and especially as regards the working and effect of the several systems within the territories to which they respectively apply, are treated quite fully in a report made to the Commission, under date of November 26, 1890, by its auditor.

This report is published as Appendix C in the annual report of the Commission for 1890. It presents some of the benefits to commerce which have resulted from the harmonizing of classifications which has already been accomplished since the organization of the Commission, and suggests the further benefits likely to follow upon a more complete unification.

This report or statement shows that the three principal classifications of the country are still those heretofore named, and the territorial limits of whose operation have been described, namely, the Official, the Western, and the Southern Railway and Steamship Association Classification.

In each of these territories, however, there exist certain local and independent systems of classification more or less in conflict with the principal system. These, it was hoped, would all be superseded by the proposed new uniform classification. Their existence, of course, is a constant source of embarrassment. Of the general situation in this regard it may be said that, while it is a great improvement on that of five years ago, it is still very far from being satisfactory.

The commercial organizations of the country have taken up the question with great earnestness, and the commission has received communications and resolutions from many of them asking co-operation on the subject of legislation in the direction of uniform classification which they purpose asking Congress to enact.

The following is a sample of the resolutions referred to, being those received from the Indianapolis Board of Trade:

Whereas the commercial necessities of the nation demand that the relations between common carriers and the public be in all respects so simplified as to avoid misunderstandings, misconceptions, or injustice;

Whereas in the direction of securing clearness of understanding as to respective rights of carriers and shippers, the first step seems to lie in the establishment of uniformity in bills of lading and of classifications;

Whereas the carriers of the country being apparently unable to agree among themselves concerning the methods whereby such uniformity can be secured:

Resolved, That the Senate and House of Representatives be, and hereby are, earnestly requested to take such measures as may in their judgment seem proper, to compel the carriers of the United States to furnish all shippers a uniform bill of lading in which the common law liability only of said carriers shall be expressed, and the early establishment of a uniform classification, the rules and conditions of which shall be just and reasonable.

Resolved, That the Senate and House of Representatives are hereby requested to accord to the shipping interest a hearing by representation from the National Transportation Association.

Resolved, That the coöperation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the establishment of these principles is urgently requested,

These resolutions, it will be observed, have in view uniformity in bills of lading as well as in classification, and dwell upon the necessity of the former as well as of the latter.

The question of bills of lading will be treated further on in this report.

In complying with the duty imposed upon it of making recommendations to Congress in regard to additional legislation deemed necessary, upon questions connected with the regulation of commerce, the Commission is, as respects the matter of uniform classification, relieved to a considerable extent of the embarrassment it would otherwise feel by the action already taken by the carriers.

Its conviction remains unchanged that the necessities of commerce require that the existing classifications be consolidated, and that this result should be accomplished as speedily as may be found practicable; and it does not feel justified in asking for the further efforts of the carriers the same measure of indulgence which from time to time it has heretofore suggested should be extended to them, and which was thought to be required in the public interest.

The fact that representatives of the carriers of various sections of the country which now make use of different classifications have met and maturely considered the subject, and have agreed that consolidation is highly important, and have fixed upon a general basis for it, which has been accepted by a large majority of the carriers, has greatly lessened the difficulties in the way of legislative action. Uniform classification, in view of the action taken by so large a majority of the carriers, can no longer be considered impracticable.

The Commission can not but think that if legislation to that end be enacted by Congress the carriers will speedily consummate the reform already begun in this direction. It is therefore recommended that an act be passed requiring the adoption within one year from the date of its passage of a uniform classification of freight by all the carriers subject to the act to regulate commerce, and providing that if the same be not adopted within the time limited, either this Commission or some other public authority be required to adopt and enforce a uniform classification.

The Commission desires to repeat, what it has in substance said before, that it is its firm conviction that no public agency can possibly be so competent to deal with this question as the carriers themselves. The existing classifications are the result of long study in immediate practical connection with the transportation interests of the different sections of country represented by them, and the experts who have made them, have, in gradually bringing them to the condition in which they are now found, represented quite as much the conflicting and competing interests of different sections as they have the conflicting and competing interests of the carriers themselves. Any tribunal which S. Mis. 31-3

should be created or designated for the purpose of unifying their work would necessarily begin with making careful study of these several interests on all sections, understanding as it must that while unification would be to the general benefit of the country, there must unavoidably be changes which, while benefiting some interests and some sections, must throw corresponding loss or injury upon other interests or sections, and this not unfrequently in the same line of business.

But however carefully such a tribunal might study the general question, it could not fail to find, when making its final determination, that the highest wisdom would require that it should keep as closely as possible to the results of the work which experts have so long been engaged in perfecting, and that in making necessary changes it should anticipate, as nearly as human foresight would enable it to do so, the probable conclusions that the same class of experts would be likely to reach if they themselves under the pressure of a legal necessity should perfect their now incomplete work. And it should never be forgotten that when unification is finally accomplished, whether by the voluntary action of the carriers themselves or as a result of compulsory legislation, there must be a transition period while the country is becoming familiarized with it, when some degree of embarrassment and dissatisfaction is to be expected, and when large demands will be made upon the patience and forbearance of the general public while business is adapting itself to the working of the new order of things.

USE OF SHIPPERS' CARS.

The management and operation of the American railways to-day furnish a striking instance of a departure in actual practice from original economic theories.

The conception of the railway and of the functions of its owners, as entertained when these new facilities for trade and travel were first introduced, was naturally drawn from analogies with which the public was then familiar.

The turnpike, whose owners had no interest or ownership whatever in the vehicles that passed over their roadway, illustrated the theory upon which it was supposed the railway would be developed. The latter it was thought would differ in degree rather than in kind from the former. The function of furnishing the highway, and that of provid ing the vehicles for carriage upon it, would be in entirely different hands, and the charge for each service would be separately imposed. The transportation service would thus be rendered, it was supposed, under the same, or somewhat the same, competitive conditions as had always been relied on to insure reasonable charges for transportation over the turnpike.

As to the tolls or charges imposed by the turnpike company itself for the passage of vehicles over its road, they were usually fixed by law.

The first railroad charters were drawn, to a large extent, under the influence of the theory here referred to. But very early in the history of railroad transportation, perhaps as soon as it became thoroughly settled that steam and the steam engines were to supersede, on the new highways, the use of horses or other animal power which had been employed on the old, the dangerous qualities of the new motor suggested that it could not be safely used under conditions of free competition in transportation over railways.

In some cases it was then provided by law that every railroad company should have the exclusive right of transportation over its own line. And whether by law, custom, or a general recognition of its necessity, the practice soon became universal for the railroad company to furnish in all cases the motive power and generally, in the United States, the vehicles of carriage as well.

Under the turnpike theory of "tolls," the owner of the vehicle would pay to the owner of the road the sum fixed by law, or by agreement between the parties, for the privilege of passing the vehicle over the road. Then if the owner of the vehicle were himself a carrier he would make his own charges to his patrons. Since, however, the railway company has become the exclusive carrier over its line, as well as the owner of the road itself, the idea of "tolls” in the sense of a payment to the company by the private owner of a car, for the passage of the car over the road, has become for the most part obsolete.

After the necessity for the exclusive control of a single company ove、 the transportation and general operations of the railroad became finally settled, the use of other cars than its own was, during a considerable period at least, unusual. As soon, however, as the sagacity of railway management, prompted by the demands of commerce, undertook the establishment of through routes of trade and travel over connecting lines, the necessity for the passage of the cars of one company over the lines of another, to save the trouble and expense of breaking bulk or transferring contents, became clearly apparent.

But in the adjustment of the relations between the owner of the road over which the car was to pass and the owner of the connecting road to which the car belonged, the idea of a payment of toll for the carriage of the car, by the latter to the former, was discarded, and the idea of a hiring of the car by the former from the latter was adopted. Under the conditions of interchange of traffic and of cars, between connecting lines, where the use made by each of the cars of the other, or others, would in the long run be nearly equal, the amount agreed to be paid for such use would not be very material. A striking of balances between the mutual accounts would bring the parties out pretty nearly Whether or not under these circumstances the amount agreed to be paid for the hire of cars is actually more or less than a fair compensation for their use, is a comparatively unimportant question. The question, however, becomes one of great importance in connection with

even.

the use of cars belonging to private shippers in transportation over lines of railway.

In the growth and development of railway traffic it became evident that many commodities might be transported to much greater advantage in certain kinds of cars specially adapted to the character and peculiar qualities of the particular traffic than in the ordinary cars furnished by the carriers. The latter did not always respond to the demand for improved vehicles of special pattern, but frequently failed to provide them in their own equipment. Hence, by agreement between shipper and carrier, the former often undertook to provide his own cars for shipment of his particular commodities.

Here again the idea of the shipper paying to the railroad company a toll for the passage of his car over its road was discarded, and, in analogy to the custom prevailing between connecting carriers in respect to the use of each other's cars, the railway company became a hirer of the shipper's vehicle.

It is worth while to note in this connection that although this theory of charging "tolls" for the carriage by railroad companies of cars belonging to others has long been abandoned in practice, and the principle of hiring substituted for it, yet in legislative enactments on the subject the idea of "tolls" still frequently finds place. The original signification of this word was in fact rather that of a payment by the owner of the vehicle to the owner of the highway than that of a charge for the carriage of goods. In its modern use the latter meaning no doubt is often intended to be attached to it. But the language of legislation frequently specifically provides that one railroad company shall draw or carry, on reasonable terms and for a reasonable compensation, the cars of any other company or person when tendered to it for transportation.

The modern practice and customary arrangements seem, in fact, to be lost sight of in legislation.

This modern practice, it will be observed, consists in the hiring by the carrier of the owner's car, instead of payment by the owner to the carrier for the passage of the car over the road.

The origin and development of this practice has thus been briefly traced, with the view of arriving at a clear understanding of the custom of using the shippers' own cars in transportation, and of the effects of that custom. For there is no doubt that it can be made, and often has been made, the means of discrimination, on the part of the carrier, between shippers, of a character and to an extent altogether unjustifiable.

Apart from the element of compensation allowed by the carrier to the shipper for the use of the cars of the latter, the shipper has sometimes insisted, and the carrier has conceded, that the circumstances and conditions of transportation, in cars furnished by the latter, were so different from those attending the carriage in the cars of the former,