Voorhees v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C.
(iii) The through commodity rate on
sawdust in carloads from Duluth, Minn.,
to Andover, S. D., was 16c. The com-
modity rate from Duluth to St.
4c, and the distance tariff rate from St.
Paul to Andover 8%c. At the time of
shipment there was no published tariff
authorizing the application of the dis-
tance tariff rates to local shipments.
HELD, on the shipment in question the
distance tariff could not be applied, and
the only lawful charge was the through
commodity rate of 16c. Diehl v. C. M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 190, 191.
(jjj) Defendant carrier had no line
from Duluth to St. Paul and no arrange-
ment for running its trains over other
lines between these points. Its through
rate on sawdust in carloads from Duluth
via St. Paul to Andover, S. D., was 16c.
Its distance tariff rate from St. Paul to
Andover was 8%c. Defendant filed a
supplemental tariff applying the distance
tariff rate between stations on its line
in an endeavor to. lower the Duluth to
Andover rate. HELD, the publication of
the supplemental tariff did not effect the
result desired, and the only lawful
through rate from Duluth to Andover was
the rate of 16c. Diehl v. C. M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 190, 191.
(kkk) Starch is an uncooked product
of porn and cannot, except by specific
exception, properly be excluded from &
cariff list which includes "all uncooked
manufactured products of corn," nor
from a list which includes "all uncooked
grain or cereal products manufactured
TARIFFS, 7 (111) (sss)
from corn. Douglas & Co. v. C. R. I.
& P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 232, 244.
(Ill) Tariffs are to be construed ac-
cording to their language. The intent
of the framers does not control. New-
ton Gum Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
16 I. C. C. 341, 346.
(mmm) The law compels carriers to
publish and post their schedules of
charges upon the theory that they will
be informative. The shipper who con-
sults them has a right to rely upon the
obvious meaning. He cannot be charged
with knowledge of the intention of the
framers, or the carrier's canons of con-
struction, or of some other tariff not
even referred to in the one carrying
the rate. The public posting of tariffs
will be largely useless if the carrier's
interpretation is to be dependent upon
tradition and the arbitrary practices of
a general freight office. Newton Gum Co.
v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C.
(nnn) A shipper cannot be charged
with knowledge of the intent of the
framers of schedules or the carrier's
canons of construction. Newton Gum
Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. O.
(ooo) On carloads of show cases
from Quincy, 111., to San Francisco, Cal.,
complainants were assessed $3 per 100
Ibs., which was the first-class rate, and
was set forth as applying to showcases
in the Western Classification. The
Transcontinental Freight Bureau west-
bound tariff provided that "Furniture
(new), all kinds," should take a rate
of $2.20. Defendants contended that
showcases, being provided for sepa-
rately in the Western Classification
were not included in the heading of
furniture in the commodity tariff. De
fendants recognized liquor cases and
grocery display counters as furniture by
listing them under that caption, under
the Western Classification. HELD, il
defendants desired that the application
of the commodity rate on furniture, as
carried in the commodity tariff, should
be restricted to the carload list of fur-
niture in the current classification tar-
iff, they should so stipulate in their
tariffs, but that the $2.20 commodity
rate applied to the shipments in ques-
tion. Reparation awarded. Newton Gum
Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C
341, 346, 347.
(ppp) A distance tariff is to be ap-
plied only when no other rates are pro-
vided, or when, under a special provi-
sion in the tariff therefor, it makes
lower than the specific rate shown in
the same tariff. Lee-Warren Milling Co.
v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 422,
(qqq) Defendants' rates on animal
traps from Niles, Mich., to Chicago
were, in bundles, first-class rate of 22c;
in barrels or boxes, third-class rate
of 17c. On a shipment in crates com-
plainant was assessed the 22c rate.
HELD, the published tariff did not au-
thorize the shipment to be rated as
third class, so as to take the 17c rate,
but it should be amended to include
crates, and the 17c rate established for
the future. Reddick v. M. C. R. R. Co.,
16 I. C. C. 492.
(rrr) On carload shipments of tee
rails, or elevator guides, from Chicago
to Portland, Ore., complainant was as-
sessed the $1.40 rate applicable to ma-
chinery and machines. At the time of
shipment the published tariff provided
a rate of 75c on tee rails and other iron
and steel articles. About one year
after shipment a supplemental tariff
was filed naming a rate of 75c on ele-
vator guides. There was evidence this
supplemental tariff was intended to con-
firm the application of the iron and
steel tariff to elevator guides. HELD,
the shipments should have taken the
75c rate. Reparation awarded on the
basis of that rate.. Otis Elevator Co. v.
C. G. W. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 502, 504.
(sss) Complainant constructed a
dredging machine, except the spud and
ladder frame belonging to same, the
construction of which parts was sublet
to another company, which, at the di-
rection of complainant, shipped same
separately on four cars from Chicago to
Oroville, Cal. The spud was 61 ft. 3
in. long, weighing 23,295 Ibs., the ladder
being 66 ft. long, weighing 53,575 Ibs.
The spud and ladder were fitted and
shipped, ready to be fastened into place
in the dredging machine. Ine descrip-
tion of articles included in the bridge
material and iron and steel articles tar-
iffs did not fit the spud and ladder, and
no tariff description fitted same except
class A rate of the machinery and ma-
chines tariff, which called for a rate of
$1.53 p-er 100 Ibs. HELD, complainant
was properly assessed the $1.53 rate and
TARIFFS, 7 (ttt) (aaaa)
was not entitled to reparation on the
basis of the 75c rate included in the
iron and steel articles tariff. Link-Belt
Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C.
(ttt) Carriers and shippers must
take the specific rates and fares pro-
vided in the tariffs, regardless of any
long-and-short-haul clauses, maxima
rules, alternative rate or fare provisions,
etc., contained in them. Williamson v.
O. S. L. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 228.
(uuu) A tariff fixing a rate on "emi-
grant movables," and including as such
household goods limited quantities of
lumber, and "property included in the
outfit of intended settlers," permits the
shipper to include in his carload of
household goods 5,165 Ibs. of cord woo-d
intended for fuel and not intended for
sale or speculation. Place v. T. P. & W.
Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 543, 545.
(vvv) It is as necessary and proper
to include fuel wood in emigrant mov-
ables as to include fence posts. Place
v. T. P. &. W. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 543,
(www) Tariffs reading "between" are
always understood to apply in either di-
rection. Advance Thresher Co. v. O. &
N. W. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 599, 600.
(xxx) A tariff appeared upon its
face to make a joint rate of 20. 5c per
100 Ibs. on gas plant machinery, Warren,
Pa., to Cadillac and Jennings, Mich.,
via Buffalo. In a note appearing on
the tariff to which reference was made
by the letter "f" opposite Warren, it
was stated that unless covered by
agreed percentages through rates must
not be quoted from Warren. The points
between which percentages had been
agreed upon by the connecting carriers
were not named in the tariff or filed
with the Commission. HELD, such
method of tariff construction violated
section 6 of the Act, and the same must
be reissued by defendants so as to ac-
cord with the rules prescribed by the
Commission. Struthers-Wells Co. v.
Perm. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 291, 292.
(yyy) Where a tariff duly filed with
the Commission bears an I. C. C. num-
ber and states that the rates contained
therein will apply between Louisville,
Ky., and New Albany, Ind., on through
business, and another local tariff apply-
ing to freight between Louisville and
New Albany is in force, the former tar-
iff governs through business destined
to New Albany from points south of
Louisville and business originating north
of New Albany and destined to Louis-
ville. R. R. Com. of Ind. v. K. & I. B.
& R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 563, 565.
(zzz) On a carload of coal from
Springfield, 111., to Leona, Kan., a rate
of lO.OOISc was assessed. Springfield
took the same rate as Peoria. The tar-
iffs provided that the rates from St.
Louis should be lOc per 100 Ibs. except
on shipments originating beyond. In
such case the rates from Mississippi
River points would be Ic per 100 Ibs.
less than such lOc rate. The same tar-
iff on another page also provided that
in making rates from Peoria to points
listed on a certain page a differential of
.0013c should be added to the rates apply-
ing from St. Louis. HELD, under such
tariff the rate from Springfield and Pe-
oria was in the nature of a specific
rate and was 10.0013, not 9.0013. Lan-
ing-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. St. Jo-
seph & Grand Island Ry. Co., 13 I. C.
C. 317, 318.
(aaaa) In every instance where a
commodity rate is named in a tariff upon
a commodity and between specified
points, such commodity rate is the law-
ful rate and the only rate that can be
used with relation to that traffic between
those points even though a class rate or
some combination may make lower. The
naming of a commodity rate on any arti-
cle or character of traffic takes such ar-
ticles or traffic entirely out of the classi-
fication and out of the class rates be-
tween the points to which such com-
modity rate applies. Porter v. St. L. &
S. F. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 1, 5.
(aaaaa) On an emigrant outfit from
Fletcher, Okla., to Bovina, Tex., over the
St. L. & S. F. R. R. to Quanah, Tex.,
thence via the F. W. & D. C. Ry. to
Amarillo, Tex., and thence over the P.
& N. T. Ry. to Bovina, complainant was
assessed 68c per 100 Ibs. No through rate
was applicable from Fletcher to Bovina.
The undisputed rate from Fletcher to
Amarillo was 35c. The tariff named a
commodity rate from Amarillo, Tex., to
Roswell, N. M., and intermediate points,
of 25c. Bovina was an intermediate point.
This, added to the 37c rate, made a total
charge of 62c from Fletcher to Bovina.
The same tariff provided that on ship-
ments received from connecting lines at
TARIFFS, 7 (bbbb) (eeee)
Amarillo, when coming from or destined
to points without the state of Texas, a
rate of 31c should be applied for dis-
tances over 80 miles. Bovina is 80 miles
from Amarillo. HELD, the lawfully ap-
plicable rate was 62c, made up of 37c
from Fletcher to Amarillo and 25c from
Amarillo to Bovina under the following
rules of the Commission: (1) Rule 5. If
no specific rate from point of origli
to destination pending a through ship-
ment is provided, and no specific manner
of constructing a combination rate for
it is prescribed, the lowest combination
of rates applicable via the route over
which the shipment moves is the lawful
rate for that shipment. (2) Rule 7. The
naming of a commodity rate on any ar-
ticle or character of traffic takes such
article or traffic entirely out of the classi-
fication and out of the class rates be-
tween the points to which such com-
modity rate applies. (3) Rule 10. It is
permissible for a carrier to issue a dis-
tance tariff for use in determining the
rates on its own lines, but only in cases
where no other rates are provided. Por-
ter v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C
(bbbb) After the passage of the Hep-
burn Act the rule of the Commission
was not that clauses applying rates to
intermediate points should be eliminated
from tariffs and the specific points be
mentioned, but that indefinite and un-
certain "intermediate" and "maxima"
rules should be amended so as to make
their application affirmative and definite
and to state plainly what rates should
be applied at intermediate points instead
of saying that certain rates "should not
be exceeded" at said points. White
Water Farms Co. v. P. B. & W. Ry Co.,
13 I. C. C. 526, 527.
(bbbbb On rye originating at Mani-
towoc, Wis., and delivered to the de-
fendant at West Fairport, O., for trans-
portation to Baltimore complainant was
assessed storage and insurance charges
on the grain at West Fairport. Defen-
dant's tariffs provided that when grain
was left at West Fairport for immedi-
ate shipment the storage or insurance
charges should be borne by defendant;
but that when ordered stored by the
shipper to be later moved at the ship-
per's direction, they should be borne by
the shipper. Complainant and defend-
ant misunderstood each other, and their
minds never met on the question as to
whether the rye was to be detained at
West Fairport or shipped out immedi-
ately. On account of the shortage oi
cars it was stored for some time at
that point. The tariffs provided that
"grain will be considered as for imme-
diate shipment (as promptly as car sup-
ply will permit), unless otherwise or-
dered." HELD, in the absence of spe-
cific directions from complainant order-
ing the detention at West Fairport, th
rye must be considered as destined foi
immediate shipment from that point
Reparation awarded. England v. B. &
O. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 614, 618.
(cccc) Defendants had in effect two
tariffs on nitrate of soda from New Or-
leans, La., to Fort Smith and Fenn,
Ark., one naming a rate of 20c when
this commodity was to be used exclu-
sively in the manufacture of fertilizer
and the other naming a rate of 27c
when it was to be used in the manufac-
ture of powder. No fertilizer was, in
fact, manufactured at either Fenn or
Fort Smith. The 27c rate was applic-
able to many other points where powder
was made. Complainant, being assessed
the 27c rate, asked for reparation on the
basis of the 20c rate. HELD, the 2<c
rate was the only one lawfully applic-
able to the shipments in question. Repa-
ration denied. Fort Smith Traffic Bu-
reau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 13 I.
C. C. 651, 656.
(ccccc) A shipment consisted of a
traction engine, pump and hose, and tank
wagon. The tank wagon, being the con-
tainer of the fuel of the engine, should
have been considered a part of the en-
gine shipment and charges assessed ac-
cordingly. Minneapolis Threshing Ma-
chine Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 452.
(dddd) Where there are no through
rates, local published rates suffice lo-
cals and proportionals. Foster, Glassel
Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co., 121 La. 1053,
1057, 46 So. 1014.
(eeee) If there is no through rate
provided from point of origin to destina-
tion of a through shipment, the lowest
combination of local rates via the route
over which the shipment moves is the
lawful rate, despite the erroneous rating
given by the railroad clerk or agent.
Foster, Glassel Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co.,
121 La. 1053, 1057, 46 So. 1014.
TARIFFS, 7 (ffff) 8 (b)
(ffff) A shipment was billed by
plaintiff's agent as emigrant movables.
HELD, that the designation covered
plaintiff's goods, consisting of typewriter,
dictionary, wearing apparel, trunk and
personal effects, and was not a falsifica-
tion or misrepresentation which estopped
plaintiff from claiming the value of those
goods; nor was such designation of the
goods a violation of the Interstate Com-
merce Act, as amended June 18, 1910.
O'Connor v. G. N. Ry. Co. (Minn., 1912),
136 N. W. 743, 745.
(gggg) An interstate rate filed and
published with the Interstate Commerce
Commission named a charge of $1.20
for peaches in carloads, contained in
baskets covered with gauze netting, and
a charge of 90c in baskets with wood
covers, in crates or in boxes. A layer
of peach baskets was placed by the
shipper on the floor of the car; cross-
pieces were nailed to the upright posts,
and then a new floor was nailed to
these cross-pieces just above the first
tier of baskets; then another tier of
baskets was placed on this new floor;
then new cross-pieces were nailed to
the upright posts and a new floor laid
over the second course of baskets, and
so on to the top of the car. Each end
of the car, when so filled in, was
boarded up and nailed, so as to form
a sort of box at each end of the car.
HELD, the $1.20 rate applying to baskets
with gauze netting was properly col-
lected. Houseman v. Fargo (N. Y.,
1910), 124 N. Y. Supp. 1086, 1088.
(hhhh) A shipper, ignorant of a
classification giving a lower rate for an
interstate shipment upon a limited valu-
ation, who ships a horse at such rate
without being informed that a special
valuation has been made, and who after-
wards sues to recover for injury to the
horse on the basis of its true value, is
not thereby rendered guilty under sec-
tion 10 of the Interstate Commerce Act,
as amended March 2, 1889, which makes
it a misdemeanor for a shipper to ob-
tain a preference in freight rates by
knowingly and wilfully sending a ship-
ment under a false billing, false repre-
sentation of contents of package, etc.
Kissinger v. Fitzgerald, 152 N. C. 247,
251, 67 S. E. 588.
(iiii) Plaintiff carrier sued to collect,
as the published interstate rate, a
charge of 60c on cement from Portland,
Colo., to La Grande, Ore. The supple-
ment to the Transcontinental Freight
Bureau westbound tariff stated that "the
following special commodity rates will
apply only from and to points desig-
nated, except that rates applying from
Missouri River common points will ap-
ply as maxima from Colorado terminals
and Colorado common points." It gave
the rate from Portland, Colo., to Port-
land, Ore., as 35c. Plaintiff's tariff
named a special commodity rate on ce-
ment from Portland, Ore., to La Grande
of 25c. A transcontinental circular pro-
vided that "rates applicable to or from
intermediate Pacific coast points, as
published in current eastbound and west-
bound tariffs, will apply to or from sta-
tions named herein on the lines of the
0. R. & N. Co., in Oregon, Washington
and Idaho west bound; where lower
through rates can be made by use of
the terminal rate to Portland plus the
local rate from Portland to destination,
such lower through rate will govern."
It appeared that Portland, Ore., took
a terminal rate and La Grande took
rates applicable to or from intermediate
points. Plaintiff offered no evidence of
any through rate from Portland, Colo.,
to La Grande or of the several local
rates between such points. HELD, the
evidence did not entitle plaintiff to col-
lect a rate of 60c, or the 35c rate from
Portland, Colo., to Portland, Ore., plus
the 25c local rate from Portland, Ore.,
to La Grande. O. R. & N. Co. v.
Coolidge (Or. 1911), 116 P. 93, 95.
(jjjj) Where the facts are such that
it is not clear that the conditions are
so similar as to render the Act to
Regulate Commerce or the rate pub-
lished thereunder inapplicable, such
rate will be held, in a civil proceeding,
to control. Coeur d'Alene & S. Ry. Co.
v. U. P. R. R. Co. (Wash., 1909), 95 f.
See Commutation Fares (a); Re-
leased Rates, 4 (b) ; Through
Routes and Joint Rates, 15 (qqqq).
(a) A tariff should not be ambiguous
and uncertain and place upon some
clerk the burden of construing it.
Standard Oil Co. v. I. T. R. R. Co., 23
1. C. C. 369, 371.
(b) It is not just or fair to the
shipping public to promulgate as a basis
for determining rates a classification
the terms of which are indefinite or
TARIFFS, 8 Cc) (1)
impracticable of application either in
whole or in part. Shippers must neces-
sarily be more or less misled thereby,
and any effort on the part v of the car-
riers to apply the classification by a
lax interpretation thereof must result
in inextricable confusion. The classi-
fication of an article of commerce should
be plainly and clearly stated in terms
that the shipping public may readily
understand. Tariffs are to be construed
according to their language and the
intention of the person who framed the
tariff and the arbitrary practice of the
carriers thereunder may not be looked
to as an authoritative construction there-
of. Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. v. S. P.
& S. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 546, 549.
(c) Carriers should not publish am-
biguous tariffs, but their intent as evi-
denced by their present practice should
be definitely expressed. Sweeney, Lynes
& Co. v. N. Y. P. & N. R. R. Co., 20
I. C. C. 600, 601.
(d) The duty rests upon a carrier
to clearly state its rates and charges
in its tariff. Ford Co. v. M. C. R. R.
Co., 19 I. C. C. 507, 511.
(e) A carrier should not carry in its
tariff a rule that on its face is vague
and misleading. Ponchatoula Farmers'
Ass'n v. I. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C.
(f) The publication of a tariff for
any one shipper which does not apply
to all is clearly a violation of the law.
American Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R.
Co., 18 I. C. C. 212, 215.
(g) The commodity rate of 30c ap-
plicable from New Orleans and other
points, including Tallulah, La., to Texas
points, including Lime City, was carried
in defendant's tariff, which, however,
provided that this rate did not apply
from points specified in certain tariff
publications of the individual lines.
HELD, the tariff was improperly con-
structed, since a person consulting it
could not be informed of the provisions
in the tariffs of the individual lines,
and it must be reconstructed so as to
show clearly and definitely its application.
Noble v. V. S. & P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C.
(h) A tariff providing that the des-
tination of any interstate carload ship-
ment may be changed after it has
reached the first destination, when the
substituted destination is a point where
through rates and divisions are in
effect via the route of movement, is
vague and uncertain and not in, accord-
ance with the requirements of the
Commission for the publication of tar-
iffs. Townley Metal & Hardware Co.
v. C. R. I. & P.vRy. Co., 18 I. C. C.
(i) Ambiguous and indefinite tariffs,
susceptible of and resulting in conflict-
ing interpretations, are objectionable.
Old Dominion Copper & Smelting Co.
v. P. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 309, 311.
(j) On shipments of coke from vari-
ous points in Colorado, New Mexico,
Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, West
Virginia and Pennsylvania to Globe,
Ariz., defendants demanded payment on
the basis of the capacity weight of the
cars and presented bills to complainant
on that basis, which insisted that the
charges should be assessed on the
actual weight based upon the minimum
of 30,000 Ibs. and paid the charges on
that basis. The published tariffs were
ambiguous as to whether the charges
should be assessed on the capacity
weight or actual weight with a minimum
of 30,000 Ibs. HELD, defendants prop-
erly refused to concede the charges
asked for by complainant in view of
the confusion of their tariffs since they
could lawfully assess charges only on
the basis of such tariffs; that they
were reprehensible in permitting such
confusion to exist; that the complaint,
in view of the fact that complainant
did not actually pay the excess charges
objected to, should be dismissed with the
understanding that defendants would
clear up their tariffs so as to fix
charges on the basis of the 30,000
Ibs. minimum; and that they might
omit to collect the charges based upon
assumed weights in excess of the actual
weights. Old Dominion Copper Mining
& Smelting Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 17
I. C. C. 309, 312.
(k) A tariff restricting the applica-
tion of a rate to beet pulp when in-
tended for the manufacture of sugar
carries a meaningless restriction, which
is to be ignored in view of the fact
that beet pulp is what is left of beets
after the sugar has been extracted.
Larrowe Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry.
Co., 17 I. C. C. 548, 549, 550.
(1) Where the published tariff names
a joint through rate of 25c on packing
TARIFFS, 8 (m) 10 (a)
house products and a joint through rate
of 29. Ic on grease in carloads, it leaves
ambiguous the proper rate to be charged
on non-edible grease and should be
amended. Dayton Chamber of Com-
merce v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I.
C. C. 82, 83.