December 10, lOlTi 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



17 



for Nc. 2 common 8/4 and $17 and $17.50 for No. 3, 6/4 and 8/4. 

 For 10/4 stock the prices would be about $44, $30-$32, $22 and $24. 

 Ash, according to Mr. Goodman, would sell all along at about $1 

 less than elm. 



Speaking further of ash, Mr. Hamer said the contracting trade 

 is willing to pay considerably more than it has for some time, 

 the price for No. 2 common and better 4/4 stock being around $35. 

 He said the 4/4 No. 3 was selling low, in fact as low as for $13 

 to $13.50 in Chicago, but is now bringing much more money. 

 Maple is in good demand in 4, 5, 6 and 8/4 good No. 1 common and 

 better grades, and is sure to be in much better shape, with 2" 

 ■exceedingly scarce and flooring stock in excellent condition. There 

 have been large stocks of No. 3 common but many mills are now 



entirely cleaned up on this stuff and a great deal more money is 

 now being realized for general run of maple than heretofore. 



Mr. Harder, in speaking of the hemlock situation, said it has im- 

 proved in price materially in the last thirty days, also that the 

 volume at going prices is much better. He instanced one firm that 

 recently sold 20,000,000 feet at a price of $1.50 over figures pre- 

 vailing thirty days ago. 



Mr. Robson stated his firm is getting lots of business from 

 northern Illinois from which territory they have not been getting 

 orders for a good many months past. 



C. H. Worcester expressed the opinion that the furniture busi- 

 ness will be normal for the year 1916 and that the outlook is very 

 excellent for all kinds of hardwoods. 



TOmsM^Mibi^aiOiTOMTOitLroiim:^^ 



Six decisions affecting lumber were handed down by the Inter- 

 state Commerce Commission during the past two weeks. The most 

 important ruling to the hardwood industry is that in the case of 

 Maley & Wertz, engaged in the manufacture of hardwood lumber 

 at Evansville, Ind., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., against the 

 Louisville & Nashville Railroad. The suit was brought by the 

 Nashville Lumbermen's Club. An extract from the opinion, which 

 was written by Commissioner Clements, is as follows: 



It is alleged that effective on June 16, 1912, the defendant amended its 

 transit rules and regulations by requiring siiippcrs to keep detailed 

 records and make daily reports o£ tlie receipt of all logs and to segre- 

 gate each species of wood and lumber manufactured from tlie different 

 varieties of logs, and by providing tiiat the transit rate would not be 

 accorded on a shipment of logs Inbound unless an equivalent outbound 

 shipment of lumber of the same species were made. The charge is 

 made that the requirement of a segregation in claims and reports of 

 each species of logs and lumber and the requirement tbnt detailed 

 records be kept and daily reports he made are unjust and unreasonable 

 and unjustly discriminatory. Wliat in substance complainants desire 

 is that all hardwood logs shall be regarded as one species and that the 

 "kind for lilnd" rule be abrogated, which, if done, would malic unneces- 

 sary the keeping of the records and the making of the reports now 

 required. 



Complainants generally buy logs of the different species of hard- 

 wood timber, oak, ash, maple, poplar, etc., sometimes all at the same 

 point and sometimes at different points, and these logs are shipped to 

 their respective plants without being separated in the cars, and occa- 

 sionally shipments are billed as logs without any designation of the 

 kind or kinds, although the tariffs require such designation on the 

 trilling. The local tariff rate, called the gross rate, is paid on the 

 logs when they move to the mills. Thereafter within 12 months when 

 the lumber from any particular liind of logs is shipped out at the local 

 rate to point of destination the defendant refunds a portion of the in- 

 bound rate on a sufficient quantity of logs of the same kind to make 

 the lumber shipped out, it being estimated that three pounds of logs 

 make one pound of lumber. The rate resulting by deducting the refund 

 from the gross rate is called the net rate. The logs from which this 

 lumber is made may move from different points of origin from which 

 different amounts of refunds are applied. To illustrate, cars of oak 

 logs may move from different stations from which the amount of the 

 refund varies widely, and thfe manufacturer may use any Inbound expense 

 bills to obtain a refund when he ships out his oak lumber, and as no 

 differentiation of oak logs is made because of the point of origin he 

 naturally uses the inbound expense bill which yields the highest refund. 

 If when the manufacturer ships out poplar or maple lumber he could 

 use an inbound expense bill on shipments of logs of whatever species, 

 the opportunity to utilize the inbound billing yielding the greatest re- 

 fund would be increased. It is the lack of this opportunity which Is 

 the gravamen of the complaints. 



Hardwood timber does not usually exist in sufficient quantities to 

 justify the location of mills at the points where it grows, thus mak- 

 ing necessary the location of mills at somewhat central points, to 

 which the logs are hauled and manufactured into lumber. Different 

 species of hardwood timber grow on the same land, and when the 

 logs are cut it is more economical and is ordinarily necessary that 

 all kinds be taken away at the same time, .\lthough. as stated, mixed 

 kinds of logs are shipped, the lumber made from tlie different species 

 is separated in the yards. 



The underlying principle of all transit arrangements is that the 

 same commodity which moves to the transport point shall move there- 

 from in a more or less changed form. To require absolute identity 

 of Inbound log and outbound lumber would destroy, of course, the 



value of the transit accorded tliese complainants, because of the im- 

 practicability of tracing each log or shipment of logs to the lumber 

 produced therefrom ; but complainants' contention that because such 

 absolute identity can not be secured there should be permitted a fur- 

 ther substitution by according to hardwood logs the net rate to the 

 transit point upon shipment from such point of the required weight 

 of hardwood lumber, without regard to the kind of logs or of lumber, 

 is not sound. The argument from the premise that a regulation is not 

 perfect fails to justify a conclusion that a less perfect regulation should 

 be substituted. 



The records and reports required to be kept- and made by com- 

 plainants as conditions precedent to obtaining the transit refunds are 

 necessary to make effective the kind for kind rule, and if that rule is 

 just and reasonable its necessary Incidents must be. 



The rules here complained of are similar to those considered by the 

 Commission in National Casket Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 31 I. C. C, 6TS, 698, 

 and what was there said in conclusion is applicable here : 



We are convinced, as before stated, that the kind tor klad rule does mini- 

 mize unlawful substitution, and in the absence of any suggested efficient 

 substitute therefor we are not prepared to find that the requirements in 

 respect to the reports are unreasonable. 



Complainants presented testimony tending to show that the transit 

 rules of the Illinois Central Railroad Company are more liberal to 

 shippers of logs and the products thereof than are the rules of the 

 defendant carrier here complained of ; that on defendant's line different 

 colored corn may be substituted the one color for another, and that 

 spring wheat and winter wheat Is rated as one commodity for the 

 purpose of applying transit refunds, that less frequent reports are 

 required to obtain transit rates on wheat than on logs, and that no seg- 

 regation of different kinds, grades, or staples of cotton is required. It 

 was shown that the defendant maintains the same transit rules relating 

 to logs and lumber at all points on its line. Neither any one nor all 

 of the facts proved by complainants constitute proof of unjust dis- 

 crimination. 



It was suggested In (^ddence, although not alleged in the complaint, 

 that the limitation of twelve months within which to use outbound 

 billing of lumber to obtain a refund from the gross to the net rate on 

 logs Is too short. Upon consideration of the facts of record, however, 

 we are not of opinion that the limitation is unreasonable. 



Without any allegation that the inbound rates on logs were unrea- 

 sonable, complainants, over the objection of defendant, presented testi- 

 mony seeking to prove that such rates as at present maintained are 

 too high. The reasonableness of these rates Is not in issue here and 

 is therefore not determined. 



Upon consideration of the facts of record we are of opinion, and 

 find, that the transit rules and regulations complained of are not unrea- 

 sonable or unjustly discriminatory. 



36 I. C. C. 



In the case of the Beekman Lumber Company of Kansas City 

 versus the Tremont & Gulf Railway Company upon complaint that 

 the Southern Railway was negligent in not transmitting recon- 

 signing orders to connecting carriers in order that complainant 

 might take advantage of more favorable rates than were charged, it 

 is held, that the allegations of the complaint have not been sus- 

 tained and complaint dismissed. 



In the case of the C. L. Gray Lumber Company of Meridian, 

 Miss., versus the Alabama, Tennessee & Northern the rate of 2014 

 cents per 100 pounds for transportation of lumber in carloads from 

 ■Ward, Ala., to Memphis, Tenn., was found to have been unrea- 

 sonable to the extent that it exceeded 14'^ cents. Reparation wag 

 awarded. 



In the ease of the Eastern Oregon Lumber Producers' Association 



