Chapter IX · FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION[315] (continued 2)
Reading edition
The close interdependence of classification and distance tariffs, as well as, incidentally, the differing spread of rates between various groups of goods under the three existing classification systems, are so fundamental in their bearing on reform that yet another illustration may not be out of place. It is given in the following table. This shows the rates from St. Louis—standing at the meeting point of the main classification territories—for approximately equal distances out in three different directions.
Rates Cents per 100 lbs.
Southern Classification—
St. Louis to Nashville 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B
(323 miles) 61 52 45 35 28 23 22 26
Official Classification—
St. Louis to Louisville 1 2 3 4 5 6
(317 miles) 41 34½ 25½ 17½ 15 12
Western Classification—
St. Louis to St. Joseph 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E
(320 miles) 60 45 35 27 22 24½ 19½ 17 13½ 11
Illinois Classification—
St. Louis to Chicago 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(284 miles) 43.3 35.2 27.5 22 17.6 16.6 15.1 13.5 10.7 9.6
One line penetrates Southern territory 323 miles to Nashville; another goes eastward 317 miles to Louisville under Official ratings; and the third extends westward 320 miles to St. Joseph, according to the schedules of the Western Classification. To these three there is also added a set of rates north bound under the Illinois Classification which applies between St. Louis and Chicago, 284 miles. This last schedule, of course, is prescribed by the state railway commission. The first point to notice is the widely different number of groups in the four schedules. One is divided into eight classes; another into six; while the last two are each spread over ten subdivisions. Secondly, bearing in mind that the three upper schedules govern approximately the same mileage, it will be noted that the Official rate, first class, is only about two-thirds of that in the other two classes. If one then compares the sixth group in each case, an even greater divergence appears—the Official rate being only about one-half of that in the other two cases. Or, taking the lowest rates of all in the three upper schemes—always, be it noted, for equal mileages—it now appears that the Official and the Western descend to about the same figure, while the Southern is arrested at a point more than twice as high. The primary significance of this showing is, of course, that a single uniform classification in which all of these three systems should be merged, means not merely a reassignment of all possible commodities in a given number of classes; but also a complete recasting of the distance tariffs as well. In other words, as aforesaid, freight rates being compounded of the two factors, distance charge and classification, all the delicate adjustments based upon commercial competition throughout the country, would be thrown into utter confusion; unless every modification of the grouping of classes were accompanied by a corresponding change in the rates per mile. A task sufficient indeed to appall the best of traffic experts!
To complete the demonstration of the complexity of present arrangements, and yet of the danger incident to rudely disturbing them, one should apply the classified rates in the preceding paragraph for these equal hauls to particular commodities. Take household goods in carloads, for example:—
Cents per 100 lbs. Per Cent. of first-class rate.
St. Louis to Nashville 23 38
St. Louis to Louisville 34.5 83
St. Louis to St. Joseph 19.5 33
St. Louis to Chicago 15.1 35
Examination of the classification volumes thus assigns these the following rates in the three directions for equal distances out of St. Louis. Going east the charge would be 34.5 cents, going west 19.5 cents, and going south 23 cents per 100 pounds, respectively. The hodgepodge is made more manifest by the right hand column in this table, in which the percentage of first-class rates levied upon household goods in carloads under the four classifications is shown. Under the Official system, with the lowest first-class rates, as above noted, the rate on household goods is higher than under any of the other three. The result is that the relation between the rate on household goods and first-class goods is eighty-three per cent.; whereas in the other two cases it is substantially less than half this percentage. This single illustration, it is hoped, may drive home the conclusion that there is an immense mass of fortuitous and utterly unreasonable allocation under the classification systems as they are at present established.[385] But whether that may be used as an argument in favor of substituting a single uniform classification is open to serious doubt. Rather does it serve to emphasize the fact that rigid revision of the present scheme under Federal control, perhaps, is more necessary than an experiment in uprooting the entire system.
A few general conclusions may be drawn from this rather over-elaborate description of present conditions as to classification in the United States. It has been necessary, however, to reiterate details in order to make clear the extremely unsatisfactory situation at the present time. In fact, in this domain of classification, standardization of practice so characteristic of American rate making and operation in general, has noticeably lagged behind. Whether it will be possible, in view of the wide extent of the country and the diversity of its climatic and commercial conditions, ever to devise a single uniform classification is open to serious doubt. Even the Interstate Commerce Commission, once a leader in the demand for uniformity, now concedes this fact in particular instances.[386] Thus:—"wool east of the Mississippi is taken up at numerous points and is carried under comparatively light loading. What would be a fair classification there, would not be just in the Far West, where the movement is almost entirely in carloads and where the actual loading is from two to three times that in Official Classification territory. We are of the opinion that wool should be classified under the Western Classification as second class, l. c. l., and fourth class, c. l.," etc. The experience of England is, of course, commonly cited as a precedent.[387] In that little country the ever-increasing complexity of classification was precisely parallel to our own. From simple schedules for a few hundred articles, the number of items steadily increased until there were over 4,000. At this point the government intervened; and after tedious and protracted sessions under the auspices of the Board of Trade in 1888 the whole schedule was brought down to 1,400 separate items. All the complicated and confusing rules were harmonized and many anomalies were cut out. Certain it is that matters should be firmly taken in hand in this country in the same manner. The separate state classifications and hundreds of conflicting rules and jurisdictions should be eradicated. Even if a single uniform classification be proved impracticable, as seems to me likely, it might still be possible to greatly simplify the present intolerable mix-up. There should be a representative of the Interstate Commerce Commission on each of the classification committees, ready at all times to exert pressure for simplification and uniformity.[388] The three main classification committees, supposing that they shall continue to exist, should interlock by exchange of representatives. The greater the reform flowing from the initiative of the carriers themselves, the better. Thus, in time, matters may become sufficiently standardized as between the three main committees so that, under legal compulsion or otherwise, the final problem of uniformity may be tackled by recasting the whole body of tariffs and classifications together. But such a task at this writing appears almost superhuman. Conditions may, of course, so shape themselves ultimately that it may be brought about. But, in the meantime, steady and persistent pressure should be exercised in the direction of this final goal. Reform of classification practice is certainly the greatest need of the time in the transportation field.