A-56084, JUNE 11, 1934, 13 COMP. GEN. 421

A-56084: Jun 11, 1934

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

FOUND TO HAVE BEEN IN FACT ONLY PLASTER OF PARIS COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS OF ARCHITECTS' MODELS. WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED $16.07 IN CONNECTION WITH ITS CLAIM PER BILL 9.297.201 FOR CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT FROM WASHINGTON. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARGES SO CLAIMED AND THE CHARGES PAID WAS $16.07. STATING: WE WISH TO ADVISE THAT UPON INVESTIGATION WE FIND THAT THESE MODELS ARE PROPERLY RATABLE AT DOUBLE FIRST CLASS AS PER CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 6. THIS CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENCE WAS DISALLOWED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 17. THE SHIPMENT WAS. WOULD ADVISE THAT THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE TRUNK LINE FREIGHT INSPECTION BUREAU AND THEY ADVISE THAT 2ND-CLASS RATE SHOULD APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITEM 5.

A-56084, JUNE 11, 1934, 13 COMP. GEN. 421

TRANSPORTATION - CLASSIFICATION - PLASTER OF PARIS COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS OF ARCHITECTS' MODELS ARTICLES DESCRIBED ON BILLS OF LADING AS MODELS, BUT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN IN FACT ONLY PLASTER OF PARIS COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS OF ARCHITECTS' MODELS, FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, APPEAR PROPERLY ENTITLED TO THE RATING PROVIDED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION FOR "PLASTER, STAFF OR CEMENT PLASTER WORK, ARCHITECTURAL," RATHER THAN TO THAT FOR ,MODELS, N.O.I.B.N.'

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, JUNE 11, 1934:

THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. HAS REQUESTED REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT T 85204 1/2, JANUARY 17, 1933, WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED $16.07 IN CONNECTION WITH ITS CLAIM PER BILL 9.297.201 FOR CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO BROOKLYN, N.Y., UNDER BILL OF LADING T- 134063, MARCH 7, 1932, THE SHIPMENT BEING DESCRIBED ON THE BILL OF LADING AS:

TABLE

1 BOX CRATE NO. 8 SOFFITT OF MODEL NO. 9

1 BOX CRATE NO. 9 PART OF CRESTING, MODEL NO. 9

1 BOX CRATE NO. 10 PART OF CRESTING, MODEL NO. 9

THE BILL OF LADING BEARS ALSO THE STAMPED NOTATION:

PLASTER MOLDS AND PATTERNS

SAME AS PLASTER PARIS MOLDS

THE CARRIER BILLED THE CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF DOUBLE THE FIRST CLASS RATE, PLUS EMERGENCY CHARGES OF 2 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT AND THE DISBURSING OFFICER, J. L. SUMMERS, PER VOUCHER 279126, JUNE 21, 1932, PAID CHARGES, ON THE BASIS OF THE THIRD-CLASS RATE, PLUS EMERGENCY CHARGES OF 2 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARGES SO CLAIMED AND THE CHARGES PAID WAS $16.07. BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 5, 1932, THE CARRIER REQUESTED ALLOWANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE, OR $16,07, STATING:

WE WISH TO ADVISE THAT UPON INVESTIGATION WE FIND THAT THESE MODELS ARE PROPERLY RATABLE AT DOUBLE FIRST CLASS AS PER CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 6, PAGE 353, ITEM 8, AT $1.58 PER 100 LBS.

THIS CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENCE WAS DISALLOWED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 17, 1933, FOR THE REASON THAT---

ITEM 5, PAGE 354, C.F.C. NO. 6, PROVIDES FOR PLASTER OF PARIS MOLDS, 3RD CLASS ANY QUANTITY. THE SHIPMENT WAS, IN FACT, PLASTER OF PARIS MOLDS AS PER STAMP PLACED ON THE BILL OF LADING AND SUBJECT TO 3RD CLASS INSTEAD OF DOUBLE 1ST CLASS AS CLAIMED.

IN ITS REQUEST FOR REVIEW THE CARRIER HAS STATED---

IN REFERENCE TO YOUR NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE OF $16.07 FILE 85204 1/2 JAN. 17, 1933, IN CONNECTION WITH OUR BILL 9.297.201, COVERING SHIPMENT OF PLASTER MOLDS AND PATTERNS FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO BROOKLYN, N.Y., UNDER B/L 134063, WOULD ADVISE THAT THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE TRUNK LINE FREIGHT INSPECTION BUREAU AND THEY ADVISE THAT 2ND-CLASS RATE SHOULD APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITEM 5, P. 443 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 7. ON THIS BASIS THERE IS $1.87 DUE ON BASIS OF 1,560 LBS. AT 67 CENTS PLUS 2 CENTS E.C., OR $10.76 WHILE AMOUNT OF $8.89 WAS PAID.

THE ITEM REFERRED TO IN CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 7 PROVIDES A RATING OF SECOND CLASS L.C.L. FOR "PLASTER, STAFF, OR CEMENT PLASTER WORK, ARCHITECTURAL," PACKED IN BARRELS, BOXES, OR CRATES, AND IS IDENTICAL WITH ITEM 5, PAGE 406, CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 6, PROVIDING A LIKE RATING, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE SHIPMENT HERE CONCERNED MOVED.

THE BILL OF LADING COVERING THIS SHIPMENT WAS ISSUED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND IN LETTER DATED AUGUST 29, 1933, RELATIVE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED, THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT STATED:

THIS OFFICE FURNISHES TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR MODELS OF ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTATIONS OF THE BUILDING FOR HIS GUIDANCE AND ASSISTANCE IN CARRYING OUT THE WORK, THE MODELS BEING SHIPPED ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING TO HIS SUBCONTRACTORS, AS DESIGNATED BY HIM. THE CARVERS IN STONES AND MARBLES USE THE MODEL AS A GUIDE, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER AMPLIFICATION THEREOF BY THIS OFFICE AND THE MANUFACTURERS OR ORNAMENTATIONS MADE OF BRASS, BRONZE, TERRA COTTA, ETC., MAKE MOLDS FROM THE MODELS, THE ORNAMENTS BEING CAST IN THESE MOLDS. THE MODELS FURNISHED THE CONTRACTORS ARE MADE OF PLASTER PARIS FOR TEMPORARY USE AND ARE DESTROYED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR PURPOSE.

FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS THIS OFFICE HAS BEEN PLACING ON THE BILLS OF LADING IN ADDITION TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SHIPMENT GIVEN BY THE MODEL CONTRACTOR (CONSIGNEE) THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION:

"PLASTER MOLDS AND PATTERNS, SAME AS PLASTER PARIS MOLDS"

THIS TERMINOLOGY HAS BEEN USED IN ORDER THAT THE SHIPMENTS MIGHT NOT BE CLASSIFIED BY THE CARRIERS AS "STATUARY," WHICH IS USUALLY OF MUCH GREATER VALUE AND OF A PERMANENT CHARACTER.

THE RATINGS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE INCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING, PUBLISHED AS INDICATED IN CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 6:

TABLE ITEM PAGE OFF. SOU. WEST.

5 353 MODELS:

6 353 ANATOMICAL, PLASTER OR CEMENT, PACKED

IN BARRELS OR BOXES ----------------- D1 D1 1

7 353 ROAD (HIGHWAY MODELS) IN BOXES ------ 1 4 2

8 353 MODELS, N.O.I.B.N. IN BARRELS OR

BOXES ------------------------------- D1 D1 D1

5 354 MOLDS:

PLASTER OF PARIS, PACKED IN BARRELS,

BOXES, OR CRATES ------------------- 3 3 3

30 448 SCULPTURE OR STATUARY, N.O.I.B.N.:

35448 PLASTER OR TERRA-COTTA, PACKED IN

BARRELS OR BOXES -------------------- 1 1/2 1 1/2 1 1/2

3 202 FIGURES, IMAGES, OR ORNAMENTS, NOT

STATUARY, N.O.I.B.N.:

4 202 CHINA, CLAY, COMPOSITION, CONCRETE,

EARTHENWARE, MARBLE, PLASTER,

STONEWARE, TERRA-COTTA, OR WOOD:

PACKED IN BARRELS OR BOXES, L.C.L. -- 1 1 1

5 406 PLASTER, STAFF OR CEMENT PLASTER WORK,

ARCHITECTURAL:

PACKED IN BARRELS, BOXES, OR

CRATES, L.C.L ----------------------- 2 2 2

THE QUESTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION RATING APPLICABLE TO SHIPMENTS OF ARTICLES SUCH AS THESE WAS CONSIDERED BY A FORMER COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY IN A DECISION OF NOVEMBER 30, 1914 (APPEAL NO. 24101), INVOLVING A BILL OF THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO. THE SHIPMENTS CONSISTED OF PLASTER MODELS, TRANSPORTED FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO GRAFTON, W.VA., CAMBRIDGE, OHIO, AND BEDFORD, IND. THE CARRIER CLAIMED CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE DOUBLE FIRST-CLASS RATE AS FOR MODELS NOT OTHERWISE INDEXED BY NAME, WHICH IS THE SAME RATING AND CLASSIFICATION ORIGINALLY SOUGHT BY THE CARRIER HERE CONCERNED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INSTANT SHIPMENT. THE AUDITOR FOR THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAD PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE THIRD CLASS RATE AS FOR PLASTER MOLDS IN BOXES. THE FORMER COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE AUDITOR, STATED:

THE AUDITOR ALLOWED 3D CLASS, OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION NO. 41, PAGE 190, ITEM 21 (PLASTER MOLDS IN BOXES), WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN THE CHARACTER OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED, BASING HIS ACTION UPON STATEMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE MANUFACTURERS (SCULPTORS) AND FROM EXPERTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT OF THE TREASURY, WHICH OFFICE ORDERED THE GOODS AND HAD THEM SHIPPED, AS FOLLOWS:

"THE SO-CALLED "PLASTER MODEL" IS THE THIRD PROCESS IN THE MANUFACTURE; THAT IS, THE REAL MODEL WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL AND TRUE MODEL IS THE FIRST PROCESS; IT IS MADE OF CLAY BY THE SCULPTOR AND IS THE MODEL WHICH SHOULD SERVE DIRECTLY FOR THE STONECUTTER OR THE IRONWORKER, BUT AS IT IS TOO FRAGILE TO SHIP AND AS THE STONECUTTERS ARE NOT WHERE THIS MODEL IS, A PATTERN OR DUPLICATE OF THE MODEL MUST BE MADE FOR SHIPMENT, SO A PLASTER MODEL IS MADE FROM THE CLAY MODEL AND IT IS THE SECOND PROCESS; FROM THIS PLASTER MOLD A PLASTER CAST IS MADE WHICH IS THE THIRD PROCESS OR THE SO- CALLED "PLASTER MODEL.' IT IS MADE OF CHEAP PLASTER OF PARIS AND IS REENFORCED WITH BURLAP BAGGING AS A BINDER SO THAT IT MAY BE SHIPPED WITHOUT CRUMBLING TO PIECES. THIS OFFICE HOLDS, THEREFORE, THAT THE REAL MODEL WAS NEVER SHIPPED BUT IS STILL IN THE SCULPTOR'S POSSESSION, AND THAT THE DUPLICATE OR COPY OF IT WHICH WAS CAST FROM A PLASTER MOLD IS MORE CORRECTLY CLASSIFIED AS A PLASTER MOLD THAN AS A MODEL. IN FACT, FOR SHIPPING PURPOSES THE "PLASTER MODEL" IS LESS LIABLE TO BE DAMAGED BY CHIPPING, CRACKING, OR CRUMBLING THAN THE MOLD FROM WHICH IT IS CAST, BECAUSE OF THE REENFORCEMENT OF BURLAP BAGGING. IT IS HEAVY AND THE RISK IS NOT GREAT. SOME HAVE BEEN BROKEN IN TRANSIT AND HAVE BEEN PATCHED UP AND REPAIRED WITHOUT EXPENSE. AFTER BEING USED BY THE STONECUTTER THEY ARE OF NO VALUE AT ALL AND ARE DESTROYED.'

IT APPEARS FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED THAT THEY ARE PRACTICALLY PLASTER MOLDS AND THE APPLICATION OF 3D CLASS RATE IS PROPER.

THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY AGAIN CONSIDERED THE QUESTION IN A DECISION OF MAY 25, 1915 (APPEAL 24649), INVOLVING A BILL OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. THE SHIPMENT THERE CONCERNED WAS TRANSPORTED FROM NEW YORK, N.Y., TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND WAS DESCRIBED ON THE BILL OF LADING AS "FIVE (5) CRATES CONTAINING PLASTER MODELS.' THE AUDITOR FOR THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAD ALLOWED CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE RATING AS FOR PLASTER MOLDS, STATING THAT THE---

ARTICLES ARE INCORRECTLY DESCRIBED IN THE BILL OF LADING. THEY ARE PLASTER MOLDS. THEY ARE CAST FROM CLAY MODELS AND MADE OF PLASTER OF PARIS REINFORCED BY OLD BURLAP BAGGING.

THE COMPANY ON ITS APPLICATION FOR REVISION URGED THAT THE ARTICLES WERE PATTERNS USED BY STONECUTTERS AND THAT THE DOUBLE FIRST-CLASS RATE SHOULD BE APPLIED. THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY REFERRED TO HIS PRIOR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 30, 1914, ON THE APPEAL OF THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO. AND AFFIRMED THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AUDITOR. CONCERNING THE MATTER OF A PROPER BILL OF LADING DESCRIPTION FOR ARTICLES SUCH AS THERE CONCERNED, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY AFTER REFERRING TO HIS DECISION OF NOVEMBER 30, 1914, STATED:

IT APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS STATED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION APPLIED THEREIN WOULD HEREAFTER BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY ON SHIPMENTS OF THIS PARTICULAR COMMODITY, MAKING THE REQUEST, HOWEVER, THAT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HEREAFTER CORRECTLY DESCRIBE THE SHIPMENTS AS PLASTER MOLDS INSTEAD OF PLASTER MODELS.

THE AUDITOR FURTHER REPORTS THAT---

"AS THIS VERY POINT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY TAKEN UP WITH THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT'S OFFICE, THIS OFFICE WAS HEARTILY IN ACCORD WITH THE RAILROAD COMPANY'S REQUEST AND AGAIN TOOK THE MATTER UP WITH THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT. THE RESULT OF THIS IS SET FORTH IN A LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1915, FROM THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT TO THE AUDITOR OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY, A COPY OF WHICH LETTER WAS FURNISHED THIS OFFICE, IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT ALL BILLS-OF-LADING FOR SO CALLED "PLASTER MODELS" WERE NOW BEING STAMPED, PROPERLY DESCRIBING THIS COMMODITY.'

IN A-26045, FEBRUARY 9, 1929, THERE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE ON REQUEST OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., THE MATTER OF CHARGES ALLOWED IN SETTLEMENT T-58043, MAY 24, 1928, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO ST. LOUIS, MO., DESCRIBED ON THE BILL OF LADING AS

1 BOX BRONZE MODEL NO. 1 AND PART OF NO. 2.

1 BOX BRONZE MODEL, LOWER PART MODEL NO. 2.

INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT HAD DEVELOPED THAT THE DESCRIPTION SO GIVEN WAS INCORRECT, THE SUPERVISING ARCHITECT HAVING REPORTED THAT THE ARTICLES SHIPPED WERE NOT BRONZE, BUT---

WERE FABRICATED OF PLASTER OF PARIS AND REPRESENTED MODELS OF TOP AND BASE OF FLAG POLE RESPECTIVELY. THEY WERE FOR USE OF CONTRACTOR IN MAKING PATTERNS OR MOULDS IN WHICH THE BRONZE MAY BE CAST. MODELS OF THIS KIND HAVE NO VALUE AFTER USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED EXCEPT POSSIBLY IN SPECIAL CASES IN WHICH EVENT PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE FOR THEIR CARE AND STORAGE FOR FUTURE USE.

IN THE SETTLEMENT CHARGES HAD BEEN ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE SECOND- CLASS RATE PROVIDED IN THE CLASSIFICATION FOR "PLASTER, STAFF OR CEMENT PLASTER WORK, ARCHITECTURAL.' IN ITS REQUEST FOR REVIEW THE CARRIER URGED THE APPLICATION OF THE DOUBLE FIRST-CLASS RATE AS FOR MODELS, N.O.I.B.N.

THE DECISION OF FEBRUARY 9, 1929, WHICH APPROVED THE SETTLEMENT, STATED:

THE ARTICLE SHIPPED AS A "BRONZE MODEL" WAS NEITHER OF BRONZE NOR WAS IT A MODEL BUT IS MORE CORRECTLY DESCRIBED UNDER THE TERM "PATTERN" AS DEFINED IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY. THE MODEL IS THE PLASTER OR CLAY ORIGINAL, WHILE THE PATTERN IS USUALLY A PLASTER COPY OR DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL.

PLASTER PATTERNS ARE NOT RATED BY NAME IN THE CLASSIFICATION, AND RULE 17 PROVIDES THAT WHEN ARTICLES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR, NOR EMBRACED IN THE CLASSIFICATION AS ARTICLES .O.I.B.N.' ARE OFFERED FOR TRANSPORTATION, CARRIERS WILL APPLY THE CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED FOR ARTICLES WHICH, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, ARE ANALOGOUS.

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE RATING THUS APPLIED BY THIS OFFICE IS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH THE CARRIER IN THE INSTANT MATTER STATED WAS FOUND BY THE TRUNK LINE FREIGHT INSPECTION BUREAU TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE SHIPMENT HERE CONCERNED. IT APPEARING THAT THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY RATED IN THE CLASSIFICATION, THERE MAY BE A REASONABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE RATING PRESCRIBED FOR "PLASTER WORK, ARCHITECTURAL" IS MORE NEARLY ANALOGOUS THAN THAT PRESCRIBED FOR "MOLDS, PLASTER OF PARIS.' HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT IN FACT THESE ARTICLES WERE NOT MOLDS BUT WERE PLASTER OF PARIS COPIES OR REPRODUCTIONS OF ARCHITECTS' MODELS FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE SECOND CLASS RATING AS FOR ,PLASTER WORK, ARCHITECTURAL" MAY FAIRLY BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICABLE. THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION SHOWS THAT THE RATING FOR "MODELS N.O.I.B.N.' HAS FOR YEARS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WILL BE CERTIFIED AS DUE THE CARRIER THE SUM OF $1.87 REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE SECOND-CLASS RATE AND THE CHARGES AS ALLOWED IN THE SETTLEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE THIRD-CLASS RATE.