We further find that the applicable rate has not been shown to be unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. The complaint will be dismissed. SPLAWN, Commissioner, dissenting: I do not agree that the first-class rate assailed of $1.77 on tabletype wooden radio cabinets is not unreasonable. In my judgment, the rate assailed is unreasonable to the extent it exceeds the secondclass rate of $1.21 applicable on furniture. If the cabinets should contain radios, they would take the third-class rate of 92 cents. From information of record, it appears that cabinet model 346 weighs 16 pounds without a radio and 26 pounds when containing a radio. If the applicable rates are applied to these weights, the result is that it would cost 28 cents to transport the empty radio cabinets and only 24 cents to transport the cabinet and radio. The charge for the transportation of the completed article is much lower, although it is 60 percent heavier and its value is approximately 59 cents per pound as compared with 22 cents per pound for the cabinet alone. The report places too much emphasis upon density as a factor in classification and rate making, to the exclusion of all other factors. Undoubtedly density is a very important consideration in determining the appropriate classification for motor carriers, but to use it as the sole test may lead to absurd results, as it would seem in this instance. It may be noted that the rail rate on this traffic is 91 cents, or approximately one-half the rate assailed. 42 M. C. C. No. MC-C-242 EASTERN-CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION v. SHIRKS MOTOR EXPRESS CORPORATION ET AL. Submitted December 4, 1942. Decided July 20, 1943 Motor common carrier class rates of defendants between Lancaster, Pa., and points grouped therewith, on the one hand, and certain points in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, on the other, found not unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful. Complaint dismissed. J. E. Haydon and F. C. Hefferren for complainant. Joseph F. Eshelman, Alfred W. Hesse, Jr., E. W. Heimert, Michael F. Nugent, Robert C. Chamberlain, F. C. Hefferren, W. P. Downey, and Bernard N. Gingerich for interveners in support of complainant. Glenn F. Morgan for a defendant. William W. Collin, Jr., for intervener in support of defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, PATTERSON, AND JOHNSON BY DIVISION 3: Exceptions were filed to the order recommended by the examiner by the complainant, a defendant, and others, replies thereto were filed by certain parties, and the parties have been heard in oral argument. By complaint filed February 12, 1941, the Eastern-Central Motor Carriers Association, an incorporated nonprofit motor common carrier association, alleges that the class rates of the Shirks Motor Express Corporation, hereinafter called Shirks, and some 53 other motor common carriers, defendants, between Lancaster, Pa., and certain other Pennsylvania points grouped therewith, on the one hand, and certain points in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, on the other, are unjust, unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory, and unduly preferential and prejudicial, in violation of section 216 (d) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and in contravention of the national transportation policy declared in the act. Just and reasonable rates are sought for the future. The rail lines in official-classification territory, the Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc., Alko Express Lines, Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Incorporated, Eastern Motor Dis patch, Incorporated, and a number of shippers intervened on behalf of the complainant, and the Manufacturers' Association of Lancaster, Pa., intervened on behalf of the defendants. The Middle Atlantic States Motor Carrier Conference, Inc., intervened prior to the hearing, but did not otherwise participate in the proceeding. By order entered February 5, 1942, division 2 discontinued Investigation and Suspension Docket No. M-1488, which was partly heard with the instant proceeding on a consolidated record. Rates will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds and are those in effect prior to the general increases which became effective in March 1942. At the outset we have for consideration the contentions of a defendant that, since the complainant is a motor-carrier association, it may not complain that the defendants' rates cause undue or unreasonable preference or advantage or unjust discrimination, and that to permit the intervention of the shippers in support of the complainant would unduly broaden the issues. These contentions are based on the following proviso of section 216 (d) of the act— Provided, however, That this subsection shall not be construed to apply to discriminations, prejudice, or disadvantage to the traffic of any other carrier of whatever description. This proviso does not bar a motor-carrier association from including in its complaint allegations of unjust discriminaton, or undue prejudice or disadvantage, which are without the prohibition of the proviso of the act quoted above. Section 216 (e) of the act authorizes "any person, State board, organization, or body politic" to complain in the manner prescribed therein of violations of that section or section 217, and, under section 203 (a) (1) of the act, the term "person" includes, among others, an association. Clearly, the complainant is a "person" as that term is defined in the act. See Paper, Rittman, Ohio, Buffalo N. Y., and Pittsburgh, Pa., 42 M. C. C. 31. It follows that shippers, such as those in the instant proceeding, may intervene in support of any allegations that may be maintained lawfully by the complainant. The complainant is the tariff-publishing agent for most of the motor common carriers operating between points in trunk-line territory and points in central and western trunk-line territories which participate in the through interterritorial class rates between such points. These rates will be referred to hereinafter as the complainant's rates. With certain exceptions, since the initial filing of motor-carrier tariffs with us, such rates have been maintained on the basis of the rail class rates between the same points. The bases for the latter were prescribed as reasonable maxima in the eastern and western trunk-line class-rate adjustments. So far as here pertinent, those prescriptions were pred icated on the key-point system, under which the rates from and to certain key points also apply from and to a group of points which are intermediate to the key points. The key points are at the perimeters rather than at the centers of the groups. Harrisburg and Reading, Pa., among others, are prescribed key points, and no key points were prescribed between them. The highway distance between these points over U. S. Highways 322 and 422, the reasonably direct route, is about 54 miles. Following the rail basis generally on traffic from or to points in central and western trunk-line territories, the complainant's Reading group extends from a point a little east of Reading west to a point a little east of Harrisburg, about 54 miles; and the Harrisburg group extends west thereof, including Harrisburg, to McConnellsburg, Pa., approximately 80 miles. Lancaster is approximately 32 miles southwest of Reading over U. S. Highway 222 and about 37 miles southeast of Harrisburg over U. S. Highway 230. It and the other Pennsylvania points shown in footnote 1,1 hereinafter called the Lancaster area, have been included in the Reading group by the complainant and the rail lines, except certain of the points which they do not serve. The defendants, however, with respect to traffic to and from central and western trunk-line territories include the points in the Lancaster area in the lower-rated Harrisburg group. The western points here under consideration are, with few exceptions, in central and western trunk-line territories, and they will be so referred to herein. These rates are published in the tariff of the principal defendant, Shirks. The other defendants concur in Shirks' rates. With respect to class rates between points in trunk-line territory, except from or to the Lancaster area, and points in central and western trunk-line territories. Shirks is a party to the class rates published in the complainant's tariffs. Disregarding certain minimum rates, or so-called class-rate stops, the rates of Shirks and the other defendants, except to or from the Lancaster area, are on the same level as the class rates maintained by motor carriers generally and the rail lines. Between points in other territories, Shirks maintains class rates generally on the level of the rates of other motor common carriers and the rail lines. It participates, for example, in agency tariffs naming 1 Annville, Bainbridge, Bamford, Bellaire, Brickerville, Campbelltown, Cleona, Colebrook, Columbia, Cornwall, Deodate, East Petersburg, Elizabethtown, Elstonville, Falmouth, Florin, Fontana, Hellam, Hershey, Highspire, Hummelstown, Landisville, Lawn, Lebanon, Lebanon Independent, Lititz, Manheim, Marietta, Mastersonville, Maytown, Middletown, Millersville, Mount Gretna, Mount Joy, Mountville, Neffsville, Palmyra, Penryn, Quentin, Rheems, Rohrerstown, Royalton, Rutherford, Salunga, Sporting Hill, Union Deposit, Washington Boro, and Wrightsville. rates between points in trunk-line territory and between points in trunk-line and New England territories, in which the rates from and to the Lancaster area over Shirks' lines are the same as observed by the other carriers. Shirks' principal terminal is in Lancaster, and its other terminals are in Cleveland, Ohio, Philadelphia and Reading, Pa., Wilmington, Del., Baltimore, Md., and Buffalo and Rochester, N. Y. Its lines extend from Lancaster west and north to Cleveland, Buffalo, and Rochester, and south and east to Baltimore, Wilmington, and Philadelphia, among other points. The assailed rates apply generally over Shirks' lines between the Lancaster area and Cleveland, and over Shirks' connections between Cleveland and the points east, south, and west thereof. Appendix A hereto shows the highway and rail distances between Lancaster and a number of representative points, and the first-, second-, third-, and fourth-class rates between the Lancaster area and the same points. It will be observed that the direct highway distances are less than the rail distances and less than the distances over the defendants' lines through Cleveland, and that the distances over defendants' routes are generally greater than the rail distances. The complainant computed distances over the direct highways, which are not necessarily the actual routes of movement. The differences between the complainant's and rail class rates, on the one hand, and those of the defendants, on the other, are also shown in the appendix. The complainant contends that the defendants' lower basis of rates to and from Lancaster imperils the existing motor-carrier rate structure in the territory. One defendant, which participates in Shirks' tariff and maintains the lower rates in order to compete with some of the other defendants, asks that the defendants' rates be found unlawful. One of the respondent motor carriers in I. and S. No. M-1488, which established class rates between many of the points under consideration on the level of the defendants' class rates for competitive reasons, stipulated at the hearing that it would conform to our findings herein. Although, as noted, the defendants' rates from and to points in the Lancaster area are generally lower than the rates of the complainant and the rail lines, because the defendants accord such points the Harrisburg rates instead of the Reading rates, there are a few instances in which the defendants' rates are not on the level of the rates maintained generally from or to the Harrisburg or Reading group. For example, to Kirkwood, Mo., the first-class rates generally maintained by the complainant and the rail lines are, from the Harrisburg group, $1.82, and, from the Reading group, $1.88, |