upr000329 85

Weight, Method of Arriving at - Taylor M illin g Company. December 22, 1926. Mr. W. T . Lincoln: Referring to yours o f December 1st, F ile B-10- 159: I f the Taylor M illin g Company refused payment of freigh t chargee on account of a disputed weight, the mat­ter would resolve i t s e lf down to one of fact, and freigh t charges could be collected on what in fact is the correct weight. Although the public weigh-master act of the State o f C alifo rn ia provides that when a seal is attached to a weight c e rtific a te by a public weigh-master "said seal sh all be a recognized authority of accuracy", s t i l l > this does not oblige the ca rrie r t o ;accept the weight o f the public weigh-master as being correct fo r the purpose of assessing freigh t charges, although in a dispute the c e rtific a te and seal would undoubtedly be accepted at least as prima fac ie evidence o f the correct weight. Regardless o f everything else, it seems to me that, for the purpose of properly assessing freigh t charges, the weight should be ascertained in lin e with the t a r i f f pro­visions and should be under the supervision of the carrier or it s delegate; and further, inasmuch as the b i l l of lading incorporates a ll t a r i f f provisions, we should in sis t on supervising weighing o f shipments* I therefore agree with the matters set forth in Mr* In so r’ s le tte r of Hovember 20th, 1926, and think we should apply track scale weights on shipments sent to and from the Taylor M illin g Company. Regarding the la st paragraph of your le t t e r , as j y stated before we may in sist on payment of freigh t charges ^ on the correct weight, regardless o f how determined. We can net le g a lly in sist that the Taylor Company place it s weight-master under the ju risdiction o f Mr. Ensor1 s Weigh­ing and Inspection Bureau. I return f i l e . A. S. Halsted.