7 = 
Period Covered 
The transportation charges used were, to the greatest extent practi- 
cable, those prevailing in the year 1952. The basic railroad freight 
rates were those as of December 31, 1952. These had been in effect during 
the last 8 months of that year, having been generally increased on May 2, 1952. 
Railroad refrigeration charges were constant during 1952, The cartage 
charges were those applicable during 1952 for most of the markets, although 
in a few cases 1953 figures were the only ones available, The truck rates 
were those quoted during the entire year of 1952. 
Federal Taxes Not Included 
The 3=percent Federal tax applicable to for-hire carriers has not been 
included in either truck or rail charges. Such inclusion not only would 
complicate the computations but would make very little difference in the 
comparisons, The tax applies to all services studied here, except for the 
costs of operating trucks owned by wholesalers. 
Accuracy of the Rates Compared 
Railroad rates (both the basic rates and refrigeration charges) apply- 
ing to interstate movements are-regulated by the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission. According to the Interstate Commerce Act, carriers are required 
to collect, and shippers to pay, the published rates only. Departures from 
the published rates may result in_punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both. 
In contrast, as stated above, the over=the=road motortruck rate quota- 
tions used in this analysis are exempt from the regulation by the ICC. 
These rate quotations are_not binding upon either carriers or shippers. 
Demand and supply conditions may result in rates different from those quoted. 
It is understood, however, from discussions with traffic experts and shippers, 
that departures from the rates quoted were generally not very large in 1952 
and did not seriously affect comparisons made with rail rates. This was 
apparently due, at least in part, to the extensive use of brokers by both 
shippers and truckers hauling exempt commodities from Florida, which tended 
to have a stabilizing influence on the rates charged. 
No data were obtained as to the extent to which the commercial cartage 
rates quoted were those actually charged. In a number of cities, for 
example Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Portland (Oreg.,) and Seattle, 
the cartage rates were filed with and subject to regulatory commissions; 
in these instances, the State public utility commissions, These rates must 
be followed by both carriers and shippers under penalty of law. In other 
cities, the cartage rates obtained were those issued by associations of 
local haulers or those understood to be the going rates. It is not know 
how closely these rates were adhered to by carriers. It is believed, however, 
that the departures from these rates were relatively minor. 8/ 
8/ William C. Crow, Ope cit., page 136, indicates that in 1938 published 
cartage charges in most of.these cities were closely adhered to by carriers. 
It must be remembered, moreover, that rate-cutting was even less likely in 
1952, a time of prosperity, than in 1938, a depression year. 
