upr000329 124

30 IN T E R S T A T E COM M ERCE C O M M IS S IO N REPORTS. charges. N o workable rule has, however, been suggested upon this basis ; on the whole there seems to be among shippers very little objection to a tolerance o f 500 pounds, and we think this may fa irly be regarded as reasonable. In saying this, however, we have in mind only those articles which have been referred to in this investigation, and the expression o f this opinion is not to be taken as covering commodities and conditions not before us. One instance has come to the attention o f the Commission where the ta riff o f the carrier provided that the w eight ascertained upon a particular scale should govern, and it is frequently provided that weights at points o f origin w ill govern. T a riffs o f this character are unreasonable. Th e shipper should be required to pay upon the actual weight. T o assess freigh t charges upon any other than the actual w eight is to impose a rate either too high or too low and to discriminate between different shippers. A carrier may not provide that the w eight o f a particular scale shall govern, whether that scale be accurate or inaccurate, fo r the question is always, W h a t is the actual w eight o f this shipment w ithin reason­able lim its as above indicated ? Neither is it proper to provide that weights at either the point o f origin or the point o f destination shall govern, unless those weights are correctly taken; that is, such a ta riff would be unreasonable un­less the shipper were permitted to show by rew eighing or by other means that the weights at the point o f origin were inaccurate. Neither can the carrier by this means exempt itself from liability to the shipper fo r loss o f property in transit. H e can only properly provide against that variation in w eight which m ay actually be sup­posed to occur during the transportation and fo r such measure o f possible error as is reasonable in the premises. Another rule o f the carriers provides that where a shipper asks fo r the rew eighing o f a carload o f freigh t he shall pay 50 cents, where the w eighing is upon the scales o f the shipper, and $1 where the w eighing is upon the scales o f the carrier. Shippers object that where the w eighing is upon the scales o f the shipper no additional charge should be made in any event, but the carrier is obliged to spot the car and it can hardly be said that a charge o f 50 cents fo r this service is unreasonable. I t is further objected that.no charge whatever should be made when the w eighing is rendered necessary by the act o f the carrier; that is to say, i f the shipper asks that the car be weighed because it is his belief that the original w eight was improper, he ought not to be re­quired to pay fo r the rew eighing i f it turns out that he was correct. T h e tariffs o f some carriers now contain a rule to that effect, and in 28 I. C. O. our opinion the tariffs o f all carriers should provide that where a re­w eighing is requested by a shipper and such reweighing shows error beyond the lim it o f tolerance fixed no charge shall be made fo r that service. REMEDIES.- Th e ultimate purpose o f this proceeding was to correct, in so fa r as m ight properly be done, such faults as were revealed, and the final inquiry is, T o what extent and by what means can the defects in ra il­road track scales and their use which have been exhibited by the e v i­dence in this record be remedied ? A t the outset it may be observed that, while this investigation has occupied much time and has been conducted at considerable expense, the results already accomplished much more than ju stify the outlay. I t became evident upon the very first hearing that the matters under consideration had never received proper attention at the hands o f the carriers. Th e importance o f the subject had not been appre­ciated. In the hurry and press o f other things, scales had been overlooked. N o sooner was the matter mentioned than railroads in all parts o f the country realized that they were exceedingly vulner­able at this point, and the process o f betterment at once began. W h a t has happened in case o f one important system is an apt illus­tration. Th e reputation o f that company fo r excellence in main­tenance and operation is among the best, yet it appeared that in the matter o f track scales it was deficient. Its scales were few in number, im properly installed, and inefficiently operated. I t would seem that the management o f this great company had fo r some unac­countable reason overlooked the importance o f this basic subject; but no sooner had these conditions been revealed than all this was changed. A department having charge' o f this subject has been created w ith a competent man at its head and with the means to do what is necessary. O ld scales are being improved, new scales are being installed, test cars have been contracted fo r and w ill be put into regular service. In the near future it seems evident that the track scales o f that company w ill comport w ith the balance o f its structures and their operation w ill be on a plane with the rest o f its operations. 'W h at has taken place upon that line is taking place, usually in a less degree, upon many lines. Returns which carriers were required to furnish show that those companies whose scaling devices were defective— and that includes the greater part o f the railroad mileage o f the U nited States— are generally installing new scales and rebuild­in g those now in service. N ew rules have been adopted fo r the ligh t­w eighing o f cars, and there is everywhere evidence that i f nothing 28 I. ,C. O. % I N RE W E IG H IN G OE F R E IG H T B Y CARRIER. 31