552 HARVARD LAW REVIEW complaint against a carrier's rate on raw silk, the Interstate Com- merce Commission said: "The increase in the hazard is not the only fact to be considered in prescribing rates for the transportation of highly valued commodities. The Supreme Coiu-t in N. P. Ry. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S. 585, 599, in giving some of the many factors which should be considered in mak- ing rates, names 'the risk assumed' and also 'the value of the service.' This Commission has throughout its history given consideration to the value of a conunodity when determining what is a reasonable rate thereon. Illustrative of the value of service is the percentage that the rate paid bears to the value of the article. . . . Silk is one of the conunod- ities of the highest value in proportion to the ratio which the charges bear to the value of the commodity." ^'^ Weight is constantly being given, in passing on rates, to com- parisons with rates at other points where conditions are similar.^"' In passing on the rate for a particular service, tribunals not infrequently refrain altogether from guessing what the cost of the service may be. The dilB&culty or impossibility of fixing exactly the cost of a particular service, and the special regard which is i"* Silk Assn. of America v. Penn. R. R., 44 I. C. C. 578, 580, 581 (1917). Similarly, in 191 6, in a case involving advances on live stock, the commission adjudged that "rates for the transportation of any of the animals named . . . which are increased ... by more than 2 per cent for each 50 per cent ... of additional value are . . . unreasonable." National Society of Record Assns. v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. R. Co., 40 I. C. C. 347, 355 (1916). The same principle was applied in Iowa R. R. Commrs. V. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 36 1. C. C. 79, 85 (1915). Cf. Coke Producers Assn. v. B. & O. R. R., 27 I. C. C. 125 (1913); Ford Co. v. Michigan Central R. R., 19 I. C. C. 507, 509 (1910); Union Tanning Co. v. Southern Ry., 26 I. C. C. 159, 163 (1913). State tribunals have recognized the same principle. Cf., e. g., Copeland Ore Co. v. M. T. Ry. Co., P. U. R. 191 7 F, 182, 195 (Colo. Pub. Util. Com.). »<» E. g., Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 6 I. C. C. 195 (1894); Oregon & Washington Limiber Mfrs. Assn. v. S. P. Co., 21 I. C. C. 389, 392, 393 (1911); Boileau v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 640 (1912); Marian Coal Co. V. D. L. & W. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 140, 142 (191 2). Cf. Interstate Commerce Com. V. Louisville & Nashville Ry., 118 Fed. 613 (1902). Comparisons with other rates were used in support of increases in Re East St. Louis Light & Power Co., P. U. R. 1918 B, 320 (111. Pub. Util. Com.); Railroad Passenger Rate Case, P. U. R. 1915 B, 362, 392 (Mass. Pub. Serv. Com.); and in support of reductions or refusals to increase, in State ex rel. Watts Engineering Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com., 269 Mo. 525, 191 S. W. 412, P. U. R. 1917 C, 581, 591; Pub. Serv. Gas Co. v. Board of Pub. Util. Commrs., 84 N. J. L. 463, 474, 475, 87 Atl. 651 (1913); Hocking Valley R. R. Co. v. Pub. Util. Com. of OIuo, 92 Ohio St. 362, no N. E. 952 (1915), P. U. R. 1916 B, 406; Re Kans. City Elec. Lt. Co., P. U. R. 191 7 C, 728, 790 (Mo. Pub. Serv. Com.); Re Kent Water & Light Co., P. U. R. 191 7 D, 394, 397 (Ohio Pub. Util.Com.).
