rates on cake from Boston, Mass., to va-
rious points in other states, to the extent
that they exceeded the rate on bread.



EXPRESS COMPANIES, 11 (2) (a) 11 (4) (a)



379



Bread is handled by express in what is
known as bread hampers, which are
boxes of three sizes. The cubical con-
tents of these different sizes are, in feet,
3.9, 5 and 7.5. The weight of the ham-
pers in pounds is 22, 33 and 45. The weight
of the bread in pounds, which each of
these hampers will contain, is 33, 59 and
93. The weight of the cake shipped
varies greatly with the different varieties.
Enough to fill the largest sized hamper
weighs from 64% to 257 Ibs. An actual
test of eighteen days indicated that upon
the average the net weight of the con-
tents of these hampers is from 25 to 50
per cent more when filled with cake than
when filled with bread. The value of the
bread is about 4c per lb., the average
value of the cake shipped by complainant
about 12c per lb. The defendants charge
for the transportation of bread their gen-
eral special rate and apply this rate to
the net contents of the package, return-
ing the empty packages for 5c each when
received by the shipper at the express
office. For the transportation of cake
the regular merchandise rates are
charged, and these rates are applied not
to the net weight, but to the gross weight
of the package. The empty packages are
returned the same as in the case of
bread. HELD, that defendants may prop-
erly apply a somewhat lower charge to
the carriage of bread than of cake, but
that the rate now applied to the trans-
portation of cake is unreasonable and
ought not to exceed the regular merchan-
dise rates of the defendants applied to
the net weight of the packages. The
packages themselves when empty to be
returned upon the same terms as at
present. Oak Grove Farm Creamery v.
Adams Express Co., 19 I. C. C. 454, 455.

11. (2) Celery.

(a) Complainant attacked defendant
express company's rate of 50c per 100
Ibs. on celery from Hartville, O., to Pitts-
burg, Pa. Defendant had experimented
at various rates, one as low as 40c, and
found it was not profitable, and on rais-
ing the rate to 50c lost the traffic from
celery growers in the vicinity of Hart-
ville, that traffic going from Alliance, O.,
by the line of defendant's competitor.
Complainant's farms were on an average
of two and one-half miles from Hart-
ville and twelve miles from Alliance.
The rate from Alliance was 40c. The
extra cost of hauling the celery to Alli-
ance, however, resulted in a total ex-
pense to complainants as high under the



Alliance rate as under the Hartville rate
attacked. The distance from Hartville
to Pittsburg is 131 miles; from Alliance
83 miles. In shipments of less than five
tons from Hartville the celery had to be
transferred from car to car at Navarre,
whereas, shipments from Alliance went
direct to Pittsburg without transfer. The
rate attacked from Hartville was lower
than rates from other points in Ohio to
Pittsburg of similar or greater distances.
The first-class rate from Hartville to
Pittsburg was 25c. HELD, the rate at-
tacked was not shown to be unreason-
able. Reparation denied. Hartville Cel-
ery Growers' Ass'n v. Pacific Express Co.,
14 I. C. C. 590, 592.

11. (3) Cream Cans.

(a) On shipments of cream to Omaha
defendant express company charged 5c
for the return of the empty can, but
claimed the charge was so low it could
not afford to issue receipts for said cans
or to pay damages for loss thereof. Com-
plainant alleged violation of section 20
of the amended Act by the failure to
issue said receipts. HELD, defendant
recommended to install some satisfactory
system for keeping account of said cans,
but no order entered. The question of
alleged violation not decided. Fairmont
Creamery Co. v. Pacific Express Co., 15
I. C. C. 134, 135.

11. (4) Drygoods.

(a) Complainant attacked the express
rate of 50c on a package of dry goods or
other merchandise weighing from 3 to 4
Ibs. from St. Paul, Minn., to Courtenay,
N. D., and the charge of $1.90 on a pack-
age of medicine or other merchandise
weighing 10 to 15 Ibs. from New York
City to Courtenay, the latter rate being
$1.15 charged by defendant, Wells, Fargo
& Co., New York to St. Paul, and 75c
charged by defendant Western Express
Co. from St. Paul to Courtenay. The
50c rate attacked was made in competi-
tion with the United States mails. Under
Official Express Classification, almanacs,
blanks, blotters, printed matter, samples
of grain, etc., were charged Ic for every
2 ounces, or fraction thereof, minimum
charge, lOc. Valley City, N. D., and
Courtenay are located on the same line,
the former 297 miles from St. Paul, and
the latter 331. The charge on a ship-
ment of 15 Ibs. from New York to Valley
City, a competitive point, was $1.50.
Courtenay was an exclusive office. The
charge of $2 per 100 Ibs. from St. Paul



380



EXPRESS COMPANIES, 11 (5) (a) 11 (9) (a)



to Courtenay, upon which the 50c rate
complained of was graduated, repre-
sented the usual basis of express rates,
as compared with freight rates, namely
two and one-half times the first-class
freight rate. The merchandise rate from
New York to Courtenay was $6.50 per
100 Ibs., and packages of 10 and not over
15 Ibs. were assessed the charge of $1.90,
inasmuch as the reshipment moved over
two lines and the per 100 Ib. rates of
$4.50 from New York City to St. Paul
and $2 from St. Paul to Courtenay, grad-
uated twice, were used. Complainant sub-
mitted no other evidence except to give
his opinion, without qualifying as an ex-
pert, that the rates complained of were
unreasonable, and to submit various
comparisons of rates, distances and com-
modities charged by defendants in other
portions of the United States. HELD,
that the 50c rate attacked was not shown
to be unreasonable, the same being made
in competition with the United States
mails; and that the Commission was not
justified on the evidence submitted ami
without taking into account the v/hole
schedule of express rates in the terri-
tory involved in holding the $1.90 rate
unreasonable. Sanford v. Western Ex-
press Co., 16 I. C. C. 32, 34, 36.

11. (5) Eggs.

(a) Complainant attacked the express
rate of 47c per. case on eggs, Pulaski,
Tenn., to Birmingham, Ala. This rate,
which became effective a week before the
shipments were made, was an advance
of lie over the previous rate of 36c.
Defendant contended that although this
rate was in effect about eight years its
original publication was an error and
that an express rate which slightly ex-
ceeds the freight rate is not properly
adjusted, and that the present rate ap-
proaches more closely the proper rela-
tion between express rates and freight
rates. HELD, as there was no evidence
of the reasonableness of the freight rate
before the Commission and substantially
the only justification of the express
charge is a statement that it ought to be
a certain percentage of the freight rate,
it cannot be held that the express com-
pany has sustained the burden of proof
imposed upon it by the Act; neither can
it be conceded that the alleged erroneous
publication of a rate which remains in
effect for a period of more than eight
years is a sufficient reason for its in-
crease. Reparation awarded. Franklin,



Stiles & Franklin v. Southern Express
Co., 21 I. C. C. 88.

11. (6) Fish.

(a) Complainant attacked the express
rate of 3c per Ib. on fish in sugar bar-
rels, flour barrels and tubs from Haines
City, Fla., to St. Louis. The freight rate
in effect was 2c per Ib., distance 1,200
miles. The shipments were made under
astimated weights. Prior to the passage
of the Hepburn Act and for some time
thereafter complainant overloaded his
shipments above the prescribed weight
per barrel and also loaded with ice above
the prescribed weight. Defendant com-
pelled him to desist from such practices
and the higher charges resulting there-
from were the basis of his complaint.
The shipments required fast trains and
special attention and were delivered to
the door of the consignees. HELD, the
rate attacked was not unreasonable. Ban-
non v. Southern Express Co., 13 I. C. C
516, 520.

11. (7) Guinea Pigs, Rabbits, Rats.

(a) On shipments from Vineland,
N, J., to Philadelphia and other Pennsyl-
vania points and to New York City and
Chicago of guinea pigs, rabbits and rats
to be used for laboratory and scientific
purposes, a charge of double merchan-
dise rates by defendant express com-
panies is unreasonable, and merchandise
rates should be charged where it ap-
pears that such animals are shipped in
secure containers and do not require
feeding or watering, or other special
care en route. Davis v. West Jersey Ex-
press Co., 16 I. C. C. 214, 216.

11. (8) Merchandise.

(a) On merchandise shipped by ex-
press from Washington, D. C., to Brem-
arton, Wash., complainant was assessed
$11.75 per 100 Ibs., the sum of the locals
between the points in question being
$11.35. About one year after the ship-
ment defendants established the $11.35
rate as a joint through rate. HELD, the
rate charged was unreasonable. Repara-
tion awarded on the basis of the $11.35
rate. U. S. v. Adams Express Co., 16
I. C. C. 394, 395.

11. (9) Milk and Cream.

(a) The express rates on milk from
Minnesota points to Duluth were at-
tacked as unreasonable and discrimi-
natory. The shipments passed through



EXPRESS COMPANIES, 11 (9) (b) (c)



381



Wisconsin. The G. N. Ry., over which
defendant express company operates,
runs from Duluth to Brook Park, Minn.,
where it divides into two branches, one
running southerly to Coon Creek, Minn.,
the other westerly to St. Cloud. St.
Cloud and Coon Creek are joined by an-
other branch, th-us completing a triangle.
Across this triangle another branch line
extends from Milaca on the Brook Park-
St. Cloud side. The rates questioned in-
clude the rates from all points in the
triangle and all points between Brook
Park and Duluth. Distances from St.
Cloud and from Coon Creek to Duluth
are 140 and 134 miles, respectively. Com-
plainant does not purchase milk at more
than 120 miles from Duluth. The rates
charged for both milk and cream are
set forth in a distance schedule which
fixes the rate at intervals of five miles.
These rates are the same ;.s those pre-
scribed for cream by the Commission in
Beatrice Creamery Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co.,
15 I. C. C. 109. For a number of years
prior to 1907 defendant had charged the
same rates for both cream and milk.
The Minnesota Commission established
new and separate schedules in 1907. The
milk rate was 75 per cent of the cream
rate. Such rates were applied by the
carriers on all shipments to Duluth
whether interstate or intrastate. Later
the reasonableness of the cream rate
came before the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the rate was fixed in ac
cordance with the rates adopted in the
Beatrice case. Defendant published a
tariff in 1911 naming the same rates for
the transportation of milk. Complainant
asked that the Minnesota Commission's
rate on milk be restored. Defendant al
leged a custom prior to 1907 to charge
the same rate on milk and cream; that
tt 3 tariff which increased the milk rat' ~
reduced the cream rates; that the two
commodities are transported in the same
manner, move in the same cars, occupy
the same space, claims for loss or dam-
age are nominal on both, and empty cans
are returned to the shipper in each case.
They differ only in the greater cost of
cream and the greater volume of the
ttovement of cream. The Minnesota
Commission's order gave no reason for
fixing lower rr.tes on milk than on cream.
The Wisconsin Comr-iseion prescribed
the same difference in the rates on the
two commodities for the following rea-
sons: the rates as originally promulgated
were terminal rates to milk-consuming
centers; shipments of cream were so



small that it was thought not worth
while to make separate tariffs for them;
now milk constitutes but a small part ^
the tonnage due to the centralized sys-
tem if manufacturing butter; cream is
from six to ten times more valuable than
milk. HELD, defendant has not sus-
tained the burden of proving the in-
creased rate on milk to be reasonable.
Milk should take a lower rate than
cream. The rate on milk fixed by the
Wisconsin and Minnesota Commissions
is reasonable and defendants will be or-
dered to desist from charging more. Rep-
aration awarded. Bridgeman-Russell Co.
7. Great Northern Express Co., 22 I. C. C.
573, 577.

(b) Defendant express company, by
inadvertently omitting to file a dis-
tance scale with its tariff fixing a 58c
rate on milk and cream from St. Paul,
Neb., to Denver, Colo., left in effect, as
the only legal lawful rate, a class rate
of $2 per 100 Ibs. Immediately upon
discovering its error defendant ob-
tained special permission to correct the
mistake and restore the 58c rate. Later
it attempted to put in an 80c rate and
was enjoined by the courts pending a
hearing before the Commission. HELD,
the 58c rate should be deemed a rea-
sonable one and defendant ordered to
maintain same for two years, the record
to be held under advisement until milk
and cream rates generally should be
determined under another proceeding
pending before the Commission. Mer-
chants' Traffic Ass'n v. Pacific Express
Co., 13 I. C. C. 131, 132, 133..

(c) From 1900 to 1907, the express
rate per ten gallon can of cream was
$1.50 from Columbia, Tenn., to Jackson-
ville, Fla., a distance of 646 miles,
with an added charge of 25c for the re-
turn of the empty can. In 1907, the
rate was raised to $3.90 with an added
charge of 15c for the return of the
empty can and tub used for packing
the cream in ice. The tub weighed 50
Ibs. and was 26 in. in height, 20 in.
across the top, and 17% in. across the
bottom. The cream weighed 100 Ibs.
and the can 22 Ibs. Defendant ex-
press company admitted that the for-
mer rate of $1.50 was reasonable com-
pensation for carrying the cream and
the can, but claimed the new rate was
necessary as compensation for handling
the extra weight of the ice and tub,
the combined weight of which was 88
Ibs. The former rate of $1.50 on the



382



EXPRESS COMPANIES, 11 (10) (a) 12 (a)



cream and can yielded l^c per Ib.
Applying the charges to the ice and
tub would yield a revenue of $1.10,
which added to the $1.50 charge, made
a total of $2.60. HELD, the $1.50 rate
having been formerly in effect for a
long time was presumed to be reason-
able, and the rate attacked was un-
reasonable to the extent that it ex-
ceeded $2.60 plus 15c for the back-
haul of the empty can and tub. Rey-
nolds v. Southern Express Co., 13 I. C.
C. 536, 540.

11. (10) Raw Furs.

(a) Complainant was a shipper of
raw furs St. Paul, Minn., to New York.
From 1887 to 1906 raw furs were classed
as "general-special" by defendant ex-
press companies, which class embraced
fruit and vegetables, dairy products, but-
ter and eggs, meat and poultry and
other raw products as distinguished from
manufactured articles. This class rate
from St. Paul to New York was $3 per
100 pounds. After the passage of the
Hepburn amendment, defendants put
raw furs in the merchandise class, tak-
ing a rate of $4.50 per 100 Ibs. be-
tween said points. The ordinary
value of articles in the "general-
special" class was 30c to 40c per
Ib.; the value of raw furs was $2 to
$3 ' per pound. Ordinarily defendants
paid no attention to value in fixing
rates except to require extra pay where
a valuation exceeding $50 was placed
on a package. Raw furs were desirable
traffic for defendants on account of their
density and the small liability of in-
jury in handling. It was impracticable
to ship same by freight. HELD, the
rate of $4.50 for raw furs in boxes
and bales was excessive and should
not exceed $3.50 upon an agreed valua-
tion not to exceed $2.50 per Ib., and
when shipped in bags should take the
merchandise rate. Ullman v. Adams
Express Co., 14 I. C. C. 340, 342; rehear-
ing denied, 14 I. C. C. 585.

11. (11) Sample Brick.

(a) Complainants attacked the ex-
press rates on sample brick shipped
throughout the country from the states
of Ohio and Pennsylvania. In 1896
sample brick was carried at merchan-
dise pound rates with a minimum charge
of ouc per package. In 1897 the mini-
mum charge was increased to 35c.
Since then the charges have been



gradually increased so that the increase
of 1910 was about 71 per cent of the
rate over 1897. HELD, the service
rendered in the transportation of these
brick is similar to that given to the
ordinary express shipment; that the
cost of service is not more than the
average and there are certain charac-
teristics present which make .the trans-
portation of brick a desirable business
on account of the easiness with which
this commodity is packed, and its
weight compared to the amount of
space it occupies; that the classification
which applies merchandise graduated
charges thereto are unjust and unrea-
sonable, in so far as they exceed the
charges which are assessed at mer-
chandise rates with a minimum charge
of 35c. Ohio Face Brick Mfrs. Ass'n v.
Adams Express Co., 20 I. C. C. 582.

V. ROUTE.
12. In General.

(a) Complainant attacked the rate
on boots and shoes from Boston, Mass.,
to New York City. At one time the
New York & Boston Express Co., a
Massachusetts corporation, transacted
an express business over the railroads
and steamships of the Old Colony R. R.
Co. and had maintained a rate of 75c
from various New England towns to
some Sound port and thence to New
York City. Subsequently the Adams
Express Co. acquired the New York
company and abolished the rail-and-
water haul to New York, retaining only
its own all-rail route via the N. Y. N.
H. & H. R. R., with a rate of $1 per
100 Ibs. to New York. It appeared that
by the consolidation express rates be-
tween various New England points had
been reduced. HELD, that the ques-
tion for determination is upon the rea-
sonableness of this particular route
and rate from the complaining commu-
nities to New York City, and not as to
other rates to different points. If the
complainants are entitled to the 75c
rate relief should not be denied them
upon the ground that certain other
communities have been benefited, or
that the rates which they themselves
enjoy to other points have been re-
duced. That the rail-and-water route
formerly maintained is a natural one,
and that an express service ought to
be maintained via that route or at all
vents that the defendant ought not
:o be permitted to deprive these com-



EXPRESS COMPANIES, 12 (b) 15 (a)



383



munities of the use of this route at a
reasonable rate unle" > it gives to them
the benefit of a corresponding one by
some other route. Douglas Shoe Co. v.
Adams Express Co., 19 I. C. C. 539, 542.

(bj There may not be sufficient vol-
ume of traffic to justify carriers in main-
taining through express service. Ham-
ilton v. American Express Co., Unrep.
Op. 355.

VI. TARIFFS.

13. Construction.

See Tariffs, 3 (t).

(a) Defendant express company's
tariff of Nov. 15, 1906, provided that
medical packages shipped by manufac-
turers and uncalled for might be re-
turned at specified reduced rates. April
14, 1908, complainant received from de-
fendant notice that on and after May
20, 1908, said provision would be can-
celed, and that all outstanding pack-
ages not returned before May 20, 1908,
would be charged for at regular rates,
and duly filed, effective May 20, 1908, a
tariff to that effect. Prior to May 20,
1908, complainant shipped 4,516 pack-
ages, which v ere not returned until
June 13 and after. Of this number, 1,577
packages were shipped on or before
April 14, 1908. The balance were
shipped after April 14, 1908, but prior
to May 20, 1908. Complainant was as-
sessed return charges on the 4,516 pack-
ages at regular rates. HELD, com-
plainant was entitled to the reduced
return rates on all shipments prior to
May 20, 1908, the effective date of the
tariff. Reparation awarded. Interstate
Remedy Co. v. American Express Co.,
16 I. C. C. 436, 438, 439.

(b) Where a tariff makes it man-
datory upon an express company to im-
mediately notify the shipper in case of
non-delivery, the prima facie presump-
tion is that such notice was duly given
to the shipper. Interstate Remedy Co.
v. American Express Co., 16 I. C. C.
436, 438.

(c) The Commission should not ap-
prove a rule which an express company
could not enforce. California Commer-
cial Ass'n v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 14
I. C. C. 422, 433.

(d) Express classification is not so
minute as freight. Ullman v. Adams
Express Co., 14 I. C. C. 340, 341.



14. Double Graduate Charges.

(a) Complainant attacked the express
rates from New York City to Boise,
Idaho, on packages weighing in excess of
7 Ibs. and less than 48 Ibs. Boise was
served by the Pacific Express Co. alone,
and on shipments from New York the
double graduate charge was applied. The
rules of defendants provided that when
shipments passed over the lines of two
or more companies and the shipping or
destination point was an exclusive office,
each company's charge must be as-
sessed separately and not on the
through rate made by combining the
locals. Under said rule the charges
to exclusive points exceeded the com-
bination of locals, and a greater charge
was often made for the shorter than
for the longer haul over the same line
in the same direction. Such double grad-
uate charges did not involve substan-
tially greater service by defendants than
where single graduate charges were ap-
plied between points reached by all
the express companies involved in the
haul. HELD, the rates and rules at-
tacked were unreasonable and unlawful
and must be adjusted. Boise Commer-
cial Club v. Adams Express Co., 17 I.
C. C. 115, 119, 122.

(b) No opinion expressed on inequali-
ties arising from the application of the
double-graduated rule in the express
classification. Reserved for further in-
vestigation. Browne v. American Ex-
press Co., Unrep. Op. 237.

15. Graduate Scale System.

(a) The express rate from Chicago
to Omaha was $2; from Omaha to Den-
ver, $4; from Chicago to Denver, $6,
the last through rate being no less than
the sum of the locals, based on Omaha.
In local shipments from Chicago to
Omaha, and from Omaha to Denver,
two more terminal services were re-
quired than on a shipment from Chi-
cago to Denver. Defendants' through
rates were not, however, constructed
on the theory of a combination of lo-
cals, but on the "graduate scale" theory,
under which package rates for long
distances did not increase in proportion
as the base rate increased. For ex-
ample, the rate on a 10-lb. parcel from
Chicago to Omaha was 70c, from Omaha
to Denver $1, making a combined rate
of $1.70; the rate upon a 10-lb. pack-
age from Chicago to Denver was $1.15,



384



EXPRESS COMPANIES, 15 (b) 17 (d)



or 55c less than the combination. As
the size of the package increased this
difference became less marked. Thus
the combined rate upon a 35-lb. pack-
age was $2.70 while the through rate
was $2.50. For packages of 50 Ibs.
and over the combined rate and the
through rate were the same. Complain-
ant at Denver attacked the Chicago to
Denver rate as excessive per se. HELD,
that while there was much reason for
complainant's contention, the Commis-
sion did not have sufficient informa-
tion as to the general result on rates
throughout the country which would
arise from a reduction of such rate as
to justify it in entering such an order.
Kindel v. Adams Express Co., 13 I. C.
C. 475, 496.

(b) Complainant, dealer in mattresses
and bed springs at Denver, Colo., ship-
ping by express to and from points out-
side Colorado, attacked defendant ex
p~ess company's "graduate scale" system
of making rates on general merchandise.
Under this system the base used for
determining the rate on small packages
from New York to San Francisco was
$14.00 per 100 Ibs. The charge for car-
rying a 1-lb. package between two points
where the base rate was 50c per 100 Ibs.
was 25c, while that for a 1-lb. package
from New York to San Francisco was
but 30c. The rate upon a 20-lb. package
under 1 the 50c base rate was 30c, while
that on a 20-lb. package from New York
to San Francisco was but $2.85. Com
plainant urged that if the increase in
charge for handling the small package
the longer distance was just and reason-
able, then the increase in case of the
larger package was exorbitant, and that