers, operating as a unit, it is necessary to increase
the railway operating revenues."
731
As the increase was made for the specific pui'pose stated
and makes no reference to the inclusion of the class rate of
compensation for refrigeration service, the existing class
rate structure stands in the same relation to the refrig¬
eration service as the class rate structure in effect prior
to June 21,1918. (3312)
At the bottom of page 12 of Sprague's Exhibit #1,
there appears a paragraph showing that effective August
1, 1919, the rates on dressed poultry, butter, butterine,
oleomargarine and eggs, in carloads, minimum weight
20,000 pounds, will be reduced to third class, in accord¬
ance with the decision of the Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission (I. C. C. Docket :j!+8469), in the case of Kansas
Carlot Effff Shippers Association v. B. S 0. R. R., Di¬
rector General et al. (53 I. C. C., 59.) In connection with
tlie transportation of these articles an additional charge
for refrigeration will be assessed. Hearings in this case
were held during the time that refrigeration charges
were in effect. The witness had copies of P. C. C. & St.
L. tariff providing for the charge for refrigeration on
these dairy commodities, mentioned, and dressed poul-
tiy, effective August 1st in carloads. The I. C. C. refer¬
ence to this tariff is Pennsylvania System I. C. C. No.
P-1335. The roads working under Mr. Morris' exception
sheet- established these charges in Supplement 29 to that
e.xception sheet. The number is I. C. C. 736. (3313)
Page 13 of the exhibits consists of a summary as fol¬
lows :
"First. That the service of refrigerated cars was
established to develop now traffic without regard to
the freight charges, and was extended through the
pressure of competition.
Second. That during the greatest development of
this service the freight rate level was steadily de¬
creasing.
Third. That certain perishable commodities rated
732
third class and higher have been iced at the expense
of the shipper.
Fourth. That the adjustment of rates as between
shippers is unequal because:
(a) Certain perishable commodities moving un¬
der the same class rates are in one case given refrig¬
eration service at the expense of the shipper, and in
another case at the expense of the railroad.
(b) Many perishable commodities do not require
protective service in the winter, and the same freight
rate is assessed thereon as is assessed during the
summer period when refrigeration service is re¬
quired.
(c) Many perishable commodities do not require
protective service in warm weather and the same
freight rate is assessed thereon as is assessed during
the winter period Avhen the protective service Is re¬
quired.
Fifth. That the expense of refrigeration service
to the railroads was not brought forcibly to their at¬
tention until the promulgation of the decision of the
Commission in the five per cent case.
Sixth. That the Commission itself decided on Au¬
gust 3, 1918, that the rates prior to June 1, 1917,
were not high enough to include refrigeration and
refused reparation on the shipments moving under
separately established charges for refrigeration
service, thereby recognizing this as an accessorial
service not inclnded in the rate. That case is pend¬
ing on second rehearing.
Seventh. That the question of refrigerated car
service nowhere appears in the three separate issues
Avhich brought about the two increases in class rates
on September 20, 1917, and June 25, 1918, and there¬
fore if the service was not properly covered by the
transportation charge on June 1, 1917, it is not com¬
pensated for in the present rates."
In explanation of paragraph 7 above quoted it was
stated that there were two increases on September 20,
1917, that is the Disque scale and tlie 15 per cent added
to it.
Page 14 of Sprague's Exhibit No. 1 shows a compari-
733
son of the freight earnings in C. F. A. territory for repre¬
sentative distances and from Chicago to New York on
fifth-class articles loaded in box cars, as against fifth-
class articles loaded in refrigerator ears.
Witness modified the last portion of the exhibit on
page 2, the last column under "present" where is shown
that on traffic rated third class and higher, except fruits,
etc., moving in scheduled car service, the carriers as¬
sume refrigeration expense. There should be an addi¬
tional exception of dressed poultry, butter, butterine,
oleomargarine and eggs in carloads. This means that
effective August 1st the carriers add the refrigeration
expense to these articles in carloads. (3316-17)
AVitness J. F. McAATlliams is special agent freight
traffic department of Baltimore & Ohio Kailroad, western
lines, and has been connected with the traffic department
of that road for twenty-nine years.
McWilliams' Exhibit No. 1 and No. 1-A cover 45
scheduled 1. c. 1. refrigerator cars on B. & 0.
E. E. from Chicago to Washington, D. C., during 1918.
(3908) He attempted to take one car a week for 52
weeks, but owing to embargoes existing part of the time
there were only 45 cars moveJ on the days of the week
selected.
The details on the second page of the exhibit show the
date of departure of each car, its numbers and initials,
and the weight of its perishable freight contents, the quan¬
tity of ice supplied initially and at each re-icing station
and these ice amounts are actual. (3909) The switch¬
ing figure of 78 cents is the actual cost to the B. & 0. E. E.
for such service in 1918. These exhibits do not include
any figures for supervision or bunker damage. (3911)
The cost of rendering this service was $8.47 per car
734
greater than the refrigeration revenne proposed in this
tariff. (3912)
McAVilliams' Exhibits No. 2 and No. 2-A show 85 cars
of 1. c. 1. perishable freight from Flora, 111., to New York
in 1918 and the cost is figured on the 1919 ice costs, ex¬
cept Parkersburg, W. Va., where 1918 ice costs were
used. (3912) This exhibit is made up in the same man¬
ner as witness' Exhibit No. 1 and shows that the pro¬
posed refrigeration revenue would average $8.57 per car
greater than the cost shown in this exhibit. (3913) No
bunker damage or supervision was included.
McWilliams' Exhibits No. 3 and No. 3-A cover
36 cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight from
Washington-Seymour, Ind., to New York in 1918,
based upon 1919 ice costs except at Parkers¬
burg, W. Va., where 1918 ice costs were used. (3914)
It shows that the cost of rendering this service was $31.20
greater than the proposed tariff charge. (3915) This
tonnage is representative. These south Indiana shipping
points are close to the Ohio River and these cars are re-
iced at three regular re-icing stations. (3916)
McWilliams' Exhibits No. 4 and No. 4-A are similar
exhibits covering 47 cars on B. & 0. Railroad from Chi¬
cago to Buffalo in 1918 and shows that the cost of ren¬
dering the refrigerator service of $3.23 more than the
proposed tariff charge. (3917)
The cost of ice in Chicago is $4 per ton f. o. b. B. & 0.
tracks but that does not represent the cost of ice in the
bunkers of the cars. (3917) The ice has to be switched
from 12th street and the river to the icing platform and
then placed in the bunkers. (3919)
Witness II. C. Oliver is special agent of the traffic de¬
partment of the Pennsylvania Railroad Lines west and
735
for past eight years in traffic and Interstate Commerce
Commission matters. (3811)
Oliver's Exhibit No. 1 consisting of four pages covers
216 consolidated cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight moving
from Polk Street Station, Chicago, to eastern destina¬
tions from November, 1914, to July, 1915, inclusive.
(3816)
These cars were taken from exhibit in the National
Poultry, Butter and Egg case (I. C. C. Docket 7969) and
1919 cost figures were applied. The ice costs were taken
from Brooke's exhibit in this case and the switching costs
were taken from Coverston's exhibit in this case. The
total cost on these cars exclusive of bunker damage or su¬
pervision is 37.17 cents per hundred pounds of freight.
The proposed 1. c. 1. refrigeration rate for this move¬
ment is 20 cents per hundred pounds. Therefore, the
cost, as above shown, is 17.07 cents per hundred pounds
more than the proposed rate. (3817-18)
The last three pages of this exhibit give the details
of the actual performance upon which the figures of the
first page are based. (3818) This exhibit does not re¬
flect freight earnings but only the cost of refrigerator
service and the refrigeration revenue that Avould accrue
under proposed tariff. (3819)
Oliver's Exhibit No. 2 is similar to his Exhibit No. 1
and covers the total movement of consolidated refrig¬
erator cars of 1. c. 1. perishable freight from Chicago east¬
ward for the week of July 10 to July 16, 1919. This ex¬
hibit is compiled on the same plan of cost figures as
Oliver's Exhibit No. 1 (3819), and shows an average cost
exclusive of l)unker damage and supervision of 30.09
cents per hundred pounds, as against the proposed charge
of 20 cents per cwt. or less according to distance of move¬
ment. This exhibit shows that the cost of furnlshina- ice
736
alone is 27.09 cents per . hundred pounds of freight.
(3820)
The necessity for getting the data for this exhibit
quickly made it impossible to cover a more recent period,
therefore, the week of July 10th to 16th was taken.
Oliver's Exhibit No. 3 is similar and compiled in the
same manner and with the same cost figures as his Ex¬
hibit No. 1, and shows 45 scheduled refrigerator cars
moving over Michigan Central Kailroad from Chicago
to Rochester at the rate of one car per week for 1918.
A certain day each week was selected and it happened
that only 45 of those days of the year refrigerator cars
ran. (3821-22.)
The proposed tariff rate for the cars covered in this
exhibit would be 18^ cents per hundred pounds or $14.08
per car less than the cost shown on this exhibit. (3822)
An assumed switching cost of 35 cents for each icing is
included. (3823)
Oliver's Exhibit No. 4 is prepared in the same manner
and with the same cost figures as his Exhibit No. 1 and
shows 42 scheduled refrigerator cars on Michigan Cen¬
tral Railroad from Chicago to Boston during 1918 and
shows a cost per car, exclusive of bunker repairs and su¬
pervision, of $6.28 in excess of the refrigerator revenue
that Avould be derived by applying to that traffic the pro¬
posed refrigerator charge. (3824)
Oliver's Exhibit No. 5 is a statement compiled in the
same manner and with the same costs as his Exhibit No. 1
and shows 29 scheduled refrigerator cars moving over
the Erie Railroad from Chicago to Ilornell in 1918. The
cost of $37.62 per car, exclusive of bunker damage and
supervision, as therein shown is $1.46 in excess of the
refrigeration revenue that would be derived from these
737
cars if the proposed refrigeration rate had been applied.
(3824)
An error was made in Oliver's Exhibit No. 5 by using
the |5 per ton cost of ice at Huntington, Ind., instead of
the $3.94 per ton price at Marion, Ohio. Therefore, there
Avould only be an excess cost of 46 cents per car in the
cost of rendering the service over the refrigeration rev¬
enue under the proposed taritf.
Oliver's Exhibit No. 6 is a statement compiled in the
same manner and with the same cost figures as his Ex¬
hibit No. 1 and shows 48 cars from Hannibal, Missouri,
to Detroit on the Wabash Eailroad in 1918, exclusive of
bunker damage or supervision. The cost of furnishing
this refrigeration service was $19.84 less than the refrig¬
eration revenue that would have been derived from this
traffic if the proposed refrigeration tariff rate had been
applied. (3828)
Oliver's Exhibit No. 8 is prepared in a similar manner
and on the same cost figures as his Exhibit No. 1 and
shows the movement from Chicago to Detroit on the Wa¬
bash Eailroad. These figures show that exclusive of
bunker damage and supervision, this refrigeration service
costs 8 cents per car more than the refrigeration revenue
under the proposed tariff.
Oliver's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 do not represent all of
the dairy movements. There is a large movement in pick¬
up cars moving into consolidation points. The cost of
pick-up car movements would be higher than the cost
shown in these exhibits. Most of this 1. c. 1. refrigerator
car service consists of dairy freight and not much of sea¬
sonal fruits, vegetables, etc. (3848)
Witness C. E. Coopek testified that he is manager of
the New York Dispatch Eefrigerator Line and has held
such position since 1902.
738
Cooper Exhibit No. 3 covers scheduled refrigerator
cars 1. c. 1. freight one car each week for the year 1917
from Chicago to New York and shows the actual amount
of icing (2798) for each car.
The present price of ice at Chicago is $7 per ton and
the tariff rate in effect is $4 per ton at other icing sta¬
tions, as shown in the exhibit. This exhibit includes all
cars whether they were simply initially iced with no
transit re-icing or whether they were initially iced and re-
iced.
The average cost per car for icing was $25.60. These
cars contained an average of 24,009 lbs. of perishable
freight per car. The exhibit includes no figures for bunker
damage, supervision, or ice hanlage. (2799)
Witness had no way of getting data on these subjects
so he did not include them. The proposed tariff rate on
this service wonld be 20c per 100 lbs. of freight. (2800)
Cooper's Exhibit No. 40 covers the movement of twelve
scheduled refrigerator cars from Chicago to Buffalo
based on the 1917 movement and the cost of ice at $7 per
ton at Chicago and $4 beyond. The cost of icing these
cars was $19.33 per car and the average perishable con¬
tents was 19,564 lbs. per car. (2800) The proposed tariff
rate on these shipments Avould be lO-J cents per 100 lbs.
Coopers' Exhibit No. 5 covers 52 scheduled refriger¬
ator cars one each week for the year and carrying only
perishable freight from Chicago to Boston, showing the
average cost of ice per car to be $22.94 and the average
perishable tonnage to be 22,667 lbs. per car. The pro¬
posed tariff rate covering this movement would be 21^c
per 100 lbs. (2801)
Cooper's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5 relate to regular
scheduled movements and shows the actual amount of ice
739
delivered to these ears. Witness is paying $8 per ton
this year at Chicago. (2803)
For the cars in question chunk ice was used. The hunk¬
ers of these cars will hold approximately two tons each
(or four tons to the car) of chunk ice. It is the practice
to put in tons in each bunker. (2806) On perish¬
able shipments out of Chicago witness initially ices the
cars at the freight house and they are not re-iced before
they leave Chicago. (2806-07) If the cars are not
shipped the day they are set for loading they are iced
again the next day and this may account for the fact that
car No. 1183 moving on August 17th (as shown in Ex¬
hibit 5) had 9,000 lbs. of ice. Usually the cars go out the
same day they are loaded. (2807)
To the cost of $22.94, which was the average for the
cars in Coopers' Exhibit No. 5, there should be added ice
haulage $3.84, $5 for bunker damage and $4 for super¬
vision (2808-09) ; also 35c per switch for switching, mak¬
ing a total of $1.75 for switching. Including these items
the average cost of refrigeration for the cars in Exhibit
No. 5 would be $47.53. (2810)
Witness' cars sometimes carry as low as 8,000 lbs.
of perishables but the average loading is eleven or twelve
tons. (2817) For the years 1916-17 the average loading
was eleven tons and witness' exhibits were figured on a
basis of 24,000 lbs. loading which is in'favor of the ship¬
per. (2818)
A number of witness' cars were re-iced at Hoboken
which is the eastern terminal of the line. This destina¬
tion re-icing is done at the car line's expense and because
the consignee wants to hold the car a few days until the
market gets better. (2821) Under the present demur¬
rage rules the consignee is entitled to 48 hours for un¬
loading. (2822) These cars move direct from Chicago
to New York without being opened. (2827)
740
Witness' cars move, principally between Chicago and
New York, an average of abont twelve trips per year in¬
cluding the empty return movements. (2834)
New York to Chicago cars are re-iced thrice in transit,
namely, at Port Huron, East Buffalo and Gouldsboro. In
winter the cars run through without re-icing (2837), as
shown by Cooper's Exhibit 3. (2838)
The fact that the Boston cars used only $22.94 worth of
ice as against $25.60 for the New York cars, is due to the
route by which the Boston cars travel, namely, by Grand
Trunk through Canada via Montreal, over which they do
not require as much ice as when they travel further south.
(2839-40)
Witness expressed the opinion that there is no differ¬
ence between cost of refrigeration between a consoli¬
dated car and a straight carload.
Witness G. W. Geben, who is chief clerk of the New
York Kefrigerator Dispatch, made up the figures of
Cooper's Exhibit No. 3. The car selected for that exhibit
was a representative car for each day each week and the
cars selected represent a fair actual average of the 52
cars shown on Cooper's Exhibit No. 3. Fifteen of them
were re-iced in Hoboken, which is the rail terminus of
the trip. (2845)
The average percentage of New York to Chicago cars
re-iced at Hoboken is 14.23 per cent. (2923)
Witness K'. R. Blydenbuegh, assistant general freight
agent of the Pennsylvania Railroad, testified that
there are some shiinnents of 1. c. 1. perishables
on the Pennsylvania Railroad. Its tariff provides
in all cases where 1. c. 1. shipments require re¬
frigeration and where there is a regular estab¬
lished movement, there will he a charge per hun¬
dred pound for tlie ice furnished, based on the rate.
741
There is one exception to that, which is an iced car from
AValnut street Avharf, Philadelphia, to seashore points
such as Atlantic City, AVildwood, Cape May and Ocean
City. This seashore traffic operates only in the summer¬
time and largely for the hotel business. This practice
has been in existence since June 28, 1912.
In order to avoid repetition of testimony, reference is
hereby made, for further discussion of this subject in so
far as AVestern Classification territory. Southern Classifi¬
cation territory and for parts of the Official Classification
territory, namely, Eastern Trunk Line and New England
territories, to the traffic testimony set forth in that part
of this brief which discusses "Rule 25" and analogous
rules.
The foregoing testimony shows in a manner that we
think is conclusive that so far as the facts are concerned,
the expense of 1. c. 1. refrigeration has never been
contemplated nor considered in fixing the rate or ratings
on perishable commodities in any of the classification ter¬
ritories and that wherever the cost of this service has
been absorbed by the carrier, it has been accomplished by
exceptions to the rules of the respective classifica¬
tions and has been rendered under conditions arising
from competition or a desire to stimulate traffic in the
commodities involved, and without adequate (and, in
most cases, any) compensation therefor.
AVe submit further that in addition to what has been
said in the discussion of Rule 25 elsewhere in the brief,
the foregoing facts with respect to 1. c. 1. traffic amply
justify Rule 25 of the tariff which applies generally to
all kinds of traffic covered by the tariff and particularly
paragraph "B" of Rule 600 which applies specifically
to this class of traffic .
742
Questions of Laiv.
Refrigeration Charges Should Be Separately Stated.
An anomalous situation is created by the ruling of the
Commission excluding the Coverston Exhibits 1 to 7 in¬
clusive and the testimony relating thereto and at the
same time permitting the shippers to put in evidence in
support of the renewed contention that the existing rat¬
ings and rates do include compensation for refrigeration.
How these two propositions are to be reconciled, we are
unable to see.
The Coverston Exhibits 1 to 7, inclusive, and supporting
testimony were precisely the same character of exhibits
and testimony upon which the Commission made its sec¬
ond decision in the case of National Poultry, Butter and
Egg Assn. v. B. ê D. S. W. (511. C. C., 34) (I. C. C. No.
7969) and are specifically referred to on page 47 of the
decision as the basis for that decision and those exhibits
are set out completely in appendices four and five of the
second decision.
The precise reason why such exhibits were offered in
the present case is becaiise case number 7969 was first
decided against the carriers on account of the absence of
just such evidence and the second decision favorable to
the carriers, was, as we have said,,based largely, if not
solely, upon this precise character of evidence.
Moreover, in the second decision, the Commission said
(at the bottom of page 45) :
"It is proper to observe that in their presentation
of the case initially, the defendants proceeded upon
the mistaken assumption that practically the only
question involved was the reasonableness per se of
the added charges for the refrigeration service, sepa¬
rately considered, whereas the Commission stated in
its report, that the seymrate and additional imposi-
743
tion of the charges for refrigeration service was
tantamount to an increase in the line-haul rates."
While carriers believed at the first hearing of Case No.
7969 (43 I. C. C., 392), and Ave believed at the outset of
this case, and still believe that, under the law, and the
decisions hereinafter referred to, a refrigeration charge
must be separately stated in appropriate tariffs and col¬
lected separately from and independent of the haulage
charge, and can only be considered by the Commission
separately and on its own merits, nevertheless, in defer¬
ence to the Commission's different views, we did not want
to repeat in this case the omission which proved fatal to
the first hearing in the 7969 case. If the Commission ad¬
heres to the ruling which excludes the Coverston exhibits
and testimony relating thereto, on the clear and sole
ground that only the proposed refrigeration charge per se
is involved in this proceeding, we find ourselves in entire
accord Avith that vieAv. But in that event we submit that
the same ruling should apply to the shippers' exhibits and
testimony of the same nature. But, if upon further reflec¬
tion, the Commission concludes that the Coverston ex¬
hibits and the testimony relating thereto should not have
been excluded, Ave are content to rely upon those and
other testimony and exhibits in the record as presented
on behalf of the Administration in this case, to support
our insistent contention that the haulage rates and
ratings never did contemplate the inclusion of the ex¬
pense of refrigeration and are not uoav sufficient to in¬
clude it.
We respectfully submit that the view expressed by the
Commission in the tAvo decisions in National Poultry,
Butter and Egg Assn. Case (43 I. C. C., 392, and 511. C.
C., 34), "that the separate charge and additional impo¬
sition of charges for refrigeration service Avas tanta-
744
mount to an increase in tlie line-haul rate" is legally
erroneous.
Section 6 of the Act to Eegulate Commerce provides
"that every common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act shall file with the Commission created by this act
and print and keep open to public inspection schedules
showing all the rates, fares and charges for transporta¬
tion between different points on its own route and points
on the route of any other carrier by railroad * * *
when a through route and joint rate have been estab¬
lished. * * * The schedules printed as aforesaid
by any such common carrier shall plainly state the places
between which property and passengers will be carried,
* * * and shall also state separately all terminal
charges, storage charges, icing charges, * * * and all
privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules
or regulations which in any wise change, affect or deter¬
mine any part or the aggregate of such aforesaid rates,
fares, or charges, or the value of the service rendered to
the passenger, shipper or consignee."
"No carrier, unless otherwise provided by this act,
shall engage in or participate in the transportation of
passengers or property as defined in this act, unless the
rates, fares, and charges upon tvhich the same are trans¬
ported by said carrier have been filed and published in
accordance with the provisions of this act, nor shall any
carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater
or less or different charge for such transportation
of passengers or property or for any service in connection
therewith, between the points named in such tariffs than
the rates, fares, and charges so specified." * * *
Section 1 defines the term transportation to "include
cars and other vehicles and all instrumentalities and fa¬
cilities of shipment or cari'iage * * * and all services
745
ill coiiiiectioii witli the * * * ventilation, refrigeration
or icing *■ * * of property transported." * * *
This means, as we understand it, that no charge for
"ventilation, refrigeration, or icing" can be lawfully
made or collected by the carriers unless they state sepa¬
rately such charges in the tariffs. The commission so
held in Re Refrigeration Charges on Kansas City South¬
ern Rij., I. & S., 210, 26 I. C. C., 617, at page 620. The
corollary of this proposition is that if such services are
rendered they are rendered without compensation. I. C.
G. V. SticTcneu, 215 IT. S., 98,105.
At least so far as 1. c. 1. shipments, and particularly
dairy freight, is concerned in Officiai Classification terri¬
tory, practically none of the carriers have tariffs on file,
stating a separate charge for refrigeration. In fact in
Platts V. N. Y. N. II. é H. R. R. Co., 43 I. C. C., 504, 508,
the Commission found that it was "not the general prac¬
tice of the carriers in Trunk Line territory to provide an
established refrigeration service for the transportation
of any commodities in less carload quantities nor has it
been their custom to absorb the cost of refrigeration com¬
modities other than oysters."
To treat a refrigeration charge as an increase in the
line-haul rate as was done in the National Poultry, But¬
ter and Egg case is to presume a violation of the laAV
requiring a "separately" stated charge for this service.
The violation of law is never presumed.
In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v.
Stichney] 215 U. S., 98, the Supreme Court had up for
review the Commission's order requiring a receiver of
the Chicago Great Western Eailroad Company to cease
and desist from exacting a switching charge of $2 per
car for delivery of live stock at the Union Stock Yards
746
of Cliioago and ordering that railroad, in lieu thereof,
to establish a switching charge of |1.
Mr. Justice Brewer in expressing the opinion of the
court quotes the pertinent portion of Section 6 of the
Act to Eegulate Commerce as above referred to and
refers to Section 15 of that act authorizing and requir¬
ing the Commission on complaint to inquire and deter¬
mine what Avould be just and reasonable rates or
charges.
The opinion on page 105 reads in part as folloAvs :
"This, of course, includes all charges, and the
carrier is entitled to have a finding that any par¬
ticular charge is unreasonable and unjust before it
is required to change such charge. For services
that it may render or procure to he rendered off its
own line, or outside the mere matter of transporta¬
tion over its line, it may charge and receive com¬
pensation. Southern Railway Co. v. St. Louis Hay
Co., 214 IT. S. 297. If the terminal charge be in
and of itself just and reasonable it cannot be con¬
demned or the carrier required to change it on the
ground that it, taken with prior charges of trans¬
portation over the lines of the carrier or of con¬
necting carriers, makes the total charge to the ship¬
per unreasonable. That which must be corrected
and condemned is not the just and reasonable term¬
inal charge, hut those prior charges which must of
themselves be unreasonable in order to make the
aggregate of the charge from the point of ship¬
ment to that of delwery unreasonable and unjust.
In order to avail itself of the benefit of this rule
the carrier must separately state its terminal or
other special charge complained of, for if many
matters are lumped in a single charge it is impos¬
sible for either shipper or Commission to determine
how much of the lump charge is for the terminal or
special services. The carrier is under no obliga¬
tions to charge for terminal service. Business in¬
terests may justify it in waiving any such charge,
and it will be considered to have waived it unless it
makes plain to both shipper and Commission that
it is insisting upon it."
747
Other decisions of similar import are:
Norfolk é Western R. R. Co. v. Conley, Atty.
General, 236 U. S., 605.
Northern Pacific R. v. N. I)., 236 XJ. S., 585.
AVe therefore submit that it was a legal error for the
Commission to. hold in the second decision of Case No.
7969 "that the separate and additional imposition for
the refrigeration service was tantamount to an increase
in the line-haul rates."
The Commission has recognized and sustained a sep¬
arate charge for special or accessorial service in the
following, among other, cases :
Alfred Oivne Davies v. L. dc N. R. R. Co., 18 I.
C. C., 540 (for loading, furnishing material
and placing in cars—dunnage).
Re Refrigeration Charges on Kansas City
Southern Ry., 26 I. C. C., 617—separate re¬
frigeration charge on fruits, vegetables and
berries.
Refrigeration Charges on Fruits and Vegetables
from Colorado, 29 I. C. C., 653.
R. R. Com. of Cal. v. Alabama Great Southern
R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C., 17—separate refrigera¬
tion charge, including ice, haulage, switching,
etc.
Arlington Heights Case, 19 I. C. C., 148, and 20
I. C. C., 106—separate refrigeration charge,
including ice haulage, bunker damage, etc.
Refrigeration Rates from New Orleans, etc.,
I. & S. 369, 31 I. C. C., 637.
Gamble Robinson Commission Co. v. Arcadia &
Retsey River R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C., 324.
Rental Charges for Insulated Cars, I. & S. 360,
31 I. C. C., 255.
748
Rules Governing the Transportation of Pota¬
toes in Refrigerator Equipment, I. & S. 530,
34 I. C. C., 255—refrigerator car rental
charge.
Northern Pac. Fruit Distributors v. N. P. Ry.
Co., 40 I. C. C., 191—refrigerator car rental
charge.
Hale Halsell Groc. Co. v. ilf. K. S T. Ry. Co.,
42 I. C. C., 491—refrigerator car rental
charge aihrmed on rehearing, 45 I. C. C., 523.
Charles Platts v. Neto Y orle, N. H. & H. R. R.
Co., 43 I. C. C., 504—separate refrigeration
charge on c. 1. and 1. c. 1. oysters.
Hill V. N., G. & St. L. Ry., 44 I. C. C., 582—sep¬
arate initial icing charge from certain points.
Re Private Cars, 50 I. C. C., 562—separate re¬
frigeration charges, including cost of ice and
salt, labor, investment in icing plants, etc.,
and reasonable profit.
Irrespective of the view of the Commission "that a
separate and additional charge for refrigeration is tan¬
tamount to an increase in the line-haul rates," the state
of the law, in so far as the commodities and territories
involved in Case No. 7969 are concerned, and in so far
as the decisions of the Commission are concerned, is as
follows :
In the first opinion (43 I. C. C., 392) the Commission
merely found "that the charges for carriage to which
are added the stated refrigeration charge have not been
shown of record to be just and reasonable and must
therefore be canceled."
The decision did not say that the proposed refrigera¬
tion charges per se were unreasonable nor did it say
that the aggregate of the proposed refrigeration charge
749
and the haulage charge was unreasonable—it was based
solely upon insufficiency of proof as to reasonableness
of the aggregate charge. It decided nothing else. Hence
the situation remained precisely the same as before the
charges were put in.
On the second hearing of the case, which involved
primarily the question of reparation, but Avhich was
extended to include a rehearing of the entire case, the
Commission reversed its former conclusions and spe¬
cifically found that the haulage rates did not include
compensation for refrigeration. This finding is predi¬
cated upon the fact that at the second hearing the car¬
riers did sustain what the Commission said was their
burden of proof to this effect, and the Commission
frankly said (on page 45 of the decision) :
"Doubtless the finding herein reached would have
been made in the original report had the carriers
made upon the original hearing the presentation
that they now make upon the rehearing."
After the issuance of the first decision the freight
rates in C. F. A. territory wmre increased in the G. F. A.
Class Scale Case (45 I. C. C., 254) and also generally
by the Fifteen Per Cent Case (45 I. C. C., 303), and
the Commission took cognizance of two increases in its
second decision and said (on page 47, of the second de¬
cision), "These comparisons (of the rates, as advanced
by those two cases, with the cost figures proven by the
carriers in the second hearing) indicate that the rates
paid by the complainants in Central Freight Associa¬
tion territory were not excessive" for the haulage charge
alone.
The case presented by the carriers covered the com¬
modities involved throughout the entire Official Class¬
ification territory (except in New England, where sep¬
arate less-than-carload refrigeration charges of long
750
standing, and those on the lines of other carriers, not
parties to the proceedings, had never been disturbed)
and the second decision of the Commission was coexten¬
sive. Therefore the second decision spoke as of June 1,
1917.
The hearing in the Central Freight Association Class
Scale case was concluded sometime before the separate
refrigeration charges were canceled, effective June 1,
3 917. The hearing in the Fifteen Per Cent Case was con¬
cluded about that date and as the evidence in neither
case related to the inclusion of refrigeration service in
the class rates, it is very evident that the class rates
were prescribed independently of refrigeration service
and do not include that element of expense.
There is no doubt that if the carriers had
been still under private control and operation at the
time the second decision was rendered they would have
republished a separate refrigeration charge and that, in
such a case, the Commission would have approved it, if
reasonable.
The fact that the National Poultry, Butter and Egg
Case is still before the Commission on petition of the
complainants for another rehearing does not in any way
affect this state of the law unless and until the second
decision is reversed.
It is not contended by anyone that the published less
than carload rates and ratings applicable to other part
of the country are out of line with such rates and ratings
in effect in Officiai Classification territory (with the in¬
creases of General Order 28 applied to both), and until
such rates and ratings are called into question they must
be assumed to be reasonable. It is therefore reasonable
to assume that the rates and ratings in other parts of
the country are just and reasonable charges for haulage
alone.
751
The purpose of and the necessity for the so-called
twenty-five per cent increase in rates made by Director
General's General Order 28 is clearly, conclusively and
exclusively stated in the following language of the or¬
der:
"In order to defray the expense of Federal con¬
trol and operation fairly chargeable to railway
operating expenses, and also to pay railway tax ac¬
cruals other than war taxes, net rents for joint facil¬
ities and equipment, and compensation to the car¬
riers, operating as a unit, it is necessary to increase
the railway operating revenues."
The increase was made for the definite and unmistak¬
able purpose above quoted, and makes no reference to
the inclusion of refrigeration. Moreover, the increase
of General Order 28 applied to all commodities whether
or not they moved under refrigeration—on pig iron as
well as dressed poultry—without regard to character,
condition or classification.
We submit, therefore, that at the present time the
transportation charges cannot, and do not include com¬
pensation for refrigeration.
It is admitted that except in cases where the carriers
have published stated charges for transportation of
1. c. 1. perishable freight under refrigeration, the car¬
riers receive no compensation for the transportation of
1. c. 1. perishables under refrigeration, except the reg¬
ular tariff haulage charge. If, as we think is evident
from the testimony, that charge is only, if quite, suf¬
ficient to pay for the cost of mere haulage, it follows that
the carriers receive no compensation whatever for the
refrigeration service.
During the hearing there was considerable discussion
of the term "included" as to whether the haulage rate in¬
cluded compensation for refrigeration. In the sense
that the carrier receives no other compensation for re-
752
frigeration service, the haulage charge might he said to
include such compensation, but in dollars and cents it
does not include it and in a legal sense it does not and
cannot legally do so.
If the haulage rate is greater than a just and reason¬
able charge for haulage alone, then that rate is unjust
and unreasonable, not only because it is excessive per se,
but also because it is discriminatory in that it is collected
on commodities that never require or use refrigeration and
on perishable commodities whether under refrigeration or
not ; and, fnrther to the extent that any compensation for
refrigeration service is included in the haulage charge,
it is to that extent nnlawful because it is charged and
collected without the publication of any tariff to cover.
Hence in that event the Act to Regulate Commerce is
doubly violated. Thus, this contention of the shippers
becomes a reductio ad absurdum as well as an assump¬
tion legally impossible.
In Kansas Car Lot Egg Shippers' Association v. B. é
0. (53 I. C. C., 59, April 7,1919), the Commission directed
the carriers on or before August 1, 1919, to put in car¬
load rates, not in excess of contemporaneons third-class
rates between the game points, on bntter, butterine, oleo¬
margarine, dressed poultry, and eggs with a minimum of
20,000 lbs. in Official Classification, both as to traffic hav¬
ing origin and destination in, that territory and on ship¬
ments to points therein from Western Trunk Line or
Southern Classification territories.
Pursuant to this order, the carriers filed tariffs or
supplements to current tariffs to establish the carload
rating as directed, effective August 1, 1919, and in that
connection the carriers also amended, effective Augnst 1,
1919, their current tariffs to provide that on such car¬
load shipments the cost of all icing and re-icing would
753
be paid by the shippers, in addition to the haulage
charges.
At page 50 of the second decision in Case. No. 7969
(51 I. C. C., 34) the Commission said:
"If, as the outcome of that case (Kansas Carlot
Egg Case), such a carload rate on dairy products
should be established, the question might independ¬
ently arise whether upon less-than-carload traffic
separate, additional charges for refrigeration service
should be assessed."
Now that the Kansas Car Lot Case has been decided
and the carload rate ordered in, is it not discrimination
to charge the carload shipper for refrigeration service
and give it to the 1. c. 1. shipper without charge?
CONCLiUSIOlsr AS TO SECTION" SIX.
We, therefore, submit tiiat it is necessary and proper
that a system of stated charges for the refrigeration of
1. c. 1. perishable freight, as proposed in. Section 6 of
this tariff, should be adopted, and we further submit
that the cost of rendering this service as shown by the
testimony set forth under this subject amply justifies
the measure of the charges proposed under Section 6 of
this tariff.
Tables 118 to 126 inclusive (on pages 592 to 618) of
Section 6 of this tariff cover proposed 1. c. 1. Heater
Service and would naturally be discussed here except for
the fact that the character, conditions and cost of that
' I »
service are so inseparably connected with the carload
heater service covered by Section 5 of the tariff, that
their discussion here would amount to a voluminous and
unnecessary repetition. For considerations of conven¬
ience, therefore, the 1. c. 1. heater service above men¬
tioned will be discussed in this brief at the close oí the
754
discussion of the carload heater service covered by Sec¬
tion 5.
FOURTH SECTION DEPARTURES.
In the formulation of the Proposed Perishable Pro¬
tective Tariff No. 1 it appears that certain Fourth Sec¬
tion violations have occurred. The reasons why these
violations were necessary and why they are justified are
fully set forth in the following testimony of the witness
C. E. Bell, assistant to the director, Division of Traffic,
United States Eailroad Administration:
I desire to call to the attention of the Commis¬
sion the necessities of granting relief from the long
and short-haul provision of the Fourth Section of
the act in connection with refrigerator and heater-
car charges shoAvn in the proposed tariff, especially
the stated refrigeration charge.
The matter of this relief should he considered un-
• der two heads; one, where the charges from inter¬
mediate points exceed the charges from the further
distant points; two, where longer routes undertake
to meet the charges in effect via the direct routes.
(Tr., 9405.)
The basic principle of the charges shown in per¬
ishable protective tariff No. 1 is cost of service.
Charges for refrigeration are not and cannot prop¬
erly be made on a distance basis, and such charges,
therefore, differ materially in principle from freight
rates, in that distance is largely controlling in all
freight rate adjustments that are not predicated on
unusual circumstances and conditions, that warrant
relief from the long and short haul provision; for
example, rates made because of water competition.
In establishing refrigerator charges on the cost of
service basis, as has been testified to in this proceed¬
ing, the factors entering into the cost of service are
ice costs, ice haulage, repairs to refrigeration de¬
vices, supervision, switching to and from ice plants,
profit and hazard.
As the record discloses, in arriving at the proposed
755
stated charges in perishable protective tariff No. 1,
uniform figures have been used covering the items
of supervision and of repairs to refrigerating de¬
vices. A uniform figure has also been used in ar¬
riving at cost of switching to and from ice plants,
and the total of this item varies only as the number
of switches are involved. Figures for ice haulage
nniformlv decrease as the distance decreases. (Tr.,
9406.)
This leaves the figure of ice cost as the only vary¬
ing factor, and this cost must necessarily vary ac¬
cording to the cost of ice per ton in different locali¬
ties and different sections.
The amount of ice used in different sections will
also vary, due to the difference in climatic condi¬
tions and shipping seasons, and will result in a dif¬
ference in the amount of ice necessary to properly
refrigerate a car of the same kind of freight orig¬
inating in different sections.
I will give one illustration of this situation, com¬
paring the shipment of melons from the Moapa dis¬
trict of Nevada with the Turlock section of Califor¬
nia, Moapa being directly intermediate to Turlock
on the direct line of the Salt Lake route.
Mr. Dearborn's exhibits disclose that on Moapa
melons the average ice consumption per car is
36,986 pounds, and from the Turlock district 31,387
pounds ; and as has been testified to, the Moapa sec¬
tion is much hotter than the Turlock section, the ice
meltage being much greater. (Tr., 9407.)
There is not only a greater cost per ton of ice
covering the traffic from the Moapa district, but the
ice meltage until the melons are sufficiently cooled
carried to destination is much greater than from
Turlock.
Moapa melons are initially iced at Las Vegas,
where the ice cost is |5.01 per ton. Turlock melons
are initially iced at Modesto or Fresno, the cost at
Modesto being $3.14 a ton, and at Fresno $3.37.
Moapa melons are first re-iced at Moapa, where
the ice cost is $9.70 per ton, and the Turlock melons
are first re-iced at Eoseville, where the cost is $2.64
per ton.
The second re-icing of the Moapa melons is at
756
Milford, whei'e the cost is $8.61 per ton. The Tur-
lock melons are re-iced the second time at Truckee,
where the cost is $1.11 per ton.
Mr. Dearborn's exhibits disclose that the aver¬
age initial icing at Moapa, 10,900 pounds, cost $29.12.
Turlock melons, 10,900 pounds, average cost per car
$16.94.
The first re-icing of Moapa melons take 8,500
])ounds of ice, at a cost of $44.57. whereas Truckee's
first re-icing is 4,732 pounds at a cost of $7.41.
The second re-icing of the Moapa melons at Mil-
ford is 3,600 pounds, at a cost of $15.31. The second
re-icing of the Turlock melons is at Eoseville, 2,800
pounds of ice at a cost of $3.73. (Tr., 9408.)
Taking the initial ice and the first and second
icings of the ]\Ioapa melons as compared with Tur¬
lock, the cost on the Moapa traffic is $79 per car,
and on the Turlock business $28.08 per car, there
being a difference of $50.92 in the ice cost, for the
initial, first and second re-icings.
The difference in the rates as proposed is $25 per
car to Illinois, for example, the Moapa rate being
$120 per car and the Turlock rate $95 per car.
Manifestly, in instances of this kind the carriers
cannot be expected to refrigerate Moapa Valley traf¬
fic at the same charge as applies from the Turlock
section. It would mean a serious out of pocket cost.
On the other hand, it is hardly to be expected that
the Turlock charges should be made on the basis of
the Moapa Valley cost. To do so would deprive the
Turlock shippers of the natural advantage accruing
to them, and yield to the carriers an excess over
the cost of the service on the Turlock traffic. (Tr.,
9409.)
There are not a great many situations where the
charges from intermediate points exceed the charges
from the further distant points ; I mean on the direct
route ; but in all such cases relief should be granted
from the operation of the long and short haul pro¬
vision of the Fourth Section. (Tr., 9409.)
If desired, Mr. Examiner, we will prepare and
furnish to the Commission a list of these situations,
but I hardly think this is necessary, because the prin-
757
ciple is identical with the illustration I cited to the
Moapa versus the Tnrlock district.
Dealing now with the question of the longer route
meeting tlie charge of the direct route, the Commis¬
sion has recognized this principle heretofore, and I
do not consider an extended argument or statement
is necessary. As a matter of fact, in Fourth Section
Case 4819 of July 3, 1915, the Commission granted
this character of relief to the Southern Pacific Kail-
road in connection with refrigeration charges on per¬
ishable freight from points on the lines of the South¬
ern Pacific to points in the United States and Can¬
ada.
Manifestly, unless the carriers comprising the
longer routes are permitted to establish the same
charges as via the direct routes, they must either
retire from the traffic or else so deplete their rev¬
enues in many instances as to make the traffic un¬
profitable. There are so many long routes involved
from the various groups of origin shown in perish¬
able protective tariff No. 1 to destinations through¬
out the United States and Canada that it would be
impossible to furnish a specific statement of such
routes, and I do not believe the Commission would
consider that necessary. (Tr., 9410.)
Q. (By Mr. Westlake.) Mr. Bell, you said in
making up the exhibits that the switching item was
uniform in all the exhibits. Do you recall there were
a few exhibits where the actual switching costs were
usedl
A. I did not mean the exhibits, but I mean in ar¬
riving at the proposed charges the uniform charge
of 35 cents was used to cover switching to and from
ice plants.
Q. Now, that average ice consumption from the
Moapa Valley and the Turlock district, that was to
Illinois as a destination?
A. Yes, and that is taken from Mr. Dearborn's
exhibits. (Tr., 9411.)
Q. (By Examiner Marshall.) Now, just one
question with respect to the Fourth Section situ¬
ation. If this tariff should go into effect, even as¬
suming that the Commission approves these de¬
partures, is it your understanding they would be
758
lawful unless there is a Fourth Section application
to act upon!
A. Mr. Examiner, I wanted to protect the situ¬
ation, which may be already covered by Fourth Sec¬
tion applications, as for instance, the Southern Pa¬
cific Fourth Section order for relief, but I did not
feel that knowing these departures existed under th ■
tariff that we could afford not to show (Tr., 9412)
in the record that they existed and that we felt that
that relief should be granted. Now, if the Commis¬
sion feels that specific application for relief is neces¬
sary, of course the individual carriers will have to
file these applications with the Commission, if they
have not alreadv been granted the relief. (Tr.,
9412.)
Upon this phase of the case it would seem that nothing
need be added to Mr. Bell's remarks, except to say that
in the event the tariff shall receive the approval of the
Commission and it shall appear that putting the tariff
into effect Avill create Fourth Section violations, they
will be protected by appropriate applications.
FIFTEENTH SECTION APPLICATIONS.
The Fifteenth Section Applications in behalf of cer¬
tain railroads not under Federal control were filed with
the Commission as follows:
Agent E. B. Boyd's Application B-412, which is
the same as Agent E. H. Countiss' Application No.
247, dated June 19, 1919, this application being in¬
tended to cover all interested nonfederal controlled
roads in Western Classification territory.
Agent J. H. Glenn's Application No. 133, dated
June 19, 1919, covering interested nonfederal con¬
trolled roads in Southern Classification territory.
Agent E. Morris' Application No. 973 and Agent
F. S. Davis' Application No , dated June 13,
1919, jointly covering interested nonfederal con¬
trolled roads in Official Classification territory.
Since the above applications were filed, Mr. J. E. Fair¬
banks, general secretary of the American Eailroad Asso-
759
ciation, lias been designated as tbe publishing agent of
proposed tariff in behalf of all cai'riers under Federal
control and not under Federal control. Agent Fairbanks
is now securing powers of attorney from interested non¬
federal controlled roads and intends to file with the Com¬
mission in due course a separate application in behalf
of such roads, which application will be joint for all in¬
terested nonfederal controlled roads, and such applica¬
tion A^dlen filed will supersede the other three applica¬
tions first above mentioned.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT.
The large number of separate rules, regulations, con¬
ditions and factors necessary to be included and consid¬
ered in a tariff of nation-wide application, has made it
necessary to express our conclusions, in the main, at the
end of the discussion of each separate feature of the
brief. Little need therefore be said at this point with re¬
spect to the several items or features.
In submitting the whole matter we desire to say that
the preparation of a complete and comprehensive tariff
like the one now before us, cannot, in the nature of things,
be consummated without some resulting imperfections.
But considering the magnitude of the task, and the many
widely varying conditions and practices sought to be
corelated and harmonized, we submit that the tariff as
now proposed is as nearly complete and as nearly free
from errors as human effort and the best available skill
and experience could reasonably be expected to make it.
Beginnings are always difficult and usually imperfect,
but, nevertheless, important and essential.
The adoption of this tariff will not petrify into perma¬
nence any errors that may have crept in or preclnde the
760
correction of any injustices that may develop from its
operation. It may at any time be improved or corrected
by the Commission, as occasion may require
On the other band its adoption will constitute a whole¬
some beginning in the right direction. Its operation will
develop any injustices or need for correction, better than
any amount of academic discussion or unsympathetic
criticism.
Considering all the facts and conditions that seem to
make necessary and desirable a comprehensive tariff of
this kind, and considering further the facts adduced at
the hearings, which we think amply justify the various
rules, provisions and charges thereof, we respectfully
urge the proposed Perishable Protective Taritf No. 1
upon the consideration of the Commission for its favor¬
able recommendation aiid advice to the Director General
of Bailroads.
Respectfully submitted,
H. G. Hebbel,
E. H. widdicombe,
A. P. Humburg,
N. W. Progtob,
John M. Sternhagen,
Duane E. Minarb,
Elmer Westlake,
Cmmsel for United States Railroad
Administration.
R. V. Fletcher,
Of Counsel.
CHICAGO', Nov. 1, 1919,
761
APPENDIX A.
Material changes which have been made in the tariff
since it was presented to the Commission for its recom¬
mendations.
(See page of the text.)
Copy of a letter in behalf of carriers addressed to the
examiner :
United States Eailroad Administration
Director General of Eailroads
Washington
Division of Traffic
Edward Chambers, Director
At Chicago, 111. October 23, 1919
In re Perishable Freight Investigation—I. C. C. Docket
No. 10664.
Mr. G. R. Marshall,
Attorney Examiner,
Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Marshall:
At various hearings in the Perishable Freight Inves¬
tigation'—I. C. C. Docket No. 10664—witnesses on be¬
half of the United States Eailroad Administration stated
certain changes would be made in the rules, charges, etc.,
as now shown in proposed Perishable Protective Tariff
No. 1.
Since the conclusion of the final hearing in Chicago on
October 6th, this tariff has been further reviewed with
a view of developing what, if any, discrepancies might
be found, and also with the view of modification of cer¬
tain rules contained therein.
Based on the foregoing I am submitting below for the
762
consideration of the Commission changes that we pro¬
pose making in the tariff, and Avhich we respectfully re¬
quest be considered in connection with the testimony and
exhibits as disclosed by the record in Docket No. 10664:
Item No. 14—Refrigerator and Insulated Cars; Defini¬
tion of {Page 1 of Proposed Tariff).
At the New York hearing certain of the complainants
contended that under the proposed definition of a "Fully
insulated car," as shown in paragraph (B) of Item No.
14, cars intended primarily for the handling of traffic
under ventilation would come within this definition and
be subject to the proposed car rental charge shown in
Eule No. 40. The cars used by the Atlantic Coast Line
Eailroad and other roads in Florida were cited as illus¬
trative. That there may be no misunderstanding as to
what constitutes a "Fully Insulated Car," we propose
changing paragraph (B) of Item No. 14 to read as fol¬
lows :
(B) The term "Fully Insulated Car" as used in
this tariff means a car having insulated, hinged,
swinging doors, as well as insulations in the walls,
ends, ceiling and floor.
Item No. 15—Perishable Commodities; Definition and
List of {Pages 1 and 2 of Proposed Tariff).
We propose to show preflx figure" (1) " instead of pre¬
fix figure "(3)" against Cocoanuts; and for the reason
that we are advised Cocoanuts should be protected
against heat as well as cold.
We propose eliminating "Milk, Fresh," in accord¬
ance with Witness McPike's statement (Tr. 2134).
Through some oversight Pineapples have been omit¬
ted from Item No. 15, and wo propose including Pine¬
apples Avith prefix "(1)."
763
Rule No. Zb—Ordering Cars {Page 7 of proposed Tariff)'.
"We propose changing paragraph (B) of this rule to
read as follows :
(B) Carriers not owning or operating brine tank
refrigerator cars, or other special equipment, do not
hold themselves out as being in readiness to supply
such equipment.
This change is proposed in the interest of clarity.
Ride No. 50—Loading, Stowing, Stripping, Racking,
False Flooring.
Paragraph (A) of this rule will be withdrawn, in ac¬
cordance with Witness McPike's Exhibit No. 12.
Paragraph (B) will be relettered "(A)," with no
change in the wording.
Paragraph (C) will be relettered "(B)," and corrected
to read as follows :
(B) No charge will be made for transporting
temporary false floors or floor-racks furnished by
shipper, when used with perishable freight either in
packages or in bulk (including so-called "piece
freight").
No charge will be made for transporting racks,
strips, or braces furnished by shipper when
used with carload shipments of perishable freight
in packages.
No allowance will be made for the use of strips,
braces, frames or racks (other than floor racks when
used as such) furnished by shipper, as provided in
paragraph (A) above, with carload freight in bulk
(including so-called "piece freight"). In such cases
the weight of such materials shall be charged for at
the freight rate applicable on the freight shipped.
Paragraphs (D), (E) and (E) to be relettered to pre¬
serve continuity, but with no change in the present word¬
ing.
764
Bule No. Transfer ; Charge for {Page 11 of proposed
Tariff).
It is proposed to change this rule to read as follows:
(A) Carriers are not obligated to transfer per¬
ishable freight en route from box or other cars into
refrigerator or other fully insulated cars (see Item
No. 14) but when such transfer of carload shipments
is made (the refrigerator or other fully insulated
cars being available into which to make such trans¬
fer), to protect the freight against heat or cold, a
charge of five dollars ($5.00) per car (see Excep¬
tion) for the service of transferring will be made
and added to the billing, and will accrue to the car¬
rier on whose rails the transfer is performed.
Exception : When such transfer is made at
points within the Dominion of Canada the charge
will be ten dollars ($10.00) instead of five dollars
($5.00) per car.
(B) The above charge will be made in addition
to the charge for the use of fully insulated car (see
Item No. 14) beyond point of transfer, as provided
in Eule No. 40.
(C) The provisions of paragraph (A) will not
apply on carload shipments of perishable freight
transported under shipper's instructions:—"Com¬
mon Car Service; owner's risk of heat or cold" (see
Enle No. 80).
The first paragraph of the rule, as revised, makes
plain that the carriers do not hold themselves out to
transfer freight from box cars into fully insulated cars
when fully insulated cars are not available.
Paragraph (C) of the new rule is intended to meet
the objection of shippers that under the rule as pro¬
posed in Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 carriers
might transfer freight from box cars into refrigerator
cars even though the shipper desired box car service
through to destination at owner's risk of heat or cold.
In this connection see Witness Bell's testimony, pages
794 and 795 of transcript.
765
Ride No. 110—Caretakers with Rananas, carloads;
Transportation of {Page 12 of proposed Tariff).
Further consideration of the rule as shown in proposed
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 impels us to the be¬
lief that it does not fit the actual conditions under which
caretakers of bananas are returned. It is often custom¬
ary for one messenger to accompany a train of bananas
to some crossing or gateway where the shipments are
reconsigned in smaller lots to various destinations, re¬
quiring the use of different messengers over different
portions of the route. It is not at all times practicable
for the Agent at point of origin to secure release or
contract from the caretaker in charge and, in fact, many
of the carriers use coupon books with a blanket release
Avhich the messenger signs at the time the coupon books
are issued. Manifestly the return trip should be via
the same route as that of the shipment which the care¬
taker accompanied, and no such provision is contained in
Eule No. 110. It is also customary that when shipments
have been handled through the medium of a belt or ter¬
minal line over a part of a through route, over which
there is no regular passenger train service, to furnish
return transportation from the passenger terminal of
the carriers performing the line haul. For the reasons
above set out, we propose changing paragraph (A) of
this rule to read;
(A) One man in charge of each consignment of
bananas in straight carloads, or in mixed carloads
with cocoanuts, (consisting of one to five carloads)
will, at any time of year, be given free transporta¬
tion for entire trip or any portion thereof between
points between which the shipments move. If de¬
sired, different caretakers may accompany the same
shipment over different portions of the route via
which the shipment moves.
to change paragraph (B) to read:
(B) Caretakers will be required to execute re-
766
lease, using the form provided for that purpose by
carrier.
to add to paragraph (E) the following:
The return trip shall be via the same route as
that of the shipment which the caretaker accom¬
panied. When shipments have been handled through
the medium of a Belt or Terminal line, forming a
part of a through route, over which there is no
regular passenger train service, return transporta¬
tion as authorized in this rule will be furnished care¬
takers from and to passenger terminal of the car¬
riers performing the line haul of the original freight
shipment which the caretakers accompanied.
Rule No. 200—Application {Page 17 of proposed Tariff).
At the Los Angeles hearing (Tr. 533) Witness Bell
stated that paragraph (G) of Eule No. 200 would be re¬
vised so that the shippers would not be charged full
stated refrigeration charges when cars are placed for
loading with ice in the bunkers, the shipper, however,
desiring movement under ventilation instead of refrig¬
eration. In compliance with Mr. Bell's statement we
propose adding to paragraph (G) the following:
The provisions of this paragraph will not apply
in those instances where shipper orders a refrig¬
erator car and instructs that shipment be made un¬
der ventilation and carrier furnishes a car the bunk¬
ers or tanks of which contain ice remaining over
from a previous shipment.
Under the wording of paragraph (K) of Eule No. 200
salt, if furnished to shipments of packing house prod¬
ucts and dairy products when moving under stated re¬
frigeration charges, would be charged for in addition to
the stated refrigeration charge. It is customary to in¬
clude the cost of salt on commodities enumerated in Sec¬
tion No. 4 of the proposed tariff when such commodities
move under stated charges. The stated charges on
fruits, vegetables, berries or melons do not include the
767
use of salt, and we propose, therefore, to amend para¬
graph (K) of Rule No. 200 to read as follows:
(K) Stated refrigeration charges shown in this
Section applying on fruits, vegetables, berries or
melons do not include the use of salt. If salt is
furnished by carrier to such commodities it will be
supplied only at regular icing stations and will be
charged for on basis provided in Section No. 4.
Subsequent to the hearings in Docket No. 10664, our
attention has been called to the fact that there is a move¬
ment in certain territories (particularly Central West¬
ern territory) of crushed fruits, under refrigeration, and
that tariffs of certain individual carriers now publish
stated refrigeration charges. We, therefore, propose
adding an additional paragraph to Rule No. 200, to be
designated as paragraph "(M)," reading as follows:
(M) The terms fruits, apples, berries, vegetables
and melons, on which commodities the Table of
Charges in this Section apply (see Pages Nos. 149
to 504, inclusive), means feesh fruits, apples, ber¬
ries, vegetables and melons. When crushed fruits,
apples, berries, vegetables or melons and/or fruit
juices (not beverages), in straight or mixed car¬
loads, are transported under refrigeration, the low¬
est stated refrigeration charge provided in this Sec¬
tion from point of origin to destination will apply.
Rule No. 255—Ealf-tanh Refrigeration Service on Citrus
Fruit from Florida {Page 23 of proposed Tariff).
Witnesses for the carriers stated in the record that
half-tank refrigeration charges would be re-established
on apples from Virginia points and on fruits from Mich¬
igan points (where half-tank refrigeration had previ¬
ously been furnished) subject to the provision that it
would be furnished only when such types of refrigerator
cars are available that will permit the half-tank refrig¬
eration.
We are not yet prepared to submit specific figures but
768
will incorporate tliem in tlie tariiï, when published, ano
Avill make those charges subject to the provisions of Rule
No. 255, making such changes in the language of that
rule as may be necessary.
Item. No. 903—California {Interstate) Geographical De¬
scription of origin Groupings, etc. {Page 24 of pro¬
posed Tariff).
Simply in the interest of clarification, this Item will be
changed to read as follows :
Group (A) All points except those on the South¬
ern Pacific Railroad east of Banning and on the.
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad south of
Cadiz on the line from Cadiz to Parker, Arizona.
Group (B) All points not included in Group (A).
Some confusion in arranging the alphabetical index
has resulted from the wording of this item as shown in
proposed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 and the re¬
vision makes plain the territorial description.
Item No. 914—Kansas—Geographical Description of
Origin Groupings, etc. {Page 25 of proposed Tariff).
Item No. 1016—Kansas—Geographical Description of
Destination Groupings, etc. {Page 30 of proposed
Tariff).
Witness W. P. Huston (Tr. 2023-2024) contended that
under the grouping as shown in Item No. 1016, Wichita
would be placed at a disadvantage as compared with
Hutchinson, Kansas, and other points in the same group.
We have undertaken to meet Mr. Huston's views by a
revision of Item No. 1016 reading as follows:
Group 1. All points on and east of the Union
Pacific Railroad, Kansas-Nebraska State Line
through Marysville to Manhattan; thence on and
east of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad,
Manhattan to McFarland, inclusive; thence east of
the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, Mc-
769
P"'arlaud to Wichita; thence east of the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Eailroad, Wichita to Arkansas
City.
We have made corresponding change in Item No. 914,
which covers Kansas as origin territory.
Item No. 934—Oklahoma—Geographical Description of
Origin Groupings, etc. {Page 26 of proposed Tariff).
Simply in the interest of clarity, we propose changing
Item No. 934 to read as follows:
Group (A). Points west of the Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe Railroad, Chilocco to Thackerville, via
Guthrie, Oklahoma City and Purcell.
Group (B). All points not included in Group
(A).
This change we consider necessary because there are
two lines of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa P^e Eailroad,
one running through Oklahoma City but the dividing
line is properly drawn through the center of Oklahoma.
Tables of Charges in Section .No. 2. {Pages 149 to 504,
inclusive, of proposed Tariff).
Proposed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 shows a
sub-group numbered 2, in the Northern Peninsula of
Michigan, this group embracing only the city of Menom¬
inee. This was done so that the charges into Menomi¬
nee would be kept on the same level as those in effect to
Marinette, Wis., which point is located just across the
Menominee River. AVe have discovered that some er¬
rors were made in checking in the stated charges from
certain States to tlie Northern Peninsula of Michigan
(Groups 1 and 2), and to Group 3 in Wisconsin which
includes Marinette. Changes, therefore, are necessary
in many of the Tables shown in the tariff, and I attach
hereto a statement of such changes, marked "Exhibit
No. 1."
It was the intention to establish on vegetables and on
770
perishable freight not otherwise indexed by name charges
from points in Arizona, Group (B), on practically the
same basis as on the same commodities from California,
Group (B)~ to all destinations. Through some over¬
sight in preparing the tariff the charges from Arizona,
Group (B), to destinations in the United States and the
Dominion of Canada, on vegetables and perishable
freight not otherwise indexed by name, were shown on a
higher basis, in fact, in a majority of cases at fifteen
dollars (|15.00) per car higher than California, Group
(B). We now propose changing the proposed charges
in Column 4 of Table Ko. 3, pages 157 to 160, as shown
on "Exhibit No. 2," hereto attached. There is not a uni¬
form difference of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per car, but
the proposed figures preserve the relation that we feel
should be maintained.
Due to Avhat appear to have been errors in checking
the charges, or else in proof-reading of proposed Per¬
ishable Protective Tariff No. 1, there are some charges
published to the three Iowa destination groups which
are out of line, and which create Fourth Section viola¬
tions Avhich were not intended, and which Ave propose
changing :
Destination Group 1 in loAva embraces points along
the Missouri Ewer (the extreme Western part of the
State) ; destination Group 2 in Iowa embraces points
along the Mississippi Eiver (the extreme Eastern part
of the State) ; destination Group 3 in Iowa embraces the
remainder of - the State (or that part not included in
Groups 1 and 2) and comprising, roughly speaking, over
ninety per cent of the State. The mistakes in proposed
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 were quite probably
due to the fact that Avhen checking the charges or in read¬
ing the proof it was assumed that the destination groups
iu loAva Avere numbered consecutively from West to
771
East, that is "Groups 1-2-3" instead of "Groups 1-3-2."
To rectify the errors we propose changes as set out in
"Exhibit No. 3," hereto attached.
We liave also discovered some manifest but unexplain-
able errors in the proposed charges from the eight
groups in Texas to the States of Arkansas and Louisiana,
and to correct these errors we propose changes as shown
in "Exhibit No. 4," hereto attached.
We also discovered a palpable error in the charges
from Wisconsin, Group (C), Table No. 93, to the State
of Minnesota, the charges to the two Minnesota Groups
being transposed. The proper revision will mean a re¬
duction of five dollars ($5.00) per car in the charges to
Minnesota, Group 2, and an increase in charges of five
dollars ($5.00) per car to Minnesota, Group 1.
We also discovered an error in the charges in Table
No. 30 to the State of Wisconsin, and the change neces¬
sary to properly align the tariff will result in an increase
of five dollars ($5.00) per car to Wisconsin, Groiip 1.
Table No. 16, page 194 of tariff. Item No. 2207 (Con¬
necticut destinations) is in error in that the correct fig¬
ures for Columns 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively should be
$60.00, $55.00, $65.00 and $50.00, as it is not intended to
apply higher charges to Connecticut points than to Mas¬
sachusetts points.
In Item No. 4738, Table No. 41, page 289 of tariff, the
stated charges to Group 4 should be reduced five dollars
($5.00) per car in columns 2 and 3, thus making the
charges $40.00 and $50.00 respectively.
Tables No. 97 and 98 in Section No. 3. {Pages 509 and
510 of proposed Tariff).
Tables Nos. 97 and 98 provide for no replenishing
charges to the State of New Mexico. It has developed
that the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Eailroad now
772
publish, in AT&SF ER Tariff I. C. C. No. 7583, charges
to Nerv Mexico from points in Kansas, Oklahoma,
Missouri and Texas and it is desired to continue a line of
replenishing charges from this origin territory to New
Mexico points. It is also felt that similar charges should
be published from the other groups of origin shown in
Tables Nos. 97 and 98, otherwise there might be a charge
of undue discrimination in that stated charges would
apply from the Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas
origins whereas the cost of ice basis, as per Section No.
4 of the tariff, would apply from the other origin terri¬
tory. Furthermore, it is manifest that routes other than
the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe should be on a parity
Avith the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe from Kansas,
Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas origins. Attention is
further called to the fact that New Mexico is intermedi¬
ate to California and that stated charges are published
to all California points from all origins.
We propose, therefore, to add New Mexico destina¬
tions to Tables Nos. 97 and 98, the figures to be shown in
Table No. 97 being as follows:
C(-I. Col. Col. Col. Col". Col.
1 2 3 4 5 6
$ 17.50 $ 27.50 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 | 30.00 $ 25.00
the figures to be shown in Table No. 98 being as follows:
Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col.
7 8 9 10 11 12
I 27.50 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 25.00 $ 27.50 $ 25.00
Ride No. 400—Application—Paragraph (S) {Page 515
■ of proposed Tariff).
The record in Docket No. 10664 shows some objectlou
to the so-called double minimum for ice and salt. The
provision in proposed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1
' 773
-was brought forward from original proof, though it was
tlie intention to make the following provision;
Mininmm Charge for Re-icing: The minimum
charge per ear for each re-icing will be on the fol¬
lowing basis :
for ice 1,000 pounds; and for salt, actual weight.
IVc therefore submit this proposed change.
Title page, Section No. 5 {Page 519 of proposed Tariff).
IVe propose changing the provisions of this title page
in accordance with Witness Beidelman (Tr. 6116-6118)
and to read as follows :
The provisions of this Section will not apply for
account of carriers within the Dominion of Canada,
except as to traffic passing through the Dominion of
Canada but which has both points of origin and des¬
tination within the United States.
Exceptions :—Precedence over the provisions of
this Section will be taken by the following tariffs,
supplements thereto and reissues thereof, as they
may respectively apply:
Bangor & Aroostook Eailroad, Tariff I. C. C. No.
1458.
Boston & Maine Eailroad, Tariff I. C. C. No. A-
1562 (insert later issue).
Canadian National Eailwavs, Tariff I. C. C. No.
894.
Canadian Pacific Eailway, I. C. C. No. E-1838.
Maine Central Eailroad, Tariff I. C. C. No. C-2272
(insert later issue).
New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad,
Tariff No. I. C. C. F-2192.
Ride No. 510—Shipper's Protective Service {Pages 521
and 522 of proposed Tariff).
Paragraph (E) of Eule No. 510 provides that cars
will not be placed in "roundhouses or other warming
houses" and would convey the idea that warming houses
not the property of the carriers might not be utilized.
In the interest of clarity we propose changing this rule
to read as follows:
774
(E) Housing: Cars moving under this rule will
not be placed in carrier's warming houses or round¬
houses at any point, including destination, for pro¬
tection of contents against cold nor for the removal
of frost from the lading.
Rule No. 512—Caret-alters {Transportation of) ; with
carloads when Shipper installs portable Heater {Page
522 of proposed Tariff).
Witness Tong (Tr. 2550-2551) called attention to the
fact that the wording of this rule does not permit the
return of caretakers to the extent that our testimony in¬
dicated was intended. We propose, therefore, to change
the second sub-paragraph of paragraph (P) to read as
follows :
Free transportation will be given to caretakers
who have accompanied shipments, as provided in
paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) of this
rule, when such return trip is between points within
the territory west of the Mississippi River, west of
the Illinois-Indiana-Kentueky state line, west of
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, also including
points Avithin the northern peninsula of Michigan
provided that return trip of caretaker shall be
commenced Avithin five days after arrival at desti¬
nation of the shipment which he accompanied.
AVitness Beidelman (Tr. 6120-6121) stated that the
present practice with respect to return of caretakers in
XcAv England territory would be continued. AVe propose
therefore to add to the second sub-paragraph of para¬
graph (F) the following:
Exception : Precedence over the provisions of
tliis rule Avill be taken by the following tariffs, sup¬
plements thereto and reissues thereof as they may
respectively apply:
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad, Tariff I. C. C. No.
1147.
(also enumerating other tariffs of New England
lines.)
Rule No. 550—Reiurn of Stoves, Heaters, portable False
Floors, icooden Linings, etc. {Page 525 of proposed
Tariff).
"Witness Beidelman (ïr. 6123) stated an additional
paragraph would be added to this rule so as to permit
the return of cars permanently'' equipped with false
floors, linings and other fittings and used for a special
character of traffic, without making a charge for the
floors, linings and other fittings remaining intact in the
car. "We propose adding to Eule No. 550 an additional
paragraph reading as follows:
(F) "When cars have been permanently equipped
with false floors, linings and other fittings and are
used for a special character of traffic, the false
floors, linings and other fittings remaining intact in
the car of which they form a part, no charge will be
made for the return transportation of such false
floors, linings or other fittings. No hill of lading-
will be issued for the return movement of such cars
or for any of the false floors, linings or other fit¬
tings remaining therein.
Section No. 5—Tables of Charges Nos. 101, 102 and
103 {Pages 526 to 533, inclusive, of proposed Tariff).
"Witness Bell (Tr. 9399-9401) testified it would be nec¬
essary to eliminate the charges for Carriers' Protective
Service from points in Western territory to points east
of the Indiana-Illinois State Line, for the reasons set
out in Mr. Bell's testimony. We propose eliminating
from Tables Nos. 101, 102 and 103 all stated charges to
the following named States, but make reference to Eule
No. 515 so as to permit proportional application of
Tables Nos. 101, 102 and 103 :
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio,
Delaware, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
District of Colum- Michigan (Groups Ehode Island,
bm, 3 & 4)
Indiana, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia,
Maine, New York, West Virginia.
776
Section No. 6—Title Page {Page 535 of proposed Tariff).
It is proposed to change the provisions of this title
page so as to conform to the actual application of the
tariff, including reference to tariffs of New England
lines covering "Carriers' Protective Service" for less
than carload shipments as now published by those lines.
In this connection please see Witness Beidelman's testi¬
mony (Tr. 6116-6117).
Ride No. 605—Shipper's Instructions {Page 537 of pro¬
posed Tariff).
As stated by Witness Beidelman (Tr. 7336), we pro¬
pose amending Rule No. 605 by inserting, at the begin¬
ning of the rule, the following words :
When scheduled refrigerator car service is avail¬
able under the provisions of Rule No. 610.
Ride No. 615—Refusal of Freight and Restricted Articles
in Scheduled Refrigerator Cars {Page 537 of proposed
Tariff).
In accordance with the testimony of Witness Bell (Tr.
7336-7337) we propose to revise paragraph (A) of Rule
No. 615 to read as follows:
Carriers are not obligated to accept for trans-
poration under "Scheduled Refrigerator Car
Service" any commodity the odor or nature of
which may contaminate butter or other freight in
the same car.
We propose adding to paragraph (B) of Rule No.
615 the following:
unless the shipper specifies on shipping order or
bill of lading the notation: "Box car service, own¬
er's risk of damage by heat or cold," except, how¬
ever, as otherwise provided by paragraphs (C)
and (D).
At various hearings attention was called to the fact
that paragraph (C) of Rule No. 615 contains the ex-
777
pression "five degrees below." We propose to change
this language to read "five degrees below zero," in or¬
der to convey exactly the meaning of the rule.
In paragraph (D) of Eule No. 615, we propose sub¬
stituting for the word "Fish" the term "Fish, fresh or
frozen."
Bule No. 630—Individual Car for one Consignee at one
Destination {Page 538 of proposed Tariff).
In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (A) we propose in¬
serting the word "fish" after the words "dressed poul¬
try." We also propose eliminating reference to Eule
No. 260, as we do not consider this cross reference nec¬
essary.
Witness Bell (Tr., 7335-7336) stated Eule No. 630
would be amended so as to permit the handling of fruits
and vegetables, originating in Eastern Trunk Line terri¬
tory, in a refrigerator car at a minimum of fifteen thou¬
sand (15,000) pounds, subject to the rental charge as pro¬
vided for in Eule No. 40 on those commodities moving
under ventilation and, if moving under refrigeration, at
the stated carload refrigeration charges shown in Sec¬
tion No. 2 of the taritf.
AVe now propose to change the number of sub-para¬
graph (2) of paragraph (A) to number (3), and to in¬
sert a new^ sub-paragraph (2) to read as follows;
(2) On shipments of fruits, berries, vegetables
and/or melons moving on less than carload or any
quantity freight rates, originating at points within
the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Ehode Island, Connecticut, New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
AVest Virginia or District of Columbia.
AAY also propose to change paragraph (C) of Eule
No. 630 to read:
(C) Shipments handled under the provisions of
paragraphs (A) and (B) of this rule will be treated
778
the same as carload shipments and will be subject
to the charges for use of car provided in Rule No.
40 on the commodities specified in that rule, and/or
to the charges published in Sections No. 2, 3, 4 or 5
as they may respectively apply.
We propose eliminating from present sub-paragraph
(2) reference to Rule No. 244, believing that there is no
connection between Rule No. 630 and Rule No. 244.
We further propose eliminating from the "Note" in
Rule No. 630 the last sentence reading:
Unless the shipper handles as above prescribed
the shipments moving under this Note will be sub¬
ject to the Tables of Charges on pages 539 to 618,
inclusive, of this Section as they may respectively
apply.
We are eliminating this sentence for the reason that
Rule No. 630 authorizes the use of a refrigerator car at
a minimum of 15,000 pounds and the charges for any
character of protective service should be not less than
the charge for a full carload. The sentence in question
would result in a conflict in charges and it is our view
that the less than carload charges should not be used
on traffic moving under Rule No. 630. If traffic moves in
scheduled cars, including "Scheduled Pick-up Cars," the
charges in Tables Nos. 104 to 126, inclusive, would ob¬
tain and it is our conclusion that any reference to those
charges in Rule No. 630 would result in conflict and mis¬
understanding.
Table No. 104—Section No. 6 {Page 539 of proposed,
Tariff).
Tables Nos. 118 to 126—Section No. 6 {Pages 592 to 618,
inclusive, of proposed Tariff).
Witness Beidelman (Tr. 6116-6117) testified that it did
not ajjpear likely that "Carriers' Protective Service"
against cold would be inaugurated locally between points
in Official Classification teriltory during the approach-
779
ins: season, because it would not be feasible for the car-
O /
riers to equip themselves to offer this service. Witness
Bell (Tr. 9399-9401) outlined reasons for eliminating
from the tariff carload charges for "Carriers' Protec¬
tive Sex'vice" against cold from points in Western ter¬
ritory to points east of the Indiana-Illinois State Line.
Inasmuch as it"is not feasible to give the service we pro¬
pose :
a. Eliminating from Table No. 104, page 539, the
charges for this protective service from points in the
states of Maryland, Ohio,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Michigan Sou. Rhode Island,
District of Colum- Peninsula),
bia,
Indiana, New Hampshire, "Vermont,
Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia,
Maine, New York, West Virginia.
b. To eliminate from Tables Nos. 118 to 126, both in¬
clusive, charges for protective service against cold to
destinations in the above mentioned States, and to also
eliminate the following States of origin :
From Table No. 118—Connecticut, Delaware, Dis¬
trict of Columbia.
From Table No. 119—Indiana groups.
From Table No. 120—Kentucky, Maine, Mary¬
land, Massachusetts.
From Table No. 121—-Michigan, Col. 2.
From Table No. 122—New Hampshire, New Jer¬
sey.
From Table No. 123—New York groups, Ohio.
From Table No. 124—Pennsylvania groups, Rhode
Island, Vermont.
From Table No. 125—Virginia groups. West Vir¬
ginia.
We also propose the following notes in connection with
Table No. 104:
Note No. 1: The above charges for protective
service against cold will not apply through to desti-
780
nations other than those to which through charges
are provided in Tables Nos. 118 to 126, both inclusive.
Note No. 2 : Charges in this Table will be arrived
at by using the short line mileage from point of
origin to destination via routes via which freight
charges are lawfully applicable.
Note No. 1 so restricts the application of the charges
that they may not be applied to destinations to which the
service is not available.
Note No. 2 is simply to indicate that the short line dis¬
tances shall be applied.
Taken as a whole the changes that we propose rep¬
resent substantial modifications in the rules and charges
herein referred to. There are some few advances neces¬
sary to preserve the proper relationship but compared
Avith the reductions the advances are comparatively few.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Elmer Westlakb,
Counsel in Charge.
781
EXHIBIT No. 1.
Table
From Number To Increase Decreas
Alabama 1 Michigan, Group 2. .. $5.00 ....
Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island 15 Wisconsin, Group 3 15.00
Delaware; Maryland, Group
A; Virginia, Group A 16 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
District of Columbia; Mary¬
land, Group B 17 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
Florida, Group A 18 Michigan, Group 2. .. 5.00 ....
Florida, Group B 19 Michigan, Group 2. .. 5.00
Georgia 20 Michigan, Group 2. .. 5.00 ....
Illinois, Group A 24 Michigan, Group 2. .. 5.00 ....
Illinois, Group B 25 Michigan, Group 2. .. 5.00 ....
Indiana, Group A 26 Wisconsin, Group 3 5 .00
Indiana, Group B 27 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
Maine 37 Wisconsin, Group 3 5 .00
Michigan, Group B 41 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
New Hampshire, Vermont.. 55 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
New Jersey 56 Wisconsin, Group 3 5 .00
New York, Group A 59 Wisconsin, Group 3 5 .00
New York, Group B 60 Wisconsin, Group 3 5 .00
North Carolina 61 Michigan, Group 2. .. 5.00 ....
Ohio 64 Wisconsin, Group 3 5 .00
Pennsylvania, Group A 69 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
Pennsylvania, Group B 70 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
South Carolina 72 Michigan, Group 2... 5.00 ....
West Virginia 90 Wisconsin, Group 3 5.00
782
EXHIBIT Ko. 2.
STATEMENT OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED CHARGES IN PRO¬
POSED PERISHABLE PROTECTIVE TARIFF No. I, FROM
ARIZONA, COLUMN 4, TABLE No. 3, AND COMPARISON WITH
PRESENT CHARGES
TIVE TARIFF No. 1,
No. 7, COLUMN 4.
To
IN PROPOSED PERISHABLE PROTEC-
FROM CALIFORNIA, GROUP B, TABLE
Present
Charges,
Table No. 3,
Col. 4, from
Arizona.
Proposed
Charges,
Table No. 3,
Col. 4, from
Arizona.
Present
Charges,
Table No. 7,
Col. 4, from
California.
Alabama, Groups 1, 2 and 3
Alberta, Group 1
Arizona, Group 1
Arkansas, Groups 1 and 2
British Columbia, Group 1
California, Groups 1, 2 and 3. ..
Colorado, Group 1
Colorado, Group 2
Connecticut, Group 1
Delaware, Group 1
District of Columbia, Group 1..
Florida, Groups 1 and 2
Florida, Group 3
Georgia, Group 1
Idaho, Group 1
Idaho, Group 2
Idaho, Group 3
Illinois, Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4. ..
Indiana, Groups 1, 2 and 3
Iowa, Groups 1 and 3
Iowa, Group 2
Kansas, Group 1
Kansas, Group 2
Kentucky, Group 1
Kentucky, Group 2
Kentucky, Group 3
Louisiana, Groups 1, 2 and 3. ..
Maine, Group 1
Manitoba, Group 1
Maryland, Groups 1, 2 and 3...
Massachusetts, Group 1
Michigan, Groups 1, 2 and 3. . .
Michigan, Group 4
Minnesota, Group 1
Minnesota, Group 2
Mississippi, Groups 1 and 2. ...
Missouri, Groups 1, 3 and 4.. ..
Missouri, Group 2
Montana, Group 1
Montana, Group 2
$115.00
1100.00
$100.00
100.00
95.00
90.00
55.00
55.00
65.00
100.00
85.00
90.00
95.00
80.00
75.00
75.00
70.00
90.00
70.00
70.00
90.00
70.00
75.00
125.00
110.00
110.00
120.00
105.00
105.00
120.00
105.00
105.00
115.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
110.00
110.00
120.00
105.00
105.00
95.00
80.00
70.00
90.00
75.00
70.00
85.00
70.00
65.00
105.00
90.00
90.00
110.00
95.00
95.00
100.00
85.00
85.00
105.00
90.00
90.00
100.00
85.00
85.00
95.00
80.00
80.00
110.00
95.00
95.00
105.00
90.00
90.00
115.00
100.00
100.00
110.00
95.00
95.00
125.00
110.00
110.00
115.00
100.00
100.00
120.00
105.00
105.00
125.00
110.00
110.00
110.00
95.00
95.00
115.00
100.00
100.00
105.00
90.00
90.00
110.00
95.00
95.00
110.00
95.00
95.00
105.00
90.00
90.00
100.00
85.00
85.00
100.00
85.00
75.00
100.00
85.00
85.00
783
EXHIBIT No. 2—Continued.
Present
Proposed
Present
Charges,
Charges,
Charges,
Table No. 3,
Table No. 3,
Table No. 7,
To
Col. 4, from
Col. 4, from
Col. 4, from
Arizona.
Arizona.
California.
Nebraska, Group 1
$100.00
$ 85.00
$85.00
Nebraska, Group 2
95.00
80.00
80.00
Nevada, Group 1
75.00
65.00
55.00
Nevada, Group 2
75.00
65.00
65.00
New Brunswick, Group 1
130.00
115.00
115.00
New Hampshire, Group 1
125.00
110.00
110.00
New Jersey, Group 1
120.00
105.00
105.00
New Mexico, Groups 1 and 2...
75.00
65.00
70.00
New York, Group 1
115.00
100.00
100.00
New York, Groups 2, 3 and 4. .
120.00
105.00
105.00
North Carolina, Group 1
125.00
110.00
110.00
North Dakota, Groups 1, 2, 3..
110.00
95.00
90.00
Nova Scotia, Group 1
135.00
120.00
120.00
Ohio, Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4.....
115.00
100.00
100.00
Oklahoma, Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4.
100.00
85.00
85.00
Ontario, Group 1
115.00
100.00
100.00
Ontario, Group 2
120.00
105.00
105.00
Ontario, Group 3
110.00
95.00
95.00
Oregon, Group 1
85.00
70.00
65.00
Oregon, Group 2
90.00
60.00
50.00
Oregon, Group 3
90.00
65.00
60.00
Pennsylvania, Group !..
115.00
100.00
100.00
Pennsylvania, Groups 2, 3 and 4
120.00
105.00
105.00
Quebec, Group 1
125.00
110.00
110.00
Rhode Island, Group I
125.00
110.00
110.00
Saskatchewan, Group I
110.00
95.00
85.00
South Carolina, Group 1
125.00
110.00
110.00
South Dakota, Group 1
105.00
90.00
90.00
South Dakota, Group 2
100.00
85.00
85.00
Tennessee, Group 1
105.00
90.00
90.00
Tennessee, Group 2
110.00
95.00
95.00
Tennessee, Group 3
115.00
100.00
100.00
Texas, Group 1
100.00
85.00
85.00
Texas, Groups 2 and 3
105.00
90.00
90.00
Texas, Group 4
110.00
95.00
95.00
Texas, Groups 5 and 6
95.00
80.00
80.00
Texas, Group 7
90.00
75.00
75.00
Texas, Group 8
85.00
70.00
75.00
Utah, Groups 1 and 2
85.00
70.00
65.00
Vermont, Group 1
125.00
110.00
110.00
Virginia, Groups 1 and 2
120.00
105.00
105.00
Washington, Groups I and 2. . .
90.00
75.00
65.00
West Virginia, Groups 1 and 2..
115.00
100.00
100.00
West Virginia, Group 3
120.00
105.00
105.00
Wisconsin, Groups 1 and 2
105.00
90.00
90.00
Wisconsin, Groups 3 and 4
110,00
95.00
95.00
Wyoming, Groups 1 and 3
95.00
80.00
80.00
Wyoming, Group 2
90.00
75.00
75.00
NOTE—Figures in bold £ac9 changed since letter was written.
784
EXHIBIT No. 3.
From
Table
Number
To
Increase Decreasi
Texas, Group G.
Texas, Group G.
Texas, Group H.
Wisconsin, Group C. .,
Wisconsin, Group D 94
28
Iowa, Group 2
... $5
no
28
Iowa, Group 3
$5.00
4U
Iowa, Group 2
5.00
40
Iowa, Group 3
... 5
00
46
Iowa, Group 2
... 5
00
46
Iowa, Group 3
5.00
50
Iowa, Group 2
... 5
00
50
Iowa, Group 3
5.00
81
Iowa, Group 2
. . 5
00
81
Iowa, Group 3
5.00
82
Iowa, Group 2
... 5
00
82
Iowa, Group 3
5.00
83
Iowa, Group 2
... 5
00
83
Iowa, Group 3
5.00
84
Iowa, Group 2
... 5
00
84
Iowa, Group 3
5.00
91
Iowa, Group 2
5.00
92
Iowa, Group 2
5.00
93
Iowa, Group 2
5.00
94
Iowa, Group 2
5.00
EXHIBIT No. 4.
Table
From
Number To
Increase
Decreasi
Texas, Group A....
.... 77
Arkansas, Group 1. . .
$5.00
Texas, Group A. ...
.... 77
Louisiana, Group 1.. .
.. $5
00
Texas, Group A. ...
.... 77
Louisiana, Group 2.. .
5.00
Texas, Group B. ...
.... 78
Arkansas, Group 1. . .
5.00
Texas, Group B. ...
.... 78
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
Texas, Group C. ...
.... 79
Arkansas, Group 1. . .
5.00
Texas, Group C. ...
.... 79
Louisiana, Group 1.. .
. . 10
00
Texas, Group C. ...
79
Louisiana, Group 2.. .
5.00
Texas, Group C....
79
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
Texas, Group D... .
80
Arkansas, Group 1. . .
5.00
Texas, Group D ... .
80
Louisiana, Group 1.. .
. . 10
00
Texas, Group D,.. .
80
Louisiana, Group 2.. .
5.00
Texas, Group D ....
80
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
Texas, Group E. ...
81
Louisiana, Group 1.. .
.. 5
00
Texas, Group E. ..,
81
Louisiana, Group 2.. .
5.00
Texas, Group E. ...
81
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
Texas, Group F. ...
82
Louisiana, Group 1.. .
.. 5
00
Texas, Group F. ...
82
Louisiana, Group 2...
5.00
Texas, Group F. . ..
82
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
Texas, Group G....
83
Louisiana, Group 1 . .
5
00
Texas, Group G....
83
Louisiana, Group 2.. .
5.00
Texas, Group G. ...
83
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
Texas, Group H... .
84
Louisiana, Group 1.. .
.. 5
00
Texas, Group H... .
84
Louisiana, Group 2.. .
5.00
Texas, Group H ... .
.... 84
Louisiana, Group 3.. .
5.00
APPENDIX B.
Witness: R. C. DEARBORN.
Three days a month for year 1918, based on 1918 ice costs.
C'ost of Proposed
Ex. No. Commodity Origin Destination Service Charge
10-A Citrus California, Group A Colorado $ 66.44 $66.25
10-A Citrus California, Group A Illinois 81.45 80,89
19-A Citrus California, Group A Louisiana 76.47 90.00
10-A Citrus California, Group A Massachusetts 103.77 101.40
10-A Citrus California, Group A Minnesota (1) 86.36 81.76
10-A Citrus California, Group A Missouri (1-3-4) 73.71 82.65
10-A Citrus California, Group A New York (1) 88.05 91.11
10-A Citrus California, Group A New York (2-3-4) 98.59 93.07
10-A Citrus California, Group A Pennsylvania (1) 94.21 91.18
10-A Citrus California, Group A Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 104.27 95.88
10-A Citrus California, Group A Average 93.65 91.79
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Colorado 75.27 80.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Illinois ■ 89.06 95.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Louisiana 104.65 100.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Massachusetts 111.22 115.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Minnesota (1) 89.65 95.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Missouri (l) 89.50 95.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Nebraska (1) 88.20 90.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A New York (1) 104.87 105.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A New York (2-3-4) 107.76 110.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Pennsylvania (1) 105.71 105.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 112.37 110.00
11 Cantaloupes California, Group A Average 99.73 102.39
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Colorado (2) 64.41 75.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Illinois 86.11 90.13
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Louisiana 97.04 95.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Massachusetts 106.95 110.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Minnesota (1) 92.38 90.48
12-A Green Fruit, California, Group A Missouri (l) 87.93 90.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Nebraska (1) 74.90 85.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A New York (1) 98.11 100.00
12-A Green Fruit California, (¡roup A New York (2-3-4) 101.89 105.04
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Pennsylvania (1) 99.04 -100.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 105.22 105.00
12-A Green Fruit California, Group A Average 97.69 100.52
witness: R. C. DEARBORN.
Three days a month for year 1918, based on 1918 ice costs.
Ex .No.
Commodity
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables : California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
13-A Vegetables California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples Calif ornia
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
14 Apples California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
15 Cantaloupes California
Cost of Proposed
Origin Destination Service Charge
Group A Colorado (2) $ 67.26 $ 60.00
Group A Illinois 76.50 75.00
Group A Louisiana 78.78 80,00
Group A Massachusetts 85.07 95.00
Group A Minnesota (1) 80.78 75.88
Group A Mississippi (1-3-4) 72.14 75.00
Group A Nebraska (1) 63.43 70.00
Group A New York (1) 68.44 85.00
Group A New York (2-3-4) 89.57 90.00
Group A Pennsylvania (1) 78.50 85.00
Group A Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 83.35 90.00
Group A Average 78.63 79.11
Group A Colorado (2) 67.32 65.00
Group A Illinois 85.26 80.00
Group A Louisiana 99.91 85.00
Group A Ma.ssachusetts 103.06 100.00
Group A Missouri (1-3-4) iß.49 80.00
Group A Nebraska (1) 76.83 75.00
GroupA New York (1) 88.14 90.00
Group A .New York (2-3-4) 102.99 95.00
GroupA Pennsylvania (1) 108.11 90.00
GroupA Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 110.55 95.00
GroupA Average 96.32 88.51
Group B Colorado (2) 101.48 110.00
Group B I llinois 118.34 125.00
Group B Louisiana 108.11 130.00
Group B Massachusetts 141.00 145.00
Group B Minnesota (1) 119.70 1 25.00
Group B Mississippi (1-3-4) 114.71 125.00
Group B Nebraska (1) 114.48 120.00
Group B New York (1) 126.25 135.00
Group B New York (2-3-4) 133.37 140.00
Group B Pennsylvania (1) 129.71 135.00
Group B Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 135.71 140.00
Group B Average 126,40 132.90
00
C5
witness: G. H. NELSON.
Three days each month year Nov. 1, 1917, to Oct. 31, 1918, based on 1919 ice costs.
Ex. No. Commodity Origin Destination.
12 Citrus California, Croup A All points
13 Melons California, Croup A All points
14 Creen Fruit California, Croup A All points
15 Vegetables S. California, Croup A All points
16 Melons Arizona, Croup B All points
17 Vegetables N. California, Croup A All points
18 Miscellaneous California California
19 Vegetables Colorado All points
20 Cabbage Colorado All points
21 Melons Colorado All points
22 Fruit, Cabbage New Mexico All points
23 Apples New Mexico All points 66.30 54.75 ^
24 Cantaloupes New Mexico All points 109.15 98.45 ^
Entire 1918 Movement.
30 Crapes Missouri All points
31 Fruits Oklahoma All points
32 Fruit, Vegetables Texas All points
33 Vegetables Texas All points
Cost of
Proposed
Service.
Charge.
S 83.77
$ 84.90
98.42
102.21
93.36
98.08
63.67
69.00
125.45
133.85
64.94
67.46
38.94
34.16
64.57
56.43
62.30
63.65
70.63
81.10
87.91
82.27
66.30
54.75
109.15
98.45
84.86
50.83
93.86
63.48
93.29
75.36
68.93
65.00
witness: R. C. DEARBORN.
3 days each month for year 1918 based on 1918 ice costs.
Cost of Proposed
Ex. No. Commodity Origin. Destination. Service. Charge.
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Colorado, 2 $118.03 $110.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Illinois 127.36 125.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Louisiana 126.74 130.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Massachusetts 145.61 145.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Minnesota (1) 128.52 125.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Missouri (1-3-4) 124.09 125.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B New York (1) 134.69 135.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B New York (2) 144.48 140.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Pennsylvania (1) ; 136.44 135.00
16 Cantaloupes Arizona, Group B Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 145.56 140.00
Average 136.23 133.57
Entire movement year 1917 based on 1918 ice costs.
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Colorado (2) 117.03 105.00
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Illinois 144.55 120.00 go
17-.\ Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Massachusetts 159.88 140.00 CO
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Minnesota (1) 147.56 120.00
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Nebraska (1) 131.02 115.00
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B New York (2-3-4) 156.60 135.00
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Pennsylvania (1) 152.54 130.00
17-A Cantaloupes Nevada, Group B Average 143.65 123.00
All shipments last half each month, year 1918, based on 1918 ice costs.
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Colorado (2) 82.44 80.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Illinois 99.78 95.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Louisiana 129.63 105.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Massachusetts 116.72 115.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries ... .Oregon, Group A Missouri (1-3-4) 107.66 95.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Nebraska (1) 88.54 90.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A New York (1) 116.63 105.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A New York (2-3-4) 116.00 110.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Pennsylvania (1) 112.46 105.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 120.46 110.00
22 Green Fruit and Berries Oregon, Group A Average 111.22 105.36
witness: R. C. DEARBORN.
All shipments last half each month, year 1918, based on 1918 ice costs.
Cost of Proposed
Ex. No. Commodity Origin. Destination. Service. Charge.
23 Apples Oregon, Group A llinois $77.18 $85.00
23 Apples Oregon, Group A New York (2-3-4) 95.71 100.00
23 Apples Oregon, Group A Average 90.46 95.71
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Illinois 87.52 80.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Louisiana 113.40 90.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Massachusetts 103.01 100.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Missouri (1-3-4) 91.67 80.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Nebraska (1) 70.35 75.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A New York (2-3-4) 103.59 95.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Pennsylvania (1) 91.85 90.00
24 Vegetables Oregon, Group A Average 93.55 86.59
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Colorado 87.57 75.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Illinois 105.41 90.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Louisiana 117.09 100.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Massachusetts 132.76 110.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Minnesota (1) 95.83 85.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Missouri (1-3-4) 110.70 90.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Nebraska (1) 91.67 85.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B, New York (1) 116.03 100.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B New York (2-3-4) 121.00 105.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Pennsylvania (1) 107.46 100.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 124.20 105.00
25 Green Fruit Oregon, Group B Average 106.68 93.55
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Colorado (2) 70.52 65.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Illinois 84.86 80.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Louisiana 94.24 90.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Massachusetts 89.24 100.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington. Minnesota (1) 75.64 75.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Mississippi (1-3-4). 86.70 80.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Nebraska (1). ' 80.46 75.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington New York (2-3-4) 104.42 95.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Pennsylvania (1) 84.45 90.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Pennsylvania (4) 86.29 95.00
26 Apples Oregon, B; Washington Average 92.23 90.34
GO
<iO
Ex. No. Origin Group Destination Group
1 Washington, A Iowa, Group 1
2 Washington, A South Dakota, ,1
3 Washington, A Minnesota, 1
4 Washington, A North Dakota, 1
5 Washington, A North Dakota, 2
6 Washington, A North Dakota, 3
7 Washington, A Montana,!
8 Washington, A Montana, 2
9 Washington, A Washington, 1 and 2....
10 Washington, A Iowa, 1
11 Washington, A. South Dakota, 1
12 Washington, A Minnesota, 1
13 Washington, A North Dakota, 1
14 Washington, A North Dakota, 2
15 Washington, A North Dakota, 3
16 Washington, A Montana, 1
17 Washington, A Montana, 2
18 Washington, A Washington, 2
19 Washington, A Wisconsin, 4
20 Washington, A Montana, 1
21 Washington, A Chicago, 111., 2
22 Washington, A Chicago, 111., 2
23 Washington, A Washington
: LEROY R. SMITH.
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Commodity
Service
Charge
Charge
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
S 97.12
$ 85.00
$ 50.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
96.87
80.00
50.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
86.08
85.00
50.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
72.65
75.00
50.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
82.35
80.00
50.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
77.06
80.00
50.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
62.64
60.00
40.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
61.54
70.00
45.00
Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries.)..
40.39
45.00
30.00
Apples
70.35
75.00
50.00
Apples
79.90
70.00
50.00
Apples
74.26
75.00
50.00
Apples
76.98
65.00
50.00
Apples
79.97
70.00
50.00
Apples
75.37
70.00
50.00
Apples
57.71
50.00
40.00
Apples
54.59
60.00
45.00
.Apples
42.59
35.00
30.00
Apples
73.90
75.00
50.00
• Vegetables (except Melons)
60.74
45.00
40.00
• Green Fruit (except Apples and Berries)..
103.64
90.00
60.00
Apples
86.22
80.00
60.00
• Perishable Fruit (other than Apples,
Green Fruit, Berries and Vegetables). .
31.52
35.00
30.00
Witness; R. C. DEARBORN.
Last half each month for year 1918 based on 1918 ice costs. Cost of Proposed
Ex. No. Commodity Origin Destination Service Charge
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B Illinois $ 83.57 $80.00
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B Massachusetts 114.74 100.00
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B Mississippi (1-3-4) 87.76 80.00
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B Nebraska (1) 72.08 75.00
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B New York (2-3-4) 99.26 95.00
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 106.74 95.00
27 Green Fruit Idaho, Group B Average 89.89 85.57
28 Apples Idaho, Group B Illinois . 64.53 70.00
28 Apples Idaho, Group B Mississippi (1-3-4) 59.32 70.00
28 Apples Idaho, Group B Nebraska (1) 69.96 65.00
28 Apples Idaho, Group B New York (1) 69.84 80.00
28 Apples Idaho, Group B New York (2-3-4) 82.04 85.00
28 Apples Idaho, Group B Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 77.66 85.00
28 Apples Idaho, Group B Average 67.59 73.33
29 Vegetables Idaho, Group B Colorado (2) 52.95 50.00
29 Vegetables Idaho, Group B Illinois 98.05 65.00
29 Vegetables Idaho, Group B Louisiana 128.61 75.00
29 Vegetables Idaho, Group B Mississippi (1-3-4) 88.31 65.00
29 Vegetables Idaho, Group B Nebraska (1) 52.34 60.00
29 Vegetables Idaho, Group B Average 82.96 63.46
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Colorado (2) 59.27 55.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Illinois 81.52 75.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Massachusetts 97.23 95.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Mississippi (1-3-4) 78.35 75.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Nebraska (I) 65.60 70.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A New York (2-3-4) 92.77 90.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Pennsylvania (1) 94.99 85.00
30 Green Fruit Utah, Group A Pennsylvania (2-3-4) 101.97 90.00
Average 82.97 76.75
31 Apples Utah, A; Idaho, C Illinois 79.77 65.00
31 Apples Utah, A; Idaho, C Mississippi (1-3-4) 83.45 65.00
31 Apples Utah, A; Idaho, C New York (2-3-4) 101.81 80.00
31 Apples Utah, A; Idaho, C Average 86.24 68.75
32 Vegetables Utah, A; Idaho, C Colorado (2) 72.21 40.00
32 Vegetables Ut.ah, A; Idaho, C Illinois 107.03 60.00
32 Vegetables Utah, A; Idaho, C Mississippi (1-3-4) 89.73 60.00
32 Vegetables Utah, A; Idaho, C Nebraska (1) 89.85 55.00
32 Vegetables Utah, A; Idaho C Average 90.66 53.68
to
Witness: GEORGE R. MERRITT.
The following is a summary of Merritt's Exhibits 9 to 41, inclusive, with the exception of Exhibits 19, 27 and 40.
All of the exhibits referred to with the exceptions noted, cover movements for the first ten days of each month of the calendar
year 1918, from points on the Northern Pacific Railroad in the states of Idaho and Washington, shown as taking Group "A" charges
in the Transcontinental Freight Bureau Tariff No. 25-C, R. H. Countiss' I. C. C. No. 1014, and the following will show for the
respective exhibits the commodity transported, the destination group, cost of the service, the proposed charge and the present
charge.
Exhibit
Cost of
Proposed
Present
No.
Commodity
Destination
Service
Charge
Charge
9
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Washington (Group 2)
... $81.04
$ 45.00
$ 30.00
10
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Idaho (Group 1)
.... 93.13
50.00
30.00
11
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Montana (Group 1)
.... 90.21
60.00
40.00
12
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Montana (Group 2)
.... 97.99
70.00
45.00
13
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
North Dakota (Group 1)
.... 120.46
75.00
50.00
14
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
North Dakota (Groups 2 and 3)
.... 116.89
80.00
50.00
15
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Manitoba, Can. (Group 1)
.... 126.21
90.00
50.00
16
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Minnesota (Groups 1 and 2)
.... 118.98
85.00
50.00
17
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Wisconsin (Group 4)
.... 119.48
85.00
50.00
18
Fruits and Berries (except Apples)
Illinois (Group 2)
.... 123.62
90.00
60.00
20
Apples
. . 69.35
35.00
30.00
21
Apples
103.44
50.00
40.00
22
Apples
102.48
60.00
45.00
23 Apples North Dakota (Groups 2 and 3) 118.09 70.00 50.00
24 Apples
Minnesota (Groups 1 and 2)
116.76 75.00 50.00
Exhibit Commodity
Destination
Cost of
Proposed
Present
No.
Service
Charge
Charge
25
Wisconsin (Group 4)
$ 99.28
$75.00
$50.00
26
117.25
80.00
60.00
28
Washington (Group 2)
92.18
35.00
30.00
29
Montana (Group 1)
143.49
45.00
40.00
30
Manitoba, Can. (Group 1)
179.80
75.00
50.00
31
Illinois (Group 2)
163.59
75.00
60.00
32
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
76.77
35.00
30.00
33
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
Washington (Group 2)
86.21
35.00
30.00
34
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
Montana (Group 1)
84.25
45.00
40.00
35
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
Montana (Group 2)
58.63
55.00
45.00
36
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
North Dakota (Group 2)
104.84
65.00
50.00
37
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
Minnesota (Groups 1 and 2)
102.62
70.00
50.00
38
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
Wisconsin (Group 4)
98.73
70.00
50.00
39
Perishable Freight (N. 0. I. B. N.)
Illinois (Group 2)
114.74
75.00
60.00
41
Washington (Group 2)
76.94
50.00
30.00
Exhibit No. 19 is a statement showing the destination, group, number of cars, total miles and average mileage haul of carload
shipments of Fruits and Berries (except Apples), moved the first ten days of each month of the calendar year 1918, from points on the
Northern Pacific Railroad in Washington and Idaho; also showing proposed rates to points of destination beyond the rails of the
Northern Pacific Railroad.
Exhibit No. 27 gives the same information with regard to shipments of Apples.
Exhibit No. 40 gives the same information with regard to shipments of perishable freight N. O. I. B. N.
Ex. No. Commodity
33 Vegetables (except Cabbage).
33 Vegetables (except Cabbage).
33 Vegetables (except Cabbage).
33 Vegetables (except Cabbage).
33 Vegetables (except Cabbage).
33 Vegetables (except Cabbage).
Witness: R. C. DEARBORN.
Last half each month for year 1918, based on 1918 ice costs.
Destination
Origin
Colorado, Group B Illinois
Colorado, Group B Louisiana
Colorado, Group B Minnesota (1).
Colorado, Group B Mississippi (1)
.Golorado, Group B Nebraska (1) 53.21
■ Colorado, Group B .New York (2-3-4) 86.19
Average 63.55
Cost of
Service
S 68.35
84.39
64.96
60.66
34 Cabbage
34 Cabbage
34 Cabbage
34 Cabbage
34 Cabbage
Colorado, Group B Illinois 71.34
Colorado, Group B Louisiana 92.71
Colorado, Group B Mississippi (1) 86.54
Colorado, Group B Nebraska (1) 67.10
Golorado, Group B New York (2-3-4) 87.67
Average 79.05
Proposed
Charge
$ 60.00
70.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
75.00
57.22
65.00
75.00
60.00
55.00
80.00
65.30
CO
9^
Witness: T. H. GORMAN.
Entire movement year 1918, based on 1919 ice costs.
Ex. No.
Commodity
Origin
Destination
Cost of
Service
19 Fruits Colorado, A All points $71.24
20 Apples and Potatoes Colorado, A All points 72.14
21 Cabbage Colorado, B All points 61.90
22 Melons Colorado, B All points 79.23
23 Vegetables Colorado, B All points 59.94
25 Fruit Utah, A All points 71.13
26 Vegetables Utah, A All points 72.52
27 Potatoes Utah, A All points 62.19
Proposed
Charge
$ 66.51
63.29
62.00
82.34
61.54
73.25
65.18
55.12
witness: R. C. DEARBORN.
Entire movement year 1918.
Ex. No. Commodity Origin Destination
35 Apples and Vegetables Nebraska, Group B Kansas (1)
35 Apples and Vegetables Nebraska, Group B Minnesota (2)
35 Apples and Vegetables Nebraska, Group B Mississippi (2)
35 Apples and Vegetables Nebraska, Group B Oklahoma
35 Apples and Vegetables Nebraska, Group B Texas (1)
Last half each month for year 1918, based on 1918 ice costs.
37 Peaches and Tomatoes Texas, Group A Colorado
37 Peaches and Tomatoes Texas, Grouo A Illinois (2-3) .. ^
37 Peaches and Tomatoes Texas, Group A Minnesota (1) 82,73 75!ÖÖ ^
37 Peaches and Tomatoes Texas, Group A Mississippi (1-2-3) 64.66 65.00
37 Peaches and Tomatoes Texas, Group A Nebraska (1-2)
Average 69.11
38 Green Fruit Texas, Group H Illinois
38 Green Fruit Texas, Group H Louisiana (3)
38 Green Fruit Texas, Group H Missouri (1)
Entire Year 1918.
39 Green Fruit and Vegetables. . . Texas, Group A Texas (1)
39 Green Fruit and Vegetables. . .Texas, Group A Texas (2-5-6)
39 Green Fruit and Vegetables. . .Texas, Group A Texas (7)
39 Green Fruit and Vegetables. . .Texas, Group A Texas (8)
Average 48.46 50.39
Cost of
Proposed
Service
Charge
. $55.09
$50.00
38.04
60.00
. 60.33
50.00
. 75.31
55.00
. 80.65
65.00
61.84
56.00
. 70.38
70.00
. 72.87
75.00
. 82.73
75.00
. 64.66
65.00
. 69.72
70.00
. 69.11
69.52
. 76.49
85.00
. 70.20
70.00
. 80.83
80-00
73.83
76.96
. 43.78
45.00
. 47.58
50.00
. 53.21
55.00
56.95
60.00
witness
Ex. Sheet
No. No. Commodity Origin
1 1 Peaches .Arkansas, Group B.
2 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
3 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
4 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
5 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
6 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
7 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
8 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
9 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
10 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
11 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
12 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
13 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
14 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
15 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
16 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
17 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
18 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
19 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
20 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
21 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
22 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
23 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
24 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
25 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
26 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
27 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
28 Peaches Arkansas, Group B.
2 1 Peaches Missouri, Group C.
2 Peaches Missouri, Group C.
R. E. BAGENT.
Destination
Illinois, Group 2
Alabama, Group 1
Illinois, Group 3
Indiana, Group 2
Indiana, Group 3
Iowa, Group 1
Iowa, Group 2
Iowa, Group 2
Kansas, Group 1
Kansas, Group 2
Kentucky, Group 1
Kentucky, Group 3
Louisiana, Group 3
Oklahoma, Group 1
Pennsylvania, Group 1
Pennsylvania, Groups 3 and 4,.
Wisconsin, Group 1
Ontario, Can., Group 1
Ontario, Can., Group 2
Michigan, Group 3
Michigan, Group 4
Minnesota, Group 1
Missouri, Groups 1, 2 and 3....
Missouri, Group 4
Nebraska, Group 1
New York, Group 3
Ohio, Group 1
Ohio, Groups 2, 3 and 4
Connecticut, Group 1
Wisconsin, Group 1
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Service
Charge
Charge
$ 71.75
$ 65.00
$ 50.00
86.36
60.00
50.00
73.21
65.00
60.00
57.99
65.00
50.00
85.82
70.00
50.00
78.15
60.00
50.00
89.34
60.00
50.00
79.82
60.00
50.00
70.08
55.00
40.00
73.97
60.00
40.00
74.69
60.00
50.00
87.75
65.00
50.00
79.17
55.00
37.50
77.73
50.00
40.00
88.41
75.00
60.00
86.61
80.00
65.00
78.54
65.00
55.00
87.26
75.00
65.00
104.33
80.00
65.00
79.80
70.00
55.00
79.63
75.00
55.00
88.45
65.00
•66.00
73.81
55.00
38.00
67.72
60.00
38.00
78.03
60.00
50.00
120.25
80.00
65.00
75.81
65.00
55.00
83.37
72.50
90.51
80.00
68.00
68.30
60.00
55.00
Ex. Sheet
No. No.
Commodity
2 3
Peaches
4
Peaches
5
Peaches
6
Peaches
7
Peaches
8
Peaches
9
Peaches
10
Peaches
11
Peaches
12
Peaches
13
Peaches
14
Peaches
15
Peaches
16
Peaches
17
Peaches
18
Peaches
19
Peaches
20
Peaches
21
Peaches
3 1
Apples
2
Apples
3
Apples
4
Apples
5
Apples
6
Apples
7
Apples
8
Apples
9
Apples
10
Apples
11
Apples
12
Apples
13
Apples
14
Apples
Origin
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group 0.
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Destination
Service
Charge
Charge
• New Jersey, Group 1
. $ 85.58
$ 75.00
$ 65.00
. Iowa, Group 3
. 65.49
55.00
50.00
. Iowa, Group 2
. 63.07
55.00
50.00
. Nebraska, Group C
. 65.44
55.00
50.00
.Alabama, Group 2
. 58.21
60.00
50.00
.Louisiana, Group 3
. 70.71
60.00
47.50
. Canadian, Ontario, Group 1. .
. 72.47
70.00
65.00
.Canadian, Ontario, Group 2. .
. 77.71
75.00
65.00
. Michigan, Group 4
. 76.30
70.00
55.00
.Missouri, Groups 1 and 3
. 52.07
45.00
38.00
.New York, Groups 3 and 4
. 83.10
75.00
65.00
■ Ohio, Groups 2, 3 and 4
. 78.99
65.00
55.00
. New York, Group 1
78.79
70.00
60.00
.Pennsylvania, Group 1
. 72.33
70.00
60.00
.Ohio, Group 1
. 61.68
60.00
55.00
.Tennessee, Group 1 '...
. 50.33
55.00
42.50
. Florida, Group 3
. 67.30
80.00
65.00
.Illinois, Group 1
. 63.74
50.00
50.00
.Illinois, Group 3
. 58.56
55.00
50.00
.Kansas, Group 2
. 65.86
55.00
36.00
.Colorado, Group 2
. 63.22
60.00
42.00
.Louisiana, Groups 1 and 3. . ..
. 67.04
50.00
48.00
.Illinois, Groups 2 and 3
. 56.92
60.00
43.20
.Kansas, Group 1
. 57.54
50.00
36.00
. Arkansas, Group 1
. 44.61
45.00
36.00
. Missouri, Groups 2 and 3
. 47.84
50.00
36.00
.Minnesota, Group 1
. 66.32
60.00
46.80
.Mississippi, Group 1
. 50.58
50.00
48.00
.Nebraska, Group I
. 63.88
55.00
42.20
.Oklahoma, Group 4
. 72.47
55.00
36.00
.Oklahoma, Groups 1 and 2,..,
. 53.94
45.00
36.00
.Tennessee, Group 1
. 37.63
50.00
36.00
.Texas, Group 1
. 60.21
55.00
45.00
Ex. Sheet
No. No.
Commodity
3 15
Apples
16
Apples
3-A 1
Strawberries
2
Strawberries
3
Strawberries
4
Strawberries
5
Strawberries
6
Strawberries
7
Strawberries
8
Strawberries
9
Strawberries
10
Strawberries
11
Strawberries
12
Strawberries
13
Strawberries
14
Strawberries
15
Strawberries
4 1
Strawberries
2
Strawberries
3
Strawberries
4
Strawberries
5
Strawberries
6
Strawberries
7
Strawberries
8
Strawberries
9
Strawberries
10
Strawberries
11
Strawberries
12
Strawberries
13
Strawberries
14
Strawberries
15
Strawberries
Origin
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Arkansas, Group B
Missouri, Group G
Missouri, Group 0
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group 0
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group B
Missouri, Group G
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group C
Missouri, Group G
Missouri, Group G
Missouri, Group C
Destination
Texas, Group 2
Texas, Group 6
Wisconsin, Group 1
New York, Group 1
Texas, Group 1
Nebraska, Group 2
Nebraska, Group 1
Montana, Group 2
Missouri, Groups 1 and 2
Minnesota, Group 2
Minnesota, Group 1
Michigan, Group 4
Kansas, Group 2
Kansas, Group 1
Iowa, Groups 1 and 3....
Illinois, Group 2
Golorado, Group 2
North Dakota, Group 3.
Minnesota, Group 2
Minnesota, Group 1
Kansas, Group 2
Kansas, Group 1
Indiana, Group 3
• Albert Lea, Group 1
Iowa, Groups 1, 2 and 3.
Montana, Group 1
Michigan, Group 4
Missouri, Groups 2 and 4
Manitoba, Group 1
Colorado, Group 2
Ohio, Groups 3 and 4. ...
■ Nebraska, Group 2
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Service
Charge
Charge
S83.87
S60.00
$47.50
64.57
60.00
47.50
63.17
60.00
50.15
57.30
70.00
55.25
69.06
55.60
42.50
50.49
60.00
42.50
52.64
55.00
42.50
83.92
70.00
51.20
48.62
50.00
40.38
67.44
65.00
50.15
63.17
60.00
50.15
67.98
70.00
50.15
48.55
55.00
40.38
55.81
60.00
40.38
57.07
55.00
42.50
54.81
60.00
42.50
64.05
60.00
47.60
69.64
65.00
61.00
65.48
65.00
50.15
55.45
60.00
50.15
47.41
50.00
40.39
40.87
40.00
40.37
53.80
60.00
42.00
68.39
85.00
61.20
47.90
50.00
42.50
65.68
80.00
65.00
56.31
65.00
50.15
42.78
40.00
40.38
60.27
70.00
55.25
64.72
55.00
47.60
51.19
60.00
50.15
53.32
55.00
42.50
Ex.
Sheet
No.
No.
Gommodity
4
16
Strawberries
17
Strawberries
18
Strawberries
19
Strawberries
20
Strawberries
21
Strawberries
22
Strawberries
2.8
Strawberries
24
Strawberries
25
Strawberries
26
Strawberries
27
Strawberries
28
Strawberries
4-A
1
Apples
2
Apples
3
Apples
4
Apples
6
Apples
6
Apples
7
Apples
5
1
Peaches
2
Peaches
3
Peaches '.
4
Peaches
5
Peaches
6
Peaches
7
Peaches
8
Peaches
9
Peaches
10
Peaches
11
Peaches
12
Peaches
Origin
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group C.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Missouri, Group G.
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma,
Group B.
Group B.
Group B,
Group B.
Group B.
Group B,
Group B.
Group B.
Group B.
Group B.
■ Group B.
Group B.
Cost of
Proposed'
Present
Destination
Service
Charge
Charge
New York, Group 1
$62.59
$65.00
$.55.25
.Montana, Group 2
70.63
70.00
61.20
■ Nebraska, Group 1
41.93
50.00
42.50
■ North Dakota, Groups 1 and 2.
56.72
65.00
61.20
■ Texas, Group 1
55.70
55.00
42.50
■ Illinois, Groups 2 and 3
52.17
50.00
42.50
Oklahoma, Group 2
40.50
50.00
40.37
Oklahoma, Group 1
30.73
45.00
40.39
Wyoming, Group 2
60.09
60.00
55.25
Wyoming, Group 3.
73.77
65.00
55.25
South Dakota, Group I
58.23
60.00
55.15
Wisconsin, Groups 1 and 2
52.18
55.00
50.15
Saskatchewan, Group 1
68.87
75.00
61.20
Iowa, Group 3
63.64
50.00
43.20
Alabama, Group 2
53.91
55.00
48.00
Kansas, Group 2
55.86
50.00
36.00
Tennessee, Group 1
48.28
50.00
36.00
■ Mississippi, Group 1
45.55
50.00
48.00
Kansas, Group 1
41.14
40.00
36.00
Illinois, Group 2
44.25
50.00
43.20
Michigan, Group 4
90.78
75.00
60.00
Iowa, Group 2
72.96
65.00
50.00
Illinois, Group 2
81.70
65.00
52.50
Oklahoma, Group 3. .
71.36
55.00
35.00
Nebraska, Group 2
88.09
60.00
50.00
Kansas, Group 1
95,36
50.00
40.00
New York, Group 1
113.24
75.00
65.00
Pennsylvania, Group 1
93.50
75.00
65.00
Indiana, Group 2
61.92
70.00
55.00
Missouri, Groups 2 and 3
61.86
50.00
50.00
Missouri, Group 1
77.78
55.00
40.00
Ohio, Groups 2, 3 and 4
74.99
75.00
60.00
witness: H. A. HUBER.
10 Carloads year 1917, based on 1917-18-19 ice costs.
E.x. Xo. Commodity Origin Destinations
13 Fruits and Vegetables Kansas Various (1917 costs)
10 Carloads, year 1917.
Id Fruits and Vegetables Missouri Various (1917 costs).
(1918 costs).
(1919 costs).
250 Carloads, year 1917.
15 Fruits and Vegetables Iowa Various (1917 costs).
(1918 costs).
(1919 costs).
90 Carloads, year 1917.
16 Fruits Oklahoma Various (1917 costs).
(1918 costs).
(1919 costs).
53 Carloads, year 1917.
17 Fruits Arkansas Various (1917 costs).
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Service
Charge
Charge
. $ 40.08
$ 53.75
$45.47
. 50.05
53.75
45.47
. 53.04
53.75
45.47
. 35.39
46.50
40.67
. 44.82
46.50
40.67
. 46.79
46.50
40.67
. 46.72
57.14
45.34
. 54.44
57.14
45.34
. 79.69
57.14
45.34
. 59.54
63.14
52.80
. 74.43
63.14
,52.80
. 91.16
63.14
52.80
. 72.41
74.58
59.41
. 79.44
74.58
59.41
. 89.61
74.58
59.41
Witness: O. M. STEVENS.
Exhibit No. 1 covers all cars of Fruits and Vegetables moving under refrigeration over the C. M. & St. P. R. R. from Chicago,
111., to Houghton, Iron Mountain, Green Bay, Calumet, Marquette and Ishpeming and Iron River, Michigan, and to Merrill, Wis.
101 cars are shown. The period covered is from May to October, 1918. 1919 ice costs are used.
The average cost of the service per car is shown to be $50.60, which closely approximates the average proposed revenue per car.
CO
o
o
witness: A. F. CLEVELAND.
1918 Movement Based on 1919 lee Costs.
E.\. No. Commodity
JViiits and Vegetables.
Origin
Destination
.Chicago Wisconsin (1) Í1.
12.
Fruits and Vegetables Chicago Wisconsin (2) J1
Fruits and Vegetables Chicago.
Fruits and Vegetables.. ..
. Wisconsin (3) Í1.
12.
Cost of
Service
$49.90
51.86
53.95
60.40
57.35
69.86
Proposed
Charge
$45.00
50.00
50 00
Present
Charge
$30.00
35.00
40.00
....Chicago Wisconsin (4) Í1 59.86
\2 74.92 55.00 42.50
35 cents per switch—haulage basis 9.1875 mills per mile for 4| tons.
$11.85 engine hour, 30 min. per switch. 7.31 mills per ton mile being average return ton mile all C. & N. W. freight 1918
multiplied by operating ratio.
00
o
Fruits and Vegetables Milwaukee Wisconsin (4) /I.
Based on 1918 Ice Costs.
Fruits and Vegetables Chicago Wisconsin (1) /I.
So
Fruits and Vegetables.
.Chicago Wisconsin (2) fl.
12.
Fruits and Vegetables Chicago Wisconsin (3) fl.
12.
Fruits and Vegetables Chicago Wisconsin (4) /I.
2.
1 Fruits and Vegetables.
.Milwaukee Wisconsin (4) Í1.
V2.
39 11
48.75
38.42
40.38
41.74
48.19
44.77
57.28
46.49
61.55
37.69
47.33
45.00
45.00
50.00
50.00
55.00
45.00
40.00
30.00
35 00
40.00
42.50
40.00
witness; F. W. CROW.
1919 Ice Costs.
Ex. No. Commodity Origin
2 Peaches Anna, Illinois Chicago.
3 Berries Anna, Illinois Chicago.
4 Vegetables Anna, Illinois Chicago.
5 Cantaloupes
Destination
'Balcom, Illinois Chicago.
Witness: E. F. McPIKE.
1919 Ice Costs.
Ex. No.
91
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
, Commodity Origin
Cantaloupes Posey ville, lud Chicago
Berries Independence, La Chicago
Vegetables Roseland, La Chicago
Vegetables St. Rose, La Chicago
Vegetables New Orleans, La Chicago
Vegetables New Orleans, La Chicago
Cabbage Crystal Springs, Miss Chicago
Vegetables Crystal Springs, Miss Chicago
Berries Curve, Tenn Chicago
Vegetables Kenner, La Minneapolis an
Berries Independence, La Pittsburgh, Pa
Berries Independence, La Cleveland, Ohi
Vegetables Roseland, La Toronto, Ont. .
Vegetables Crystal Springs, Miss Minneapolis...
Vegetables Crystal Springs, Miss Toronto, Ont. .
Vegetables Crystal Springs, Miss Pittsburgh, Pa
Witness; GEO. B. HORR.
1919 Ice Costs.
Destination
Cost of
Proposed
Service
Charge
$ 55.69
$ 45.00
48.25
40 00
56.52
45 00
69.97
50.00
Cost of
Proposed
Service
Charge
. $.50.33
$.55.00
66.60
65.00
62.55
60.00
68.61
60.00
58.19
60.00
57.18
60.00
62.44
70.00
. 65.70
60.00
49.25
57.50
75.34
70.00
70.61
80.00
.. 73.22
75.00
85.00
80.00
78.43
70.00
75.60
80.00
74.05
75.00
Origin
Cost of
Service
Ohio,
Ex. No. Commodity
2 Peaches Ohio, A
3 Peaches Ohio, A Various
4 Peaches Ohio, A Various
5 Peaches Ohio, A Various 58.52
Destination
various $43.72
47.37
51.81
QO
O
to
Proposed
Charge
$45.00
50.00
55.00
55.00
Witness: C. D. QIJINN.
Movements of 1917 or 1918 based on 1919 lee Costs.
Ex. N
5
Commodity Origin
Mobile, Ala Cleveland*.
Mobile, Ala Pittsburgh*.
Mobile, Ala Cincinnati. .
Destination
Vegetables
Vegetables
Vegetables
Peaches Atmore, Ala.
. Cincinnati.
Cost of
Service
$ 69.08
76.50
65.41
96.52
89.97
103.00
104.67
96.49
89.77
Peaches Atmore, Ala Columbus*...
10 Peaches. Atmore, Ala. Chicagoî. . . .
11 Peaches Atmore, Ala Chicago!. . . .
12 Peaches Atmore, Ala Pittsburgh*..
13 Peaches Atmore, Ala St. Louis, Mo
15 Berries Bowling Green, Ky Cleveland* 48.71
16 Berries Bowling Green, Ky Pittsburgh*... 48.77
17 Berries Bowling Green, Ky Philadelphia* 52.07
18 Berries Bowling Green, Ky Columbus, Ohio* 47.46
Berries Bowling («-een, Ky Chicago* 50.87
20 Berries Bowling Green, Ky New Yorkf 53.25
21 Berries Castleberry, Ala Cincinnati 55.38
22 Berries Castleberry, Ala Cleveland* 63.16
23 Berries Castleberry, Ala Columbus, Ohio* 61.45
*No icing records beyond Latonia.
tNo icing records beyond Louisville.
JNo icing records beyond E. St. Louis.
§No icing records beyond Evansville.
Witness: T. H. GORMAN.
Cauliñower, Cabbage and Tomatoes.
Exhibit
No. 3.
Sheet No. Origin Destination
1 Arkansas, Group A Arkansas, Group 1
2 Arkansas, Group A Arkansas, Group 2
3 Arkansas, Group B Arkansas, Group 1
4 Arkansas, Group B Arkansas, Group 2
Cost of
Service
$37.01
51.36
77.61
46.30
Proposed
Charge
$45.00
50.00
50.00
45.00
Pr(j[)osed
Charge
•$70.00
75.00
62.50
67.,50
75.00
75.00
. 75.00
80.00
75.00
,52.50
57.50
62.50
52.50
52.50
62.50
62.50
70.00
70.00
Present
Charge
$35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
GO
O
CO
Witness: T. H. GORMAN.
Ex.
42
42
4.3
43
43
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
The following is a summary of Gorman's Exhibits Nos. 42 to 72, inclusive:
Cost of
No. Commodity Origin Destination Service
Mixed Vegetables Louisiana, Group C. . . .Illinois, Group 2 $75.08
Mixed Vegetables Louisiana, Group C. . . Minnesota, Group 1 80.02
Cabbage Louisiana, Group C. . . .Illinois, Group 2 91.14
Cabbage Louisiana,-Group C. . . .Missouri, Group 1 82.41
Cabbage Louisiana, Group C. . . .Missouri, Group 2 91.53
Apples, Kerries and Vegetables Louisiana, Group A. . . Chicago 72.55
Apples, Berries and Vegetables Louisiana, Group A. . . St. Louis, Mo 61 37
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables .Texas
Fruits and Vegetables ■ Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables .Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Te.xas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables. . .' Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and V^egetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Fruits .and Vegetables Texas
Fruits and Vegetables Texas
Group A Arkansas, Group 1 67 .96
Group A Colorado, Group 2 74,63
Group A Connecticut, Group 1 Ill 60
Group A Illinois, Group 1 82.62
Group A Illinois, Groups 2-3 79.16
Group A Indiana, Group 1 78 .36
Group A Indiana, Group 2 . 81.54
Group A Indiana, Group 3 76.49
Group A Iowa, Groups 2-3 83.56
Group A Kansas, Groups 1-2 76.47
Group A Kentucky, Group 1 76.92
Group A Kentucky, Group 2 77 .06
Group A Louisiana, Group 3 62.31
Group A Massachusetts 113 ,74
Group A Michigan, Group 3 85 .11
Group A Michigan, Group 4 85.80
Group A Minnesota, Group 1 83.04
Group A Missouri, Groups 1-2-3 67.84
Group A Missouri, Group 4
Group A Nebraska, Groups 1-2.
Group A New York, Group 1. . .
Group A New York, Groups .3-4.
Group A. .Ohio, Group 1
Group A Ohio, Groups 2-4
81.36
83.29
87.02
98.11
81 31
85.46
Proposed
Charge
$60.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
75.00
65 00
60 00
60 00
70 00
95.00
70 00
75.00
70,00
75.00
80.00
70 00'
65 00
70 00
65 00
60 00
95.00
80 00
86.00
75.00
65.00
70.00
70.00
85.00
90.00
75.00
80.00
Present
Charge
$.55.00
65.00
54.20
52.80
52.80
55.00
52.50
45,00
60 00
77.00
55.00
55.00
55.00
.55,00
55.00
55.00
50.00
55.00
55 00
45.00
77,00
65.00
65.00
65.00
55,00
50.00
55.00
67.00
75 00
65 00
65.00
QO
O
4^
Ex. Xo. Commodity Origin
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A,
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
45 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
46 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
47 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group- A.
48 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group A.
49 Fruits and Vegetables , . . . .Texas, Group A .
50 PTuits and Vegetables Texas, Group B.
50 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group B,
51 Apples, Berries, Spinach and Lettuce Texas, Group C.
51 Apples, Berries, Spinach and Lettuce Texas, Group C.
51 Apples, Berries, Spinach and Lettuce Texas, Group C.
.52 PTuits and Vegetables Texas, Group C,
.53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
,53 Fruits and Vegetables .Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
.53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
•53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D.
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Destination
Service
Charge
Charge
. .Ohio, Group 3
. $ 88.98
$ 85.00
.Ï65.00
. .Oklahoma, Group 2
62.56
50 00
45.00
. Oklahoma, Groups 1-4
71.96
55.00
45.00
. Ontario, Can., Group 1. . . .
. 82.53
85.00
75.00
. . Pennsylvania, Group 1
81.80
85.00
65.00
. .Pennsylvania, Group 3
93.76
90 00
75.00
. .Rhode Island, Group 1. . . .
. 98.88
95.00
•77.00
. .Tennessee, Groups 1-2
71.21
65.00
50 00
. .W. Virginia, Groups 1-2
89.30
85.00
67.00
. .Wisconsin, Groups 1-2
78.81
75.00
65.00
. .Wyoming, Group 2
. 113.11
75.00
67.00
. .Texas, Group 1
52.61
45.00
. Texas, Groups 2-5-6
60.14
■50.00
. .Texas, Groups 3-7
71.61
55.00
35 00
. .Texas, Groups 4-8
81.08
60 00
. . Illinois, Group 2
. .Missouri, Group 2
72.72
75.00
65 00
77.51 .
70.00
60.00
. . Illinois, Group 2
65.54
80.00
64 75
. .Missouri, Groups 1-2
63.73
70.00
60.35
. .Ohio, Group 1
64.59
80.00
75.25
. . Texas, Groups 1-7-8....
40.25
55,00
. ..Arkansas, Groups 1-2.. . .
61.80
■ 75.00
61.50
. .Colorado, Group 2
82.-18
80.00
85.00
. .Illinois, Group 2
87.38
90 00
77.00
. Iowa, Group 3
88.18
85.00
77.00
. .Kansas, Group 1
79.49
80.00
61.50
. .Kansas, Group 2
84.04
75.00
61.50
. . Louisiana, Group 1
54.51
55 00
61.50
. Louisiana, Group 2
.. 63.05
65.00
66.50
. .Manitoba, Can., Group 1. .
. 97.83
100.00
95.00
. . Minnesota, Group 1
. 116.66
90.00
81.00
. Minnesota, Group 2
98.66
95.00
81.00
. . Missouri, Group 1-2....:. .
. 72.25
80.00
61.50
. .Nebraska, Group 1
90.52
85.00
77.00
Ex. Xo. Commodity Origin
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D.. . .
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D.. . .
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D.. . .
53 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D
54 Lettuce Texas, Group D... .
55 Melons Texas, Group D.. . .
56 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D. .. .
57 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D. . . .
58 Fruits and Vegetables Texas, Group D ... .
.59 .Apples, Berries, Spinach and Lettuce Texas, Group F. . . .
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group K
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group .A
60 F"ruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
00 Fndts, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group .A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes..Arkans.as, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauli'iower, Cabbage and Tomatoes . Arkansas, Group .A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes .Arkansas, Grovip A
60 Fniits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes .Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes..Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes..Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes..Arkansas, Group A
60 Fruits, Caulifiower, Cabbage and Tomatoes..Arkansas, Group .A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group .A
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group .A
Cost of Proposed Present
Destination Service Charge Charge
.Oklahoma, Groups 1-3 $ 68.03 $70.00 .$56.50
Oklahoma, Groups 2-4 68.98 65.00 ,56..50
Tennessee, Grou]) 1 62.88 85.00 67 .50
Wyoming, Group 3 99.98 90.00 90.00
Missouri, Group 1 61.26 75.00 62 12
Oklahoma, Group 1 77 .47 75.00 56 .50
Texas, Groups 1-5-8 65.09 60.00
Texas, Groups 2-6 42.99 ,55.00
Texas, Group 7 52.25 65 00
Illinois, Group 2 59.94 75.00 .55.10
Colorado, Group 2 136.39 70.00 55.00
Connecticut, Group 1 100.31 95.00 72.00
Illinois, (iroups 2-3 76 .28 70.00 ,50 00
Indiana, Group 1 69.08 70.00 .50.00
Indiana, (.iroup 2 67 .00 75.00 50.00
Iowa, Groups 1-2-3 94.84 65.00 .52.00 oo
Kansas, Group 1 76.64 60.00 41.00 ^
Louisiana, Groups 1-2-3 83.83 .50.00 47 .50
Massachusetts, Group 1... . 92.07 95 00 72.00
Michigan, Group 4 89 .16 80.00 .58.00
Ohio, Group 1 77.07 75.00 62.00
Minnesota, Group 1 116.29 70.00 ,58.00
Minnesota, Group 2 143.50 75.00 .58.00
Missouri, Groups 1-2 65.65 60.00 41 00
Nebraska, Group 1 82.58 65.00 52.00
Nebraska, Group 2 93 .21 70.00 52.00
New .lersey. Group 1 105 .64 90 .00 70 .00
New York, Group 1 ■ 97.69 85.00 64.00
New York, Groups 3-4....... 104.49 90.00 70.00
Ohio, Groups 2-4 81.06 80 .00 62 00
Ohio, Group 3 91.23 .85.00 62.00
Pennsylvania, Group 1 72.09 85.00 64.00
Pennsylvania, Groups 3-4. . . 103 .47 90.00 70.00
Rhode Island, Group 1 110.44 95.00 72.00
Ex. No. Commodity Origin
60 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group A.
61 Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
61 Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
61 Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
62 Melons.. Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Ark.ansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons .\rkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas,
62 Melons Arkansas
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. .i^rkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 ik'uits. Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
Cost of Proposed Present
Destination Service Charge Charge
Wisconsin, Groups 1-2 $ 89.04 $70.00 $.08.00
Missouri, Groups 1-2 .38.47 5.5.00 41.00
Nebraska, Group 1 65.65 60.00 54.40
Nebraska, Group 2 66.38 65.00 47.60
Illinois, Groups 2-3 76.29 75.00 52.00
Indiana, Group 2 79.02 80.00 50.00
Indiana, Group 3 103.74 85.00 52.00
Iowa, Groups 1-2-3 82.00 70.00 52.00
Kansas, Group 1 80.14 65.00 51.00
Kansas, Group 2 92.13 70.00 41.50
Louisiana, Groups 1-2-3 71.88 ,50.00 47 .00
Michigan, Group 4 80.15 85.00 ,58.00
Minnesota, Group 1 88.87 75.00 ,58.00
Minnesota, Grovip 2 . 89.92 80.00 ,58.00
Missouri, Groups 1-3 70.32 65.00 41.00
Missouri, Group 4 78.01 70.00 41.00 Qo
Nebraska, Group 1 81.84 70.00 52.00
Nebraska, Group 2 99.12 75.00 52 00
New York, Group 1 94.76 90.00 64.00
New York, Groups 3-4 94.94 95.00 70.00
Ohio, Group 1 75 .25 80.00 62.00
Ohio, Group 2 82.59 <85.00 62.00
Ohio, Groups 84.19 90.00 62.00
Pennsylvania, Group 1 85.25 90.00 04.00
Pennsylvania, Group 4 102.98 95.00 65..50
Texas, Group 6 78.92 65.t)0 47.00
Wisconsin, Group 1 84.59 75.00 ,58.00
Connecticut, Group 1 103.93 85.00 68.00
Illinois, Groups 2-3 79.29 65.00 50.00
Indiana, Group 2 68.55 65.00 ,50.00
Indiana, Group 3 80.08 70.00 50.00
Iowa, Groups 1-2-3 83.76 60.00 50.00
Kansas, Group 1 67.14 55.00 40.00
Kansas, Group 2 72.90 60.00 40.00
o
a
Ex. No. Commodity Origin
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas, Group B.
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Toma toes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 FTuits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 FTuits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
.63 FVuits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 FTuits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 FVuits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 FVuits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
63 Fruits, Cauliflower, Cabbage and Tomatoes. Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkaiisas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
64 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Arkansas,
65 Melons Arkansas,
Cost of Proposed Present
Destination Service Charge Charge
.Kentucky, Group 1 183.70 Î60.00 $50.00
.Louisiana, Groups 1-2-3 86.11 55.00 47.50
.Michigan, Group 4 82.80 75.00 55.00
.Minnesota, Group 1 77.68 65.00 55.00
.Missouri, Groups 1-2-3 57.67 55.00 40.00
.Missouri, Group 4 69.64 60.00 40.00
.Nebraska, Group 1 74.99 60.00 50.00
.Nebraska, Group 2 82.14 65.00 50.00
.New Jersey, Group 1 91.88 80.00 65.00
New York, Group 1 92.30 75.00 60.00
.New York, Groups 2-4 99.60 80.00 65.00
.Ohio, Group 1 72.42 65.00 55.00
Ohio, Groups 2-3-4 82.23 72.50 55.00
.Pennsylvania, Group 1 90.69 75.00 60.00
.Pennsylvania, Groups 3-4. .. 98.45 80.00 65.00
.Tennessee, Group 1 61.38 55.00 42.50 S
. Wisconsin, Group 1 81.33 65.00 55.00 qo
.Colorado, Group 2 58.14 60.00 47.60
.Illinois, Groups 2-3 58.10 60.00 42.50
.Iowa, Groups 1-2-3 47.47 55.00 42.50
.Kansas, Group 1 50.57 50.00 40.38
.Kansas, Group 2 54.27 55.00 40.38
.Minnesota, Group 1 49.27 60.00 50.15
.Missouri, Groups 1-2-3-4... . 38.28 50.00 55.00
.Missouri, Group 4 44.57 55.00 38.38
. Montana, Group 2 66.32 70.00 61.20
.Nebraska, Group 1 50.51 55.00 42.50
.Nebraska, Group 2 58.17 60.00 42.50
.N. Dakota, Groups 1-3 60.87 70.00 52.25
.Oklahoma, Group 2 44.82 45.00 40.38
Pennsylvania, Group 1 56.53 70.00 55.25
.Texas, Group 6 53.80 60.00 47.50
.Wisconsin, Groups 1-2 51.02 60.00 50.15
Illinois, Groups 2-3 69.82 70.00 52.00
Ex. No. Commodity Origin
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
65 Melons Arkansas, Group B
66 Fruits, Tomatoes, Cabbage and Cauliflower. Missouri, Group C
66 Fruits, Tomatoes, Cabbabe and Cauliflower. Missouri, Group C
66 Fruits, Tomatoes, Cabbage and Cauliflower. Missouri, Group C
66 Fruits, Tomatoes, Cabbage and Cauliflower. Missouri, Group C
67 Apples, Vegetables and Berries Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Vegetables and Berries Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Vegetables and Berries Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Vegetables and Berries Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Vegetables and Berries Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Vegetables and Berries Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
67 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Missouri, Group C.
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes Colorado, Group A
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes Colorado, Group A
68 , Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes Colorado, Group A
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Destination
Service
Charge
Charge
Iowa, Groups 1-2-3
. .179.02
Î65.00
Î.50.00
Kansas, Group 1
72. 26
60.00
41.00
Minnesota, Group 1
. 84.38
70.00
55.00
Missouri, Groups 1-2
60.27
60.00
41.00
Missouri, Group 4
67.97
65.00
40.00
Nebraska, Group 1
68.09
65.00
50.00
Nebraska, Group 2
76.33
70.00
50.00
Ohio, Group 1
69.58
70.00
55.00
Pennsylvania, Group 1
Kansas, Group 1
84.26
80.00
80.00
55.71
45.00
40.00
Missouri, Groups 1-2-3-4...
37.80
45.00
38.00
Nebraska, Group 1
. 46.60
55.00
50.00
Iowa, Groups 1-2-3
. 64.02
55.00
50.00
Colorado, Group 2
. 51.19
55.00
47.60
Illinois, Group 1
52.75
45.00
47.60
Indiana, Group 3
. 53.79
60.00
42.50
Iowa, Groups 1-2-3
51.29
50.00
42.50
Kansas, Group 1
43.94
40.00
40.37
Kansas, Group 2
47.73
50.00
40.80
Michigan, Groups 1-2-3. . . .
. 52.35
60.00
50.15
Michigan, Group 4
57.53
65.00
50.15
Minnesota, Group 1
53.33
60.00
50.15
Missouri, Groups 1-2-3-4. . .
.■ 48.21
40.00
38.00
Montana, Group 1
69.60
75.00
66.30
Nebraska, Group 1
44.44
50.00
42.50
Nebraska, Group 2
51.33
55.00
42.50
New York, Group 1
60.37
65.00
59.50
N. Dakota, Group 3
69.13
65.00
55.25
Pennsylvania, Group 1. . . .
62.33
65.00
59.50
S. Dakota, Group 1
57.42
60.00
[ 50.15
Wisconsin, Groups 1-2
58.13
55.00
50.15
Alabama, Groups 1-2-3
Connecticut, Groups 1-2. . .
. 97.09
80.00
60.00
. 92.89
90.00
60.00
Florida, Group 3
. 109,42
90.00
70.00
Kx. No. Commodity
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes.
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes.
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes
Destination
Illinois, Groups 2-3
Indiana, Groups 2-3
Iowa, Groups 1-3
Iowa, Group 2
Kansas, Group 1
Kansas, Group 2
Louisiana, Groups 1-2-3
Maine, Group 1
Massachusetts, Group I. . . .
Michigan, Group 4
Minnesota, Group 1
Minnesota, Group 2
Missouri, Groups 1-3-4
Missouri, Group 2
Nebraska, Group 1
Nebraska, Group 2
New Jersey, Group 1
New York, Group I
New York, Groups 3-4
Ohio, Groups 2-3-4
Oklahoma, Groups 1-2-3-4...
Pennsylvania, Group I
Pennsylvania, Groups 2-3-4.
Rhode Island, Group I
S. Dakota, Group 2
S. Dakota, Group 1
Tennessee, Group 1
Tennessee, Group 2
Texas, Group 1
Texas, Groups 2-3
Texas, Group 4
Texas, Group 8
Texas, Group 7
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Service
Charge
Charge
Î85.84
.170.00
$47.50
87.87
75.00
50.00
80.33
65.00
40.00
85.45
70.00
45.00
76.27
65.00
40.00
68.17
60.00
40.00
93.70
80.00
60.00
104.63
90.00
60.00
116.75
90.00
60.00
82.68
80.00
50.00
82.42
70.00
47.50
88.76
75.00
47.50
78.08
70.00
45.00
76.71
65.00
40.00
72.38
65.00
40.00
80.98
60.00
40. 00
106.53
85.00
,55.00
90.62
80.00
50.00
110.55
85.00
,55.00
92.01
80.00
50.00
84.49
65.00
45.00
97.43
80.00
50.00
107.79
85.00
55.00
102.10
90.00
60.00
78.99
65.00
40.00
85.30
70.00
47.50
90.53
70.00
52.50
88.74
75.00
52.50
81.01
70.00
55.00
75.85
75.00
60.00
81.38
80.00
60.00
77.04
65.00
55.00
77.27
60.00
55.00
Ex. No. Commodity Origin
68 Fruit, Cabbage and Tomatoes Colorado, Group A
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A,
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group*A.
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A.
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A,
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A
69 Apjiles, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A
69 Apples, Berries and Vegetables Colorado, Group A
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
70 Melons Colorado, Group B
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A. .. .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A.., .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A ,.. .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A... .
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A
71 îh-uits and Berries Utah, Grouj) A
71 Fi'uits and Berries Utah, Grou]) A
Cost of
Proposed
Present
Destination
Service
Charge
Charge
Wisconsin, Groups 1-2
. Î87.67
$70, 00
Î47,.50
Colorado, Group 2
Kansas, Group 1
Kansas, Group 2
.. 62,99
40.00
25,00
.. .57,21
60, 00
40, 00
62,80
.55,00
40.00
Texas, Groups 1-6
Texas, Groups 2-3
Texas, Group 4. . ;
Texas, Groups 5-8
77,.57
65,00
.5.5,00
76.60
70,00
60, 00
84,67
7.5,00
60 00
76.78
60, 00
.55,00
Texas, Group 7
72,59
.55.00
.55,00
District of Columbia
, , 88 ,60
85,00
65,00
Illinois, Group 2
,, 75,33
70,00
50,00
Indiana, Group 2
69,41
75.00
.55,00
Maryland, Group 3
83.45
85,00
65,00
Massachusetts, Group 1. .
94,46
90,00
67,00
.New York, Group 2
89,44
85.00
65,00
■ Ohio, Group 2
74,00
80,00
74,00
, Pennsylvania, Group 1 ...
80,14
80,00
50,00
Pennsylvania, Group 3....
89,04
85,00
65.00
• Arkansas, Group 1
96,38
7.5,00
60,00
Illinois, Groups 1-2-3. . . .
90,15
75,00
50,00
. Indiana, Group 2
,, 97,44
80,00
55.00
Iowa, Groups 1-3
83,89
70,00
50,00
.Iowa, Group 2
73,72
75,00
50.00
• Massachusetts, Group 1. .
,, 106,79
95,00
65,00
• Michigan, Group 3
98,29
80,00
55,00
• Michigan, Group 4
,. 94,13
85,00
.55,00
• Missouri, Group 2
. . 75,09
70,00
45.00
• Missouri, Groups 1-3-4.. . .
89,.33
75,00
50,00
• Nebraska, Group 2
,, 84,04
65.00
45,00
• Nebraska, Group 1
79,92
70,00
45,00
• New York, Group 4
,, 101,80
90,00
60.00
• Ohio, Groups 1-2-3-4
,, 96,04
85,00
55,00
Pennsylvania, Group 1. . .
• Texas, Group 1
. , 104,29
85,00
55,00
,, 82,40
75.00
62,50
Cost of
Ex. Xo. Commodity Origin Destination Service
71 Fruits and Berries Utah, Group A Texas, Group 2 $92.93
72 Vegetables Utah, Group A Kansas, Group 1 67.19
72 Vegetables Utah, Group A Kansas, Group 2 67.76
72 Vegetables Utah, Group A Oklahoma, Groups 1-2-3-4... 71.36
73 hVuits,Cauliflower,CabbageandTomatocs. .Arkansas, Groups A-B.. Arkansas, Group 1 37.01
73 Fruits,Cauliflower,CabbageandTomatoes. .Arkansas, Groups A-B.. Arkansas, Group 2. . ^ 51.36
73 Fruits,Cauliflower,CabbageandTomatoes. .Arkansas, Groups A-B.. Arkansas, Group 1 77.61
73 Fruits, Cauliflower, CabbageandTomatoes. .Arkansas, Groups A-B.. Arkansas, Group 2 46 30
Proposed
Present
Charge
Charge
$80.00
$62.50
55.00
45.00
50.00
45.00
55.00
50.00
45.00
.35.00
50.00
35.00
50.00
35.00
45.00
35.00
In making up these exhibits I have used the figure of S4.00 per car for supervision, although the actual cost of supervision
in 1918 was $6.10 per car. (Tr. 8317-18, Vol. XL.)
witness: J. B. SCOTT.
Entire year movement for 1918 based on ice costs less than current average price.
Ex. No. Commodity Origin Destination
1 Citrus and Vegetables Palmetto, Fla New York
1 Citrus and Vegetables Palmetto, Pda New Orleans
1 Citrus and Vegetables. Palmetto, Pda Chicago
1 Citrus and Vegetables Palmetto, Fla Boston
1 Citrus and Vegetables Palmetto, Fla Cincinnati
2 Peaches Ridge Springs, S. C New York
2 Cantaloupes Blockville, S. C New York
2 Vegetables Charleston, S. C. New York
2 Peaches Ridge Springs, S. C Boston !
2 Cantaloupes Blockville, S. C Boston
2 Vegetables Charleston, S. C Boston
3 Berries Chadbourn, N. C New York
3 Cantaloupes Laurinburg, N. C New York
3 Vegetables Wilmington, N. C New York
3 Berries Chadbourn, N. C Boston
3 Cantaloupes Laurinburg, N. C Boston
3 Vegetables Wilmington, N. C Boston
4 Berries, Vegetables Norfolk, Va .New York
4 Berries, Vegetables Norfolk, Va Boston
4 Peaches Clarks Gap, Va New York
4 Peaches Clarks Gap, Va Boston
5 Berries Dayton, Tenn Cincinnati, Ohio
5 Berries Dayton, Tenn Pittsburgh, Pa
5 Berries Dayton, Tenn Chicago
5 Peaches Sale Creek, Tenn Chicago
5 Peaches Sale Creek, Tenn Pittsburgh
5 Peaches Sale Creek, Tenn Cincinnati
5 Peaches Sale Creek, Tenn Detroit
ó Peaches Sale Creek, Tenn New York
Cost of
Proposed
Service
Charge
. $73.88
$77.50
70.06
75.00
. 82.11
85.00
. 82.87
85.00
74.59
77.50
. 69.02
75.00
73.67
80.00
. 64.37
70.00
77.95
82.50
. 82.70
87.50
. 73.30
77.50
. 58.66
62.50
67.51
72.50
. 58.28
62.50
65.40
70.00
76.44
80.00
. 67.27
70.00
49.83
52.50
59.57
60.00
. 52.20
57.50
. 63.69
65.00
50.39
52.50
. 62.49
62.50
57.92
60.00
69.27
65.00
73.84
72.50
. 59.49
57.50
. 71.21
70.00
. 84.97
77.50
(Tr. 4007-8)
witness: J. B. SCOTT.
Entire year movement for 1918 based on 1919 ice costs.
Ex. No. Commodity Origin
6 Peaches Fort Valley, Ga
6 Peaches i'ort Valley, Ga
6 Peaches Fort Valley, Ga
6 Peaches Fort Valley, Ga
6 Peaches Fort Valley, Ga
6 Cantaloupes Camilla, Ga
6 Cantaloupes Camilla, Ga
6 Cantaloupes Camilla, Ga
6 Cantaloupes Camilla, Ga
Cost of
Proposed
Destination
Service
Charge
. New York
.Î80.85
$77.50
. New Orleans
70.06
70.00
.Chicago
84.96
80.00
.Cincinnati
-69.72
72.,50
. Boston
90.11
85.00
.New York
86.36
82.,50
. Boston
95.33
90.00
.Chicago
90.00
85.00
.Cincinnati
76.51
77.50
(Tr. 4008-10^
00
Fruit Benton Harbor, Mich Chicago $40.20 $4.5.00 hfi.
Fruit Benton Harbor, Mich New York 63.84 60.00
Fruit Benton Harbor, Mich Cincinnati 44.61 50.00
Fruit Benton Harbor, Mich Buffalo ' 54.22 55.00
Fruit Benton Flarbor, Mich Pittsburgh 52.82 55.(X)
Fruit Benton Harbor, Mich Kansas City 53.36 60.00
BEFORE THE
. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
DOCKET No. 10664
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBITS NOS. 1 to 66. INCLUSIVE
CONCERNING
PROPOSED PERISHABLE PROTECTIVE TARIFF NO. 1
CONTENTS.
njefereiices are to
I'roposed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1.
Exhibit No. In re*
Subject.
1
Partial list of Carriers' Refrigeration
and Icing Tariffs, Avhicli, or the sub¬
sequent issue of which, are to be can¬
celed in their entirety by Proposed
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1.
2
Illustrative list of Carriers' Tariffs,
etc., the Conflicting Portions of which,
or of the subsequent issues thereof,
are to be canceled by Proposed Per¬
ishable Protective Tariff No. 1.
3
Items Nos.
1-16 Inc.
Explanation of Technical Terms and
Abbreviations.
4
Item No.
20
General Application of Tariff.
5
Item No.
21
Application of Charges at Intermedi¬
ate Points.
6
Ilule No.
25
Charges for Protective Service Not
Included in Freight Rates.
7
Enle No.
30
Nonapplication for Account of Steam¬
er Lines.
8
Rule No.
35
Ordering Cars.
9
Rule No.
37
Prepayment of Charges.
JO
Rule No.
40
Cliarge for Use of Refrigerator or
Fully Insulated Cars.
liib
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
18
19^
21
22
2(;
ii
No. In re Subject.
Eule No. Eestrictions Against Improper Prop¬
io aration, Loading, etc.
Eule No. Loading, Stowing, Stripping, Eack-
50 ing, False Flooring.
Eule No. Protection by Hay, Straw, Excelsior,
55 Sliavings, Manure, etc.
Enle No. Preservatives Placed in Packages or
60 in Body of Car.
Eule No. Schedules Not Guaranteed by Car-
65 riers.
Eule No. Side Door Ventilation.
70
Eule No. Eefrigeration and Artificial Heat
75 Combined.
Eule No. Bulkheads lined with paper.
76
Eule No. Shipper's Instructions.
80
Eule No. Wavbill Notations.
85
Eule No. Transfer, Charge for.
90
Eule No. Diversions and Eeconsignments.
95
Eule No. Sampling or Inspecting by Con-
100 signees.
Enle No. Bananas Carloads, Handling of.
105
Euhi No. Caretakers with Bananas, Cai'loads ;
110 Ti'ansj)ortation of.
Enle No. Shii)per's Instructions to Caretakers.
115
hill
Yí
29
30
31
32
31
36
37
39
40
iii
No. In re Subject.
Eule No. Voííetables or Fruit iu Stock or Box
120 Cars.
Eule No. Coiulitiou of Perishable Goods Not
130 Guaranteed by Carriers.
Eule No. Disiufectiug Cars; Charge for.
140
Eule No. Shipments Stored iu Transit.
145
Section No. Stated Eefrigeratiou Charge per
2 Carload of Specified Fruits, Vegeta¬
bles, Berries, Melons, etc.
Eule No. Application of Special Eules Goveru-
200 iug Stated Eefrigeratiou Chai'ges.
Eule No. Bunkers of Eefrigerator Cars to be
205 Used Only for Eefrigeratiou.
Eule No. Icing by Shippers at Loading Sta-
210 tiou; Allowance for.
Eule No. Delay of Iced Cars at Loading Sta-
215 tious.
Eule No. Iced Cars Ordered But Not Used.
220
Eule No. Icing at Intermediate Stop or Hold
225 Points, at Eecousigiiiug Points and at
Final Destination.
Eule No. Opening of Ventilators of Cars Uji-
230 der Eefrigeratiou.
Enle No. Ice Eemaining in Bunkers.
239
Eule No. Disposition of Eevenue.
240
Eule No. Consolidation of Fresh Fruits, Ber-
244 ries. Melons and Frosh Vegetables
from California.
iv
Exhibit
No. In re
Subject.
42
Eule No.
245
Precooled and Preiced Citrus Fruit
from California.
43
Rule No.
246
Precooling by Carriers of Shipments
from California Moving Under Full
Refrigeration.
44
Rule No.
250
Precooled and Preiced Citrus Fruit
from Florida.
45
Rule No.
255
Half-Tank Refrigeration Service on
Citrus Fruit from Florida.
46
Rule No.
260
Fruits and Vegetables L. C. L. Under
Refrigeration from Points in Louisi¬
ana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Ken¬
tucky.
Greog'raphieal Description of Origin
Groupings.
Geographical Description of Destina¬
tion Groupings.
Alphabetical List of Points of Origin
and Destination. (See Pages 35-148
of Tariff.)
48
Tables Nos.
1-98
Stated Refrigeration Charges.
49
Loss of Available Loading Space in
Refrigerator Cars on Account of Ice
Bunkers.
50
Comparative Statement of Stated Re¬
frigeration Charges.
51
Section No.
3
Si)ecial Rules and Stated Charges for
Services of Replenishing Ice and/or
Salt in Transit.
52
Section No.
4
Special Rules and Charges Governing
Service of Icing and Re-icing.
53
Section No.
5
Special Rules and Stated Charges
Covering Protective Service Against
Cold, Carloads.
47 Items Nos.
900-948
Items Nos.
1000-1056
V
Exhibit
No. In re
Subject.
54
Section No.
6
Special Eules and Charges on Less
Thau Carloads.
55
Eule No.
600
Application of Sf)ecial Eules Govern¬
ing Less Thau Carload Shipments.
56
Knie No.
605
Shippers Instructions.
57
Eule No.
610
Scheduled Eefrigerator Car Service.
58
Eule No.
615
Eefusal of Freight and Eestricted
Articles in Scheduled Eefrigerator
Cars.
59
Eule No.
620
Box Car Service.
60
Eule No.
625
Meat Peddler Cars.
61
Eule No.
630
Individual Car for One Consignee at
One Destination.
62
Eule No.
640
Disposition of Eevenue.
63
Tables Nos.
104-126
Stated Charges on Less Than Carload
Shipments.
64
Summary of Loss and Damage Claims
1914.
65
Comparative Statement of Claims for
Loss and Damage, years 1914-1915.
66
Various Eules Providing for Trans¬
portation Solely at Owner's Eisk of
Loss or Damage by Heat or Cold, Not
the Eesult of Negligence by Carriers.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 1.
Partial List of Carriers' Eefrigeration and Icing Tariffs
which, or the snbsequent issues of which, are to be can¬
celled in their entirety by Proposed Perishable Protective
Tariff No. 1.
(Subject to Eevision, Correction and Completion.)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ey., Tariff No. 8123-J, I. C. C.
No. 7370.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ey., Tariff No. 11985, Ariz. CC
No. 99; Cal EC No. 294.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ey., Tariff No. 12164, Cal EC
No. 319.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ey., Tariff No. 12274-B, I. C. C.
No. 7613.
Atlantic Coast Line EE, Eefrigeration Tariff No. 3, I. C. C.
No. A-3852.
Baltimore & Ohio EE, Circular No. 636, I. C. C. No. 13455.
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern EE, G. F. D. Circular No.
, I. C. C. No. 15036.
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern EE, Tariff H-2512-A, I. C. C.
No. 7334.
E. B. Boyd, Agent, Circular No. 12-F, 1. C. C. No. A-831.
E. B. Boyd, Agent, Tariff No. 94-A, I. C. C. No. A-832.
Charleston & Western Carolina Ey., Eefrigeration Tariff No.
1, I. C. C. No. A-637.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy EE., Tariff GEO No. 9890-D,
I. C. C. No. 11744.
Chicago & Eastern Illinois EE., Tariff No. 6790, I. C. C. No.
2751.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul EE., Tariff GFD No
I. C. C. No. B-3818.
Cincinnati Northern EE., Circular No. F-226, I. C. C. No.
6892.
2
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis RR., Circular No.
F-226, I. C. C. No. 6892.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis RR, Tariff No.
1829^C, 1. C. C. No. 6724.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 25-D, 1. C. C. No. 1043.
Dayton & Union RR., Circular No. F-226,1. C. C. No. 6892.
Erie Railroad (West), Tariff No. 214-D, 1. C. C. No. A-5809.
J. H. Glenn, Agent, Florida Refrigeration Tariff No. 2, I.
C. C. No. A-186.
J. H. Glenn, Agent, Alabama and Georgia Refrigeration Tar¬
iff No. 1, 1. C. C. No. A-187.
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Pacific Freight Bureau Tariff No. 108-B,
I. C. C. No. 321.
Grand Trunk Ry. System (West), GTLW Tariff No. 519-G,
GTLW I. C. C. No. A-1808. •
Great Northern RR, Tariff No , I. C. C. No. A-4883.
Illinois Central RR, Tariff No. 1178-B, I. C. C. No. 5008.
Illinois Central RR., Tariff No. 1723-K, I. C. C. No. A-9268.
Lehigh Valley RR., Tariff I. C. C. No. C-6340, CRC No. 1427.
Louisville & Nashville RR., Tariff GFO No , I. C. C. No.
A-14236.
Louisville & Nashville RR., Tariff GFO No. 2164, I. C. C. No.
A-13101.
Michigan Central RR., Tariff GFD No. 9543-D, I. C. C. No.
4997.
Michigan Central RR., Tariff GFD No. 9207-C, 1. C. C. No.
4879, CRC No. 2529.
Missouri, Kansas & Texas RR., Tariff No. 4196-1, 1. C. C.
No. A-4202.
Mobile & Ohio RR., Tariff No. 14231, I. C. C. A-1468.
Mobile & Ohio RR., Tariff No. 1940, I. C. C. A-358.
New York, Chicago & St. Louis RR, Tariff GFD No. 624-C,
1. C. C. No. 4116.
3
New York Central ER., (East) Circular No , I. C. C.
NYC No. 5840.
New York Central EE., (West), I. C. C. LS No. 369.
New York Central EE.. PSC-2, NY LS No. 210, I. C. C. LS
No. 369.
New York Central EE., Cirenlar No. A-244, West Shore EE
Circular No. A-203, NYC EE I. C. C. NYC No. 5840,1. C. C.
WS No. 2227.
New York Central EE., Circular No. A-258, NYCEE I. C. C.
NYC No. 5945 ; W. S. Circular No. 215, W. S. EE I. C. C.
WS No. 2305.
Ncav York, Philadelphia & Norfolk EE, Tariff I. C. C. No.
2622.
New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk EE., Tariff I. C. C. No.
2623.
New Orleans & Northeastern EE, Tariff No. 1403-B, I. C. C.
No. 2667.
Norfolk & Western EE, Tariff No. 10506-D, I. C. C. No. 5815.
Norfolk & Western EE, Tariff No. 10432-T, 1. C. C. No. 6379.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 6706,
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 6707.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No. 1310-C, I. C. C. No. 6335.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 6710.
Pennsylvania EE., Tariff G. O.-I. C. C. No. 7146, GO-CEC No.
1217.
Pere Marquette EE., Tariff No. 5885-A, I. C. C. No. 3825,
CEC No. 2019.
Pere Marquette EE., Tariff No. 5847-A, I. C. C. No. 3945.
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis EE, Tariff I. C. C.
P 1179.
Pennsylvania EE., Tariff G. O.-I. C. C. Go No. 7146.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie EE., Tariff No. B-1065, I. C. C. No.
1737.
4
St. Louis & San Francisco EE.., Tariff No. 785-M, I. C. C, No.
6905.
St. Louis & San Francisco EE., Tariff No. 6-J, 1. C. C. No.
6904.
Seaboard Air Line EE., Carolina Eefrigeration Tariff No.
1, 1. C. C. No. A-5759.
Southern Pacific Company, Tariff No. 359-E, I. C. C. No. 3742.
Southern Pacific Company, Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 3996.
Southern Eailroad Lines (Southern Eailway), Eefrigeration
Tariff No. 2-A, I. C. C. No. A-8560.
Southern Eailroad Lines (Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas-
Pacific Ey.), Tariff No. 1448-A, 1. C. C. No. 4340.
Wabash EE., Tariff I. C. C. No. 3976.
Wabash EE., Tariff I. C. C. No. 4697.
West Shore EE Circular 5, 1. C. C. WS No. 2227.
Wheeling & Lake Erie EE, Tariff No. 33-A, W&LE No. 1142.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 2.
Illustrative List of Carriers' Tariffs, etc., the conflicting por¬
tions of which, or of the subsequent issues thereof, are to
be cancelled by proposed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1.
(Subject to Eevision, Correction and Completion.)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 5600-F, No.
7421.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 5681-F, 1. C. C.
No. 7388.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 12040, I. C. C.
No. 7391.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 9367-C, 1. C. C.
No. 7469.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 6510-F, I. C. C.
No. 7504.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 6815-F, 1. C. C.
No. 7547.
5
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RE., Tariff No , I. C. C.
No. 8054.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe EE., Tariff No. 5896-H, I, C. C.
No. 7583.
Atlantic Coast Line EE., Terminal Tariff No , I. C. C.
No. B-697.
Bessemer & Lake Erie EE., Tariff I. C. C. No. 521.
Boston & Maine EE., Tariff I. C. C. No. A-2062.
Boston & Maine EE., Tariff I. C. C. No. A-1800.
C. W. Bnllen, Agent, S. E. M. V. Tariff No. 2,1. C. C. No. 16.
Central of Georgia EE., Green Fruit Tariff No. 1, I. C. C.
No. 1868.
Central Railroad of New Jersey, Tariff I. C. C. No. S-9005.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy EE., Tariff GFO No. 3457-G,
I. C. C. No. 11444.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul EE., Tariff GFD No. 6000-G,
1. C. C. No. B-3389.
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul EE., Tariff GFD No. 11140-C,
I. C. C. No. 3399.
Colorado & Southern EE., Tariff GFO No , I. C. C. No.
1227.
Colorado & Southern EE., Tariff GFO No , I. C. C. No.
1245.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 10-E, 1. C. C. No. 1030.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 11-G, I. C. C. No. 1031.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 14-D, I. C. C. No. 1032.
R. IL Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 3-M, I. C. C. No. 1038.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 2-N, 1. C. C. No. 1042.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 7-H, I. C. C. No. 1047.
R. II. Conntiss, Agent, Tariff No. 1-Q, I. C. C. No. 1048.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Tariff No. 4-0, I. C. C. No. 1049.
R. H. Countiss, Agent, Circular 59-B, 1. C. C. No. 1050.
6
E. H. Coiintiss, Agent, Circular 61-A, I. C. C. No. 1028.
C. McD. Davis, Agent, Florida Orange & Pineapple Tariff
No. 5, I. C. C. No. 7.
C. McD. Davis, Agent, South Carolina Eastbound Vegetable
Tariff No. 2, I. C. C. No. 9.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western EE., Special Eulings No.
82, I. C. C. No. 15255.
Denver & Eio Grande EE., Tariff GFD No. 4289-N, I. C. C.
No. 2563.
W. P. Emerson, Agent, Domestic Fruit & Vegetable Tariff
No , I. C. C. No. 44.
W. P. Emerson, Agent, Tropical Fruit Tariff No _, I. C. C.
No. 46.
Georgia Southern & Florida EE., Circular No. 527, I. C. C.
No. 575.
Georgia Southern & Florida EE., Circular No. 625, I. C. C.
No. 642.
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Tariff No. 126, I. C. C. No. 248.
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Tariff No. 23, I. C. C. No. 271
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Tariff No. 45-D, I. C. C. No. 301.
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Tariff No. 149, I. C. C. No. 304.
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 379.
F. W. Gomph, Agent, Tariff No. 1-C, I. C. C. No. 340.
Great Northern EE., Tariff No , I. C. C. No. A-4817.
Great Northern EE., Tariff No. 440-B, I. C. C. No. A-4295.
S. J. Henry, Agent, Tariff I. C. C. No. 6.
Hocking Valley EE., Tariff B-1896, I. C. C. No. 1655.
F. A. Leland, Agent, Circular No. 2-Q, I. C. C. No. 1188.
F. A. Leland, Agent, Circular No. 1-H, 1. C. C. No. 1244.
F. A. Leland, Agent, Circular No. 3-K, 1. C. C. No. 1267.
Lehigh Valley EE., Tariff I. C. C. No. C-4810.
7
Louisville & Nashville EE., Tariff GFO No. 2797,1. C. C. No.
A-14000.
Missouri Pacific EE., Circular No. 114-E, I. C. C. No. A-3456.
E. Morris, Agent, Tariff No. 130-K, I. C. C. No. 736.
Norfolk & Western EE., Tariff No. 12900-B, I. C. C. No. 5778.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No. 1960-C, I. C. C. No. 5790.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No. 533-F, I. C. C. No. 6093.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No. 413-H, I. C. C. No. 6162.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No. 1000-E, I. C. C. No. 6166.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 6678.
Northern Pacific EE., Tariff No. 466-D, I. C. C. No. 6365.
Oregon Short Line EE., Tariff No , I. C. C. No. 2148.
Oregon Short Line EE., Tariff No. 2707-A, I. C. C. No. 2112.
Pere Marquette EE., Tariff No. 5940-A, I. C. C. 4204.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie EE., Tariff No. B-1665, I. C. C. No.
1737.
F. L. Speiden, Agent, Tariff No. 17-A, 1. C. C. No. 218.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 3.
In re Items Nos. 1 to 16, inclusive.—Explanation of Technical
Terms and Ahhreviations.
These first items are self explanatory.
As to Item No. 15, containing a definition and list of Per¬
ishable Commodities it may be stated in a general way that
the commodities specifically named are believed to comprise
all of the various perishable commodities which are shipped.
The underlying principle or basis on which the list was made
is the susceptibility of such commodities to deterioration or
decay, or to possible loss or damage from heat or cold, as in¬
dicated in the definition or preamble commencing Item No.
15 and this, it will be noted, is closely related to the "inher¬
ent nature" of the goods.
In current tariffs, particularly of western and southwest-
8
ern roads, a similar definition and list of perishable freight
is already published. See for example the following items:
W. T. L. Circular No. 12-F, E. B. Boyd's I. C. C. No.
A-821, Item No. 75.
Southwestern Lines Classification Exceptions and Bules
Circular No. 1-H, Leland's ICC No. 1244. On traffic
originating at or destined to points in Louisiana and
Texas, also Texarkana, Ark-Tex., Item No. 432.
Southwestern Lines Classification Exceptions and Rules
Circular No. 2-Q, Leland's ICC No. 1188. On traf¬
fic originating at or destined to points in Arkansas,
also points in Louisiana, Missouri and Oklahoma.
Item No. 324.
Southwestern Lines Classification Exceptions and Rules
Circular No. 3-K, Leland's ICC No. 1267. On Traf¬
fic originating at or destined to points in Oklahoma.
Item No. 358.
As to Item No. 16, the meaning given to the term "Pack¬
ing House Products" is not intended to contravene the defi¬
nition or use of the same term as it may be given in specific
freight tariffs applicable.
E. P. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 4.
In re Item No. 20,—General Application of Tariff.
As already explained in the general statement (see Mr. C.
E. Bell's Exhibit No. 1) regarding the purpose of the pro¬
posed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1, it wdll supersede
all conflicting charges, rules and regulations, for the han¬
dling of perishable freight as to special service, such as re¬
frigeration, icing, protection against frost, etc., as distin¬
guished from the freight rate proper for the haulage service.
As to paragraph (C) giving precedence to any existing ter¬
minal tariffs applicable at ports of entry by water, this is self
explanatory and merely results in a continuance of terminal
tariff rules and charges applicable at such ports on import
traffic.
9
As to paragraph (D) the carriers believe that this is strict¬
ly in accordance with the existing laws and that it is very
desirable to insert such a rule in the tariff in order to show
the shippers clearly that, regardless of any other provisions
of the tariff elsewhere, the carriers are not attempting to es¬
cape such liability as may rest upon them for loss or dam¬
age due to their negligence. This paragraph (D) therefore
merely safeguards the interests of the shippers.
As to paragraph (E) it is also desirable to have the tariff
contain such notice to shippers that carriers cannot he ex¬
pected or required to furnish any accessorial service which
is not specifically authorized by the tariff.
A carrier is not liable for failure to furnish any service
not contemplated by its legal tariffs. Any alleged agreement
which is not in accordance with lawfully filed tariffs on inter¬
state commerce is unenforeible. (C. é Ä. v. Kirhy, 225 U. S.
155; A. T. & 8. F. v. Rohinson, 233 U. S. 173.)
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 5.
In re Item No. 21,—Application of charges at Intermediate
Points.
Item No. 22.—Application of term "All other points."
These two items are self explanatory and they are, it is
believed, in accordance with the well recognized custom of
proper application of similar tariffs covering stated refrig¬
eration charges, etc. The carriers believe that these items
are in accordance with the tariff rules of the Interstate Com¬
merce Commission.
Somewhat similar provisions are quite generally published
in the carriers' current tariffs providing stated refrigera¬
tion charges per car. See for example, the following issues ;—
A. T. & S. F. Ry. Tariff No. 8123-J, I. C. C. No. 7370,
Page 14, Item No. 1.
Southern Pacific Tariff No. 359-E, I. C. C. 3742, Page
No. 9, Rule No. 1.
10
Trans-Continental Tariff Xo. 25-D, Agent Countiss' I.
C. C. No. 1043, Page 17, Item No. 1.
W. T. L. Tariff No. 94-A, Agent E. B. Boyd's I. C. C.
No. A-832, Page 9, Eule No. 1.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 6.
In re Rule No. 25—Charges for Protective Service not in¬
cluded in Freight Rates.
Accessorial services, snch as refrigeration, icing, protection
against frost, etc., are and properly shonld be segregated
services and are entitled to separate consideration by them¬
selves regardless of other elements of transportation or
haulage.
Section 6 of the Act to Eegulate Commerce is clearly sus¬
ceptible to the interpretation that carriers are entitled to
show separately in their tariffs their charges for refrigera¬
tion or other special service as distinguished from freight
rates proper or haulage charges {I. C. C. v. Stichney, 215
U. S. 98)."
The Interstate Commerce Commission itself has placed a
similar interpretation npon Section 6 of the law in many
cases involving refrigeration and other special service, not
only in carloads (see for example, 20 I. C. C., Ill; 32 I. C. C.,
26), but also in less than carloads (26 I. C. C., 619-621; 31
I. C. C., 637-640; 40 I. C. C., 173-175; 43 I. C. C., 507-509; 44
1. C. C., 588).
The United States Supreme Court in the "West Virginia
Passenger Rate Case and the North Dakota Coal Case (de¬
cided March 15, 1915) declared that the carrier is entitled to
adequate compensation and a reasonable profit on each sepa¬
rate class of its service, regardless of its general revenues.
{Norfolk S Western Ry. Co. v. Couley, Attorney General of
the State of West Virginia, 236 U. S. 605; Northern Pacific
Railimy Co. v. State of North Dakota on relation of McCue,
Attorney General, 236 U. S. 585.)
In the furnishing of any accessorial service, such as re¬
frigeration, icing or protection from frost, as distinguished
11
from the service of haulage proper, there is always an ele¬
ment of superhazard, and the carriers are furthermore en¬
titled to a fair profit as recognized in many cases by the
Interstate Commerce Commission (see for example, 20 I. C.
C., Ill; 32 I. C. C., 26), and by other tribunals of competent
jurisdiction. {Knudsen-Fergnson Fruit Company v. Mich¬
igan Central Railroad, 148 Fed Rep 968 CCA ; Garaty v. At¬
lantic Coast Line Railroad, 211 Fed Rep 227).
Furthermore in the Arlington Heights Case, No. 3000
(20 I. C. C., Ill) the Interstate Commerce Commission spe¬
cifically found that the service of haulage of weight of ice was
not a proper item of expense under the freight rate but was
properly allocated as a factor in the stated refrigeration
charge. In this case, based on 1910 cost figures, the Com¬
mission allowed $20.00 per car for the haulage of an average
weight of 8,000 pounds of ice in the bunkers of cars, loaded
with citrus fruit, from California to Chicago, 111., an average
haul of about 2,185 miles, this allowance being one among
other legitimate items of expense making up the gross cost
of performing refrigeration service and therefore entering
into the stated refrigeration charge.
Under the conditions four years later (1914) the Com¬
mission in the Deciduous Fruit Case, Docket No. 6374 (32
I. C. C., 26), allowed $22.50 per car for haulage of average
weight of 9,000 pounds of ice from Sacramento, Cab, to Chi¬
cago, 111., an approximate distance of 2,175 miles, this allow¬
ance being in connection with other legitimate items of ex¬
pense forming parts of the gross cost of refrigeration service.
In the same year (1914) the Commission, under Docket No.
6803 (33 I. C. C., 126-127), allowed $30.56 for haulage of
average weight of 10,186 pounds of ice (on basis of $6.00 per
ton) from San Francisco, Cab, to New York, N. Y., an ap¬
proximate distance of 3,316 miles, together with other legiti¬
mate items of expense incident to refrigeration service.
Appended hereto is a partial summary of current tariff
rules which will serve as a convenient basis for comparison
with the proposed new rule and will show that the carriers in
many originating territories already publish in their tariffs
specific rules which make substantially the same provisions
as contemplated in proposed Rule No. 25, to Avhich this mem.-
orandum relates.
12
'Partial Summary of Current Tariff Rules about Refrigera¬
tion or other Accessorial Services not being included in
the Freight Rates.
Colorado-Utah Tariff 4-D, Griffin's I. C. C. 18, between
Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah.
Item 110—Indicates clearly refrigeration in addition to
Freight rates.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau, Tariff 6-D, Gomph's I. C.
C. 281, between Arizona, California, Nebraska, Oregon, New
Mexico and Washington and B. C. points.
Eule No. 140-E—Specifically says freight rates do not
include refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of,
ice or other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 14, Gomph's ICC 117
between Mexico and points in the United States. "
Item 19-D—Specifically says freight rates do not include
refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of ice or
other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 23, Gomph's ICC 271,
between California, Nevada, Utah and Idaho, Montana, Ore¬
gon, Utah and Wyoming.
Eule 150-C—Specifically says freight rates do not in¬
clude refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of
ice or other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 39-E, Gomph's ICC
378, between California, Oregon and points in Canada.
Eule 3—Specifically says freight rates do not include re¬
frigeration, heating, etc., transportation of ice or
other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 50-A, Gomph's ICC
168, from California to Washington and British Columbia.
Item 70-D—Specifically says freight rates do not include
refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of ice or
other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 51-A, Gomph's ICC
388, between Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming.
Eule 14-B—Si)ecifically says freight rates do not include
13
refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of ice or
other factors.
Pacific Freight Taritf Bureau Tariff 59-B, Gomph's
ICC 167, Arizona and California to Colorado, Utah, Idaho,
Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota.
Item 85-F—Specifically says freight rates do not include
refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of ice or
other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 60-B, Gomph's ICC
381, from California to Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Ore¬
gon, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming.
Rule 5—Specifically says freight rates do not include
refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of ice or
other factors.
Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff 65-C, Gomph's ICC
367, from California to California and Oregon.
Rule 12—Specifically says that freight rates do not in¬
clude refrigeration, heating, etc., transportation of
ice or other factors.
Trans-Continental Eastbound Tariff 3-M, Countiss' I. C.
C. 1038, from Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon and Utah to United States.
Rule 24—Freight rates cover only charge for transport¬
ing freight; refrigeration and icing in addition.
Trans-Continental Eastbound Tariff 2-N, Countiss I. C. C.
1042, from British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and
Washington to United States.
Rule 27—Freight rates cover only transportation of
freight; do not cover refrigeration, icing and heating.
Western Trunk Line Tariff 113-A, Boyd's ICC A-1013, from
Utah to points in the United States.
Item 85—Freight rates cover only transportation of
freight; do not cover refrigeration, icing and heat¬
ing.
Western Trunk Line Tariff 122, Boyd's ICC A-782, Col¬
orado to N. 0., etc.
Item 375—Freight rates cover only transportation of
freight; do not cover refrigeration, icing and heat¬
ing.
14
Western Trunk Line Tariff 128, Boyd's ICC A-811, from
Mississippi Eiver points to eastern territory.
Item 65—Freight rates cover only transportation of
freight; do not cover refrigeration, icing and heat¬
ing.
Western Trunk Lines Circular No. 1-N, Boyd's 1. C. C.
No. A-874, between Western Trunk Line points east of Mis¬
souri Eiver.
Item 805—Freight rates subject to charges and rules
covering special service affording protection against
heat or cold.
Western Trunk Line Circular 12-F, Boyd's ICC A-821,
between Western Trunk Line points east and west of the Mis¬
souri Eiver.
Items 110 and 1010—Freight rates subject to charges
and rules covering special service affording protec¬
tion against heat or cold.
Western Trunk Line Tariff No. 94-A, Boyd's ICC A-832,
from Western Trunk Line points to various points.
Eule 1 (A) Eefrigeration charges in addition to freight
rates, etc.
Southwestern Lines Classification Exceptions and Eules
Circular No. 1-H, Leland's ICC No. 1244, on traffic originat¬
ing at or destined to points in Louisiana and Texas, also
Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.
Item No. 420—Freight rates provided are subject to ad¬
ditional charges for service of protection against
heat or cold.
Southwestern Lines Classification Exceptions and Eules
Circular No. 2-Q, Leland's ICC No. 1188, on traffic originat¬
ing at or destined to points in Arkansas, also points in Loui¬
siana, Missouri and Oklahoma.
Item No. 36—Freight rates provided are subject to ad¬
ditional charges for service of protection against
heat or cold.
Southwestern Lines Classification Exceptions and Eules
Circular No. 3-K, Leland's ICC No. 1267, on traffic originat¬
ing at or destined to points in Oklahoma.
Item No. 32—Freight rates provided are subject to addi-
15
tional charges for service of protection against heat
or cold.
Alabama-Georgia ßefrigeration Tariff No. 1, Glenn's ICC
No. A-187, from Alabama and Georgia points, etc.
Knie No. 2—Eefrigeration charges in addition to reg¬
ular rates for transportation.
Florida Eefrigeration Tariff No. 2, Glenn's ICC A-18G,
from Florida points.
Note 3—Eefrigeration charges in addition to regular
rates for transportation.
Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Eefrigeration Tariff No. 3,
G. F. 0. No. 754, ICC No. A-3852, from Atlantic Coast Line
EE stations, etc.
Note 5-(A), Paragraph B-—Eefrigeration charges in ad¬
dition to regular rates for transportation.
Charleston & "Western Carolina Ey. Tariff No. 1, I. C. C.
No. A-637, from C. & W. C. Ey. points in South Carolina.
Note No. 10—Eefrigeration charges in addition to reg¬
ular rates for transportation.
Seaboard Air Line EE Eefrigeration Tariff No. 1, I. C. C.
No. A-5759, from points in North Carolina, South Carolina
and "Virginia.
Eule No. 1—Eefrigeration charges in addition to reg¬
ular rates for transportation.
Southern Eailroad Eefrigeration Tariff No. 2-A, I. C. C.
No. A-8560, from points on the Southern Eailroad and con¬
nections.
Note No. 1—Eefrigeration charges in addition to regular
rates for transportation.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ey. Tariff No.
1829 B, I. C. C. No. 6394. Eefrigeration charges on fruit
from stations in Southern Michigan.
Item No. 4—Eefrigeration charges in addition to regular
freight rates.
Michigan Central Eailroad Tariff GFO 9207-C, I. C. C.
No. 4873. Eefrigeration charges on fruit from stations in
Southern Michigan.
16
Eule No. 7—Eefrigeration charges in addition to regular
freight rates.
Pere Marquette EE Tariff No. 5885-A, ICC 3825. Eefrig¬
eration charges from points in Southern Michigan.
Eule 6—Eefrigeration charges in addition to regular
freight rates.
Grand Eapids & Indiana Ey. Tariff GFD 2288, I. C. C. No.
1204. Eefrigeration charges on fruit from Southern Mich¬
igan.
Item 4—Eefrigeration charges in addition to regular
published freight rates.
Pennsylvania Eailroad Tariff GO—ICC No. 7146. Ee¬
frigeration charges from points on the Penna. EE, east of
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Page 8—Eefrigeration charges in addition to the pub¬
lished rates of freight.
•Western Classification No. 55, Fyfe's ICC No. 13.
Eule 29, Section 1—"Unless otherwise provided, carload
ratings do not include the expense of refrigeration.
Charges for refrigeration when furnished by the
carrier will be found in the carrier's tariffs."
Eule 29, Section 2—"No allowance in weight will be made
for ice or other preservatives placed in the same
package with the freight."
Eule 29, Section 3—"When ice or other preservative is
in bunker of the car, no charge will be made for its
transportation; * * *"
Eule 30, Section 1.—"Eatings provided for freight in
carloads do not obligate the carrier to furnish heated
cars nor to maintain heat in cars for freight re¬
quiring such protection except under conditions
which the carrier's tariffs provide."
Eule No. 31—"Less than carload or any quantity rat¬
ings will not apply on freight requiring protection
against heat or cold and carried under refrigera¬
tion or in refrigerator or lined cars heater or
heated cars, or cars otherwise specially equipped
for such protection, except under the conditions
which the carriers' tariffs provide."
17
Soiithern Classification No. 43, Powe's ICC No. 22.
Rule 29, Section 1—"Unless otherwise provided carload
ratings do not include the expense of refrigeration.
Charges for refrigeration when furnished by the
carriers will he found in the carriers' tariffs."
Rule 29, Section 2—"No allowance in weight will be
made for ice or other preservatives placed in the
same package with the freight."
Rule 29, Section 3—"When ice or other preservative is
in bunker of the car, no charge will be made for its
transportation; * * *"
Rule 30, Section 1—"Ratings provided for freight in
carloads do not obligate the carrier to furnisli
heater cars nor to maintain heat in cars for freight
requiring such protection except under conditions
which the carriers' tariffs provide."
Rule 31—"Less than carload or any quantity ratings
applying on freight requiring protection against
heat or cold do not obligate the carrier to provide
specially equipped cars, nor to furnish heat or re¬
frigeration, unless the carriers' tariffs so provide."
Official Classification No. 44, Collyer's I. C. C. 0. C. No. 44.
Rule 12—^"Ice and salt when required for protection of
property Avill not be furnished by the railroad com¬
panies except as provided for in tariffs of the indi¬
vidual carriers."
Morris' Tariff 130-K, Morris I. C. C. No. 736. Exceptions
to Official Classification. From and betAveen Central Freight
Association points.
Item 1740—No extra charge in excess of freight rates,
made for ice and salt used in initial icing or re-
icing perishable freight on basis of third class rates
or higher.
(This absorption rule, however, is being modified in
current tariffs so as to provide that on shipments
made on the neAV carload basis at least, all icing and
re-icing shall be at the expense of the shipper or
consignee.)
Proposed Consolidated Freight Classification No. 1—Ex¬
hibit.
18
Rule 31, Section 1—"Unless otherwise provided, carload
ratings do not include the expense of refrigeration.
Charges for refrigeration, when furnished by the
carrier, will be found in carriers' tariffs."
Rule 31, Section 2—"Ratings provided for freight in car¬
loads do not obligate the carrier to furnish heated
cars, nor to maintain heat in cars, for freight requir¬
ing such protection, except under conditions which
the carriers' tariffs provide."
Rule 31, Section 3—"Less than carload or any quantity
ratings applying on freight requiring protection
against heat or cold do not obligate the carrier to
provide refrigeration, or refrigerator or lined cars,
heater or heated cars, or cars otherwise specially
equipped for such protection, except under the con¬
ditions which the carriers' tariffs provide."
Rule 32, Section 1—"When ice or other preservative is
in bunker of the car, no charge will be made for its
transportation; * * *"
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 7.
In re Ride No. 30,—Nan Application for account of Steamer
Lines.
The Steamer Lines are not generally provided with refrig¬
eration facilities and to the extent that they may be so pro¬
vided the service Avould be taken care of by their own local
tariffs. Even in such cases it would be impracticable for the
railroads to undertake to give a through refrigeration service
without interruption. Necessary breakage or interruption of
service involves a transfer. The character of protection is en¬
tirely different so that through charges could not be applied
for refrigeration for this special service.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 8.
In re Ride No. 35.—Ordering Cars.
This rule serves as a notice to the shippers that the car¬
riers will require some reasonable advice of what equipment
19
is expected. This must necessarily be governed by the va¬
rious shipping and transportation conditions on each line,
the details of which should properly be covered by the Op¬
erating Department Rules of individual carriers.
The following provision, viz :
"No instructions will be received from shippers for
the placing of cars for loading at any specific time or
hour of the day,"
is already published in the issues specified below;
W. T. L. Tariff No. 94-A, E. B. Boyd's I. C. C. No. A-832,
page 10, Rule No. 30, Paragraph (B).
Southern Pacific Tariff No. 359-C, I. C. C. No. 3742,
Page 10, Rule 35, Paragraph (B.).
A. T. & S. F. Ry. Tariff No. 8123-J, I. C. C. No. 7370,
Page 16, Item No. 30, Paragraph (B).
E, F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 9.
In re Rule No. 37,—"Prepayment of Charges."
This rule is self-explanatory and the necessity for it is ob¬
vious because when the freight tariff proper requires the pre¬
payment of freight charges, any other stated charges, in lump
sums, for refrigeration, etc., should likewise be prepaid.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 10.
In re Rule 40. Charge for use of refrigerator or fully in¬
sulated cars.
In the last hearing of the private car line case in Chicago
about February, 1918, I. C. C. Docket 4906, the representa¬
tives of carriers in all the three classification territories gave
testimony unanimously in favor of the carriers adopting and
publishing a service charge or rental charge for the use of
refrigerator or other fully insulated cars when loaded with
any perishable commodity without exception, and regardless
of ownership of car.
But the Commission in its decision of the Car Line case ex¬
pressed the following conclusion (50 I. C. C., 709) :
20
"That a charge in addition to freight rates should not
be made for furnishing to shippers refrigerator, tank, or
other special type of car or for transporting their ship¬
ments therein, unless the freight rates are predicated on
the transportation in another type of car less expensive
and not so difficult to operate."
In deference to the Commission's conclusions just quoted,
the Committee compiling proposed Perishable Protective Tar¬
iff No. 1, selected the specific commodities enumerated in Eule
No. 40 as defining the limits of the application of the proposed
charge at $5 per car per trip, but in selecting these particular
commodities the carriers do not intend to imply that they
have receded from their own views as unanimously expressed
by their witnesses in private car line case first above men¬
tioned in favor of a similar charge for the use of such special
equipment when loaded with any and all perishable freight
without exception.
As to the particular commodities specified in Eule 40, it is
the belief of the carriers that the freight ratings or freight
rates on such commodities were never predicated upon the
use of such special equipment as refrigerator or other fully
insulated cars. Furthermore, the carriers believe that such
commodities, in very many cases, can be and are safely trans¬
ported more or less generally in common cars during certain
periods of the year at least, and in view of this fact it is evi¬
dent that there should be an extra charge above the freight
rate for the use of the special equipment, not only to give
the carriers some compensation to which they are entitled, but
also to prevent what might otherwise amount to inequalities
between shippers and shipments, some of which would be us¬
ing common cars, and others would be using special equip¬
ment.
The charge would apply on all cars regardless of ownership,
which is in accordance with the views of the Commission (34
I. C. C., 256) as follows:
"This charge to avoid discrimination should be uni¬
form and collected from every shipper who has the use
of refrigerator cars. * # * There should be no dis¬
crimination between shippers using railroad, private car
lino, or privately owned refrigerator cars, and the pro¬
posed rule reduces to a minimum the probability or pos¬
sibility of discrimination."
21
In fixing the proposed charge of $5.00 per car per trip,
which is already in effect on certain commodities in differ¬
ent sections of the country, the carriers believe that they
have been very conservative, because they feel that they would
be entitled to the graduation of this charge on basis of dis¬
tance, which plan if adopted would probably mean a charge of
about Ic per car per loaded mile subject to a minimum of
$5.00 per car per trip.
The Interstate Commerce Commission in numerous cases
has upheld a charge of $5.00 per car per trip for the use of
refrigerator cars when loaded with carload shipments of pota¬
toes or other commodities involved in the various cases de¬
cided. See for example following:
50 ICC 324
40 ICC 191
42 ICC 491
45 ICC 523
31 ICC 255
34 ICC 255
In further justification of the proposed charge may be given
the following reasons, which will be further elucidated and
covered by separate exhibits, as necessary, during the hear¬
ings of the present case:
(1) The much greater cost of refrigerator or fully in¬
sulated cars compared with the cost of box cars.
(2) The more expensive maintenance of such special
equipment.
(3) The greater expense of hauling such special equip¬
ment loaded or empty because of its greater tare
weight.
(4) That empty or non-revenue hauls of special equip¬
ment are largely necessary.
(5) The smaller cubical capacity or available loading
space of refrigerator cars compared with box cars.
(6) That refrigerator or insulated equipment was pri¬
marily designed for protective service such as refrig¬
eration for highly perishable commodities ; that use
of such equipment is constantly increasing for com¬
modities heretofore transported in ordinary equip¬
ment ; that the result of this is that the special equip¬
ment is being diverted by shippers from the uses for
22
which it was designed, and unless the use of such
special equipment is curtailed in counectiou with han¬
dling commodities that can be safely transported in
ordinary equipment there will be insufficient refrig¬
erator or insulated equipment to handle those highly
perishable commodities where protective service is
essential.
(7) That the free use of such special equipment as
refrigerator or fully insulated cars for commodities
that can be handled safely in common box cars would
tend to create an element of inequality as between
different shippers or shipments.
The carriers submit that it is desirable and reasonable to
make the proposed charge apply uniformly in all territories
on at least all the commodities specified in Rule No. 40.
If necessary a list of representative tariffs in which the
charge is already effective could be compiled and presented,
but the carriers believe that the justification of the charge is
fully shown above.
The proposed application of charge of $5.00 per car per trip
into and out of storage point is covered in a separate exhibit
relating to the reasonableness of Rule 145, which see.
The necessity of initial application of the charge of $5.00
per car per trip from transfer points the same as from orig¬
inal loading points is obvious, and in such cases the said
charge of $5.00 per car per trip for the use of refrigerator
or other fully insulated car beyond transfer points is of
necessity, and of right ought to be, in addition to the transfer
charge contemplated by Rule No. 90.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 11.
In re Rule No. 45,—Restrictions Against Improper prepara¬
tion, Loading etc.
It is a fundamental principle universally recognized that
shippers are responsible for the proper preparation of their
freight, whether in carloads or less than carloads to permit
of the safe transportation thereof to ultimate destination.
23
It is also a rule recognized by tlie Interstate Commerce
Commission that the duty of properly loading carload freight
rests upon the shipper.
It seems unnecessary to cite any of the numerous decisions
and authorities in support of the above statements.
As to the duty of shipper in connection with carload ship¬
ments to install temporary false floors or other temporary
dunnage when required by the nature of the freight and to
permit of its safe transportation to ultimate destination, this
is also in accordance with the current classification and tariff
rules and practices and in harmony with the views expressed
by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the Dunnage case,
I. & S. Docket No. 354 (30 I. C. C., 538-546).
As stated by the Commission :
"The service of loading, furnishing material and plac¬
ing in the cars is an additional service over and above the
transportation for which carriers are entitled to receive
reasonable compensation." (18 I. C. C., 543.)
Even in cases where the carriers may have equipped their
refrigerator cars with permanent false floors, there may be
and are shippers of certain vegetables and other perishable
commodities, who will desire to install in such cars another
floor (temporary) of their own on top of the permanent false
floor already in the car. It is evident, therefore, that in all
cases where the shipper elects, or on account of the nature of
his commodity finds it necessary, to install temporary flooring
or other temporary dunnage, same should be done at his own
risk and expense.
Western Classification and Southern Classification Rules
Nos. 27 and 28, provide clearly that any temporary bracing,
dunnage, supports, lining or flooring, when required, must be
furnished and installed by the shipper at his own expense.
Official Classification Rule No. 19-A contemplates that tem¬
porary bracing, dunnage, or supports when required to pro¬
tect or make properly secure carload freight same must be
furnished and installed by the shipper at his own expense.
Proposed Consolidated Freight Classification No. 1, which
in exhibit form is still before the Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission, provides, under Rule 30, that temporary bracing, dun-
24
nage or supports, when required must he furnished and in¬
stalled by the shipper at his expense.
This rule No. 45 is closely related to Eule No. 50, which is
explained in another exhibit.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 12.
In re Rule No. 50.—Loading, Stoîving, Stripping, Racking,
False Flooring.
The carriers desire to cancel from the proposed Perish¬
able Protective Tariff No. 1, the first portion of Eule No. 50,
designated as paragraph (A) under the caption of "Perma¬
nent False Floors" and withdraw that paragraph from con¬
sideration in this case for the following reasons :
The Division of Operation of the United States Eailroad
Administration had announced by issuance of its Mechanical
Section Circular No. 7, its program for the rebuilding- of re¬
frigerator cars, including the installation of permanent false
floors ; that the various branches of the United States Depart¬
ment of Agriculture and the United States Pood ildminis-
tration interested in the conservation of food products, were
urging the Eailroad Administration, especially during the
stress of the War Emergency, to carry forward its rebuilding
program with the greatest possible despatch. In view of the
situation created by the war, as an emergency measure and
to anticipate so far as possible the installation of these per¬
manent false floors in refrigerator cars, there was extended
to the shippers during that period the privilege of installing
such permanent false floors with the reimbursement or al¬
lowance indicated in Eule No. 50, paragraph (A), which the
carriers now desire to withdraw. Experience has demon-
started that the character of the material used by the ship¬
pers has been in many instances of a poor quality and that
tlie specifications have not in all cases been fulfilled, and the
War Emergency having passed it is deemed proper to with¬
draw this privilege and allowance to the shipper. Such re¬
building program as may be necessary will be conducted by
the Division of Operation of the United States Eailroad Ad¬
ministration.
As to paragraph (B) of Eule No. 50, the reasons and au-
25
tliorities in support thereof have already in part been cited
in the exhibit covering the justification of Rule No. 45. The
stated charges for refrigeration or protective service do not
include expense of installing temporary floors, linings, etc.
Refrigerator cars are designed and constructed to carry the
perishable freight moving in greatest volume and therefore
any special fittings, such as temporary dunnage for a special
traffic should be installed by and at the expense of the ship¬
per.
As to paragraph (Cj there is a clerical error in the word¬
ing of the first two sentences which, as printed, represent
duplication to some extent. These first two sentences were
intended and should be corrected to read as follows :
"No charge will be made for transporting temporary,
false-floors or floor-racks furnished by shipper, when used
with perishable freight either in packages or in bulk
(including so called 'piece-freight')"
"No charge will be made for transporting racks, strips
or braces furnished by shipper when used with carload
shipments of perishable freight in packages."
The several provisions of paragraph (C), when corrected
as last above indicated, are self-explanatory, and they are
in harmony Avith the established practices. As to the charge
being made for transportation of strips, frames, braces, etc.,
when used with freight in bulk, experience has shown that
the loading of fruits, vegetables and other perishable freight
in bulk is, generally speaking, a bad practice, involving more
or less economic waste which ought to be discouraged, and
that in such loading an excess of dunnage is often used over
and above the amount of dunnage used with package freight.
As to paragraph (D) the carriers feel that when they for
their own convenience remove an integral part of the car it
is proper for them to return such part to its owner.
As to paragraph (E) proposed charge of one-half of fourth-
class rate this would amount to a reduction in the Southern
and Official Classification territories where full tariff freight
rates are being charged at present.
While Western carriers have heretofore been grantingi
free return movement over their rails for such materials
which have been used with carload shipments of fruits, vege¬
tables, etc., transported on commodity freight rates, yet such
26
commodity rates are less than class rates in connection with
■which latter the Interstate Commerce Commission found that
one-half of fourth-class rate would be reasonable for the re¬
turn movement of somewhat analogous accessories. See L &
S. Docket No. 76 (25 I. C. C., 497).-
The carriers feel that as the commjodity freight rate©
or exceptions to Western Classification are lower than the
Class ratings provided in the Western Classification, the car¬
riers should not be called upon to perform a free service on
basis of lower freight rates or freight ratings than provided
in the Western Classification. Furthermore that as an offset
to the proposed charge of one-half of fourth-class rate in
Western territory, the shippers -will be given the benefit of
one-half of fourth-class rate in Official and Southern Classi¬
fication territories for the first time. In the event that the
carriers are not authorized to make a uniform charge of one-
half of fourth-class rate throughout the country, the carriers
should certainly not be called upon to transport these ma¬
terials free in the Western Classification territory and then be
forced to haul them at one-half of fourth-class rate in other
territories, but in that event the carriers should be allowed
(and it wfill be the purpose of the interested carriers) to con¬
tinue to charge full taritf rates on return movement as now
covered by current tariffs in the Official and Southern Classi¬
fication territories.
As to paragraph (E), subparagraphs 1 to 5 inclusive, the
carriers feel that they have a right to make such reasonable
conditions to protect themselves in the proper handling of
the return movement. Somewhat similar provisions are al¬
ready contained in tariffs, among "which are the following;
W. T. L. Circular No. 12-F, Agent E. B. Bovd's I. C. C.
A-821, Items No. 700 and 1700.
E. E. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 13.
In re Rule 55.—Protection hi/ hay, straw, excelsior, shavings,
manure, etc.
Such materials are analogous to dunnage in a sense. The
shii^per uses such material to protect his goods. It is gener¬
ally recognized that carriers are not obligated to supply any
temporary dunnage. See I. & S. Docket 354 (30-ICC 538).
27
As to the exception about allowance of not exceeding 500
pounds of hay or straw furnished at expense of shipper for
huffing shipments of eggs, this allowance is not made in the
sense that the material is used as a protection against heat
or cold, but only because eggs, to carry Avithout breakage,
must he loaded in the car as a rigid load. This is corroborated
by experiments made by the U. S. Department of Agricul¬
ture. The U. 'S. Kailroad Administration will shortly pub¬
lish information of standard rules for loading, stowing, buffing
and bracing carload shipments of eggs. Such loading speci¬
fications will provide for wooden center-gates or frames to
insure the rigid load. Authority for the transportation of
such wooden center-gates, etc. is to be covered under para-:
graph B of Eule No. 50. In many districts there is an ample
supply of hay or straw and a scarcity of timber, and the car¬
riers, for their own protection, and to insure the rigid load,
propose to authorize the use of either wood, hay or straw
under Eule No. 50 or 55 as the case may be.
A similar exception, making allowance of 500 pounds for
hay or straw used in buffing eggs, is published in the folloAV-
ing tariffs:
W. T. L. Circular 12-F, Agent E. B! Boyd's ICC No.
A-821. Items Nos. 750 and 1750.
Agent E. Morris' Freight Tariff 130-K. Exceptions to
Official Classification. Agent Morris' ICC No. 736.
Item No. 2537.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 14.
In re Rule No. 60.—Preservatives placed in packages or in
hodg of car.
There cannot be any objection made by shippers against
the wording of this rule because it continues present practices
as to charging for, or making allowances in weight of ice or
other preservatives.
The carriers, however, reserve the right to make subsequent
changes in this rule, which is subject to further revision, and
consideration is being given to it. The carriers are not pre¬
pared at this time to say definitely just what they will be able
finally to do on this subject.
28
III view of the above it will probably be unnecessary at this
time to give any specific reference to current tariff rules in
différent sections of the country.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 15.
In re Rule No. 65.—Schedule not guaranteed hg carriers.
The carriers consider that the first paragraph of the rule
is in accordance with the laws and statutes applicable. The
second paragraph of the rule is self-explanatory.
It is desirable that the tariff contain such a rule as advance
notice to shipper of conditions of transportation.
Somewhat similar tariff rules are and have been in effect
for sometime past in carriers' tariffs in certain districts.
See for example the following issues :
W. T. L. Circular No. 12-F, ICC No. A-821.
Items No. 125 and 1025. Note No. 4.
Southwestern Lines' Classification exceptions and rules
in Circular No. 1-H. Agent F. A. Leland's ICC 1244.
Item No. 432. Note 4.
Southwestern Lines' Classification, Exceptions and Eules,
Circular No. 2-Q. Agent F. A. Leland's ICC No.
1188. Item 324. Note 4.
Southwestern Lines' Classification Exceptions and
Eules, Circular No. 3-K. Agent F. A. Leland's ICC
1267. Item 358. Note 4.
Agent E. Morris' Tariff 130-K. ICC No. 736. Items Nos.
1800, 1742 and 1744.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 16.
In re Ride No. 70.—Side Door Ventilation.
This rule it is believed is self-explanatory, and carries its
own justification.
It is a dangerous practice to give side-door ventilation to
29
refrigerator cars while in motion, because of the swinging
doors which may cause injury to property or jeopardize life
and limb.
Carriers do not consider that they are called upon to give
side-door ventilation to cars while standing on track.
Under paragraph (C) it is provided that it shall be per¬
missible for the shipper, owner, consignee or their represen¬
tatives including caretaker in actual charge of car to give
side-dpor ventilation to car while standing on track at ter¬
minals as specified in the rule.
As to current rules, see the following issues, among others :
Southern Pacific Tariff 359-E, ICC No. 3742. Eule No.
20.
A. T. & S. F. E. E. Tariff 8123-J, ICC No. 7370, Item No.
15.
Transcontinental Tariff 25-D, Agent E. H. Countiss's
ICC No. 1043, page 17, Item No. 4.
St. L. & S. F. E. E. Tariff No. 785-M, ICC No. 6905,
page 19, Item No. 19.
W. T. L. Tariff 94-A, E. B. Boyd's I. C. C. No. A-832,
Page 9, Eule No. 15.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 17.
In re Rule 75.—Refrigeration and Artificial Heat Combined.
The carriers submit that this rule is not only reasonable
but strictly lawful. This is a new rule which the carriers on
whose rails it will apply have been urged to inaugurate, but
in establishing such a rule at the request of shippers the car¬
riers believe that they have a perfect right to surround it with
reasonable conditions, which will limit the carriers' liability
under the very unusual circumstances involved.
It is a fact well known to every householder that if he
puts certain perishable fruits or vegetables, such as lettuce
or spinach, into an iced refrigerator for a certain length
of time, and on removing them from such ice protection
places them subsequently under artificial heat, there is grave
30
danger of the products wilting and deteriorating owing to
their inherent nature.
The carriers do not feel that they can be reasonably ex¬
pected to assume the extraordinary hazard or liability which
would he involved under such circumstances.
This proposed change of service in transit is not otfered
to shippers under existing tariff rules, and is a substantial
concession to shippers desiring the service.
The justification of the measure of the charges provided by
this rule will be covered by separate exhibits to be presented
by carriers.
E. F. McPIKE'S' EXHIBIT NO. 18.
In re Rule No. 76.—Bulk-heads lined with paper.
This rule is believed to be self-explanatory and to afford
its own justification, because it is obvious if the shipper by
his own act elects to line with paper the bulk-heads of ice
bunker, thus practically preventing the circulation of warm
or cooled air by means of refrigeration, ventilation or other
special protective service, the carriers cannot reasonably be
held responsible for the consequences.
In addition to the provision of Rule No. 76 as presented in
printed exhibit of proposed tariff, the carriers wish to reserve
the right to publish subsequently, under Rule No. 76, or under
a separate rule, some new rule as to the absolute refusal of
such shipments at loading station for movement therefrom
under "standard ventilation."
Separate exhibits will be presented by carriers in justifica¬
tion of the measure of the charge for special service of trans¬
ferring.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 19.
In re Rule No. 80.—Shipper's Instructions.
A "reasonable request" from shippers for refrigeration,
icing, ventilation, or other authorized accessorial services, is
31
contemplated by the first section of the Act to Eegulate Inter¬
state Commerce. It is needless to cite other authorities in
support of the right of the carriers to require shippers to
make some declaration as to the general character of special
service desired in transit.
In the notations authorized under Eule No. 80 the carriers
believe that they have afforded the shippers an opportunity
to secure efficient and adequate refrigeration, ventilation, etc.,
within all the territory where such services are available un¬
der the tariff. The carriers consider, furthermore, that they
have given the shippers reasonable latitude as to the specific
instructions which they are permitted to give the carriers in
this connection.
As to notations Nos. 3 and 4 and the Note thereunder pro¬
viding for owners' risk of loss or damage by heat or cold not
the result of negligence by carriers, this is a reasonable pro¬
vision because in such cases the possible loss or damage con¬
templated would be the direct result of the shippers' own
act in electing to give such arbitrary notations which deprive
the carrier of furnishing any different or more efficient pro¬
tective service in transit.
The carriers consider that they have a right to refuse to
accept from shippers any shipments of perishable freight
when tendered without the "reasonable request'^ from ship¬
pers concerning the desired protective services in transit as
explained first above.
Similar tariff rules about shippers ' instructions are already
published in tariffs in various sections and a list thereof
conld, if necessary, be furnished. See for example Western
Trunk Line Circular No. 12-F, Agent E. B. Boyd's I. C. C.
No. A-821, Item Nos. 125 and 1025, applying both east and
west of Missouri Eiver.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 20.
In re Rule No. 85.—Waybill Notations.
This rule is self-explanatory and is really in the nature of
instructions only to carriers' employes. Shippers, therefore,
are not directly interested in Eule No. 85 as such.
So far as the shippers are concerned their interests in
32
the matter have been covered by the exhibit relating to the
previous rule, No. 80, about "Shippers' Instructions."
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 21.
In re Rule No. 90.—Transfer Charge for.
The underlying principle of this rule was upheld as reason¬
able by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the Potomac
Yards Case (39 I. C. C., 325) at which time a charge of $4.00
per car was under consideration. The carriers now believe
that under present conditions involving increased cost of
labor, etc. a charge of $5.00 per car for transfer would be
entirely reasonable and conservative.
The carriers submit that it is desirable to adopt a uniform
charge of this kind throughout the country.
The service of transfer ordinarily occurs in connection with
shipments loaded in a warm climate in equipment other than
refrigerator or fully insulated cars, such shipments being
destined or reconsigned to a point in a colder climate thus
involving transfer of freight to protect it.
This proposed charge of $5.00 per car for transfer is to
apply in addition to the charge, if any, for the use of the
refrigerator or other fully insulated car beyond transfer
point, as contemplated under Rule No. 40, which is covered
by a separate exhibit.
The carriers will present further and separate exhibits in
justification of the measure of the above charge.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 22.
In re Rule No. 95.—Diversions and Reconsignments.
This rule is self-explanatory and carriers believe that the
reasonableness thereof is obvious, because the rule merely
contemplates the inclusion of proper instructions in the re-
consigning orders as to desired refrigeration or other author¬
ized protective service; beyond reconsigiiing point. It is.
33
thought that no argument or citations of authority are neces¬
sary in support of this rule, which is substantially in har¬
mony with the general practice of today.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 23.
In re Rule No. lOQ.—SampUng or Inspecting hy Consignees.
The shippers or owners of freight receive a substantial
benefit when the privilege of inspection or sampling by con¬
signees at destination is permitted. It is evident that any
loss or damage, resulting from such sampling or inspection
by and with the knowledge and consent of the shipper or
owner of the goods, is something for which they should be
solely responsible. It follows logically that in such cases any
possible loss or damage is not caused by the carriers, but the
rule clearly provides that the carriers are not attempting to
escape such liability as may rest upon them for loss or dam¬
age due to negligence by carriers.
Substantially similar rules are already published in certain
current tariffs, among which are the following;
W. T. L. Circular No. 12-P, Agent E. B. Boyd's ICC No.
A-821, Items Nos. 425 and 1425.
Southwestern Lines' Classification Exceptions and Rules
—Circular No. 1-H, Agent F. A. Leland's ICC No.
1244, Item No. 426.
Southwestern Lines' Classification Exceptions and Rules
—Circular No. 2-Q. Agent F. A. Leland's ICC No.
1188, Item ,321.
Southwestern Lines' Classification Exceptions and Rules
—Circular No. 3-K. Agent F. A. Leland's ICC No.
1267, Item 352.
E. P. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 24.
In re Rule No. 105.—Rananas Carloads; Handling of.
The carriers anticipate that there will not be any objec¬
tion made against this rule on the part of the shippers, be-
34
cause it is substantially the same as other corresponding
tariff rules airead}^ in effect. See, for example W. T. L.
Circular 12-F, Agent E. B. Boyd's ICC A-821, Items Nos.
125 and 1025, as indicated by the "exception" at the conclu¬
sion of Note No. 7 in those two items.
E. E. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 25.
In re Rule No. 110.—Caretakers with Bananas, Carloads;
Transportation of.
The proposed rules continue substantially the present prac¬
tice of carriers in various districts where current classifica¬
tion or tariff rules now provide for the -free transportation
of caretakers with bananas on the going trip.
Paragraph (E) provides, however, that the return trip of
caretaker must be begun within thirty days after termination
of his services as caretaker of the shipment, whereas various
tariff rules now in effect allow a period of sixty days, hut
the carriers are of the opinion that a period of thirty days
is amply sufficient, with due regard to all the circumstances
and general methods of work by banana messengers.
The other provisions of proposed rule 110, while in some
respects different from current tariff rules, are nevertheless
believed to be strictly in harmony with good railroading
practice and the law.
As to current tariff rules governing the transportation and
return of caretakers with bananas, carload, there are some
differences of wording and of practice because, for example,
it is not the custom of the New England roads at present to
give free transportation to the same extent as more or less
generally given in other sections of the country. As the dif¬
ferent practices in this respect are generally understood, it
seems proper to omit any extended references to existing
tariff rules.
35
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 26.
In re Rule No. 115.—Shipper's Instructions to Caretakers.
This is, generally speaking, a new rule which is not now
published in carriers' current taritïs, but it is believed that
the reasonableness and desirability of this rule will be ob¬
vious.
The shipper should assume the expense of any commercial
telegrams over his own signature to the caretaker as his own
employee, but in cases where any action must be taken, or in¬
structions given by or through the medium of the carrier,
the rule clearly provides for proper handling in accordance
with present practice.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 27.
In re Rule No. 120.—Vegetables or Fruit in Stock, or Box
Cars.
This rule provides for owner's risk of loss or damage by
heat or cold not the result of negligence by carriers. Where
the shippers elect to load vegetables or fruit in stock cars,
or in box cars with one or more side doors cleated open, the
carriers submit that under such conditions it is proper that
the shipper should assume the entire responsibility for proper
protection of the property against heat or cold, and the con¬
sequences of such acts on his part.
In such cases it would obviously be impossible and imprac¬
ticable for the carrier to undertake to render any special
service such as refrigeration or "Standard Ventilation."
In some cases the shippers deliberately order, and prefer
to use, stock cars or common box cars. This might be true
in cases where the use of refrigerator or other fully insulated
cars would entail payment of an extra charge of $5.00 per
car per trip for the use of such cars in accordance with Rule
No. 40.
It will be noted that the words "Pilferage and leakage"
are omitted from Rule No. 120 in view of the objections ex-
36
pressed by the Interstate Commerce Commission against the
inclusion of those particular words in its decision under ICC
Docket 10147 relating to Item No. 775 on page 26 of W. T. L.
Circular No. 12-F, Agent E. B. Boyd's ICC No. A-821, but,
understanding that decision by the Commission, the carriers
are now of the opinion that the wording of proposed new
Eule No. 120, to M'hich this memorandum relates, is entirely
reasonable, and will be so considered by the Interstate Com¬
merce Commission.
In paragraph (B) of proposed Eule 120 notation is pro¬
vided which merely makes a statement of fact about: "Side
doors cleated open by shipper."
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 28.
In re Rule No. 130.—Condition of Perishable Goods Not Guar¬
anteed by Carriers.
The carriers believe that a tariff rule of the kind proposed
is not only entirely reasonable and lawful but that it is very
desirable to include it in a general tariff of the kind proposed.
This rule relates chiefly to the inherent nature of perishable
products and is therefore strictly in harmony with the recog¬
nized exemption of the Common Law Eule of Carriers' Lia¬
bility. The Interstate Commerce Commission itself (20 I. C.
C. 627) made the following remarks:
"It is true that the defendants (the railroads) in their
tariffs undertake to supply refrigeration. But this can¬
not be interpreted as an offer on their part to overcome
physical conditions- and characteristics that are natural
to the traffic. Nor can it be interpreted as an assumption
of the burden of preparing the fruit properly for ship¬
ment. Some responsibility rests upon the shippers to
improve the conditions upon which their traffic is offered
for transportation * *
The same principle of carriers' nonliability was recog¬
nized by the Minnesota Supreme Court in a case which was
appealed to that court from a lower court. The Minnesota Su¬
preme Court said in substance that the inherent tendency of
strawberries to decay was a well known fact, of which the
lower court had a right to take judicial cognizance and to
37
include it in its charge to the jury (see Whitaker and another
V. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis S Omaha R. Co. (Minn.)
131 N. W. 1061).
Furthermore in the case of fruits and vegetables for ex¬
ample there are many plant diseases which originate in the
field and the injurious eiïects of which may be dormant and
undiscoverable at the time the fruits and vegetables are
loaded in the car at point of origin. Such plant disease may
subsequently develop and be the direct cause of loss or dam¬
age on arrival of the fruits and vegetables at destination with¬
out involving any possible negligence on the part of carriers.
These facts involve "Inherent Nature" of such goods and can
be demonstrated and established by proper inspection and in¬
vestigation.
Substantially the same or very similar tariff rules have
long been published in the tariffs of various carriers through¬
out the country, and are now published in their current tar¬
iffs, of which, if necessary, a representative list with suitable
extracts could be presented, but the carriers believe that, in
view of the facts and arguments given above, it is unnecessary
to elaborate any further.
EL F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 29.
In re Rule No. lAO—Disinfecting cars; Charge for.
The underlying principle of this rule is not dissimilar to
that of other rules published in carriers' current tariffs
which provide for a charge against consignee for disinfect¬
ing cars from which Live Stock has been unloaded, such tariff
rules in question having been upheld as reasonable by the
Interstate Commerce Commission under Docket No. 9239,
National Live Stack Exchange v. Abilene S Southern Ry. Co.
et al., decided June 5th, 19Í8 (50 I. C. C.-590).
Separate exhibits will be presented by carriers in justi¬
fication of the measure of the charge proposed.
38
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 30.
In re Rule No. 145—Shipments Stored in Transit.
This rule is for the most part self explanatory and its
reasonableness is obvious.
On the particular feature relating to the application of
the charge of $5.00 per car per trip for the use of refrig¬
erator or other fully insulated car, under Eule No. 40 up to
the point of storage, and the application of a similar charge
again for the use of another refrigerator car beyond the
point of storage, the carriers desire to point out in the first
place that such charge under Eule No. 40 is made "Per
Trip" and it therefor follows logically that where a shipment
moves into a storage point and the original car is unloaded
and released, the "Trip" of the car is ended, and where ship¬
ment moves out of the storage point it becomes a new trans¬
action, or another "Trip," and the charge of $5.00 for the
use of a refrigerator or fully insulated ear must he made.
While shipments of Oil moving in tank cars under transit
rates may not he parallel to the case under discussion here,
yet there is some likeness between them. The shipper must
find and provide a car for the inbound movement of Oil
and a car for the outbound movement. There are two sepa¬
rate transactions so far as the furnishing of equipment is
concerned and each one involves the same expense as would
attend a local shipment into or out of the storage point.
On a continuous movement the car would be loaded through
to destination and released after unloading and the move¬
ment to a storage point is exactly of the same nature as a
continuous movement. When a movement is from the stor¬
age point necessarily the same service is required and ren¬
dered by the carriers as with the original movement to the
storage point. The car must be prepared for loading; it must
be switched to the storage warehouse; when loaded it must
be switched from the storage warehouse to the train
yards—; all of this representing an added service from that
involved on a continuous movement. It is apparent that
upon these storage shipments a double service is involved
in preparing the cars for shipment; double terminal service
is necessary. There is a greater detention of the car on the
combined movement into and out of the storage point than
on a continuous movement.
39
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 31.
In re Section No. 2.—Stated Refrigeration Charge per Car-
Load of Specified Fruits, Vegetables, Berries, Melons, Etc.
These special rules and stated charges (applying locally
and proportionally), provided in Section No. 2 of the pro¬
posed tariff, apply chiefly on carload shipments of fruits (ex¬
cept bananas and cocoanuts) vegetables, berries and melons
from all originating points in the United States to all markets
in the United States and Canada. This is the general prin¬
ciple or basis heretofore applied on the bulk of such traffic
originating in Transcontinental and other Western, South¬
western, Southern and Southeastern territories, regardless
of the market or final destination. Stated refrigeration
charges are also provided under current taritfs on similar
traffic from producing districts on certain roads in southern
Michigan, etc.
In the new tariff, therefore, this basis has been made uni¬
form in principle and extended to apply also on similar traf¬
fic originating at points in the Official Classification territory
as a whole in which heretofore, with the exception of certain
points of origin in southern Michigan, shipments have not
been handled on basis of stated refrigeration charges, but up
to the present time the shippers have performed their own
initial icing at their own expense or have called upon the
carriers to perform initial icing and any re-icing necessary
in transit on basis of charge per ton of ice.
The advantages and benefits of stated refrigeration charges
both in principle and in fact are already clearly of record
before the Interstate Commerce Commission in various cases,
wherein the Commission has upheld the reasonableness of
that plan and the tariff charges published to apply. (See
for example 20 I. C. C., Ill, 32 I. C. C., 26.)
Stated refrigeration charges are right in principle for the
following reasons among others:
1. Because carriers should not be expected or required
to sell ice as a commodity since their only obligation
is to furnish refrigeration as a service.
2. Because the stated refrigeration charge places undi¬
vided responsibility on the carrier to perform and
40
give adequate and efficient refrigeration in transit
without restriction from the shipper.
3. Because the stated refrigeration charge permits con¬
servation of food products by minimizing wastage.
4. Because the stated refrigeration insures a parity of
routes as to the cost to the shipper for refrigeration
and equality between shipper and shipments.
5. Because a charge based only on cost of ice and labor
does not give the carrier compensation for the various
other factors which form a legitimate part of the
gross cost of furnishing refrigeration and does not
yield to the carrier a fair profit to which it is en¬
titled. (These other factors will be outlined in an¬
other exhibit.)
6. Because the stated refrigeration charge is known in
advance and is a convenience to the shipper in en¬
abling him to quote prices on his products.
7. Because the Interstate Commerce Commission itself
has stated that the public interest is served in a more
satisfactory manner when the carriers provide in their
tariffs for through refrigeration charges thus placing
the carriers and shippers upon a parity as regards
the charges received and paid for refrigeration and at
the same time removing whatever opportunity may
exist for inequalities, irregularities or possible dis¬
crimination growing out of the use of local icing
charges per ton or per 100 pounds of ice (Eefrigera-
tion Charges on Fruits and Vegetables from Colorado
Points to Kansas Points, I. & S. Docket No. 293, 29
I. C. C., 656).
8. Because as was shown by the carriers' testimony In
the Matter of Private Cars, I. C. C. Docket 4906, the
stated charge prevents discrimination or favoritism
and assures the most efficient service and is therefore
better for all concerned than the per ton of ice basis.
Separate exhibits will be presented regarding the manner
in which the stated refrigeration charges have been con¬
structed and the various factors entering therein and forming
legitimate parts of the gross cost of rendering such service.
41
E. P. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 32.
In re Rule 200—Application of Special Rules governing
Stated Refrigeration Charges.
Provisions of Eule No. 200 are in a general way substan¬
tially similar to corresponding application clauses in cur¬
rent tariffs providing stated refrigeration charges, which
apply both locally and proportionally.
As to Paragraph (F), which provides that when shipments
are loaded in refrigerator cars without ice and under in¬
structions from shipper are subsequently placed under re¬
frigeration, the charge for refrigeration will be that apply¬
ing from point at which car is initially iced; this rule re¬
sults in reduced charges as compared with certain current
tariff rules. The carriers would be justified in applying the
full stated refrigeration charge from original point of origin
to final destination, in accordance with favorable conclusions
to that effect expressed by the Interstate Commerce Com¬
mission in certain cases (See for example 44 ICC 567; 37
ICC 101).
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 33.
In re Rule 205.—Runhers of Refrigerator Cars to be used
only for refrigeration.
The carriers believe that this rule is self-explanatory and
furnishes its own justification.
Similar rules are already published in various current
tariffs providing stated refrigeration charges per car. See,
for example the following issues:
Southern Pacific Tariff 359-E, ICC 3742, Page 10, Eule
No. 30.
A. T. & S. F. Ey. Tariff 8123-J, ICC 7370, Page 15,
Item No. 25.
W. T. L. Tariff 94-A, E. B. Boyd's ICC A-832, Page 9,
Eule 25.
42
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT XO. 34.
In re Rule 210.—Icing hg Shippers at Loading Station; allow¬
ance for.
The carriers believe that this rule is self-explanatory, and
furnishes its own justification. There are cases when, for
the convenience of the carrier, the initial icing may he done by
the shipper, whose reimbursement is authorized by the Eule
on basis of actual cost of ice supplied, but not exceeding
wdiat would be the tariff charge of the carrier per ton of ice
as published under Section No. 4 in Table No. 100.
In all such cases obviously the full stated refrigeration
charge would have to be applied just the same as it would
be if the icing had physically been performed by the car¬
rier direct. Such application of stated charges is necessary
in order to prevent discrimination between individual ship¬
pers or shipments.
Somewhat similar rules are published in certain current
taritïs. See for example W. T. L. Taritf 94-A, E. B. Boyd's
I. C. C. No. A-832, Page 10, Rule 29.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO: 35.
In re Rule 215.—Belay to iced cars at loading staticms.
This rule contemplates a charge of |7.50 per car for 24
hours or fraction thereof when shipper delays iced cars
which have been placed for loading. The current taritï
charge, generally speaking, which is now provided in taritïs
applicable from producing districts from which stated refrig¬
eration charges are used, is $5.00 per car.
So long ago as 1911 the Commission in the case of Crutch-
field & Woolf oik V. Southern Pacific Company, Docket 3314
(24 ICC 653) upheld the reasonableness of a charge of $5.00
per car per day in such cases, and made the following re¬
marks :
"The carrier may protect itself against any undue
delay on the part of the shipper in loading the car after
43
it has been iced and placed for loading, by a charge in
the nature of a demurrage charge of so much per day or
per hour beyond a time fixed within which the car shall
be loaded, provided always that this, as well as the re¬
frigeration charge itself, is just and reasonable."
It is the almost universal practice for the current tariffs
covering stated refrigeration charges to provide an extra
charge of $5.00 per car per day for iced cars when delayed
by shippers at loading station.
The carriers submit that at this time, under the changed
conditions prevailing with greatly increased cost of materials,
etc., the proposed higher charge of $7.50 per car per day is
reasonable and justified.
The exception at the bottom of Eule 215 about a higher
charge of $10.00 per car per day for iced car delayed by
shippers at certain points in California and Nevada where
the weather is excessively hot is also reasonable and justified,
and indeed to a large extent similar exceptions in the way of
charges in such producing districts are already cov¬
ered in the carrier's current tariffs applicable from such dis¬
tricts.
As to Paragraph (B) about shippers' responsibility for
loss and damage resulting from their own act in delaying
iced cars at loading stations, this is such a reasonable pro¬
vision that it is no doubt self-explanatory and justifies itself.
As to Paragraph (C) of Eule No. 215 making another extra
and separate charge per car for the switching or haulage
of an empty iced ear from loading tracks to icing plant and
back to loading point in cases where, owing to delay on
the part of the shipper in the commencement of loading, ad¬
ditional icing is required, it is obvious that for such addi¬
tional service not a part of the continuous movement of the
freight the carriers are entitled to separate and proper com¬
pensation for such extra movement of empty iced car.
44
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 36.
In re Rule No. 220.—Iced Cars ordered but not used.
The correctness of the underlying principle of this rule
was recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission in
Conference Euling No. 343 of March 4, 1912.
Similar tariff rules are published in a large number of
the current tariffs providing stated refrigeration charges per
car. This is true in fact of practically all tariffs of that
character throughout the country at the present time.
The wording of proposed Eule 220 is slightly different
in detail from current tariff rules, but the principle is sub¬
stantially the same.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 37.
In re Rule No. 225 regarding icing at intermediate stop or
hold points, at reconsigning points and at final destina¬
tion.
Somewhat similar rules are already carried in practically
all the current tariffs providing stated refrigeration charges.
As to those portions of paragraphs (D) and (E) which
provide that the stated refrigeration charge proper shall cease
on arrival of car in "termin-al train yards," after which time'
extra charges will be made for necessary re-icing as indicated
in the ruling, the carriers point out the fact that the stated
refrigeration charges themselves were constructed on that
basis and did not contemplate the inclusion of the cost of any
such extra re-icings after such arrival of cars in terminal
train yards.
This certainly seems to be the correct basis upon which to
construct such stated charges, and the only Avay in which to
avoid disparity or possible discrimination between shippers
or shipments. In other words it is a more or less common
practice, particularly at large terminals, for cars to be held
ont at the terminal train yards in compliance with either
general or specific requests or wishes of the consignee or
owner. It is obvious, therefore, that it is reasonable and equi-
45
table that extra charges should be made for all necessary re-
icings after such arrival of cars in terminal train yards.
Under the circumstances as outlined above, the carriers
contend that they have a perfect right to make their standard
refrigeration charge for the service in transit apply up to
the terminal train yard, and their separate local charges for
necessary re-icings after such arrival of car in terminal train
yard, provided always that each charge separately considered
is reasonable and that the grand total of such charges is like¬
wise reasonable, which the carriers are prepared to demon¬
strate by suitable testimony and exhibits covering ship¬
ments from and to representative points.
If carriers were compelled to include within their stated
refrigeration charges for the transit service the expense of
extra re-icing after arrival of car in terminal train yards,
this would necessitate a further revision of, and increases in,
the proposed stated refrigeration charges, and at the same
time be productive of possible discrimination as between indi¬
vidual shippers or shipments, which latter inequalities are
avoided by the manner in which the stated charges have actu¬
ally been constructed, as explained above.
Some current tariff rules of certain carriers from various
producing districts already contain similar provisions about
making extra charges for re-icing after arrival of cars in
terminal train yards. See for example the following issues :
Southern Pacific Tariff 359-E, ICC 3742, page 11, Eule
No. 50.
A. T. & S. F. Ey. Tariff 8123-J, ICC 7370, page 17, Item
No. 45.
The current tariff rules applicable in connection with stated-
refrigeration charges from various producing districts con¬
tain some differences of wording in certain details, but it
would be rather impracticable to attempt to enumerate such
tariffs and rules in this exhibit. They will be developed as
far as may be necessary in connection with the discussion of
stated charges at the different hearings of the case at issue.
As to the absorption by carriers of not to exceed 2,000
pounds of ice used in the first re-icing of cars at reconsign-
ing points, etc., as contemplated under paragraph (D) of
Eule 225. This will in certain cases represent an actual re¬
duction of charges as against the provisions of current tariffs
46
under which an extra charge is made for the total quantity
of ice used in such cases at reconsiguing points.
As to the last sentence of paragraph (B) about ice sup¬
plied at points within the same local terminal switching dis¬
trict, the underlying principle was upheld as reasonable by
the Interstate Commerce Commission under Docket No. 9154
(45 ICC 581) which was based upon a rule published in
St. L. & S. F. Ey. Tariff 785-M, ICC No. 6905, Item No. 15,
carrying a note worded as follows ;
"Note.—On shipments stopped or held at St. Louis,
Mo., or East St. Louis, 111., for the reasons stated these
rules shall apply when shipments are re-iced at any point
within the St. Louis-East St. Louis switching limits
* # # m
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 38.
In re Rule No. 230.—Opening of Ventilators of Cars under
Refrigeration.
Other witnesses of carriers will also present testimony
covering this rule, but the following general facts may be
pointed out.
This is in the nature of an extra service and should there¬
fore be the subject of an extra and separate charge against
those shippers who desire such special service.
When on account of an unusual or special service asked for
by certain shippers there is any additional cost or meltage of
ice, etc., there should obviously be an additional charge made
against such shipments in order to offset what would other¬
wise be an inequality or possible discrimination; and aside
from any increased cost of such special service there is the
fact that the practice contemplated by Eule No. 230 is not
desirable and ought to be discouraged.
The leaving of any ventilators open on cars under ice is
apt to allow cinders to get into the ice bunkers, with conse¬
quent possibility of stopping up the drain pipes and causing
flooding of the body of the car. In view of these circum-
47
stances the carriers are justified in making a reasonable
charge for such special service when required by shippers.
There were some similar rules published by carriers in their
tariffs at one time, but there is no uniform or general rule of
this kind in effect at present.
E. F. MoPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 39.
In re Rule No. 235.—Ice Remaining in Bunhers.
In connection with the stated refrigeration charges apply¬
ing under Section No. 2, which is the scope of this Eule No.
235, the carriers are not selling ice locally or as a commodity,
but on the contrary are furnishing refrigeration as a service.
Ice is only one of the factors entering into such service, but
it is obvious that the material used by the carriers is property
of the carriers and that any remainder of material at desti¬
nation must continue to be the property of the carrier.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 40.
In re Rule No. 240.—Disposition of Revenue.
The shippers are not concerned in any way in this rule
which, as shown in its caption, relates entirely to the disposi¬
tion of revenue received by the carriers for the refrigeration
service.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 41.
In re Rule No. 244.—Consolidation of Fresh Fruits, Berries,
Melons and Fresh Vegetables from California.
Other witnesses of carriers' representing the principal
originating roads in California will explain this rule and the
justification of charges shown thereunder.
48
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 42.
In re Rule No. 245.—Precooled and Preiced Citrus Fruit from
California.
Other witnesses of the carriers in 'California will present
testimony on this rnle, in which certain increased charges
are proposed as against current blanket charges provided in
the existing tariffs applicable.
It is obvious, however, that such a charge should not be in
a fixed amount as a blanket charge but should be graduated
in accordance with distance, as is proposed under Eule No.
245. Taking for example the proposed charge of $27.50 per
car from California to Chicago, 111., as against the present
blanket charge of only $7.50 per car. The proposed new
charge would be justified even on basis of the two factors
of $5.00 per car for damage to refrigerating devices, plus
$22.50 per car for haulage of weight of ice, thus making a
total of $27.50.
The decision of the Commission in the Arlington Heights
Case (20 I. C. C., 106-123), establishing the blanket charge
of $7.50 per car, required that shipments of citrus fruit in
cars precooled and preiced by shippers be loaded 7 wide and
2 high, approximately 32,000 pounds, whereas other cars not
precooled and preiced were being loaded 6 wide and 2 high,
or approximately 27,650 pounds, in view of which the Com¬
mission took the position that the carriers indirectly received
special compensation and were not entitled to any charges
for haulage of weight of ice in the bunkers of precooled cars.
This situation no longer exists because at present all these
cars from California, whether precooled and preiced or not,
are being loaded substantially the same, that is approximately
32,000 pounds or more. At this time, therefore, it is no longer
true that the carriers receive any greater compensation on
cars precooled and preiced than on cars not precooled and
preiced. The carriers are confident, therefore, that the pro¬
posed charge, which is graduated according to distance, is
reasonable and justifiable. It has been demonstrated that the
shippers can load all these cars with 32,000 pounds or more,
and this results in some conservation of refrigerator cars and
therefore inures to the benefit of shippers by insuring a better
supply of such special equipment ; there is also a saving to
49
the shipper in many items, such as stripping, labor, track
space, and clerical work.
The charges for handling cars from California which have
been precooled and preiced by carriers have likewise been
graduated by distance and increased in corresponding man¬
ner, as against present blanket charge of $35.00 per car on
such cars, which was put into effect in order to place shippers
not equipped with precooling plants on a parity with shippers
who were able to precool and preice their citrus fruit.
«
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 43.
In re Rule No. 246.—Precooling hg Carrier of Shipments from
California Moving under Full Refrigeration.
The witnesses of California lines will present testimony to
justify this rule. The rule provides in substance that car¬
riers may at their own option precool shipments from Cali¬
fornia when moving under full stated refrigeration charges
but only as a part of the service covered by the latter and
without any extra charges above the stated refrigeration
charge.
Carriers feel they have a right to state they will precool
shipments only at their option, because their precooling plants
are not in operation 12 months in the year, and there should
be no obligation on their part to precool shipments when
their plants are not in operation, particularly as no extra
charge is made for the service of precooling.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 44.
In re Rule No. 250.—Precooled and Preiced Citrus Fruit from
Florida.
Testimony will be presented by witnesses of the Florida
carriers or in behalf of the Fruit Growers Express Company,
under whose supervision shipments covered by this rule are
handled.
The charges under this rule are graduated in a manner sim-
50
ilar to the corresponding charges on precooled cars of citrus
fruit from California, covered by Eule No. 245.
The graduated charges apply only on cars precooled or
preiced by shippers because the Fruit Growers Express Com¬
pany do not operate any precooling plants of their own.
As to those portions of Kule No. 250, known as paragraphs
(B), and (C) relating respectively to detention at precooling
plant and switching to precooling plant, these two paragraphs
are substantially, if not exactly, identical with current rules
carried in existing tariffs of Florida lines.
The current tariff rules covering the precooling of Florida
citrus fruit will be found in the following- issues or reissues
thereof :
Issuing Carrier Tariff I. C. C.
or Agent. Number Number
Atlantic Coast Line E. E. GFO-10001 A-3179
Florida East Coast Ey. Circular No. 674 252
Seaboard Air Line Ey. S. L.-813 Veg. A-3460
C. McD. Davis Florida Orange &
Pineapple Tariff
No. 5, 7
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 45.
In re Rule No. 255.—Half-Tank Refrigeration Service on
Citrus Fruit from Florida.
Testimony in justification of this rule will be presented by
witnesses of the Florida carriers or in behalf of the Fruit
Growers Express Co. under whose supervision such refriger¬
ation service is rendered.
As a general proposition, however, taking the country as a
whole, the service of half-tank refrig-eration is very unde¬
sirable, impracticable and objectionable from the carriers'
standpoint for the following reasons :
(a) The standard refrigerator cars which are most
widely and generally used are not equipped with any
special type of ice bunker to permit of half-tank refrig¬
eration in the upper chambers where obviously it would
he wanted.
51
(b) The proposed United States Railroad Adminis¬
tration standard refrigerator car as designed and ap¬
proved does not contemplate half-tank refrigeration and
the construction of the interior of the ice bunkers, which
are to be lined with wire mesh, would render it imprac¬
ticable to equip them with half-tanks.
(c) When the standard refrigerator car generally
used is billed for movement under half-tank refrigeration
only the bottom half of the tank can be filled and this is
not satisfactory. Furthermore, there is grave danger of
oversight on the part of railroad employees with the
result that bunkers of such cars may be completely filled
thus rendering maximum refrigeration with consequent
inequality and possible discrimination on account of
charges being predicated on half-tank refrigeration.
(d) The carriers feel that in the interest of conserv¬
ing food products they should be permitted to furnish
maximum efficiency of refrigeration service instead of
being restricted and made to render less than the full
standard of maximum efficiency of refrigeration service.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 46.
In re Rule No. 260.—Fruits and Vegetables L. C. L. under.
Refrigeration, from Points in Louisiana, Mississippi, Ten¬
nessee and Kentucky.
Practically no rules like the proposed rule are in effect at
the present time, with the exception of Rule No. 14 on page
No. 14 of Illinois Central Railroad and Yazoo &
Mississippi Valley Railroad Tariff No. 1178-B, I. C.
C. No. 5008 or as amended, whereunder those two
carriers now offer from stations on their lines and
connections in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky a scale of stated re¬
frigeration charges, in cents per 100 pounds of freight of less
than carload lots, with a minimum weight of 10,000 pounds
per car and in connection with the less than carload freight
rates.
Such less than carload charges were the subject of review
by the Interstate Commerce Commission under I. & S. Docket
52
No. 369 (31 I. C. C., 637-640), wherein the Commission recog¬
nized the force of the testimony and exhibits presented hy
the different carriers, whereby it was clearly shown by the
latter that they were actually losing money on their low scale
of stated refrigeration charges for less than carload ship¬
ments. The Commission made the following remarks (31
I. C. C., 639) :
"It appears that there is very little difference in the
cost of icing a car for less than carload shipments than
for carloads. Full tank refrigeration is given; that is a
carload or less than carload shipment is initially iced to
the tank capacity, followed by re-icing in transit at cer¬
tain intervals."
The proposed new Rule No. 260 continues to give the shipper
the privilege of using the less than carload freight rates but
provides that for the refrigeration service the full stated re¬
frigeration charge applicable on a carload shipment shall
apply. Carriers submit that this is entirely reasonable and
fully justified by the fact that the cost of refrigeration of
such cars is practically as great as that of a full carload.
The carload refrigeration charges as such will be justified by
separate testimony and exhibits.
The minimum weight on these less than carload cars is ad¬
vanced from 10,000 to 12,000 pounds per car, which the car¬
riers submit is conservative and fully justified in order to
conserve the use of refrigerator equipment.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 47.
In re Items Nos. 900-948.—Geographical Description of
Origin Groupings.
Items Nos. 1000-1056.—Geographical Description of Des¬
tination Groupings.
Alphabetical List of Points of Origin and Destina¬
tion. (See pages 35-148 of Tariff.)
The underlying principle upon which the different groups
in the various states, etc., were determined in general is based
upon the following factors; principle producing districts;
most important commodities and shipping season thereof, in-
53
eluding time of year and climatic conditions. In some eases
investigation indicated that larger groups were practicable
and jnstified than in other instances.
In addition to the two geographical lists of points of origin
and destination a complete, alphabetical list of stations in
different groups has been inserted on pages 35-148 to facili¬
tate convenient reference to, and use with, the individual
tables of stated refrigeration charges, on pages 149-504.
Further explanation of the various groups and the exact
application thereof will be presented in connection with vari¬
ous local exhibits showing the reasonableness of the proposed
stated refrigeration charges.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 48.
In, re Tables Nos. 1-96 of Stated Refrigeration Charges {pages
149-504 of Tariff Exhibit).
The stated refrigeration charges, as covered by Items Nos.
1200 to 10,256, both inclusive, are based upon the principles
already explained in E. F. McPike's Exhibit No. 31 relating
to Section No. 2 as a whole.
The stated refrigeration charges themselves from and to
representative points will be justified by various separate
exhibits to be presented by or in behalf of interested orig¬
inating carriers in the different producing districts coming
within the scope of the several hearings of this case.
The proposed stated refrigeration charges shown in Tables
Nos. 1-96 of the tariff exhibit under discussion were con¬
structed on basis of the six following factors :
1. Gross cost of ice placed in bunkers of cars.
2. Haulage of weight of ice.
3. Damage to refrigerating devices.
4. Switching.
5. Supervision.
6. Super-hazard and profit.
The above factors have been specifically recognized by the
Interstate Commerce Commission in connection with stated
refrigeration charges in numerous cases. (See for example
20 1. C. C., 111;32I. C. C., 26.)
54
There are various other factors of expense to carriers
which are more or less directly incidental to the service of
refrigeration in transit.
In further support of some of the six factors ahove men¬
tioned and included within the proposed stated refrigeration
charges as constructed, attention is directed to the case of
New Orleans Fruit S Vegetable Shippers' Association v. Illi¬
nois Central Railroad Company, 31 I. C. C., 640 (in 1914), re¬
lating to stated refrigeration charges on less than carload
shipments from New Orleans, La., and other points, to Chi¬
cago 111., and other points. The Commission recognized the
carrier's right to various credits covering expenses incidental
to the refrigeration or icing service, wherein the Commis¬
sion said:
"Includes various items chargeable * * * such as
proportion of pay roll of general office, local inspection
at icing station, proportion of office rent * * * ; aver¬
age car repairs and damage to bunkers. These items are
incapable of exact allocation, and therefore the amounts
charged to each are more or less arbitrary. Nevertheless
they do enter into the service cost, and are entitled to
consideration. ' '
The carriers wish to call attention to the fact that the stated
refrigeration charges shown in Section No. 2 of proposed
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 will apply per carload
without any excess charges in proportion, whereas under the
current tariffs of many carriers the stated refrigeration
charges apply now on the minimum carload, with excess re¬
frigeration charges in proportion. Therefore, the new
charges will, in many instances, be no higher and in some
cases less than the aggregate refrigeration charges per car
under existing tariffs.
55
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 49.
In re Loss of Available Loading Space in Refrigerator Cars
on Acconnt of Ice Bunkers.
On account of the space occupied by ice bunkers in refrig¬
erator cars there is a loss of sixteen per cent or more in
what would otherwise be the available loading space of the
interior of the car and this involves a consequent sacrifice
of the carriers' freight revenue.
These facts will he further illustrated by suitable exhibits
to he presented by individual carriers.
56
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT XO. 50.
Comparative Statement of Stated Refrigeration Charges.
To
Chicago, 111. New York, N. Y.
Approx- Charge Pro- Approx- Charge Pro-
imate per car posed imate per car posed
From Points in dis- before Charge dis- before charge
tance 1/1/19 per car tance 1/1/19 per car
Strawberries
Arkansas :
South Ark River
C30
$47.50
$05.00
1,300
$66.30
$85.00
On and North
of Ark River
6.S0
42.50
60.00
1.300
61.20
75.00
Florida
1,500
96.25
85.00
1,200
87.50
77.50
Louisiana
900
55.00
65.00
1,300
75.00
85.00
Missouri
South Mo River
450
42.50
50.00
1,200
61.20
70.00
On and North
Mo River
450
45.00
1,200
65.00
Tennessee :
West
450
35.00
57.50
950
57.,50
72.50
East
450
48.00
60.00
950
37.50
72.50
Cantaloupes
California :
Imperial Valley
2.100
97.50
125.00
3.100
110.00
140.00
Other Points
2,2.50
75.00
95.00
3,100
87.50
110.00
Colorado
1,100
50.00
75.00
1,800
60.00
90.00
Indiana :
North
200
50.00
800
65.00
South
200
40.00
55.00
800
50.00
65.00
Georgia
800
58.00
85.00
900
58.00
82.50
Citrus
California
2.250
a5.00
85.00
3,100
77.50
100.00
Florida
1,500
71.00
85.00
1,200
65.00
77.50
Peaches
California
2,250
75.00
90.00
3,100
87.50
105.00
Colorado :
85.00
West
1,100
47.50
70.00
1,9.50
55.00
East
1,100
47..50
65.00
1,950
55.00
80.00
Georgia
800
58.85
80.00
900
58.85
77.50
Jlichigan
300
22.50
45.00
800
45.00
60.00
Tomatoes
Florida
1,500
72.00
85.00
1,200
66.00
77.50
Mississipid
750
40.00
70.00
1,250
72.00
90.00
57
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT XO. 51.
In re Section No. 3.—Special Rules and Stated Charges for
Service of Replenishing Ice and/or Salt in Transit.
Other witnesses of the carriers will present testimony and
exhibits in justification of the rules and charges carried under
Section No. 3.
The proposed rules under Section No. 3 are substantially
the same as current tariff rules on similar traffic which con¬
sists of carload shipments moving chiefiy westbound from or
via Missouri Hiver points, Minnesota Transfer, etc., to des¬
tinations in Trans-Continental Territory, that is destinations
in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington and British Columbia.
The proposed charges in Section No. 3 have been slightly
increased over current tariff charges for like service on sim¬
ilar shipments but these increases, which will be justified by
separate .exhibits are based upon the higher cost of ice, labor,
etc.
These stated charges under Section No., 3 are, the carriers
believe, in accordance with the real purpose and intention of
the decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission under
I. & S. Docket 514 (34 ICC140).
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 52.
In re Section No. 4.—Special Rules and Charges Governing
Service of Icing and Re-Icing.
In substance and in principle the proposed rules and
charges under Section No. 4, simply continue the provisions
of current tariffs throughout the country with very few, if
any, important exceptions.
Proposed Rule No. 400 provides for application on carload
shipments of Fresh Meats, Packing House Products, Dairy
Products, Fish, Beer, Beverages, Bananas, Cocoanuts, etc.,
which commodities are now generally moving under current
tariff rules providing a substantially similar basis, which
58
contemplates charges per ton of ice or per 100 pounds of salt
as distinguished from any stated charges in lump sums per
carload.
Eule No. 405 about shippers' instructions, is substantially
in harmony with current tariff rules and practices and the
proposed wording of that rule, particularly as to paragraph
(B) thereof was drafted after conference with representa¬
tives of the principal shippers at Washington, D. C., Febru¬
ary 24th to March 1, 1919.
As to paragraph (C) of Eule 405, providing that where
the shipper limits the measure or degree of refrigeration de¬
sired in transit the shipments will be transported solely at
owner's risk of loss and damage by heat or cold, the carriers
believe that the justification of this provision is obvious he-
cause any consequent loss or damage is the result of the ship¬
per's own act and election. It is understood and provided
clearly in the rule that the carriers are not attempting to
escape such liability as may rest upon them for loss or dam¬
age ' resulting from negligence by carriers. This feature is
also made very clear for the entire tariff as shown in the
general application clause under Item No. 20, paragraph (D).
As to Eule No. 405, paragraph (D) about the carriers fur¬
nishing refrigeration when the shippers fail or neglect to
make "reasonable reqirest" for refrigeration as contem¬
plated by the first section of the Act to Eegulate Commerce,
the carriers submit that this provision is obviously justifi¬
able because if ice has previously been used in cars the proper
inference is that the shipments are moving under refrigera¬
tion, in which event the carriers, in the interests of conserving
food products, are warranted in re-icing the cars and in
collecting their charges for such service.
As to Eule No. 410, about Initial Icing by Shipper, the car¬
riers believe that this rule is self-explanatory and justifiable.
As to Eule No. 415, Iced Cars delayed at Loading Station
the carriers believe that this rule also is self-explanatory and
justified.
As to Eule No. 420, Iced Cars Ordered But Not Used, the
carriers submit in justification substantially the same facts
and arguments as presented in support of Eule No. 220, in
Section No. 2 of tariff. In other words the correctness of the
59
underlying principle w^as recognized in I. C. C. Conference
Kuling- No. 343 of March 4, 1912.
As to Eule No. 425, Additional Protective Service made
necessary by emergency, the carriers submit that this is
self-explanatory and justifiable because in such cases the
additional icing has been made necessary by an Act of Provi¬
dence, such as washed out tracks or by some other emergency
beyond the control of the carriers. The carriers in the in¬
terests of conserving food products perform such icing serv¬
ice in good faith and feel that they are entitled to compensa¬
tion therefor on basis of their regular taritf charges.
The proposed charges in Table No. 100 are substantially
the same as already published in current tariffs made effec¬
tive since January 1, 1919. Those charges, however, do rep¬
resent for the most part advances as against tariff charges
in effect before January 1, 1919, the advances having been
found necessary on account of the increased cost of ice and
salt throughout the country as a whole. In some instances,
however, the charges published in Table No. 100 represent a
decrease as against tariff charges for ice and salt before
January 1, 1919.
Separate exhibits as may be necessary will be presented
by other witnesses of carriers in justification of the pro¬
posed charges for ice and salt.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 53.
In re Section No. 5.—Special Rules and Stated Charges Cov¬
ering Protective Service against Cold, Carloads.
Other witnesses of the carriers will present testimony and
exhibits in support of the specific rules and stated charges
shown in Section No. 5.
On the title page of Section No. 5 are shown exceptions
granting precedence and application by tariffs issued by cer¬
tain carriers in the State of Maine, whose current tariff rules
and charges continue to govern until further notice. These
exceptions on traffic originating in Maine have been found
necessary on account of the fact that the Official Classification
roads as a whole are not equipped or prepared to offer their
60
services, outbound, from points in their territory with the
exception of the limited traffic above mentioned originating
in Maine.
Otherwise, however it is contemplated, that throughout Offi¬
cial Classification territory, in all directions the proposed
Eules Nos. 500-550, will apply and Avill be subject only to spe¬
cific rules, if any to the contrary, in the current tariffs of the
originating carriers in the State of Maine as above explained.
In substance and in principle the proposed Eules Nos. 500-
550 inclusive are very similar indeed to the current tariff
rules covering similar service as already published by orig¬
inating roads in North Pacific Coast territory and in Western
Trunk Line territory between Missouri Eiver and Chicago,
for which see the two following issues :
Trans-Continental Tariff No. 25 D, Agent E. H. Countiss'
I. C. C. No. 1043.
Western Trunk Line Circular No. 12-F, Agent E. B.
Boyd's I. C. C. No. A-821.
All these rules and stated charges governed thereby will
apply both locally and proportionally.
As to Eule No. 510, "Shippers' Protective Service," pro¬
viding under paragraph (A) that in such cases the shipper
assumes entire responsibility for loss or damage by heat and
cold not the result of the negligence by carriers; the reason¬
ableness and justification of this clause is obvious and it is
needed to protect the legitimate interests of the carriers be¬
cause, while the laws applicable clearly make provisions as
to the liability of a carrier for any loss '"'caused hy it," [this
is not equally true in the contrary instance] for the laws are
not so clear or automatic with respect to shippers' responsi¬
bility, which therefore may be and properly should be cov¬
ered by suitable and reasonable tariff rules. A provision of
this kind is already carried in the tariffs of western roads
covering similar service when rendered by shippers. See for
example :
Trans-Continental Tariff No. 25-D, Agent E. II. Countiss'
1. C. C. No. 1043.
AVestefn Trunk Line Circular 12-F, Agent E. B. Boyd's
1. C. C. No. A-821.
As to Eule No. 511, about Portable Heaters with Liquors
and Liquids, this continues in certain territories a practice
61
already authorized by current tariffs but only between points
where "Carrier's Protective Service" is not available. The
carriers submit that where, under their taritïs, they do offer
their own service they may reasonably expect the shippers to
avail themselves of such service by carriers, but if the ship¬
pers elect to forward their shipments under "Shipper's Pro¬
tective Service" (See Eule No. 510) it should be done only
in strict conformity with the provisions of the latter which
contemplates that a shipper shall send his own caretaker in
charge of his portable stove, or heater, etc. In other terri¬
tories, however, vEere the carriers under their current or
proposed taritïs do not offer their own service, such ship¬
ments of Liquors, Liquids and Semi-Liquids will be accepted
with shipper's stove or heater in car without caretaker in
charge, as provided under paragraph (B) of Eule No. 511.
The carriers submit, therefore, that under all the circum¬
stances they have made a fair and proper distinction or dif¬
ference in the two cases.
As to Eule No. 512, about transportation of Caretakers
when shipper installs portable heater, the provisions of para¬
graph (A) about free transportation in the going direction
are substantially the same as in current tariffs and classifica¬
tion rules. As to the provisions of paragraph (F) and the
proposed difference of practice in the various territories, the
carriers submit that they have gone as far as they
could reasonably be expected to when they offer free return
transportation to caretakers who have accompanied ship¬
ments and the return trip is between western points, that is
in the territory where such free transportation on the return
trip is already given under current tariffs. When, however,
the return trip of such caretakers is made between points in
the Southern and Official Classification territories the current
tariffs in general contemplate that no free return transporta¬
tion will be given. The carriers, therefore in the proposed
Eule No. 512 are continuing in substance and in principle the
current tariff rules and practices to the extent shown.
As to Eule No. 545 about transportation of Portable Stoves,
etc., it is contemplated that no charge will be made in the
going direction, but under Eule No. 550 covering return move¬
ment it is proposed that when such articles are the property
of the shipper the return movement will be made on basis of
one-half of fourth-class freight rate. At the present time,
generally speaking, full tariff rates are charged on return
62
movement from Southern and Official Classification terri¬
tories, but in Western Classification territory, under current
tariffs, free return movement is generally authorized. The
carriers submit, however, that as a uniform rule throughout
the country they would be entitled to one-half of fourth-class
rate for such return movement. The reasonableness of this
basis was recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission
in connection with the class ratings in the Western Classifica¬
tion territory. See I. & S. Docket No. 76 (25 I. C. C., 497).
The carriers feel that as the commodity freight rates and
exceptions to classification are lower than the class rates pro¬
vided in the Western Classification, the carriers should not be
called upon to perform a free service on basis of lower freight
rates or freight ratings than provided in the Western Class¬
ification. Furthermore that, as an offset to the proposed
charge of one-half of fourth-class rate in Western Classifica¬
tion territory the shippers will be given the benefit of one-
half of fourth-class rate in Official and Southern Classifica¬
tion territories for the first time. In the event that the car¬
riers are not authorized to make a uniform charge of one-half
of fourth-class rate throughout the country the carriers should'
certainly not be called upon to transport these articles free in
the Western Classification territory and then he forced to
haul them at one-half of fourth-class rate in other territories,
but in that event the carriers should be allowed (and it will
be the purpose of the interested carriers) to continue to charge
full tariff rates on return movement as now covered by cur¬
rent classifications or tariffs in the Official and Southern
territories.
As to the proposed stated charges shown in Tables 101-103
inclusive, the principal differences as against current tariff's
are as follows :
(a) Slightly increased charges are proposed from
points of origin in Western and Northwestern terri¬
tory from which such charges and services are al¬
ready published, that is from points in North Pacific
Coast territory and in Western Trunk Line territory
between Missouri River and Chicago.
(b) Stated charges are inaugurated from other western
points such as Colorado and Nebraska for example,
from which the current tariffs do not provide any
such charges or services. The proposed charges
from such additional western territory are on a con-
63
sistent basis with the proposed charges from the
western territory from which the current tariffs pro¬
vide the service.
(c) It is contemplated that the proposed charges from
all the points of origin in Western territory above
described will be projected eastbound to points of
destination in Official Classification territory, also
southbound to points of destination in the contiguous
states of Kentucky and Virginia. This projection is
proposed in response to requests from interested
shippers and on the recommendation of the United
States Department of Agriculture, but as hereinbe¬
fore explained, the carriers in Official Classification
territory, in respect of shipments which they origi¬
nate for local or outbound movement are neither
equipped nor prepared to offer any corresponding
service. These latter facts are equally true as to
carriers throughout Southern Classification terri¬
tory. The proposed charges as projected from the
Western to Official Classification territory eastbound
are constructed on a corresponding and consistent
basis as compared with the stated charges from
points of origin in the West to Chicago, plus reason¬
able arbitrarles east of Chicago.
The details, so far as may be necessary in justification of
the stated charges will be presented by testimony of other
witnesses for the carriers.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 54.
In re Section No. 6.—Special Rules and Charges on Less
Than Carloads.
For the reasons already presented in this case by the car¬
riers in their testimony and exhibits in justification of the
provisions of Eule No. 25, and for other reasons which will
be given below, the carriers consider that Section No. 6 of
Tariff as shown in the printed exhibit thereof, is in strict
conformity with the purpose and intent of Section No. 6 of
the Act to Eegulate Interstate Commerce. Furthermore, the
carriers' freight rates are, and of right ought to be, based
fundamentally on only the freight haulage service.
64
The carriers are entitled to receive additional and separate
compensation for all accessorial services such as refrigera¬
tion or protection against cold whenever and wherever such
service may be rendered by the carriers. This is the only
way in which the shippers, who require and receive such spe¬
cial service, alone assume, as they should assume, the gross
cost of such special service.
Up to this time where, for competitive reasons or to foster
certain traffic, carriers may have absorbed out of their freight
earnings the expense of some of these accessorial services in
connection with less than carload shipments, this has been in
the nature of a gratuity and the carriers are not receiving the
compensation which they are fairly and separately entitled to
as distinguished from freight rates for freight haulage.
The Southern carriers, on shipments originating in South¬
ern Classification territory moving locally within their terri¬
tory, or outbound therefrom to other territories, do not and
never have absorbed the expense of initial icing or re-icing of
less than carload shipments of dairy products or other
perishable freight but on the contrary the initial icing has
always been performed by or at the expense of the shippers,
and extra charges above the freight rate for re-icings if nec¬
essary, performed in transit by Southern carriers. The Inter¬
state Commerce Commission itself recognized that the freight
ratings in Southern Classification territory wmre never predi¬
cated upon the inclusion of any expense of icing or re-icing
(44 I. C. C., 588). It-is true, however, that on southbound
shipments of dairy freight transported on basis of less than
carload or any quantity freight rates moving into the terri¬
tory south of the Ohio and Potomac Eivers and east of the
Mississippi Eiver, the carriers in the latter territory have
been absorbing the expense of re-icing such cars on their own
rails and their published authority for such absorptions is in
their own individual or local tariffs, but this practice has
grown up from competition along border territory which
eventually spread, or it was caused by a desire to foster or
stimulate the traffic and to effect a wider distribution of such
perishable commodities. Conditions, however, have mate¬
rially changed since this service and practice was first inaugu-,
rated. The traffic in question has developed into a regular
movement of large volume. The carriers submit that there is
no reason whatever at present why they should be required
to furnish any such accessorial services as a gratuity.
G5
Under I. & S. Docket No. 369 (31 1. C. C., 637-640) the Inter¬
state Commerce Commission upheld the reasonableness of
some stated refrigeration charges per ICQ pounds of freight
on fruits and vegetables originating at stations on the Illinois
Central Eailroad and on the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Eail-
road in Louisiana, etc., including a refrigeration charge of 30
cents per 100 pounds of such freight from Kener, Louisiana,
to Chicago, an approximate distance of 901 miles. In the
testimony presented by the carriers in that case it was shown
of record that the charge just mentioned was not compensa¬
tory to the carriers and that they were actually losing money
on that basis. This was less than carloads.
The carriers operating from points in Eastern Tennessee
to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston for
example, have recently published, under Mr. Edward Cham¬
bers' Freight Eate Authority No. 8788, dated June 3, 1919, a
scale of stated refrigeration charges on Eggs, Butter, Cheese
and Dressed Poultry, on the following basis : To Baltimore,
364 cents; Philadelphia, 364 cents; New York City, 364 cents,
and Boston, Mass., 40 cents per 100 pounds of freight, this
being done in connection with the inauguration of refrigera¬
tion service to accommodate such traffic.
As to the Official Classification freight ratings it is a matter
of historical and official record that they were never originally
predicated upon the inclusion of any of the expenses of icing
or re-icing. This fact was clearly admitted by the Interstate
Commerce Commission under Docket No. 7969 (51 I. C. C.,
38), where the Commission states that the granting of refrig¬
eration service free was a gratuity, but in that case the Com¬
mission took the position that in substance the controlling
factor was not the question as to whether or not the Official
Classification freight ratings were originally predicated upon
the furnishing of icing or re-icing without extra charge, but
that on the contrary the matter ought to be determined solely
by the fact of whether or not the total or gross charges re¬
ceived. by the carriers were sufficient to justify the absorp¬
tion of the expense of such accessorial service (51 I. C. C.,
50). It does not appear that any order to restore the absorp¬
tion rule, was actually entered by the Commission in Docket
No. 7969, although it is true that for other temporary reasons
the carriers in Official Classification Territory did voluntarily
restore their absorption rule, but this was not done on ac¬
count of any admission on their part that their freight earn-
66
ings are sufficient to warrant any such absorptions. Since
the issuance of the Commission's opinion under Docket No.
7969, some conclusions have been reached by the Commission
in another related case under Docket No. 8469, brought by the
Kansas Carlot Egg Shippers Association, wherein the Com¬
mission pronounced in favor of establishing carload freight
rates covering shipments of Butter, Butterine, Oleomargarine,
Dressed Poultry and Eggs, in Official Classification territory,
locally and proportionally, subject to a minimum weight of
20,000 pounds per car, on which basis it is understood that
the initial icing will be performed by or at the expense of the
shipper and that there will be extra charges above the freight
rate for all re-icings in transit by the carriers. In this connec¬
tion also the Commission said under Docket No. 7969 (51 I. C.
C., 50), that if such a carload freight rate should be estab¬
lished the question might eventually arise whether upon less
than carload traffic separate additional charges for the re¬
frigeration should be assessed, thus leaving this feature of
the matter open for further determination, which is the pur¬
pose of the present case.
In the case of Charles Platts v. Neiv York, New Haven <&
Hartford Railroad Co. et al., I. C. C. Docket No. 7959, the
Interstate Commerce Commission upheld the principle and
reasonableness of extra charges above the freight rate for the
refrigeration of carload shipments of Oysters in the Shell
and less than carload shipments of Shucked Oysters from the
Atlantic Seaboard to western points (43 I. C. C., 504-509).
It is true that the refrigeration charges thus upheld as rea¬
sonable and which are still carried in the current tariffs of
originating roads at Atlantic Seaboard, are lower than the
scale of less than carload refrigeration charges contemplated
by Section No. 6 of the proposed Perishable Protective Tariff
No. 1, but the fact remains that under Docket No. 7959, the
Commission upheld the correctness of the principle of mak¬
ing an extra charge above the freight rate for refrigeration
of such traffic and therefore the matter of the reasonableness
of the proposed scale of refrigeration charges becomes only a
matter of proof on the part of the carriers as to the gross
cost of such refrigeration service, including all the factors
which form legitimate parts of such service.
Furthermore, for many years it has been the practice of
originating carriers in Boston, Mass., for example, such as
the Boston & Maine Eailroad, to provide, as they continue to
67
do now, in their current tariffs, for some extra charges above
the freight rate for any icing or warm car service which they
may furnish to less than carload shipments from their freight
houses at Boston, to various specified destinations.
As to the Western Classification ratings, they also were
based upon common car service and were never predicated
upon the inclusion or absorption of any expense of icing, or
re-icing, although generally speaking the current tariffs or
exceptions sheets issued by Western Roads do authorize such
absorption on basis of less than carload or any quantity
freight rates. This practice in the West has grown out of
competitive conditions or was based upon a desire to foster
and stimulate traffic and to promote wider distribution of the
commodities involved. The freight rates or ratings are and
of right ought to be based upon common car service. There
is no fundamental reason why the carriers should be required
to absorb the cost of icing or re-icing such less than carload
shipments in the West and such absorptions up to the present
time have been onlj? in the nature of gratuities.
Under I. & S. Docket No. 210 (26 I. C. C., 617-621) the Com¬
mission upheld the reasonableness of certain increased refrig¬
eration charges published in the tariffs issued by the Kansas
City Southern Railway, which had formerly participated in
a rule providing for the absorption of expense of icing and
re-icing of perishable freight in less than carloads, but that
carrier, in its subsequent tariff, withdrew its participation in
such absorption rules so far as related to the less than car¬
load shipments of certain perishable commodities on which
latter, under the new tariff the full carload refrigeration
charges were made applicable with the understanding that
iced refrigerator ear service on such commodities would not
be furnished at all on any basis lower than full carload mini¬
mum weight. In commenting upon the absorption rule the
Commission made the following remarks in that case (26 I.
C. C., 619-621) :
"It will be observed that the present charge for refrig¬
eration under the rule involved is a part of flae first-class
rate ; that is, it is merely a composite freight and refrig¬
eration charge the component factors of which are not
stated. The law requires that carriers shall state sep¬
arately in their tariffs all charges for refrigeration or
similar service in connection with receipt, handling and
delivering of traffic, and we shall deal with these charges
68
separately in this case * * *. Upon the whole we do
not consider it to he a commendable provision from the
standpoint of tariff construction * *
In the case just cited the Commission upheld the new tariff
of the Kansas City Southern Eailway whereby iced refrig¬
erator car service for certain perishable commodities was not
offered or furnished at all on any basis less than the full car¬
load minimum weight and the full stated refrigeration charge
applying on carloads. It may here be noted, parenthetically,
that such action has the result of conserving refrigerator car
equipment for heavy loading. It is furthermore a wéll known
fact that the total cost of furnishing icing and re-icing or re¬
frigeration to a car containing any aggregate weight of less
than carload shipments is practically as much as the cost of
furnishing such service to a regular carload shipment.
In various sections of the country, therefore, the Interstate
Commerce Commission has clearly upheld the reasonableness
of extra charges above the freight rate for the icing, re-icing
or refrigeration of less than carload shipments. In the pro¬
posed Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1, under Section No. 6
thereof, the carriers are not withdrawing from the shippers
the privilege of making shipments in iced refrigerator cars
on basis of less than carload or any quantity freight rates as
provided in the carriers' tariffs applicable, but on the con¬
trary the carriers propose only to establish a scale of reason¬
able charges above such less than carload or any quantity
freight rate for the accessorial service of refrigeration or pro¬
tective service against cold, where available and furnished by
carriers.
A partial list of the carriers' current tariffs in various sec¬
tions of the country which now provide for some extra and
additional charges above the freight rate for the refrigera¬
tion or protective service furnished by carriers for less than
carload shipments, is shown below :
Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Joint Tariff No. 282, I. C.
C. No. 1407, Maine P. U. C. No. 35.
Boston & Maine Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No. A-1347.
Boston & Maine Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No. A-1705, C. R.
C. No. 1737, M. P. S. C. No. 1199.
Boston & Maine Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No. 1800, C. R.
C. No. 1783, Maine P. U. C. No. 176, Item No. 358.
69
Boston & Maine Eailroad Tariff I. C. C. No. 1028, Item
No. 194.
Canadian Pacific Railway Tariff No. E-2945, I. C. C. No.
E-1938, C. R. C. No. E-3280, M. P. U. C. No. 51, Items
Nos. 148, 152 and 154.
Central Vermont Railway Tariff I. C. C. No. A-3972, C.
R. C. No. 1064, V. P. S.C. No. 675, Rule No. 3.
Illinois Central Railroad Tariff No. 1178-B, I. C. C. No.
5008, Rule No. 14.
Illinois Central Tariff No. 7871, I. C. C. No. A-8383.
Illinois Central Railroad Tariff No. 7991-B (Illinois In¬
trastate Traffic only).
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Tariff C. F. 0. 2639,
I. C. C. No. A-13721, Rule No. 4, paragraph C.
Maine Central Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No. C-2913.
NeAv York Central Railroad Circular No. A-258, I. C. C.
No. N. Y. C. 5945, Rule No. 3.
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Tariff No.
I. C. C. No , Rule No
Wabash Railroad Tariff No. 6942,1. C. C. No. 4579, Item
No. 220.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 55.
In re Rule No. 600.—Application of Special Rules Governing
Less Than Carload Shipments.
This rule for the most part is self-explanatory or the basis
of it has already been fully covered in the immediately pre¬
ceding exhibit presented in justification of Section No. 6 as a
whole.
As to paragraph (E) of Rule No. 600, relating particularly
to the stated refrigeration charges to apply on less than car¬
load shipments for distances of less than 400 miles, as pro¬
vided in Table No. 104 of tariff, it will be shown that in prac¬
tically all cases, if not in every case, these stated charges for
such short hauls will yield to the carriers an aggregate charge
for the accessorial services which is lower than the gross cost
of such service per car. The carriers feel that they cannot
reasonably be expected to lose money in this way and there-
70
fore they desire to reserve the right to make some subsequent
revision of the stated charges in Table No. 104 as well as in
the other following tables. Up to the present time the car¬
riers have not kept the same system of accounts or records
of the gross cost of icing and re-icing such cars containing
less than carload shipments as they have been keeping with
regard to the items of cost in furnishing refrigeration to car¬
load shipments. The carriers, however, propose and intend to
inaugurate a new and more comprehensive system of records
of less than carload shipments, including suitable methods
in detail of accounting for the various factors of expense in
refrigeration, etc., of cars containing less than carload ship¬
ments moving from and after the date effective of the pro¬
posed Protective Taritf No. 1. In the meantime the proposed
charges as shown in all the tables under Section No. 6 of tariff
have been constructed, as the carriers believe, on a conserva¬
tive basis which in all probability is less than the gross cost of
the service involved, when all of the properly related factors
thereof are considered. These tables of proposed charges
therefore, as submitted by the carriers are no criterion by
which necessarily _to measure the reasonableness of charges
per car for accessorial service such as refrigeration or pro¬
tection against cold. The reasonableness and justification of
the measure of the proposed scales of charges for such service
on less than carload shipments is a matter of proof by the car¬
riers, who expect to present in this case separate exhibits cov¬
ering such shipments from and to representative points.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 56.
In re Eule No. 605.—Shipper's Instructions.
The carriers consider that this rule is justified because it
merely provides that the shipper is to make some definite re¬
quest in Avriting whether or not his less than carload ship¬
ments are tendered for movement in box cars or under sched¬
uled refrigerator car service when or where the latter is oper¬
ated as provided in Rule No. 610.
Futhermore a rule of this kind is desirable because in some
cases the shipper may not desire to have his perishable goods
transported under scheduled refrigerator car service even
when or where the latter is operated by carriers. In such cases
71
the shippers, for reasons of their own, may prefer to nse box
car service and the rules simply give the shipper the privilege
of specifying box car service in his shipping directions.
In this rule, No. 605, it is provided that when the shipper
neglects or refuses to specify on shipping order and bill of
lading, the shipments will be given the benefit of scheduled
refrigerator car service when available and operated by car¬
riers, subject to Eule No. 610.
While this rule. No. 605, is substantially a new rule in con¬
nection with less than carload shipments, it is obvious that
it is a necessary rule for the reasons above explained and on
account of the application of the proposed scale of charges
above the freight rate for accessorial service, such as refrig¬
eration.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBPr NO. 57.
In re Ride No. 610.—Schedided Refrigerator Car Service.
This rule is self-explanatory. Those provisions thereof
which relate to the extra charges above the freight rate for
accessorial service have already been explained in principle
in McPike's Exhibit No. 54 presented in justification of Sec¬
tion No. 6 as a whole.
Separate exhibits by carriers wTll also be presented at the
proper hearing of this case in further justification of the pro¬
posed stated charges for special service such as refrigeration.
E. P. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 58.
In re Ride No. 615.—Refusal of Freight and Restricted Ar¬
ticles in Scheduled' Refrigerator Cars.
The several provisions of this rule are self-explanatory and
are for the most part already published in the current tariffs
of carriers in certain sections of the country. At the end of
this exhibit will be given specific reference to some of the cu;--
rent tariff rules of similar character.
As to paragraph (C) of Eule 615 about carriers reserving
72
the right to refuse less than carload shipments of perishable
freight when the outside temperature is five degrees below
zero or colder, it is no doubt true that the carriers would
have the right to handle and control this matter by the issu¬
ance of embargo notices without a tariff rule, but it has seemed
desirable to publish some tariff rule as a general notice to the
interested shippers. This matter was considered by the In¬
terstate Commerce Commission under I. & S. Docket No. 1156,
in connection with certain rules in Western Trunk Line terri¬
tory. In that case the examiner's preliminary report recom¬
mended that a dividing line be drawn at the southern bound¬
ary of the State of Minnesota extended and that the rule be
made on basis of five degrees below zero at loading stations
north of such arbitrary boundary line, and at zero at loading-
stations south of that line. The Commission never published
any final conclusions on the matter because the tariff rule con¬
sidered under I. & S. Docket No. 1156 was subsequently with¬
drawn by the carriers as a tariff rule, thus involving the
restoration of the previous practice which was to handle such
matters by embargo notices. The Minnesota Eailroad Com¬
mission some years ago, on the intrastate traffic under its
jurisdiction, established a similar rule and fixed the tempera¬
ture at five degrees below zero, which is the limit contem¬
plated by proposed Eule No. 615. The carriers furthermore
believe that this limit of five degrees below zero is in con¬
formity with the spirit or substance of the recommendations
made in the examiner's preliminary report under Docket No.
1156, particularly in view of the exceptions thereto presented
by shippers against any attempt to draw an arbitrary bound¬
ary line or make any fixed difference in temperature. The
carriers still consider that even without any tariff rule they
would have the right to issue embargo notices or restrictive
orders against the acceptance of small lots of perishable
freight in less than carloads when on account of weather con¬
ditions or other causes beyond the control of the carriers, it
was obviously impracticable to afford protection to such goods
against the elements. No useful purpose or public policy
would be served by carriers deliberately accepting such small
shipments under such circumstances and sending them for¬
ward into almost certain destruction. This would not promote
the conservation of perishable food products.
Some of the other provisions of the proposed Eule No. 615
are virtually a continuance of the current tariff rules which
73
have been in effect for several years in certain territories.
See for example the following;
W. T. L. Circular No. 12-F, Agent E. B. Boyd's I. C. C.
No. A-821, and supplements thereto, Items Nos. Ill,
550, 575,1550 and 1575.
Official Classification No. 44, Agent E. N. Collyer's I. C.
C. No. OC 44, Eule No. 20.
("The ratings in this classification do not obligate
the carriers to receive freight liable to impreg¬
nate or otherwise damage the equipment or
other freight.")
Southern Classification No. 43, Agent W. E. Powe's I. C.
C. No. 22, Eule No. 4.
("The ratings in this classification do not obligate
the carriers to receive freight liable to impreg¬
nate or otherwise damage equipment or other
freight.")
Western Classification No. 55, Agent E. C. Fyfe's I. C. C.
No. 13, Eule No. 4.
("The ratings in this classification do not obligate
the carriers to receive any freight liable to im¬
pregnate or otherwise damage the equipment or
other freight.")
Proposed Consolidated Classification No. 1, Eule No. 4.
("The ratings in this classification do not obligate
the carriers to receive any freight liable to im¬
pregnate or otherwise damage the equipment or
other freight.")
The above quoted provisions in the three current classifica¬
tions and in the proposed Consolidated Classification, are in
accordance with the view expressed by t"he Commission under
I. & S. Docket No. 76 (25 I. C. C., 478).
The right of carriers to refuse perishable freight under rea¬
sonable conditions seems to be generally recognized by the
Interstate Commerce Commission and the courts. Numerous
authorities might be cited but the carriers believe that the
facts and arguments presented in this exhibit are sufficient to
justify proposed Eule No. 615.
74
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 59.
In re Rule No. 620.—Box Car Service.
This rule is in substance a continuance of current tariff
rules and practices which have been in etfect for many years
in various sections of the country. The correctness of the
underlying principle was recognized by the Interstate Com¬
merce Commission in the case of M. Longo Fruit Co. et al.
I. C. C. Docket No. 7454 (38 I. C. C., 487-489).
In the interests of conserving special equipment, such as
refrigerator cars which are in great demand for movement of
carload traffic, with heavy average loads per car, the car¬
riers cannot reasonably be expected to operate such expensive
special service as would be involved in the use of refrigerator
cars, with or without ice, for small lots of perishable freight
in less than carloads. To furnish such special service in such
cases would be extremely expensive and noncompensatory to
the carriers if indeed not actually confiscatory in many in¬
stances. As a matter of fact the carriers cannot be expected
or required to operate refrigerator cars on any basis less
than their established and duly published minimum weights
per car. Therefore, when in certain sections of the country
and between certain points the carriers operate scheduled re¬
frigerator car service they are doing so voluntarily and with¬
out any strict requirement of law to furnish such special serv¬
ice. It is by no means a general practice of the carriers
throughout the country to furnish scheduled refrigerator car
service for less than carload shipments and under the circum¬
stances above explained, the carriers consider that when, in
the absence of available scheduled refrigerator car service,
the shipper elects to forward small lots of perishable goods
in common cars, it should logically follow and is reasonable
that the shipper should assume the risk of subsequent loss
or damage not the result of negligence by carriers. It may
be noted that in such cases the shipper may thus escape pay¬
ing higher charges, that is for the deficit in the weight of his
shipment to make up the minimum weight per car provided in
the freight tariffs, or the higher charges by express.
The carriers, furthermore, believe that this rule is in strict
conformity with the common law regarding carriers' liability
because under the common law tlie carriers are not obligated
75
to supply any special or accessorial services such as refrigera¬
tion.
Neither are the carriers obligated, under the first section of
the Act to Regulate Commerce, to furnish refrigeration or
other accessorial service except in response to a "reasonable
request" therefor by the shipper, and the carriers submit in
this instance that it would certainly not be a "reasonable re¬
quest" on the part of the shipper to demand expensive,
special or accessorial services such as refrigeration for small
lots of perishable freight nnder the circumstances covered
by proposed Rule No. 620.
Substantially similar rules are carried in current tariffs
of carriers and have long been in effect. S'ee for example,
the following:
W. T. L. Circular No. 12-F, E. B. Boyd's I. C. C. A-821,
Items Nos. 550 and 1550, as amended by current sup¬
plement.
Agent E. Morris' 130-K, I. C. C. No. 736, Item No. 1770.
E. E. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 60.
In re Rule No. 625.—Meat Peddler Cars.
This rule is self-explanatory and it practically continues
the current tariff rules, because it merèly provides that the
expense of icing and reicing Meat Peddler cars will be as¬
sumed by the shippers.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 61.
In re Rule No. 630.—Individual Car for One Consignee at One
Destination.
This rule applies in Official and Southern Classification
territories on so-called Dairy Products and in Western Classi¬
fication territory on all perishable freight, which is similar
to the distinction made as between those different territories
under current tariffs. The minimum weight of 15,000 Lbs
per car for the use of refrigerator cars as described is the
present minimum weight generally carried in the tariffs of
76
Official Classification lines, Western Trunk Lines, etc., but it
does represent an increase as against the present minimum
weights per car carried in certain current tariffs of Trans-
Missouri Lines and Southern Classification lines. The car¬
riers submit that a minimum of 15,000 Lbs per car is as low
as they can reasonably be expected to furnish such special
equipment which should he conserved for heavy loading.
The proposed Eule No. 630 contemplates that extra charges
above the freight rate wdll he made for any accessorial service
such as refrigeration or protective service against cold when
operated and furnished by the carriers. The carriers consider
that they should not be required any longer to give such
special service as a gratuity but that on the contrary, for the
reasons already set forth in McPike's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 54,
the carriers are entitled to compensation and hence the pro¬
posed extra charges above the freight rate, which on these
cars, under Eule No. 630, when moving under refrigeration
will be in the nature of a charge per ton of ice or per 100
Ihs. of sale when used, as provided under Section No. 4 of
tariff, the same as on carload business.
The stated charges per 100 Lbs of freight provided in
Tables No. 104 to 126, inclusive, to cover accessorial services
such as refrigeration etc., will not apply on cars moving un¬
der Eule No. 630 unless, as shown in the foot-note under that
rule, the shipper neglects or refnses to prepay or guarantee
the charges under certain conditions wffien, as may be per¬
mitted by the carriers' freight tariffs applicable, the ship¬
ments in the car are from more than one point of origin
or consigned to more than one destination, in which event ob¬
viously if some one shipper does not prepay or guarantee
the charges for icing, it wmuld be quite impracticable for the
carriers to attempt to prorate such charges (40 I. C. C., 173-
175) among various shippers or consignees in the same car.
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 62.
In re Ride No. 640.—Disposition of Revenue.
This rule is of no interest to the shippers because it re¬
lates only to the disposition of carriers' own revenues based on
charges for special services such as refrigeration etc.
77
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 63.
In re Tables Nos. 104-126.—Stated Charges on Less Than
Carload Shipments.
The underlying principles on which these tables of charges
have been based and the justification thereof, have already
been presented in McPike's Exhibit No. 54, wherein it was
explained that up to this time the carriers have not kept as
extensive records in detail covering the movement of sched¬
uled refrigerator cars containing less than carload shipments
as they have in connection with carload shipments moving
under stated refrigeration charges per car. It is the inten¬
tion of the carriers to inaugurate such records covering less
than carload shipments in scheduled refrigerator cars from
and after the effective date of Proposed Perishable Protective
Tariff No. 1. In the meantime the carriers in working out
the proposed schedule of stated charges to apply on less than
carload shipments have, they believe, proceeded in a conserva¬
tive manner, and experience vdll no doubt soon show that in
many cases the proposed stated charges are much lower than
the actual gross cost of the service. The carriers, therefore,
desire again to emphasize the fact that the proposed stated
charges do not form any criterion by which to measure the
reasonableness of refrigeration charges per car. As already
stated in exhibits previously presented, it costs practically as
much to ice and re-ice cars containing an aggregate weight
of less than carload shipments as a regular carload.
In determining the proposed scale of stated refrigeration
charges on less than carload shipments the following factors
have been considered and used as a general basis :
(a) Gross cost of ice.
(b) Damage to refrigerating devices.
(c) Switching.
(d) Haulage of weight of ice in bunkers.
In addition to the above factors the carriers would be en¬
titled to credit for supervision and certain other factors
which do enter, more or less, in to the gross cost of furnish¬
ing the service involved. There is also an element of risk
or super-hazard, and the carriers would be entitled to a fair
profit on such special service.
78
Other witnesses of carriers will present separate exhibits
at the proper hearing showing more in detail the elements of
cost which make up and justify the proposed stated charges.
As to the proposed stated charges for protective service
against cold where operated and furnished by carriers, such
services never formed any part of the basis on which the less
than carload or any-quantity freight ratings were con¬
structed. If at any time individual carriers have, however,
furnished such service, it has been in the nature of a gratuity.
As to the stated charges provided in Table No. 104 and in
Tables Nos. 118 to 126 inclusive, the carriers will present
separate exhibits in justification thereof.
It costs practically as much to furnish protective service
against cold for cars containing an aggregate weight of less
than carload shipments as for a regular carload. Carriers,
therefore, would be justified in making such stated charges
therefor on the less than carload shipments as would yield
an aggregate charge per car equivalent to the carload stated
charges for similar services, as provided in Section No. 5 of
Tariff. The carriers' testimony or exhibits, therefore, which
may be presented in justification of Section No. 5, will sub¬
stantially cover also the less than carload shipments.
79
E. F. McFIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 64.
(liased on reports of Interstate Commerce Commission.)
SuMlWARY.
Showing economic waste on account of claims against the railroads for alleged
loss or damage to shii>ments of fruits and vegetables and other perishable freight
during the calendar year 1014.
Fresh
Aleats and
Poultry,
Butter and
Fruits and
Packing
Game and
Causes
Cheese
Eggs
Vegetables
House Prod.
Fish
A.
Robbery of en¬
tire pkg. . .if
15,1,35.00 $
5,244.27 ■$
12,.32.5.4.5 .8
27,312.04 8
4.170.13
B.
Other robbery
!),754.,34
2.0,33.37
,32,187.10
32,400.23
7,208.00
C.
Concealed loss
2,.307.00
1,9.58.44
5,510.00
8,500.08
1,580.87
D.
Unlocated loss
of entire pUg.
120,1.30.44
00,.590.08
1,84,8.30.77
219 045.25
27,340.13
E.
Other unlocated
loss
10,002.92
10.78.3.23
09,301.84
44,32.5.44
10.4.32.32
F.
Fire
3.31,5.00
1,944.10
13,,809.95
3.820.91
209.35
G.
Wrecks
12,085.00
21,085.15
130 378..34
187,,82.5.00
1,8.8(19.89
II.
Concealed dam¬
age
2,101.22
20,271.02
8,732.75
3,570.50
1.089.78
I.
Defective equip¬
ment
0,328.04
17,7.54.31
.54,090.78
17,180.13
.3.841.45
J.
Errors of em¬
ployes
9,708.04
10,04.3.18
1.30,.521.54
32.270.,88
1.5..300.,83
K.
Rough handling
of cars ....
27,7.38.40
211,001.90
.390.440.83
40.307.85
19.209.2,8
E.
Improper refrig¬
eration & ven¬
tilation ....
40.010.72
38.8.37.30
0.50,531.35
178.27.5.45
41..505.35
M. Improper handling, loading or stowing and improi)er
])ackiug and
pkgs. of
freight. . . .
14,232.72
31,297.00
84.223.00
27.501.50
5.717.01
N.
Delays
29,574.12
20,480.4,3
510,722.11
140.!X)3..57
02.885.70
0.
Unlocated dam¬
age
.50.124.00
327.477.20
49,8,.501..59
80,032.72
40.O.5O.29
P.
Forfeitures un¬
der penalty
statutes . . .
4.31
1.240.22
350.50
5.90
Q.
Amount recovered from sale of refused and unclaimed freight {Cred¬
it)
30.348.12
102.50.5..5.5
114.020.95
31.201 .,82
12.001.90
IÎ.
Total (Net)..
if323.501.87
if080.347.27 .82.087,303.30 .81.031.033.01 )f"-'48.440.08
S. Katio of amount paid on each commodity to total payments on all commod¬
ities .000% 2.120% 8.300% 3.180% .707%
Grand total )K'rishable .$ 4,077.38.3.00
Grand totjil ratio of ])prishal)le to total 1,7.372%
Number of carriers reixu'ting ISO
Number of miles ojieratod by carriers reporting 227.884
Grand totai amount paid on all commodities 32.370,017.55
80
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT NO. 65.
(Based on records of American Bailwav Association.)
COMPAKATIVE StATEJIEKT OF Cl.AIMS FOR I.OSS AND DAMAGE TrESENTED AGAINST
American Carriers During the Calendar Years 1914 and 1915.
The grand total payments for alleged loss or damage to all coiniiiodities by 112
railroads operating 212,191 miles, were as follows:
,1131,010,543.00
24,200,024.00
Decrease 1! 7,020.,510.00
(23.9%)
These comparisons are shoivn by commodities for 20 large roads whose pay¬
ments represent a little over one third of the total paid by all roads reporting, aiid
for perishable freight show the following :
1014 1015 Decrease
Commodity Amount Per cent Amount Per cent Amount Per cent
Butter and cheese ? 101,012 0.03 $ 78,707 0.90 $ 22,005 22.54
Kggs 107,007 1.54 213,810 2.45 *40,209 *27.57
Fresh fruits and veg¬
etables 017,102 8.-10 008,703 10.42 8.309 0.02
ileats and packing¬
house provisions . . . 308,.540 2.83 240,181 2.70 08,305 22.10
Poultry, game and fish . 00.811 0.01 57,4.50 0.05 0,,3.55 14.00
Total ,8 1,501,738 14.31 $ 1,498,023 17.18 $ 02,815 4.02
Other commodities 0.351.001 85.00 7.214.777 82.82 2.1,30.284 22.85
Total .1110,012,70!.) 100.00 ,88,71,3,700 100.00 82,100,099 20.15
3'he increase in payments on eggs is attributable to special conditions which
contributed to bring about a teiniiorar.v accumulation of such claims in 1914, so that
the final ad.1ustment thereof was unavoidably deferred until 1915.
With the exception, therefore, of fresh fruits and vegetables, the above figures
indicate a material improvement or general reduction as to claims for loss or dam-
ag to perishable freight handled by the 20 railroads in question.
The heavy claims for alleged loss or damage to fresh fruits and vegetables are,
it is believed, due very largely to causes in the prevention of which the carriers
Mill reipiire ver.v close co-oiieration by the shippers themselves in the M-ay of better
lireiiaration, pacUiipg. loading. stoMing. stripping and bracing, as M-ell as reasonable
and definite hilling Instructions Mith the shipment as to the desired refrigeration.
icln.g. non-icing, ventilation or other special service authorized by the tariffs
applicable.
Increase.
81
E. F. McPIKE'S EXHIBIT No. 66.
In re Various Rules in Proposed Perishahle Protective Tariff
No. 1, Providing for Transportation Solely at Otvner's Risli
of Loss or Damage hy Heat or Cold, Not the Result of Neg¬
ligence by Carriers.
Many of the current tariffs on perishable freight now in
effect in various sections of the country have long contained
certain rules providing for owner's risk of loss or damage by
heat or cold not the result of negligence by carriers.
In the work of co-ordinating and unifying all the tariff rules
Avhich was undertaken by the committee compiling proposed
Perishable Protective Tariff No. 1 it was considered that it
is proper and necessary to continue in the proposed new
tariff some rules of the general character first above men¬
tioned. In doing this, however, the committee endeaA'ored
at the same time to safeguard the legitimate interests of the
shippers by inserting in the general application clause of the
tariff'. Item No. 20, paragTajfii (D), a special provision to the
effect that nothing in the tariff shall relieve the carriers from
such liability as may rest upon them for loss or damage re¬
sulting from carrier's negligence. See JMcPike's Exhibit
No. 4.
The carriers take the position that Avhile the existing laws
applicable do no doubt sufficiently define the liability of a
carrier for any loss or damage "caused by it," yet the laws,
are not equally explicit in their definition of owner's risk
under conditions or circumstances where the carriers could
not reasonably be expected to assume liability and where no
doubt the assumption of liability by carriers Avould create
discrimination and in some cases would result in virtual con¬
fiscation of carriers' proper revenues.
The carriers further understand that there is nothing in
any of the provisions of current laws or statutes Avhich Avould
deprive carriers of their laAvful right to prescribe reasonable
conditions surrounding the acceptance and handling of per¬
ishable freight, owing not oidy to its inherent nature but also
to the fundamental duty of the shipper to prepare such
freight properly and adequately to permit of its safe trans¬
portation. The carriers consider it to be obvious that the
shippers of perishable freight must assume their fair share
82
of the responsibility attaching to the forwarding and move¬
ment thereof, Avithont, hoAvever, relieving the carriers from
AA'hatever liability may rest npoii them for negligence.
"While in the previous exhibits presented by the present
AA'itness it has not been practicable to analyze the above mat¬
ter in detail in each and cAmry rule Avherein the term "oAvn-
er's risk" may occur, such detailed explanation and justifica¬
tion Avas presented by the present Avitness in several of his
individual exhibits involving the above matter.