upr000329 127

36 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS. f ?: ;V: ., }%' but would be a protection to the carrier itself against unreasonable claims on account o f excessive weight. In our opinion every carload o f freigh t, where track scales are relied upon to determine the weight upon which freigh t charges are to be assessed, should be weighed w ithin 50 miles o f the point o f origin ordinarily. Th e result o f this original w eighing should be at once communicated either to the consignor or the consignee, as the parties may direct. I f , now, during the subsequent course o f the shipment the weight o f this car is advanced, the same party should be at once notified by telegram. Carriers complain that there is no w ay in which to ascertain the name o f the party to be notified, but certainly this is a matter o f detail in the w orking out o f which no substantial difficulty can be experienced. Th ey also say that it is an undue hardship to require them to send a postal card, and much more a telegram, to the party affected, but it occurs to us that i f the carrier has made a mistake in the original w eighing, which it is now proposed to correct and which may m aterially affect the financial interest o f the shipper, the very least that can be done is to at once advise the interested party by wire. I f the party notified so elects, he should be permitted, without any expense to him, to require a third w eighing o f that car. Th e mere fact that the railroad has weighed it twice w ith a different result raises a presumption o f error which should fa irly require the car­rier to resolve the doubt at its own expense. In such case the ship­per should also be allowed, without lia bility to demurrage charges, a sufficient time in which to examine into the w eight o f the car before it is unloaded. I f no claim o f overweight is made before the unloading, then no such claim should be entertained at all. W h at is said as to reweighing at the expense o f the railroad does not apply to instances where a rew eighing is requested by the ship­per fo r other reasons than because the car has been check-weighed by the carrier and the first weight found wrong. I f the shipper fo r his own purposes requests a second weighing, there is no apparent reason why he should not pay a reasonable sum fo r this service, unless it appears upon such w eighing that the original w eight was erroneous and that the shipper was therefore justified in asking that the car be reweighed. N o attempt w ill be made at this time to enter upon any discussion or to make any suggestions as to most o f the rules which should govern the w eighing o f freigh t and the correction o f incorrect weights. Representative shippers have this matter under considera­tion with the carriers, and it is expected that as a result o f these conferences satisfactory rules w ill be formulated. I f not, the mat- 28 I. 0. C. ^ IN RE W EIG H ING OE FREIGHT BY CARRIER. 37 ? m ter w ill be further proceeded w ith by the Commission, and any par­ticular rule can be made the subject o f complaint. Neither do we here attempt any suggestion as to the standards under which track scales should be installed and maintained. Th is matter has, since the beginning o f this investigation, been taken under advisement by the Am erican R ailw ay Association, and we are inform ed that such rules w ill in the near future be promulgated by that body. W hen formulated, their adoption and observance is, o f course, voluntary w ith the railroads in the present state o f the law. The purpose o f this report has been to point out in a general way the w rong existing, and to- suggest in the same general w ay the remedy. M atters o f detail should be disposed o f as they subse­quently arise. B y the Commission. [ s e a l .] - G eorge B. M cG i n t y , Secretary. 28 I. c. C. mm W A S H IN G T O N : G O V E R NM E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1913