Weights and Weighing

The weight of a shipment is usually the basis used in computing transportation charges for the vast majority of tariffs publishing rates for the transportation of commodities name rates which must be predicated upon a unit of weight per 100 pounds or per ton of 2,000 or 2,240 pounds. It may be the actual, estimated, agreed, or minimum weight, according to the provisions of the tariffs of the carrier assessing the charges. Rule 11 of the Consolidated Freight Classification provides that charges shall be computed on gross weights, except when estimated weights are authorized, such estimated weights shall be used. Established minimum weights must be observed. Erroneous weights result in charges being made too high or too low, and since the Interstate Commerce Act imposes upon the carrier the duty of charging, and upon the shipper of paying, proper charges on shipments, accuracy in the weights used is as important as accuracy in the rates applied. It is, therefore, essential that all concerned should be thoroughly acquainted with the rules and practices with respect to weighing freight. See Actual Weights on Crude & Fuel Oil, 69 I.C.C. 194 (1922); California Citrus League v. Director General, 58 I.C.C. 373, 382 (1920); Bills of Lading, 52 I.C.C. 671, 694 (1918); Straw Rates from St. Louis to Ander son, Ind., 36 I.C.C. 30, 31 (1915); Schenck v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 29 1. C. C. 125, 127 (1914); Robert Blank v. C.R.R. Co. of N. J., 132 1. C. C. 385. The actual weight of shipments constitutes the true basis upon which to assess transportation charges, Curtis v. Director General, 109 I.C.C. 387, and the shipper should be required to pay upon the actual weight. To assess freight charges upon any other than the actual weight is to impose a rate either too high or too low and to discriminate between different shippers. Weighing of Freight by Carrier, 28 I.C.C. 7; Rice v. Ga. R. R., 14 I.C.C. 75. The use of arbitrary weights as basis of the charges for transportation of liquor by express was held unreasonable in Advanced Rates by Express Companies, 21 I.C.C. 199. The foregoing is deemed sufficient to indicate the inseparable relationship of weights to aseertainment of accurate freight charges from which it naturally follows that the Interstate Commerce Commission nas unquestionable jurisdiction over weights and weighing see: Chicago, R. 1. & P. Ry. Co. @,. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 42ra, 57 L. ed. 284, 33 Sup. Ct. 174; New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 22 II.C.C. 398 (1911).

Tare Weight

When a freight car is built it is weighed before being placed into transportation service and the weight (called tare weight) is stenciled on the sides of the car, together with the date and place at which weighed. The car service rules of the carriers require that a car shall be re-weighed each year for the first two years it is in service, and once every two years thereafter. This rule follows the Commission's decision in re-Weighing of Freight by Carrier, 28 I.C.C. 7, which states the following rules for ascertainment of tare weight of cars: Re-weigh every car within one year from the date when it is put into service; re-weigh after it undergoes substantial repairs; re-weigh at least once in two years. However, a car may be re-weighed whenever necessary for any reason. It is frequently done to settle controversies between carrier and shipper over the question of the correctness of the weight used in computing charges on a shipment. In some cases cars are re-weighed just before being loaded or after being unloaded. The carriers usually apply the tare or light weight most recently ascertained in settling disputes of correctness of scale weights. Fed. Enameling & Stamping Co. v. Pittsburgh C. & Y. Ry., Co. 181 I.C.C. 128. So required in Smith Bros. Construction Corp. v. Chicago M. St. P. P., 227 1. C. C. 51. Adams Lbr. Co. v. Akron C. & Y., 253 1. C. C. 179.

The question of correct weights is one fact to be determined in a manner just to both carrier and shipper, and as to which the ex parte action of either can not conclude the other. Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & G. T. Ry., Co. 5 I.C.C. 514; Curtis v. Director General, 109. I.C.C. 378. Carload freight should be weighed at the point of origin or if no scales are at the point of origin then the weighing should be performed at scales as near thereto as practicable, for actual weighing is the only way in which weight can be ascertained to a certainty. Georgia Rough & Cut Stone Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 13 I.C.C. 401. Weighing is purely a mechanical process. It may be done at the point of shipment, or at the point of delivery, or both. Baird v. St. Louis, I.M.&S. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 592. The scales, whether railroad or private, should be tested and operated in accordance with the specifications and rules of the carriers, and weights ascertained in the following manner:

That there is a presumption indulged in favor of the accuracy of weights ascertained by carriers, so far as the computation of freight charges is concerned, although this may be overcome by competent evidence, see: Pendleton & Gilkey v. Director General, 64 I.C.C. 145 (1921); Trexler Lumber Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 50 1. C. C. 77, 78 (1918); Fissell v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 40 1. C. C. 539, 540 (1916); Schenck v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.129 1.C.C. 125,.127 (1914); Browns Grain Co. v. G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 1. C. C. 163, 164 (1910); Noble v. D. & T. S. L R. Co., 20 1. C. C. 60, 61; 20 1. C. C. 66; Arling-Funch Lumber Co. v. Columbus & G., 183 1. C. C. 499. See also Dallas Transfer Co. v. S. P., 115 I.C.C. 658, 659, in which it is stated the presumption of accuracy which attaches to weights obtained over scales maintained by carriers must be clearly rebutted to be overthrown. Excess charges based on erroneous weights are analogous to overcharges. National Pole Co., v. Minneosta & International Ry., 33 1. C. C. 372; Wheeler Lbr., Bridge & Supply Co. v. A. & C. R. R., 20 1. C. C. 10.

That collection of charges on the basis of excessive weights are overcharges. see: Davis Lumber Co. v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 53 1. C. C. 223 (1919); Menominee White Cedar Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 53 1. C. C. 229; Mississippi Railroad Comm. v. New Orleans, M. & 0. R. Co., 42 1. C. C. 574 (1916); National Pole Co. v. M. & 1. Ry. Co., 33 1. C. C. 372, 373 (1915); Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. A. C. R. Co., 20 I.C.C. II0,11 (1910).

The right of a shipper to demand re-weighing is based on his right to pay no more than the legally applicable freight charges. Fullerton Lumber Co. v. C. & 0. Ry. Co., 140 1. C. C. 593, 595. For the question of correct weights is one fact to be determined in a manner just To both carrier and shipper, and as to which the ex parte action of either can not conclude the other. Potter Mfg. Co. v. C. & G. T. Ry., 5 1. C. C. 514; Curtis v. Director General, 109 1. C. C. 378. Cars should never be weighed in motion coupled at both ends. They may properly be weighed in motion when uncoupled upon scales especially designed for that purpose and in charge of thoroughly competent men. Cars should not ordinarily be weighed coupled at one end, and never unless at points where the greatest attention is paid To the condition of the scale and the competency of the weightmaster. Weighing of Freight oy Carrier, 29 1. C. C. 7. Actual scaling of necessity ordinarily should govern, and positive evidence of defective mechanism, clerical error in recording, or other inaccuracy should -iearly appear before there can be substituted an estimated basis for a weight that prima facie must be accepted as correct. Noble v. D. & T. S. L. R. R., 20 1. C. C. 60.

Re-weighing

In disputes as to the weights of past shipments that evidence of a very positive character as to the incorrectness of the scaling is necessary before an estimated weight can be substituted therefor. Noble v. D. & T. S. L. R. R. Co., 20 1. C. C. 60; Browne Grain Co. v. G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 1. C. C. 163, Foye Lumber Co. v. A. & N. W. R., 161 1. C. C. 56.

Re-weighing of freight in carloads will be performed when the contents of the car have been transferred en route, or where the car has met with an accident, or other reasons which indicate that a part of the shipment is lost in transit. Carload freight will also be re-weighed when the carrier believes it is necessary to test the accuracy of previous weights as obtained by the re-weighing carrier or connecting carriers.

When the consignor or consignee believes that the weights as submitted by the carrier are erroneous, then the car may be re-weighed, but subject to charges for such re-weighing as prescribed in the tariffs of the carriers, such re-weighing charges fluctuating according To the scales upon which the car is re-weighed, that is, on private scales or on carrier's scales. No charges will be assessed by the carrier when a discrepancy is shown which indicates that the previous weights as obtained by the carriers were erroneous, subject, however, to the rules governing "Tolerances." See Menominee White Cedar Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 53 1. C. C. 229 (1919); Detroit Coal Exchange v. Michigan C. R. Co., 38 1. C. C. 79, 80 (1916); Fullerton Lbr. Co.. v. C. & O., 140 1. C. C. 593; Federal Enameling & Stamping Co. v. Pittsburgh, C. & Y., 181 1. C. C. 128.

In the absence of any explanation by defendant, the reweights must be presumed to t)e at least as accurate as the billed weights, and it is well settled that a shipper is entitled to the benefit of the lower charge when there is conflict, or reasonable doubt exists as to correctness of two disputed bases. Fuel Sales Corp. v. Delaware, L. & W. 225 1. C. C. 288.

Weight Records

A record should be kept at the scale when the car is weighed, showing the gross, tare (whether actual or stenciled), and net weights, the date and time of weighing, and weather conditions, also whether the car was weighed at rest or in motion, coupled or uncoupled, and whether or not any debris was on or in the car, and if so, the amount.

The record of weighing should be recorded on the carrier's way-bill or card-bill, together with the name of point where weight was obtained; and the record as shown should be transmitted to connecting lines if no through billing arrangements are in effect, and also to the consignee on destination freight bill. If weights are obtained under weight agreements, then the records should so indicate.

Tolerance

Definition of Tolerance - The difference in weights due to variation in scales or weighing which may be permitted without correction of the billed weight.

Where carload freight, the weight of which is not subject to change from its inherent nature, is check-weighed or re-weighed en route or at destination, at the request of shipper or consignee, no correction will be made in the billed weight, except as provided below:

If the difference between the original net weight and the weight obtained by re-weighing does not exceed the tolerance, the first weight will not be changed. If such difference exceeds the tolerance, the car should be weighed a third time, if practicable. If the third weighing confirms the original weight within the tolerance, no change will be made. Where the original weight cannot be applied as above, the lower of the second or third weights should be used where the difference between the second and third weight does not exceed the tolerance.

In deciding between weights obtained on track scales as to which is the more accurate, all of the conditions under which the several weighings were done should be taken into consideration, including the class of scale, condition, how recently tested, the manner of weighing, whether car was at rest or in motion, coupled or uncoupled, actual or stenciled tare are used, the time of weighing, weather conditions and the reliability of the weigher, giving precedence to that weight obtained under the best conditions. See Glacifer Co. v. American Ry. Exp. Co., 63 1. C. C. 153 (1921); Lowry Lumber Co. v. Director General, 57 1. C. C. 503 (1920), 56 1. C. C. 229 (1919); Claims for Loss v. Damage of Grain, 56 1. C. C. 347, 48; 1. C. C. 530, 544; Adams v. Alabama, B. & A. Ry. Co., 49 1. C. C. 415, 418 (1918); Ewing & Co. v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 46 1. C. C. 471, 472 (1917); Northern Mercantile Co. v. A. E. R. Co., 42 1. C. C. 290, 293 (1916); Crouch Grairt Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. 41 1. C. C. 717 (1916); 36 1. C. C. 265 (1915); Kansas City Live Stock Exchange v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 34 1. C. C. 423 (1915); Weighing Freight by Carriers, 28 1. C. C. 29 (1913); Buffalo Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Baltimore & 0. S. W. R. Co., 21 1. C. C. 536, 538 (1911); Topeka Banana Dealers Ass'n v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 13 1. C. C. 620 (1908); Corn Belt Coal Merch. Ass'n v. A. T. & S. Fe, 171 1. C. C. 516. Adams Lbr. Co. v. Akron C. & Y., 253 1. C. C. 179.

The consignor or consignee is permitted to show the actual weight of any carload shipment either by means of shipper's authenticated invoice or by weighing the entire load on platform scales, or by weighing a proper portion of uniform or standard weight articles (not less than ten [10] per cent. of the lading), weighing to be performed under supervision of the carrier. The total weight must include all blocking, packing and debris resulting from the lading. This actual weight will be used to determine freight charges (subject to weight agreements applicable), provided the difference in weight exceeds the tolerance.

Weights of commodities subject from their inherent nature to shrinkage in weight, properly obtained at or near point of origin, should not be changed, except as provided for in the tariffs of the carriers. If obvious error is discovered, each case should be dealt with upon its individual merits and report made to the carrier with all the facts.

By schedules filed to become effective January 1, 1932, railways propose the following tolerance rule for uniform application throughout the United States on all carload traffic, except that no changes were proposed in the present weighing rules and practices with respect to lumber, grain, seeds, hay, straw and screenings:

The tolerance shall be one per cent (1%) of the lading with minimum of five hundred (500) pounds on, all carload freight, except that when Ashes, Coal, Coke, Cinders, Clay, Dolomite, Ganister, Gravel, Mill Scale, Ore, Sand, Slag, all Stone (not out), Brick, Soft Drain Tile, and Borings, Filings or Turnings (Metal), are loaded in open cars that tolerance shall be one and one-half per cent (1 1/2%) of the lading with minimum of five hundred (500) pounds. (See Note as to Coal.)

NOTE.-All provisions for tolerance in this rule covering Coal are separate from the allowance on Washed Coal published in tariff of originating carrier.

Upon protest of various interests, schedules suspended until August 1, 1932, in 1. & S. Docket No. 3654 and on April 3, 1933, the rule was found justified and the ndividual rail- roads generally apply the following rule (N. Y. C., 1. C. C. 15787-December, 1938):

The tolerance shall be one per cent (1%) of the lading, with minimum of 500 pounds, on all carload freight except that when ashes, cinders, clay, dolomite, ganister, gravel, mill-scale, ore, petroleum, coke, sand, slag, all stone (not cut), brick, soft drain tile and borings, filings or turnings (metal) are loaded in open cars, the tolerance shall be one and one-half per cent (1 1/2%) of the lading, with a minimum of 500 pounds

On January 15, 1912, in consequence of numerous complaints received from all sections of the country that the weights upon which freight charges were assessed were grossly inaccurate and that great difficulty was being experienced in correcting these inaccuracies, the Interstate Commerce Commission entered upon a comprehensive investigation of this subject and on June 18, 1913, issued report, In Re Weighing of Freight by Carrier, 28 I.C. C. 7. Subsequent to the issuance of the report a code of rules governing the weighing and reweighing of carload freight, was adopted by the American Railway Association and approved by the National Industrial Traffic League (see page 383). The tolerance rule, embodied in Rule 8, Section E, of the Code reads as follows:

The tolerance shall be I per cent of the lading, with a minimum of 500 pounds on all carload freight, including coal and coke, except that when ashes, cinders, clay, dolomite, ganister, gravel, mill scale, ore, sand, slag, all stone (not cut), and similar bulk freight, brick and soft drain tile are loaded in open cars, the tolerance shall be I per cent of the lading, with a minimum of 11000 pounds

NOTE.-Tolerance on coal and coke does not include difference in weight due to evaporation, which shall be determined and published in initial carrier's tariff.

Coal Tolerance

The tolerance on coal, adopted in 1914, and continued for many years, was 1%, but not less than 500 lbs., and in the case of the Northwestern Traffic and Service Bureau vs. Railway Co., 47 I.C. C. 549, decided December 15, 1917, no change was made in this tolerance rule, although it was alleged in cited case that the 1% tolerance was unreasonable.

In Corn Belt Coal Merchant's Association v. Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railway Company, 171 1. C. C. 516, decided December, 1930, the complainants attacked the 1% tolerance rule. Complainants sought to change the 1% allowance to a tolerance of not more than 2-10 of 1%. This was based upon tests conducted by the Bureau of Standards, Department of Committee.

A recapitulation of tests made by the Bureau of Standards in the western district since 1915 shows the following percentages of railroad track scales within the tolerance of two- tenths of I per cent, and the average-error.

The findings of the Commission in this case indicate that on account of improvements in track scales, larger equipment and heavier loading, and the present day more accurate methods of weighing, the rule for the future covering scale tolerance on coal should not i eaceed 5/10 of 1% with a minimum of 500 lbs.

The following table shows a summary of the reweighing and check weighing records of twenty-three of the principal carriers of the United States during the months of March, July, October and December, 1930, eliminating those instances (1). where shipments were weighed a second time because of visible evidence of loss, (2) where ground existed for reasonable doubt that the first weight was an actual track scale weight, and (3) where there was an obvious error in either of the two reported weights:

Following a detail discussion of the efficiency of equipment and its use in the weighing of coal the Commission found the schedules filed to become effective January 1, 1932, justified (I. & S. Docket 3654) and the tariff rule providing a scale of tolerance of I percent, minimum 500 pounds, on reweighed shipments of coal at points in Iowa, Nebraska, and adjoining states not unreasonable. The prior findings in 171 1. C. C. 516, were reversed on reargument and the complaint dismissed. (Docket 22473.) 192 1. C. C. 71. Adams Lbr. Co. v. Akron C. & Y., 253 1. C. C. 179 (1942) found principle of 192 1. C. C. 71 justified.

Washed Coal Weights

The practice of mine shippers in Indiana and Ohio is to wash coal and in some cases to dry before shipping. Modern methods classify the drying as dewatering process. In Washed Coal Weights, 45 I.C. C. 93, the Commission stated that on washed coal it was unreasonable to require shippers to pay freight on the basis of the point of origin weights when, as the record shows a material portion of that weight is lost before or shortly after the shipment begins to move, and in Re-weighing of Freight by Carrier, 28 1. C. C. 7, it was stated that a great deal of evaporation of the moisture takes place at the time of shipment or immediately thereafter. In Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau v. Ahnapee & Western, 201 1. C. C. 117, carriers rules for deduction of moisture content on dewatered or dried coal was considered, and on account of variance in weights the Commission suggested that Weights before a finding of unreasonableness in the rule could be considered, the defendant conduct adequate tests of the movement of this character of coal. Adams Lbr. Co. v. Akron C. & Y., 253 1. C. C. 179.

I.&S. Docket 4507 (232 1. C. C. 601), deduction of 1 1/2% to 8% dependent on size and applies on coal when extraneous water is removed only by use of dewatering screens or where the coal is water deducted. Lesser deduction when water is removed by dewatering screens and heat driers or centrifugal driers are used to remove moisture. The Commission said (232 I.C.C. 606) there is merit to proposed schedules, but no adequate test made in present proceeding and that same violated Section 1 (6) of Act. If objection outlined in proceeding can be met, such order is without prejudice to such filing of new schedules

Weight Agreements

Weight agreements covering the weights of shipments, between the shipper and the carrier. may be established upon application of the shipper to the carrier. The weight Weight agreement standardizes the weight of the shipper's goods, assuring the shipper of actual knowledge as to the weights that should apply on the goods. Under this arrangement the carriers, through their weighing departments, make weighing tests of the shipper's goods, and, after arriving at the weights for the different kinds of goods, an agreement is made which provides for the acceptance of those goods by the carriers at the agreed weights. This facilitates the forwarding of shipments and obviates re-weighing in transit, which means that the goods will not be subject to various scale weights, particularly when such scales would probably indicate a weight different from the correct weight, on account of weather elements or the scales not being in proper condition. Under the agreement between the shipper and carrier, the shipper is required to permit an examination of his records, and the carriers, through their weighing departments, will at certain periods re-weigh goods so as to provide for different weights that might be caused through any change made in methods of packing since original weights were obtained. This action on the part of the carriers is necessary in View of Section 10 of the Act to Regulate Commerce obligating the carrier to assess, and the shipper to pay, the prqper and lawful charges on goods transported by the carrier. (See Form 54.) See: Crutchfield, Woolford & Clore v. Florida E. C. Ry., 28 1. C. C. 274, 278 (1913); Simpson Fruit Co. v. Wells Fargo Co., 23 1. C. C. 412, 413 (1912); League of Commission Merchants v. Atlantic C. L. R.,Co., 20 I.C.C. 132, 135 (1910); Davies v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 16 1. C. C. 376, 379 (1909); Georgia Rough Cut Stone Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 13 1. C. C. 401 (1908). See also: Estimated Weight on Petroleum Crude Oil from Texas, 64 1. C. C. 545 (1921); Lake Charles Milling Co. v. A. & N. Ry. Co., 63 1. C. C. 18, 39 (1921); Henderson Lumber Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 60 1. C. C. 159 (1920); Trexler Lumber Co. v. T. & W. R. Co., 53 1. C. C. 333 (1919), Odell v. M. C. R.. Co. 92, 1. C. C. 643, etc.

Industrial Weighing

In many cases where an industry does its own weighing an allowance is made therefore by the carriers. In Ex Parte 104 Part 2, these allowances were considered. Propriety of Operating Practices-Terminal Services-209 I.C.C. 11, 30.

Decisions on Weighing

Among the recent decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission there are a number of cases involving the question of Weights and Weighing. A few salient extracts and citations are shown below

In Pendleton & Gilkey v. Director General, 64 1. C. C. 145, found that the presumption of accuracy which attaches to scale weights must be rebutted clearly to be overthrown. Pensacola Creosoting Co. v. Apalachicola Northern R. R. Co., 190 I. C. C. 500.

In Ozark Fruit Growers Awn., v. St. L. & S. P. R. R. Co., 16 1. C. C. 134, 136, a carrier has the right to establish a minimum on carload shipments as high as will permit the commodity to be safely carried without injury and that there is no duty upon the carrier to establish this minimum at such an amount as the consignee or purchaser decides is advantageous for him. In other words, the minimum should be established with relation to the capacity of the car and not to the needs or desires of the purchasers of the product. Briggs & Turivas v. Director General, 61 1. C. C. 363, that merely because it was impossible toload the minimum in a few of the cars used, it does not necessarily follow that the minimum was unreasonable. 1.S. Docket 3640 Minimum Weights on Acid&, Etc., 181 1. C. C. 36.

The practice of assessing charges at the published minimum where care furnished by carriers for their own convenience cannot reasonably be loaded to the minimum is unreasonable. Folly Town Co. v E R.R Co., 120 1.C.C, 157. In the instant case the prescribed minimum of 50,000 pounds could not possibly have been loaded in the smaller cars furnished by defendants, R. W. Davis Co. v. Minneapolis St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 194 1. C. C. 358.

In numerous cases covering claims for refunds of charges based upon alleged improper weights, we have found that the scale weight must govern in the absence of convincing proof of error. Arling-Finch Lumber Co. v. Columbus & G. Ry. Co., 193, 1. C. C. 499, Gregory-Robinsou-Speas, Inc v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 195 1. C. C. 737, H. E. Hall v. Pennsylvania 222 1. C. C. 181, Manassa Timber Co. v. Warren &S. R. R. R.. 225 1. C. C. 585, Nashville Bridge Co. v. Nashville C. & St. L., 226 1. C. C. The Commission has frequently expressed the view in cases involving claims for refunds of charges based upon alledged improper weights, that the scale weights must govern in the absence of convincing proof of error. Arling-Funch Lumber Co. v. Columbus & G.Co., 183 1. C. C. 499, and Florence v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 206 1. C. C. 614. Pennsylvania, 222 1. C. C. 181.

Estimated weights used in computing charges crude water-gas tar in Naval Stores Corp. of New York v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 208 1. C. C. pounds per gallon was found to be a fair average weight.

Estimated weight of 7.4 pounds per gallon on fuel oil in W. T. L. applicable, Kelley-Williamson Co. v. Alton R. R., 220 1. C. C. 79. Estimated weight of 4.7 pounds per gallon butane gas. Green's Fuel Inc. v. Atlanta & St. A. B., 255 1. C. C.

The question of establishing large minimum when it requires special considered in Docket 27816, granted Bituminous Paving Co. vs. Pennsylvania This case involved a minimum of 126,000 pounds of asphalt-coated stone from St Louis to Effingham, Ill. Special equipment having a capacity of 140,000 lbs was available when the shipper ordered a 60,000 pounds capacity car and because of the scarcity of such large cars a survey indicating many cars of 80,000 pounds capacity, this larger supply of equipment should be recognized in establishing minimums. Therefore, held should not exceed 90% of the 80,000 capacity cars which were plentiful for movement.

In Livestock, Western District Rates, 176 1. C. C. 1, the Commission states “Where there are facilities for weighing shipments enroute and carriers have not ascertained weights, they should be estopped from claiming that the shipments weighed in excess of the minimum on which the charges on shipments between country points are assessed as provided in their tariffs; also C. H. Hanson Co. vs. B. & M. R. R. 220 1. C. C.Son v. New Y. C. 229 1. C. C. 620.

In S. Simon v. Penna R. R. 243 1. C. C. 714 held that charges assessed by for weighing of live stock not subject to jurisdiction of I.C.C.

Estimated Weights on Vegetables

A very substantial movement of vegetables takes place under rules and regulations applicable to the charges being assessed on estimated weights. In D'Arrigo Bros Co v Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 198 1. C. C. 741, broccoli from California to eastern destinations, it was pointed out when packed and shipped in pony cauliflower crate, the estimated weights should be, California 53 pounds, Texas 31 pounds, in Los Angeles lettuce crate, California 80 pounds,Texas 58 pounds, Pea crate, California 74 pounds, Texas 45 pounds, small lettuce crate, California 40 pounds, Texas 29 pounds. With the low estimated weights in Texas the carriers endeavored to advance their weights but tariffs were suspended and the proceeding discontinued. The Commission found that continuing the difference in estimated weights on broccoli from California as against Texas resulted in preference to the former and ordered the removal of the undue prejudice. Following the California complaint the Texas carriers endeavored to advance their estimated weights and the action was subject to 1. & S. Docket 3992 (203 1. C. C. 605).

The estimated weights in Texas and California were both influenced by the package ice situation. The Commission found that the schedules of the carriers were proper except that the limitation of packing ice did not justify 40 pounds, estimated weight to apply on broccoli in the small lettuce and vegetable crates, instead of 53 pounds.

Estimated weights on celery from California was considered in I.&S. Docket No. 3930 (200 1. C. C. 647). The suspension proceeding against the California estimated weights was made by eastern and southern railroads and shippers in Florida. The Commission found that the proposed estimated weights in California were not justified and suggested that the carriers should investigate and determine.and establish proper estimated weights that would fairly represent actual weights.

Estimated weights on tomatoes in standard lug crates, in carloads, from Florida to Michigan and Pennsylvania, was considered in Mark P. Jacobsen Co. v. Florida E. C., 204 I.C.C. 68. Reference was made to Shafton Co. v. Florida E. C., 179 1. C. C. 551, wherein the Commission required the use of 70 pounds, per package for celery and 50 pounds per package for other vegetables, when the actual weights could not be determined. In the instant case the Commission found that 40 pounds per package was a reasonable estimated weight on tomatoes.

In Florida R. Comm. v. Aberdeen & R. 177 1. C. C. 735, estimated weight of 60 pounds ior bushel packages of potatoes was authorized, also Wirebound Box Mfrs. Assn. v. Aberdeen & R. 216 1. C. C. 677.

Estimated weight on citrus fruit in wirebound crates (Bruce Box) from Florida found to be 100 pounds in Estimated Weight on Citrus Fruit from Florida, 222 1. C. C. 293.

Estimated weights on oranges from Florida shipped in "bags” “Evans drums” “Bruce (Con.) crates" were treated in Waverly Grower's Corp. v. Akron, C. & Y., 226 1. C. C. 647. Standard box 100 pounds, Evans drum 100 pounds, Bruce crate 109 pounds, one half box bag 44 pounds, one-eighth box bag 11 pounds, one-tenth box bag 8.7 pounds, one-sixteenth uox bag 5.6 pounds. Grape fruit standard box 90 pounds, Evans drum 90 pounds, Bruce crate 97 pounds, one-half box bag 40 pounds, one-eighth box bag 10 pounds, one-tenth box K)ag 8 pounds, one-sixteenth box bag 5.3 pounds. From Texas on oranges standard box 96 pounds, Bruce crate 108 pounds, box bag 81 pounds, one-half box bag 41 pounds, on grape fruit, standard box 87 pounds, Bruce crate 94 pounds, box bag 77 1/2 pounds, one-half box bag 38 1/2 pounds.

Estimated weight of 6.6 pounds per gallon on petroleum in tank, cars, considered in Tanker Gas Ive v., Alton & S. 231 1. C. C. 586 (Feley 1939). Complainants exhibits indicated 5.9 to 6 pounds on gasoline and carriers reported over 6.1 pounds per gallon. Easing- aead gasoline at about 5.5 pounds per gallon, kerosene 6.75 lubricating oils 7.5 and naphtha 6.35 (231 I.C.C. 589) it was found that the assailed estimated weight and the rule respecting the use of the marked shell gallonage capacity of the car, in computing freight charges, not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful.

Potatoes - In Taylor Produce Co. v. Nashville C. & St. L., 225 1. C. C. 135 the Commission refused to require the railroads "to provide estimated weights dependent on whether the sweet potatoes were freshly dug or had been in storage prior to shipment." "In Estimated Weights on Citrus Fruit" 1. & S. Docket No. 4511 (237 1. C. C. 313) proposed increase in estimated weights denied from California, Arizona, Florida, Texas.

In 1. & S. Docket No. 4577, Estimated Weights on Fruits and Vegetables, proposed estimated weights found not justified 245 1. C. C. 479 however without prejudice to filing new schedule in accord with suggestions offered by 1. C. C.

Bureau of Standards Scale Test Report

The Federal Bureau of Standards' annual report for 1934 covers, among other things, a test that was made by the Bureau as to the accuracy of track scales.

The percentage of scales found accurate within tolerance, 77.9 per cent, is 2.7 per cent lower than the corresponding figure for last year, 80. 6 per cent. With the single exception of 1928 when the percentage of scales found within tolerance decreased one-tenth of one per cent from that found in 1927, this is the first year since 1922 that this figure has failed to show an increase over the figure for the preceding year.

It is interesting to note that there is a marked difference in the accuracy tendency of railroad-owned and industry-owned scales. The percentage within tolerance, in the case of the former group, is 84.4 per cent, representing an increase of 4. 1 per cent over the preceding yearwhen the figure was 80.3 per cent; this is a very excellent record especially in view of prevailing conditions. The figure for industry-owned scales, on the contrary, has dropped very sharply, there being a decrease in this group of 10. 0 per cent, from 81.1 per cent to 71.1 per cent.

The Western District again leads in percentage of scales found correct, with 87. 0 per cent, practically the same as last year's figure of 87.6 per cent. The percentage of raflroad-owned scales found correct rism from 87. 0 per cent to 92. 9 per cent, an all-time high for any district; industry-owned scales have fallen from 88. 8 per cent to 79. 9 per cent.

The Eastern District comes next in order but shows a decrease in percentage of scales accurate, from 81. 7 per cent to 74. 1 per cent. Industry-owned scales are largely responsible for this change since the figure for railroad-owned scales remains constant, 81.6 per cent in 1933, and 81.7 per cent in 1934, while the corresponding figures for industry-owned scales are 82.0 per cent and 67. 8 per cent.

The Southern District still shows the least satisfactory conditions although from the standpoint of general improvement it has the best record of all, being the only one to show a substantial increase over last year, 3.8 pereent, from 67.5 percent to 71.3 percent. Railroad-owned scales have improved from 69.9 per cent to 76.3 per cent; industry-owned scales from 59.2 per cent to 64.9 per cent. In this latter connection it should be noted that in 1933 too few industry-owned scales were tested in the South for the percentage of scales found correct to be relied upon as representative, so that this increase may be more apparent than real. This year 190 railroad-owned scales and 151 industry-owned scales were tested in this district and percentage figures based on these numbers should, it seems, be reasonably representative of the whole.

National Code of Rules

The American Railway Association has drafted a Code of Weighing and Re-weighing Rules which has been adopted by many railroads. This Code, with the public announcement of the Interstate Commerce Commission endorsing and recommending it (June 9, 1914 Unreported, N. W. Traffic & Service Bureau v. C. M. & St. P. 47 1. C. C. 549; Smith & Duckworth v. C. C. C. 100 1. C. C. 300) is herein reproduced.

Rules Governing The Weighing and Re-weighing of Carload Freight

NATIONAL CODE OF RULES GOVERNING THE WEIGHING AND RE-WEIGHING OF CARLOAD FREIGHT

The American Railway Association has adopted the code of rules governing the weighing and re-weighing of carload freight reported by its Weighing Committee, and recommends that it be made generally applicable on interstate traffic. These rules have been considered and approved by the National Industrial Traffic I&ague. The Interstate Commerce Commission, recognizing the great benefits to be derived from uniformity in weighing and re-weighing rules, is desirous of lending its influence to the movement. The Commission, therefore, indorses the rules governing the weighing and re-weighing of carload freight adopted by the American Railway Association and recommends that they be made effective on interstate transportation throughout the country.

This action, of course, is subject to the right and duty of the Comniiwion to inquire into the legality or reasonable- ness of any rule or rules which may be made the subject of complaint.

rolex,fake rolex for sale,hublot,rolex daytona,rolex replica,rado,roger dubuis,audemars piguet,tag heuer,franck muller,fake watcheslongines,rolex yachtmaster,richard mille,emporio armani,jaeger lecoultre,rolex datejust,rolex sea dweller,patek philippe

ProTrak