Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1919-05-08
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM
MISSION RULES IN FAVOR OF
MIDDLE-WEST MEN.
.olFFERENcEs IN WEIGHT"
CLAUSE ELIMINATED
Director Hines Ordered to Adopt Uni
form, Bill Of ladns For All Ship
menis-controversy OF Long Stand
ing Finally Adiusted-carriers Not
Liable For Leaky Car Shrinkage.
TBy f. G. Dougherty.l


Washington. May s-iowa and other
middlewest and northwestern grain
! shippers won an important victory
1 over the railroads in the bills of lading
decision just announced by the inter-
state commerce commission. The COM
mission ordered stricken from the
uniform bill the words Differences in
weight of grain. seed ond other COM
modities caused by or dis
crepancies in elevator weights" 1t held
that these words impart an unlawful
| and unreasonable meaning into bills of
ladinE."
Director General Walker d. Hines is
| directed to adopt the uniform bill of
| iading. with the offensive grain feat
ures eliminated by Aug. s. This means
that the bulk of the winter crop and
all the winter wheat crop and all the
spring wheat crop will be shipped
under the new rules.
The fight between the shippers and
the carriers is many years old. The in
terstate commerce commission began
consideration OF the controversy seven
wears ago Last winter Director Cen
eraI NcAdoo, of the railroad admin
istra tion threw grain shippers into a
panic by transferring in a general
order. the burden from sound box cars
from the carrier to the shipper. Mr..
McAdoo ruled that il was up to the
shipper TO find out before loading his
| wheat whether the car would leak.
This put the burden of proof on the
shipper. The grain trade. Of course,
protested vigorously, declaring 1t
would he virtually impossible TO COL
! lect loss thru claims from the roads
under such circumstances.
About the time the controversy
reached white, heat. Mr.. McAdoo step
| ped out and Mr.. Hines in. A moditi-
cation was promised and nothing more
Carrier Not Liable For Shrinkage.
| In its decision the interstate COM
merce commission discussed the ques-
ton of discrepancies in elevator
weights" at great length. The ship
pers, il said. readily admitted that the
carrier is not liable for loss caused by
natural shrinkage. 1t held that losses
| in weight above the natural shrinkage
usually results from loss in transit or
! discrepancies, variance in the weights
of the different elevator scales"
| Illustrating how the discrepancy
! clause operates to the disadvantage TO
| the shipper, the commission said:
"A shipper loads $4,000 pounds of
wheat in a car. according TO weights
at original point of shipment, but the
carrier delivers only $4,000 pounds ac-
cordiug 10 scale weights ar destination.
The carrier may. and does, excuse it
self by quoting this clause in the bill
OF lading. The practical operation Of
the clause is to place the hazard OF
transportation on the shipper. whereas
the liability should properly rest with
the carrier.
The carrier is liable, both at com
mon law and under the federal statute
for any actual loss of goods caused by
it while in transit. II difference in
weights results from actual loss Of the
goods so caused by it the carrier must
pay the claim for such loss. Under the
law. il is the carriers duty TO collect
and the shippers duty 10 pay freight
charges based upon correct, not esti-
mated weights. The claim loss pre-
sents a question of fact. Whether or
not discrepancy in elevator weights
results from actual loss of the com
modify or an error, human or mechan-
ical in the weighing operations, Is a
question of fact to be determined from
all the evidence. The burden of proof
to show what is the correct weight
should depend, in a measure at least
upon which of the parties, carrier OF
shipper, is responsible for the accuracy
of the weights