justify grossly excessive rates.-N. O. Cotton Exch. v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 648, 2 Inters. Com. R. 289, 2 I. C. C. R. 375. The actual earnings of a company have evidentiary value in determining the value of the company's plant and franchises.- Kennebec Water Dist. v. Waterville, 97 Me. 185, 54 Atl. 6, 60 L. R. A. 856.

In estimating the gross earnings of passenger trains, there should be included the earnings from the passenger fares, express, baggage and mails.- Commissioner of Railroads v. Wabash R. Co., 123 Mich. 669, 82 N. W. 526; affd. 126 Mich. 113, 85 N. W. 466.

[54]

Value and cost of service rendered.

Value of service to shipper as factor in determining as to proper classifications, see ante, § 28, note [34].

Cost of carrying as justifying violations of long and short haul rule,— see ante, § 36, note [26].

The cost of service to the carrier is a circumstance to be considered in rate making.- Western U. Tel. Co. v. Call Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 561; Interst. Com. Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 986; Interst. Com. Commission v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37; affd. 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 844; Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 296; Ransome v. Eastern R. Co., (1857) 1 C. B., N. S. (Eng.) 437.

In determining what is a reasonable rate, the value of the property employed and the expenses of operation should be considered.-Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 90 Fed. 683; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Hunt, Ind. App. 79 N. E. 927.

-

The value of the service to the shipper is relevant in fixing a rate.— Interst. Com. Commission v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37; affd. 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. R., (U. S.) 844.

The cost of the service is not a conclusive method of arriving at the reasonableness of a rate.- Society Am. Florists v. U. S. Exp. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 138.

In adjusting rates, the cost of the service to the carrier should not be given such weight as to leave out of consideration the value of the service to the shipper.- Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 382; affd. and applied, Planters' Compress Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

The adjustment of rates on different articles on the basis of comparative cost to the carrier is not a proper method.- Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 382; affd. and applied, Planters' Compress Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

Cost of handling is to be considered in fixing rates.- Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548.

A higher rate for a special service, such as the moving of perishable freight, should bear an equitable relation to the value of the service to the traffic, and it cannot be fixed arbitrarily by the carrier.- Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 554, 4. I. C. C. R. 588.

Rates should bear a reasonable relation to the cost of producing the commodity and the value of the service to the producer and shipper, but should not on that account be so low as to put burdens on other traffic.In re Excessive Rates on Food Products, 3 Inters. Com. R. 93, 4 I. C. C. R. 48.

The value of the service, as well as its cost, is to be considered in determining what would be a reasonable rate.-Thurber v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 397, 648, 2 Inters. Com. R. 472, 3 I. C. C. R. 473.

The reasonableness of a rate is tested not by the value of the service to the person receiving the service, but by the return it gives to the carrier. No commission could fix a rate on the basis of value of the service as the value must necessarily be constantly varying and would differ even between consignees at the same point.- Clyde v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 57 Fed. 436.

The superiority of express service over ordinary railroad freight service in the respects of speedy collection, transportation and delivery, justifies the imposing of rates reasonably higher than those imposed for ordinary freight service.- Herendeen v. U. S. Exp. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, February 18, 1908.

A public service corporation can demand no greater compensation than the services rendered are reasonably worth to the public as individuals and not in the aggregate.— Brunswick Water Dist. v. Water Co., 99 Me. 371, 59 Atl. 537; Kennebec Water Dist. v. Waterville, 97 Me. 185. 54 Atl. 6, 60 L. R. A. 856.

[55] - Risks of the enterprise.

While it is true that the fair value of the property used by a public service corporation is the basis of calculation as to the reasonableness of rates, this is not the only element of calculation. There must be consideration for, among other things, the risks of the incipient enterprise. on the one hand, and whether all the property used is reasonable necessary to the service and whether as a structure it is unreasonably expensive, on the other.- Brunswick Water Dist. v. Water Co., 99 Me. 371, 59 Atl. 537.

Those who invest in hazardous enterprises may reasonably be entitled, for a time at least, to larger returns than would be the case if means in the enterprise were assured from the beginning, and therefore the risk of the enterprise may be considered in determining what are reasonable rates.- Kennebec Water Dist. v. Waterville, 97 Me. 185, 54 Atl. 6, 60 L. R. A. 856.

[56]

Cost and value of article transported.

Advance in price of commodity carried as justification for advance in rates,― see ante, § 26, note [39].

Value of property carried as bearing on proper classification,- see ante, § 28, note [34].

Cost or value of articles carried as justifying discriminatory rates,— see ante, § 31, note [43].

Differences in value of goods carried as justifying violations of long and short haul rule,- see post, § 36, note [25].

The value of the goods shipped is a relevant fact in fixing a rate.— Interst. Com. Commission v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37; affd. 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 844; Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548; Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505; Buchannan v. No. Pac. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 655, 5 I. C. C. R. 7; Evans v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 314, 326, 641, 1 I. C. C. R. 325.

Differences in cost of manufacture afford no grounds for action by the Interstate Commerce Commission in determining relatively reasonable rates.- Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 659.

In determining what the relation should be between the rates for transporting two different articles of freight, value is an important factor, not alone because of the greater risk connected with the transportation of the more valuable article, but because of its bearing upon the value to the shipper of the service rendered in transportation.- Chicago Live Stock Exch. v. Ch. G. W. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 428.

In the carriage of great staples, which supply an enormous business, and which in market value and actual cost of transportation are among the cheapest articles of commerce, rates yielding only a moderate profit to the carrier are both necessary and justifiable.- National Hay Assn. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 264.

Value is an important element in the fixing of rates, but it cannot be made an arbitrary standard independent of all other considerations.— Grain Shippers' Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 158.

A greater value of a product transported justifies the exaction of a higher rate than that exacted for the transportation of an article of less value.- Truck Farmers' Assn. v. Northeastern R. Cc., 6 Inters. Com. R. 295.

Differences in value of finished and unfinished bedroom sets and the greater tonnage per carload which can be carried of the latter, together with other factors affecting the interests of both carrier and shipper, require that the rate on the unfinished product shall not exceed 85 per cent. of the rates on the finished.- Potter Mfg. Co. v. Ch. & G. T. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 223, 5 I. C. C. R. 514.

Rates for any service by the carrier cannot be fixed arbitrarily but should bear a fair and reasonable relation to the antecedent average cost of the traffic as delivered to the carrier for transportation, and the average market price the freight will command.- Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 554, 4 I. C. C. R. 588.

Rates should bear a reasonable relation to the cost of producing the commodity and the value of the service to the producer and shipper, but should not on that account be so low as to put burdens on other traffic.— In re Excessive Rates on Food Products, 3 Inters. Com. R. 93, 4 I. C. C. R. 48.

[57]

Remunerativeness of business of shipper.

The fact that the business of producing certain commodities has become unusually prosperous and remunerative will not justify an advance in rates for transportation of the same which are already reasonably high. -Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505.

In passing upon a complaint, the Interstate Commerce Commission will take into consideration the fact that the complainant is not a shipper, producer, or purchaser of the commodity with which the complaint deals, but that the relief is sought only to make conditions more favorable to the use of a compress machine sold solely by complainant.— Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 382; affd. and applied, Planters' Compress Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

Increased volume of traffic no justification for advances in rates,— see ante, § 26, note [39].

Volume of traffic to be considered in determining as to proper classifications, see ante, § 28, note [34].

Amount of freight shipped as justification for discriminations in rates, see ante, § 31, note [44].

Amount shipped as justification for discrimination in facilities,- see ante, § 32, note [16].

Volume of business is to be considered in rate making.— Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47; Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co.,

11 Inters. Com. R. 296; Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548; Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505; Buchannan v. No. Pac. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 655, 5 I. C. C. R. 7.

The general rule is, the greater the tonnage of an article of traffic, the lower is the rate.- Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505.

In the carriage of great staples, which supply an enormous business, and which in market value and actual cost of transportation are among the cheapest articles of commerce, rates yielding only a moderate profit to the carrier are both necessary and justifiable.— National Hay Assn. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 264.

The total charge for a carload of large tonnage should be greater than for a carload of less tonnage, but other things being equal the rate per cwt. should be less in the former case.- Murphy Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 649, 725, 5 I. C. C. R. 122.

Bulk of commodity carried as bearing on question of proper classification, see ante, § 28, note [34].

Differences in bulk of goods carried as justifying violations of long and short haul rule,- see ante, § 36, note [25].

The bulk of a commodity is a matter to be considered in rate making. -Interst. Com. Commission v. B. & O. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 844, affg. s. c. 43 Fed. 37.

As a general rule, the fact that a commodity occupies more space to a given weight than another is a ground for making the rate on the former higher than on the latter, leaving out of the calculation the further fact that the greater the weight carried, the greater is the consumption of fuel and wear and tear on rolling stock and the track. – Truck Farmers' Assn. v. Northeastern R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 295.

Where an assessing board is charged with the duty of valuing a certain number of miles of railroad within the state forming part of a line of road running into another state, it may assess those miles of road at their actual cash value determined on a mileage basis, as this is not placing a burden upon interstate commerce, beyond the power of the state, simply because the value of that railroad is created partly by interstate commerce which it is doing.- Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 439, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1122, affg. s. c. 133 Ind. 513, 33 N. E. 421.