more likely to be used and not wasted than if their movement was dependent in each and every instance upon the publication of separate commodity rates. It may be that it would be well for the carriers to further encourage their movement by publishing rates lower than on lumber. There is nothing in the findings of the majority to prevent the establishment of lower rates. However, these commodities load much lighter than lumber, and carriers may on that account be justified in charging rates as high as on lumber except to the extent to which lower values and other valid considerations may dictate lower rates. The belief that this rate relationship is inconsistent and "anomalous" rests upon a desire for a "line of demarcation" which should be apparent to the eye rather than one which should embrace all essential transportation considerations. Similarly, the objection raised against a rating of lumber rates plus 25 per cent for turned columns manufactured in millworking establishments, while square columns manufactured in lumber mills are accorded lumber rates, indicates a failure to appreciate the underlying basis for this classification. Columns manufactured in lumber mills move together with other saw and planing mill products under comparatively heavy loading, whereas columns manufactured in millworking establishments, besides being of higher value, having been manufactured with more care and precision, are shipped, together with other millwork, under lighter loading than lumber, and herein lies the basis for the differentiation made.

It is pointed out that some of the articles under consideration, such as "axles, rims, shafts, singletrees, spokes, tongues, and whiffletrees," are not lumber; that they have been subjected to different processes and "can be used for but a single purpose," whereas ordinary lumber" is capable of serving eventually any one of numerous purposes." This fact, however, should have no bearing upon the inclusion of these articles in a lumber list or upon their rate relationship to lumber. The determinative considerations, which are fully set forth in the majority report, are that these articles are identical with lumber in classification and transportation characteristics, and therefore should take no higher rates. Not only is the rate relationship of agricultural implement material to lumber desirable, but it is necessary in order to permit competition with lumber manufacturers for stumpage. This is also attested by existing lumber lists published by carriers. In this connection attention may be called to the fact that, although much lumber is used for further manufacture, a large proportion, embracing such articles as astragals, balusters, casing, ceiling, flooring, guttering, and lath, now almost universally classified as lumber, is largely limited to definite uses and not adaptable to other purposes.

In the minority report it is argued that "if the rates on lumber products must bear a fixed relation to the rates on lumber, there is apparently no logical reason why the rates on " iron and steel articles should not similarly be definitely related to rates on pig iron, the rates on glucose, corn oil, corn meal, gluten feed, and dextrine to the rates on corn, and so on.

This does not bear analysis. It is true that, similarly to lumber and lumber products, the articles referred to are raw materials and their products. But it does not follow that because the distinguishing transportation characteristics between lumber and lumber products are such as to permit a constant rate relationship that this must necessarily also be true of all raw materials and the articles manufactured therefrom, unless they bear the same relationship. There is no evidence in the record showing this nor does the minority claim it can be adduced.

Reference has already been made to the fact that the freight rate has a direct bearing upon the possibility of manufacturers of agricultural-implement material competing for stumpage with manufacturers of lumber. Upon this point the following is stated in a brief filed on behalf of manufacturers of agricultural and vehicle material:

Plants manufacturing vehicle materials are found alongside the plants manufacturing lumber; in a great many instances the same plant manufactures ordinary lumber and implement and vehicle material as well. There is the keenest competition among manufacturers of vehicle material in the sale of their product and between these manufacturers and the manufacturers of ordinary lumber in the purchase of their timber or logs. The close interrelationship of these industries arises chiefly out of the following considerations: The price of standing timber or logs of given quality at any point in the United States is determined by the rates of freight to the consuming markets. Obviously the manufacturer of vehicle material can not buy his stumpage for less money than the lumber manufacturer is willing to pay.

The manufacturer of vehicle material in Indiana, Ohio, or Kentucky pays the same price for his stumpage as the lumber manufacturer in those states. The lumber manufacturer in the south can pay, and does pay, for his stumpage a price which bears the same relation to the price of stumpage in Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky as his freight rates bear to the freight rates from those states to the important consuming markets of the middle west.

It is obvious, therefore, that the manufacturer of vehicle material in the south, who is compelled to pay the same price for his logs as the southern lumber manufacturer, and who under this proposed classification would pay 10 per cent or 20 per cent higher rates to reach the consuming markets of the central west (70 per cent of the production of vehicles is within a radius of 300 miles of Chicago), would be at a serious handicap as compared with his competitors in the nearby producing territory of Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. It is obvious that any change in the present classification would constitute a most serious handicap for the manufacturer of vehicle material located at a distance from the consuming markets.

Veneer, built-up wood, and lumber are frequently used for like purposes and come into direct competition. Manufacturers of millwork are located in every part of the country. All use lumber as their raw material. Unless the rates on millwork and lumber are so related as to reflect relative costs of transportation, undue prejudice is bound to result. These impelling reasons for a lumber list, the reality of which is attested by the fact that to-day the bulk of the transportation of lumber and lumber products is under lumber lists voluntarily established by the carriers, should not be brushed aside by referring to other commodities the rates on which may not necessarily be closely related.

The rate relationships herein indicated are found to be "the maximum limit of departure which can not be transgressed without creating a violation of law." I believe that the carriers in meeting the requirements of this report should observe the rate relationships indicated as the minimum as well as the maximum limit of departure unless sufficient grounds for a different course are clearly discernible. The need for such action is obvious, particularly with respect to the rate relationship of millwork and lumber from the Pacific coast; for just as the maintenance of rates on millwork from the Pacific coast which exceed lumber rates by more than 15 per cent will be unduly prejudicial to manufacturers there located, just so will rates which are less than 15 per cent over lumber rates be unduly prejudicial to middle western manufacturers of millwork. In that connection it should be emphasized that by establishing this rate relationship of millwork to lumber from the Pacific coast no attempt is made to equalize millworking plants in the middle west with plants located on the Pacific coast. The weight of the inbound raw material to middle western mills is as much as 30 per cent higher than the weight outbound of millwork produced from the same quantity of lumber by Pacific coast manufacturers. The advantage which accrues to the Pacific coast manufacturers. due to this fact and the consequent disadvantage of middle western plants is one of geographical location. However, such disadvantage to middle western manufacturers as results from the fact that transcontinental carriers are willing to accept lower earnings on millwork from the Pacific coast than on lumber used as raw material for like products of middle western plants is one which this Commission may not permit.

The minority criticises our findings with regard to the rate relationship of lumber and spokes in the case of Eastern Wheel Mfrs. Asso. v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C., 370, decided June 17, 1913, by unanimous vote of the Commission as then constituted. The necessity for a consistent rate relationship of lumber and lumber products

was also recognized in Oklahoma Traffic Asso. v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 36 I. C. C., 329, decided unanimously on November 3, 1915, where we said at page 342:

We have held in a number of cases that manufactured products of lumber should take higher rates than lumber from and to the same points, and for the identical reasons now advanced by respondents, Yellow Pine Sash, Door & Blind Mfrs. Asso. v. S. Ry. Co., 35 I. C. C., 150, and cases cited therein; also that the rates on the manufactured products should be related uniformly to the corresponding rates on lumber.

And page 343:

Different relationships between the rates on sash, doors, and blinds and on lumber from Shreveport and Oklahoma points to Texas than from St. Louis and the other competing points named are totally indefensible.

Other unanimous decisions of the Commission whereby a rate relationship of lumber products to lumber was established are: Fullerton Powell Hardwood Lumber Co. v. V. & S. W. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C., 86; Oshkosh Traffic Asso. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C., 385; Signor Tie Co. v. 1. & G. N. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C., 615; National Pole Co. v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C., 378; Switzer Lumber Co. v. A. & M. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C., 471; California Pole & Piling Co. v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C., 507; Kelly Plow Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C., 581; Anson, Gilkey & Hurd Co. v. S. P. Co., 33 I. C. C., 332; Fetterman Bowl & Column Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 33 I. C. C., 514; Yellow Pine Sash, Door & Blind Mfrs. Asso. v. S. Ry. Co., 35 I. C. C., 150; Nashville Tie Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 38 I. C. C., 689; Bowie Lumber Co. v. M. L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 39 I. C. C., 609; Green & Son v. S. Ry. Co., 40 I. C. C., 157; Powell-Myers Lumber Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co., 41 I. C. C., 425; Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 42 I. C. C., 6; Powell-Myers Lumber Co. v. L., H. & St. L. Ry. Co., 42 I. C. C., 245; Southern Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 43 I. C. C., 13; Napanee Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co., 43 I. C. C., 236; Memphis Freight Bureau v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 45 I. C. C., 121; Harmount v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 45 I. C. C., 162; Daugherty, McKey & Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 45 I. C. C., 535; and Houston Tie & Lumber Co. v. M. L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 46 I. C. C., 469.

WOOLLEY, Commissioner, concurring:

In concurring with the majority report I desire to state in a general way my reasons for so doing.

In the first place, I can not state too strongly my view that the extent of our future national prosperity and development depends in large measure upon the policy adopted toward our railroads and that one of the most important steps to be taken is to put the rates and

regulations affecting transportation, by land and by water, upon a more stable, a more uniform, and a more scientific basis; in fact, upon the most stable, uniform, and scientific basis possible. I am further of the opinion that it is the duty of this Commission not only to advocate whatever legislation it considers essential to the elimination of any preferences and injustices inherent in the present rate structure, but also to make the maximum progress to this end consistent with the spirit of the laws now on our statute books. I realize that in its past undertakings in this direction it has had to give weight to and in effect approve considerations which have made impracticable substantial uniformity even in the same section and that in its present undertakings it is probably not advisable to ignore altogether those same considerations, notwithstanding the provision of the federal control act which, in referring to rates initiated by the President, provides that

In determining any question concerning any such rates, fares, charges, classifications, regulations, or practices or changes therein, the Interstate Commerce Commission shall give due consideration to the fact that the transportation systems are being operated under a unified and coordinated national control and not in competition.

It is undeniable that for many years the tendency has been toward uniformity, for while the theory behind the acts of Congress and of the several state legislatures has been that the maximum of transportation efficiency and of benefit to the people is to be secured through the fostering of competition between carriers, the actual forces have limited this competition. Years ago, although such action was contrary to the theory of the law, carriers were permitted as a practical necessity to agree upon rates, ratings, and relationships between commodities and between communities. In our special report of December 5, 1917, to the Congress we admitted that the effect of our findings and orders was to reduce competition, our language on this point being as follows:

Their past operations have been competitive, although since the Hepburn act, and especially since the Mann-Elkins act, the prescription by this Commission of reasonable maximum rates and charges for rail carriers subject to the act, and the exercise of its power to require abatement of unjust discrimination or undue prejudice, have in great degree restricted that competition to the field of service.

One of the most important steps in the progress toward uniformity was the establishment of the three major classifications, and we are now engaged in the most extensive investigation yet conducted by this body, the purpose of which is the consolidation of these classifications into one volume, with uniform descriptions and rules. The putting in of such a classification will further uniformity consid