iliili I GJornell Slam ^rljonl library Cornell University Library KF2174.G24 v2 Gartner's notes to the Interstate Commer 3 1924 019 379 555 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019379555 Gartner's Notes TO THE Interstate Commerce Commission Reports VOLUMES 1 TO 30, INCLUSIVE A judicial history of every case decided by the Interstate Commerce Commission, together with a complete Alphabetical Table of Cases Reported BY KARL K. GARTNER WASHINGTON, D. C. Formerly of the Louisville Bar VOLUME II PUBLISHERS THE BALDWIN LAW BOOK CO. Incorporated LOUISVILLE. KY. I 91 5 Copyright, 191 5 THE BALDWIN LAW BOOK CO. Incorporated All rights reserved Prtntrro Hammer Printing Co., Louisville Ky. COMMERCE COMMISSION RHPOR^Sr ^\^/ 531 J ^'"^ Jack Bros. v. D. & R. G. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 720. Jackson, Geo. M. v. St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 184. Jackson, Rollo B., v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C,. 662. Jackson & Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. (1022), 12 I. C. C; 587. Jackson & Perkins Co. v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 323. Jackson Grocery Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et aL; 19 I. C. C, 613. Jackson Iron & Steel Co. et al. v. Norfolk & Western R. R. Co. et aL, 19 I. C. C, 603. Jackson Lumber Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 601. Jackson Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. Co. (U. R. A-148), 27 I. C. C, 713. Jackson Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. Co. (U. R. A-154), 27 I. C. C, 714. Jackson Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. Co. (U. R. A-220), 27 I. C. C, 724. Jackson Lumber Co. v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 704. Jackson, Mathews & Harris v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 93. See Phillips, Bailey & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Jacob v. S. P. Co. (Atlantic S. S. Lines) (U. R. A-649), 30 I. C. C, 30. Jacoby, W. F., & Isaac C. Weber, Trading as W. F. Jacoby & Co., v. Penn- sylvania R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C., 392. Cited and reaffirmed : Bulah Coal Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, S3. Rules for car distribution during car shortage periods. Cited : Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 188. The history of these cases found in cited case. Jacoby, W. F. & Co. v. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 186. See Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co. Jaekel Bros. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 621. James & Abbot Co. v. Boston & Main R. R. et al., 17 I. C. C, 273. Cited: Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 148. Rate on brick of 12 cents for 139 miles sustained in cited case. 532 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE James & Abbot v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., S I. C. C, 612. Cited : Daniels v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 L C. C, 480. Cited : Sinclair & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 500. Cited : Milk Pro. Pro. Asso. v. D., L. & W. R. Co. 7 I. C. C, 164. Where the rates from competing localities are under consideration or attack, each locality is entitled to just and reasonable rates and to have saved to it any advantage of natural location or otherwise. Cited: Page v. Del., L. & W. R. Co., 6 I C. C, 557. The aim of investigation under the act is not to ascertain how high a classification or rates the affected industries will stand; the purpose of such investigation is to determine the duties of carriers and rights' of shippers and the public under the law. Cited : Brewer & Hanleiter v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 235. A carrier relying on water competition to make out a case of dis- similar conditions under the 4th Sec. must affirmatively show the nec- essary facts. Cited: Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 555. Each case .seems to depend upon its own equity. Quoted : Morse Produce Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 338. The claim for reparation in this case was for a refund of the excess over reasonable charges collected by defendants subsequent to com- plaint. The substantial reduction announced by the carriers soon after the proceeding was intended by them to satisfy the complaint, and we are not satisfied, because that reduction as finally fixed was accidentally insufficient, that the order for further reduction should have retro- active effect. Claim for reparation denied. James & Abbot v. East Tenn., Virginia & Georgia Ry. Co., 3 I. C. C, 225. Cited : Chi. B'd of Trade v. Chi. & Alton R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 190. Cited : Matter of Alleged Unlawful Rates & Practices, 7 I. C. C, 253. Quoted : Reduced rates on Returned Shipments, 19 I. C. C, 416. A separate local haul of freight, complete in itself, could not be added to another different and subsequent haul of the same freight as an element in the adjustment of relative rates between the last haul and a haul of similar freight from still another and different point on the same line to the same common destination. Cited: Chas. P. Perry v. Fl. Cen. & Penins. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 111. The Commission will fix a reasonable rate or a reasonable maximum. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 533 James & Graham Wagon Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. (1833), IS I. C. C, 639. James & Mayer Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 4 I. C. C, 744. Carriers ordered to cease charging any rates on buggies and car- riages, which are higher for the shorter haul to Social Circle, Ga., than for the longer haul to Augusta, Ga., on the ground that such rates are in violation of section 4. Carriers further ordered to reduce to- a specified amount the rates on buggies and carriages from Cincinnati to Atlanta, Ga., on the ground that the existing rate was unreasonable. Among the carriers bound by the order was the Georgia Railroad Company, whose road was wholly within the State of Georgia, which was held to be sub- ject to the act, on the ground that it participated in the continuous car- riage of interstate traffic, moving under through bills of lading, under a conventional arrangement for a division of the through rates. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. 56 Fed. 925. June 3, 1893. C. C, N. D. Ga. Newman, J. Commission's order to be invalid (1) on the ground that there is no violation of section 4, because the rate to Social Circle was over a "dif- ferent line"; (2) on the ground that the rate to Atlanta was not unrea- sonable in view of new facts adduced before the court which showed that lower rates, as compared with which the rate was held unreasonable, were compelled by competition; and (3) on the ground that the Georgia Railroad was not subject to the act. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. 13 U. S. Apps, 730; 4 I. C. Rep. 582. May 29, 1894. C. C. A. 5th Cir. Per curiam. Commission's order held to be valid (1) in so far as a violation of section 4 is concerned, and (2) in so far as it held the Georgia Railroad Company subject to the act. Commission's order held invalid in so far as it condemned as unreasonable the rate to Atlanta. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com- merce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. 162 U. S. 184. March 30, 1896. Shiras, J. Commission's order held to be valid (1) in so far as it held the rates to Social Circle to be in violation of section 4, and (2) in so far as it held the Georgia Railroad Company to be subject to the act. Commis- sion's order held invalid' in so far as it condemned as unreasonable the 534 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE rate to Atlanta. It was further held that the Commission is without power to fix rates. Quoted : E. M. Raworth v. No. Pacific R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 248. Cited: H. W. Behlmer v. Memphis & Charleston R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 263, 264. "Independent of the rate to shorter distance points on their line de- fendants insist they may lawfully make such lower rate to the longer distance point as will prevent eastern manufacturers more advantage- ously located from taking the Augusta market from Cincinnati manufac- turers. * * * If the contention of the defendants is justified by the statute, and they can avail themselves of its exceptional provisions and charge more for the shorter distance for the purpose of equalizing com- mercial conditions and adjusting trade relations between the cities of Cincinnati and Baltimore in the Augusta market, the same thing may be done to place Cincinnati carriage makers on an equal footing with those of Augusta in the Augusta market, or to relieve any city from any disadvantage in markets of other cities, or to deprive all cities or places of production of any advantage resulting from their location. Such an interpretation would make the fourth section of the act practically in- operative, and with such a license in rate making carriers might give advantage to or build or destroy the carriage or other business of any city or locality. Cited : R. R. Com. of Geo. v. Clyde Steamship Co., S I. C. C, 370. Cited : B'd of Tr'd of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 7. Cited : Phelps & Co. v. Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 48. Cited : Freight Bureau v. Cinn., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 233. Cited : Gustin v. Atch., T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 287. Cited : Violations by St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C, 302. Where two or more roads forming a continuous connecting line be- tween points in different states bill and carry interstate traffic through to certain stations on the last road forming such line, neither the roads together nor any one of them can evade the obligation of the act to reg- ulate commerce by declaring that as to such traffic destined to such stations on such terminal road it is a local carrier. Quoted: E. M. Raworth v. No. Pacific R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 402. Cited : Fewell v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 373. "Water competition to justify the greater charge for the shorter dis- tance must be competition in transportation to the longer-distance point and as to freight, if not carried over the line on which it is located, would reach such destination by water transportation." Cited : Freight Bureau v. Cinn., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 245. Cited : Com. Club of Omaha v. Chic, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 675. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 535 Each locality competing with others in a common market is entitled to reasonable and just rates at the hands of the carriers serving it and to the benefit of all its natural advantages. Cited : Milk Pro. Pro. Asso. v. D., L. & W. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 163. Charging the same aggregate rates for longer and shorter distances does not contravene the provisions of the fourth section, though such charges may constitute violations of other provisions of the act. Janesville Barb Wire Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 672. Janesville Clothing Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 628. Cited: Chamber of Com.* Wash., A. C, v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 453. Granting of reparation on past shipments under higher rates does not necessarily follow upon finding of a lower rate for future. Jarecki Chemical Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 614. Jarratt & Son v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. (1238), 14 I. C. C, 635. Jefferson Lumber Co. v. A. B. & A. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 671. Jefferson Lumber Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 603. Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Jeffreys, S. E., v. T. & P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 715. Jeffris, D. K. & Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 26 I C. C, 709. Jelks, Oliver Kibbee, v. A. C. L. R. Co. (U. R. A-240), 27 I. C. C, 726. Jenkins, F. R., v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. (U R. A-195), 27 I. C. C, 720. Jenks, Robert H. Lumber Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 58. Cited'. Eastman, Gardiner & Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 95! In settling the reparation matter arising out of the Tift cases (10 I. C. C, 548, 505), the shipments were finally checked by carriers and claimants and in approving these settlements, it was said that they were not in violation of law. Jennings, Harry E., v. D. S. S. & A. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 710. 536 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Jennison, W. J. Co. et al. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. G, 113. Reversed : Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 128, 129. Cited : B'd of Trade of Chicago v. A. C. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, S10. Cited: Com. Club of Superior, Wis. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 104. Rates on flour and wheat from Minneapolis to New York. Cited : Advances in Grain Rates, 21 I. C. C, 34. The average wheat crop of Minnesota and the two Dakotas is 170,- 000,000 bushels, while the milling capacity of the same states is 260,- 000,000 bushels. Cited: Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 188. The former holding of cited case that flour rates from Minneapolis to New York was discriminafory in the amount that same exceeded 21J4 cents, was later reversed in- Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 128. Jennison Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1949), 29 I. C. C, 708. Jenson v. S. & E. R y : Co. (U. R. A-38S), 28 I. C. C, 739. Jerome Hill Cotton Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 601. Jetter Brewing Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-308), 28 I. C. C, 728. Jewett Bros. & Jewett v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 604. Jobbers' & Manufacturers' Association of the Pacific Coast v. Southern Pa- cific Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 333. Jobbers & Mfrs. Asso of Springfield Traffic Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 600. Jobbers Brokerage Co. v. C. & P. Ti Co. (6424), 29 I. C. C, 715. Jobbins, William F., Inc., v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 297. Cited : Noble v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 434. A carload rate and a minimum weight for a car of definite dimensions when lawfully published in the tariffs of a carrier constitute an open offer to the shipping public to move freight on those terms. A carrier will not be permitted to impose additional charges when it cannot supply a car of the size or capacity ordered, because it hasn't such a car at the time. Johnson, Edward J., v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 207. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 537 Johnson, Charles H., v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minn. & Omaha Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C. 221. Johnson, Edwin D., v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 2SS. Johnson, F. S. & Co. et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al, 21 I. C. G, 637. Cited : Blodgett Milling Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 23 1. C. C, 449. A carrier which does serve one community but does not reach an- other, cannot in law be guilty of subjecting such later place to undue prejudice or disadvantage. Johnson, J. A., v. D. & R. G. R. Co., 26 I. C. G, 719. Johnson, J. G, v. S. P. Co. (U. R. A-216), 27 I. C C, 723. Johnson, J. W. & Co. v. Clyde Steamship Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, S12. Johnson & Hunt v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 648. Johnson & Son v. C. & O. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-SS1), 30 I. C. C, 717. Johnson & Son v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-576), 30 I. C. C, 720. Johnson, B. & Son v. C. & O. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 698. Johnson, B. & Son v. L. & N. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 719. Johnson & Wimsatt v. Tampa Northern R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 664. Johnson-Locke Mercantile Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 503. Johnston v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 214. Johnston v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 73. Cited : Dallas Ft. Bu. v. Gulf, Col. & S. F. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 227. Coal rates fixed herein cited in other comparisons. Cited and followed: Haines v. C, R. I. & P. Ry Co., 13 I. C. C, 217. Reparation was denied in case involving coal rates in almost same " locality at almost identical time and no reason shown for changing such ruling in present case. Quoted: Morse Produce Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 339. In our opinion these rates are not excessive., They have probably been somewhat higher than they should have been in the past, but we cannot affirm that they have been unreasonable with sufficient confi- dence to justify us in awarding reparation. It does not necessarily fol- low because a rate is unreasonable today that it has been unreasonable at all times in the past. 538 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : Ft. Dodge Cora. Club v. I. C. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 582. The rate per ton per mile on coal for the haul of 375 miles from Chicago to Ft. Dodge is slightly less than 5 mills, certainly not a high rate. Johnston, T. H. & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 665. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 568. Cited : Lehman-Higginson G. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 462. Held no higher rate should be charged at Wichita than was applied at the Missouri River on traffic from Galveston through Wichita. Overruled: Lehman-Higginson G. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 472. In view of the interpretation placed upon third and fourth sections (East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Ry. Co. v. I. C. C, 181 U. S. 1) the former view of the Commission is reversed. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 47, 188. Cited : Johnston & Larimer et al. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al., 13 I. C. C, 398. Competition as an element in rate making. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 388. Cited and followed : Anthony Groc. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 609. Wichita held entitled to benefit over Kansas City of its situation with respect to the Gulf ports. So with Anthony in present case. Cited: Monroe Progressive League v. St. L, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 541. The carriers joined in hauling traffic from St. Louis to Jackson and Meridian via Monroe and Vicksburg in competition with the rates apply- ing from St. Louis via the direct route. If these carriers were to with- draw, from such traffic entirely it would not affect the rate adjustment at Meridian or Jackson and would not benefit Monroe. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. N. Y. & Texas Steamship Co., 12 I C C, 58. Cited: Johnston & Larimer et al. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry Co, 13 I C C, 399. Competition as an element in rate making. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 539 Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 51. Cited: Johnston & Larimer et al v. A., T. & S: F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 398. Competition as an element in rate making. Joice, J. K. & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et aL, IS I. C. C, 239. Cited: Jenks Lumber Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 59. Reparation cases growing out of the Tift case. Cited : Eastman, Gardiner & Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 95. In settling the reparation claims arising from the decision in the Tift cases (10 I. C. C, 505, 548), the Commission held in approving set- tlements arrived at by checking on part of carrier and claimant, that same were not in violation of law, when arrived at in this manner and approved by it. Joint Coal Rates to Clinton, Iowa, 26 I. C. C, 179. Joint Local Executive Board of the Union of United Brewery Workmen of Milwaukee Co., Wis., v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 708. Joint Rates With the Washington Western Ry., 27 I. C. C, 630. Joint Tariffs, In re, Filing of, Circular, 1 I. C. C, 657. Joint Tariffs, In re Publication of, 1 I. C. C, 5. Joint Tariffs and Schedules, 1 I. C. C, 225. Jones v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 144. Quoted: Snook v. Central R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 375. Power of Commission to order restoration of station is open to doubt, but if Commission did have such power it would not be exercised unless all the facts and conditions clearly indicate what the best interests of the public would require in the premises. Cited : Mattison v. Penn. Co., 23 I. C. C, 233. Cited: Corporation Com. of Okla. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 121.-- The Commission as an administrative body is not necessarily con- trolled by the general rule that a tribunal whose authority is involked by complaint filed before it, must determine whether the subject-matter is within its jurisdiction before it may consider the merits of the con- ' troversy; but that affirmative relief may not be granted in any case un- less jurisdiction over the subject-matter is definitely ascertained. Jones, E. D. & Sons Co. v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C... 226. 540 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Jones, Eugene E., v. E. D. McClelen, 6 I. C. C, 588. Jones, J. R, v. Southern Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, ISO. Cited: Houston Structural Steel Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 209. Cited : . Merchants & Mfgs. Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 469. Cited: Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 398. Where article is too bulky to be loaded through the side door of an ordinary box car not less than 40 feet 6 inches in length, and is for that reason carried upon an open car, a minimum charge not exceeding the first class rate upon 4,000 pounds may be assessed but where shipper awaits the convenience of the carrier, and the shipment thereby is actually transported in a box car, no additional charge should be made. Distinguished: Clinton Bridge & Iron Works v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 417. The shippers ordered a flat car. Jones, Lee D., v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 468. Jones Bros. v. B. & M. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 714. Jones Brothers Co. v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 141, 142, 143. Jones Brothers Co. v. Montpelier & Wells River R. R., 14 I. C. C, 139, 140, 144, 14S. Jones Bros. Co. v. Montpelier & Wells River R. R. et al., 21 I. C. C, 577. Jones Bros. Co. v. M. W. R. R., 25 I. C. C, 711. Jones, G. W. Lumber Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 427. Jones, G. W. Lumber Co. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al., 21 I. C. C, 397. Jones, H. Clay, Co. v. Philadelphia & Washington R. R. Co. (902) 12 I C C, 585. Jonesboro, Lake City & Eastern R. R. Co. et al., Noble, William K., v. 20 I. C. C, 520. See Noble v. J. L. C. & E. R. R. Co. Jordan, W. A. Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 19 I C. C, 611. Jordan, W. B. & Sons Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al 17 I. C. C, 625. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 541 Joseph, Dan, Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 623. Jouannett, Alfred, v. A. C. L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 392. Cited: Ontario Iron Ore Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 570. Unless changed conditions are shown which justify or require a dif- ferent adjustment, the conclusions bearing upon the same general situa- tion found in a former case will be controlling in the disposition of any later case involving same general contentions. Joynes, H. W., v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 116. Joynes, H. W., v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,. 17 I. C. C, 361. Followed : Am. Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 212, 216. Followed: Kiel Woodenware Co. v. C, M: & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 244. Followed: Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 557. Followed: Am. Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R.Co., 19 I. C. C, 314. In making an award of reparation in discrimination case. Cited : Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 371. Cited : Hanley Milling Co. v. Penn. Co., 19 I. C. C, 476. Cited: Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 187. Cited : Chas. Becker v. P. M. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 645, 657. The Commission is competent to consider a complaint alleging im- proper or discriminatory distribution of cars and to find that discrimina- tion does or does not exist, but the ascertainment of the damages the complaint had suffered in consequence thereof is a judicial question for the courts. Distinguished: Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & A. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 551. The charge for the marine insurance was a part of the rate and the rate was found unreasonable in the amount of the charge for the insur- ance, the damage to be assessed is rate damage, not general damage. Cited and modified: Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. G, 187. After a United States Circuit Court had held that it was duty of Commission under the act to assess general damages in discrimination cases, the Commission then departed from its former rule and did award reparation. Cited : Justice Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 479. $2.00 reconsignment charge op produce at Pittsburgh fixed in cited 542 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Joynes, H. W. et al v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 458. Cited: New Orleans Storage Rules & Regulations, 28 I. C. C, 607. Carriers may impose such charges as will compel the removal of freight from their depots and freight sheds. Sanction given such charges when made upon an ascending scale in cited case. Joynes, H. W., v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 609. Jubitz, G. L, Assignee, v. S. P. Co., 27 I. C. C, 44. Judd & Detweiler (Inc.) v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 455. Judith Cattle Co v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 608. Jurisdiction Over Rail & Water Carriers Operating in Alaska, In re, 19 I. C. C, 81. See In re Jurisdiction Over Rail & Water Carriers Operating in Alaska. Jurisdiction Over Water Carriers, In re, 15 I. C. C, 205. Cited : Transportation by C. & O. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 209. A shipper may not use a carrier subject to the act, or its agent, as his agent for the purpose of receiving consignments of property and re- billing the same in order to break an interstate journey or make an intrastate one. Justice, G. G. Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 666. Justice, G. G. & Co. v. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 478. K Kaiser, John H., Lumber Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. et al, 19 I. C. C, 607. Pending determination by the Commission of the reasonableness of advanced rates, effective November 1, 1907, on lumber and other forest products from the Flathead district, Montana, to North Dakota and other States, an injunction was granted restraining the enforcement of the new rates, notwithstanding the fact that the new rates had already gone into effect before the bill for the injunction was filed. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Kalispell Lumber Co. 165 Fed. 25. October 5, 1908. C. C. A. 9th Cir. Gilbert, J. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 543 Lower court reversed on ground that the court had no jurisdiction to restrain the enforcement of the new rates after such rates had gone into effect. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. October 9, 1910. C. C. D. Minn. Per Curiam. Orders of Commission held invalid on the ground that the rates fixed by the Commission are unreasonable low. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 222 U. S. 541. January 9, 1912. Lamar, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co. et al., Platten Produce Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 249. See Platten Produce Co. v. K. L. S. & C. Ry. Co. Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co. et al., Platten Produce Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 543. Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 154. Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 609. Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 610. Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-601, A-607), 30 I. C. G, 723, 724. Kalispell Lumber Co. et al. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. G, 164. Cited: Big Blackfoot Milling Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C„ 175. Same argument presented, viz: that the differential under the Spo- kane group rate should be accorded to the Missoula district for com- mercial and transportation reasons. Kalispell Lumber Co. et al. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 612. Kahnback-Ford Co. v. K. C. S. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 289. Kamm, P. C. & Co. v. P. Co., 25 I. C. C, 198. Kanawha & Michigan Ry. Co., Campbell Creek Coal Co. et al. v., 16 I. C. C, 603. Kanawha & Michigan Ry. Co. et al., Columbus Iron & Steel Co. v.. 20 I. G C, 568. 544 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Kanawha & Michigan Ry. Co., Dickinson & Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 717. Kanawha & Michigan Ry. Co., Hughes Creek Coal Co. v., 29 I. C .C, 671. Kanawha & Michigan Ry. Co., Kelly's Creek Colliery Co. v., 29 I. C. C, 671. Kankakee & Seneca R. R. Co., Manufacturers' & Jobbers' Union of Mankato, Minn., 4 I. C. C, 79. See Mnfrs.' & Jobbers' Union, etc., v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. Kann, Sigmund, v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 443. See Sprigg v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Kanona & Prattsburg Ry. Co., Shults & Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 723. Kansas v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 673. See State of Kansas v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kansas Chemical Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 719. Kansas City & Memphis Ry. Co. Rate Cancellation, 28 I. C. C, 640. Kansas City, Mo., & Kansas City, Kan., v. K. C, V. & T. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 22. Kansas City Belt Ry. Co., Missouri & Kansas Shippers' Asso. v., 13 I. C. C, 411. See Missouri & Kansas Shippers' Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kansas City Board of Trade, Intervener, in Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 534. See Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Kans., v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kansas City, Mo., Board of Trade v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. (1000), 14 I. C. C. ( 635. Kansas City Breweries Co. v. B. S. P. Co., 26 I. C. C. 718. Kansas City Breweries Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co. (U. R. A-214), 27 I. C. C, 723. Kansas City Cotton Mills Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 468. Kansas City Egg Case Filler Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R A-429) 29 I. C. C, 721. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 545 Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Gulf R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis R. R. Co., Charles G. Freeman v., 7 I. C. C, 202. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis R. R. Co., Holmes & Co. v., 8 I. C. C, 561. See Holmes v. Southern Ry. Co. Kansas City Hay Co. et al. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 100. Cited : Tyler Commission Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 491. Reparation awarded where the commodity . rate was cancelled and class rate applied for few months and then put back. Kansas City Hay Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co. (5636), 28 I. C. C„ 716. Kansas City Hay Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 631. Cited : Cady Lumber Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co, 19 I. C. C, 13. The application retroactively of a reconsigning privilege even though it had long been the custom of the carriers to permit reconsignment without tariff authority will not be sanctioned. Kansas City Hay Dealers' Asso. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 597. Cited : Georgia Fruit Exchange v. S. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 630. The minimum carload weight is a factor in the carload rate and in connection with the rate per 100 pounds determines the carload earnings. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Rates & Practices in the Transportation of Cotton by, 8 I. C. C, 121. Cited : In re Transportation of Wool, Hides & Pelts, 23 I. C. C, 173. Floating of cotton has been approved. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co., Holmes & Co. v., 8 I. C. C, 561. See Holmes v. Southern Ry. Co. 546 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Kansas City Millers' Club v ; K. C. S. Ry. Co. (S364), 28 I. C. C, 714. Kansas City Portland Cement Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1625), 14 I. C. C, 640. Kansas City Ry. Co. et aL, Brimstone R. R. & Canal Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 607. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R R. Co., Chicago Live Stock Exchange v., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R. R. Co., Commercial Club of Omaha v., 6 I. C. C, 647. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry Co. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R. R. Co., Gustin, A. J., v., 8 I. C. C, 277. See Gustin v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R. R. Co., Johnson, Charles H., v., 9 I. C. C, 221. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Atkinson-Williams Hardware Co. v. (U. R. A-217), 27 I. C. C, 723. , Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Beekman Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 86. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Boyce v., 24 I. C. C„ 704. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., C, B. & Q. R. Co. v. (U. R. A-214), 27 I. C. C, 723. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Cockerham, John W., Jr., v., 17 I. C. C, 607. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Desel-Boettcher Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 220. See Desel-Boettscher Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 611. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Fort Smith Biscuit Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 716. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co, Fort Smith Wholesale Grocery Co v fU R "A-217), 27 1. C. C, 723. ' ' l COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 547 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Foster Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 625. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Gulf Coast Navigation Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 544. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. et al., Hendrickson, C. D., Lumber Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 129. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Hill-Ingham Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 622. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Hill-Ingham Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 683. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Jones, Lee D., v., 17 I. C. C, 468. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Kalmback-Ford Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 289. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Kansas City Millers' Club v. (5364), 28 I. C. C, 714. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Leonard v., 13 I. C. C, 573. See Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 17 I. C. G, 90. See Memphis Freight Bureau v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Mercantile Lumber & Supply Co. v.,. 24 I. C. C, 719. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Monarch Metal Mfg. Co. v. (U. R. A-305), 28 I. C. G, 728. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., National Lumber Exporters Asso. v., 25 I. C. C, 78. See National Lumber Exporters Asso. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. Kansas City Southern Lumber Co. v. Neosho Milling Co., 21 I. C. C, 679. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al., Neosho Milling Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 682. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. et al, Pabst Brewing Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 615. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Standard Oil Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 668. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Sutherland Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 714. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Switzer Lumber Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 611. 548 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. (5115), 27 I. C. C, 704. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Webber-Ayers Hardware Co. v. (U. R. A- 217), 27 I. C. C, 723. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Wichita Wholesale Furniture Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 107. Kansas City Team Owners' Asso. v. C. G. W. R. R. Co. (6335), 29 I. C. C, 714. Kansas City Transportation Bureau of Kansas City, Mo., Interveners in Business Men's League of St. Louis, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kansas City Transportation Bureau of the Commercial Club v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 491. Cited : Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 65, 23 I. C. G, 410. The instance of Galveston and New Orleans in connection with equal rates is not analogous to the situation in present case, since many of the carriers have their own rails to Galveston and naturally Galveston lines prefer Galveston and the New Orleans lines prefer New Orleans al- though based alone on distance, the rates to Galveston should be lower than to New Orleans. Kansas City Transportation Bureau of the Commercial Club v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 195. Quoted : Greater Des Moines Cora. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 79. If that principle of rate making (distance) were adopted here it would necessarily be followed in other places and eventually to other traffic, and while we are not to be understood as intimating that sub- stantial differences in distance are not to be given consideration we are not willing to accept the theory of rate construction based purely on distances. Such adjustment would be revolutionary and destructive to established commercial interests of enormous volume and value. Quoted : Rosenbaum Bros. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 68. A proportional rate means a part of or a remainder of the through rate or it means nothing at all, and in a case of this kind there must be an examination and consideration of the entire rate from point of pro- duction to ultimate destination. Kansas City Transportation Bureau of the Commercial Club v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 432. . COMMERCE COMMISSION EEPOETS 549 Kansas City Transportation Bureau of the Commercial Ciub v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 664. Kansas City Viaduct & Terminal Ry. Co., Kansas City, Mo., & Kansas City, Kans., v., 24 I. C. C, 22. Kansas City, Watkins & Gulf Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Kansas-Ohio Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C, 285. Kansas Portland Cement Co. v. M., K. & T. R. Co. (U. R. A-353), 28 I. C. C, 734. Kansas R. R. Commissioners v. Adams Express Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 283. Kansas R. R. Commissioners v. A., T. & S. F., 22 I. C. C, 407. See R. R. Com'rs of Kans. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kansas R. R. Commissioners v. M. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. G, 24. Kansas Southwestern Ry. Co., Midland Mill & Elevator Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 610. Kansas, State of, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 665. Kansas State v. Pullman Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 25. Kath, Henry F., v. M. & O. T. Co., 22 I. C. C, 658. Kath, Henry F., v. N. O. & N. E. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 659. Katzmaier v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 528. Kauffman Milling Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 4 I. C. C, 417. Reaffirmed : B'd of R. Com. v, Atch., T. & St. F. R. Co., 8 I. C. C„ 304, 308, 310. Reaffirmed : City of Wichita v. M. P. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45. Cited: Howard Mills Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 263. Cited : Western Oregon Mfg. Asso v. S. P. Co., 14 I. C. C, 72. Cited: Valley Flour Mills v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 76. A differential was fixed on wheat and no proof offered showing that new conditions had come into existence or the old conditions had been essentially modified. Cited and distinguished : Texas Brewing Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 174. It does not necessarily follow that carriers must maintain a differ- ential between grain and its manufactured products. The question is the reasonableness of the malt rates. 550 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Kaul Lumber Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 450. Cited : The Tap Line Case, 23 I. C. C, 281. The tap line question was considered, where haul of logs to the mill was held to be a plant service. Cited : Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 158. The division of the rate on coke raised in present case brings the case somewhat under the application of the principles announced in cited case. Cited and followed: Com. Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 324. Claim for reparation where the tap line was a plant facility or a par- ticipant in the joint rates under which the shipment moved. Cited: Cancellation of Joint Rates C, Z. & G. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 360, 364. The tap line questions are presented in present case. In cited case in concurring opinion it was said "a railroad may be a plant facility be- cause it serves only a particular industry." Kay, W. O. Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 239. Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 604. Cited: Investigation & Suspension Docket No. 76, 25 I. C. C, 495. In carload lumber rates allowance for 500 pounds staking held rea- sonable. Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. Minnesota & International Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 285. Cited : Hanna Coal Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 290. Followed : Jobbins v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 17 I. C C, 299. Followed : Springer v. E. P. & S. W. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 323. Cited : Noble v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 434. Reparation allowed because carrier failed to supply car of the ca- pactiy ordered. Cited : Memphis Frt. Bu. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 68. The informal presentation of a claim of this character suffices to in- terrupt the running of the statute of limitations. Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. Minnesota & International Ry. Co. et al. 17 I. C. C, 209. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 551 Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 623. Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 674. Keats Auto Co. v. O. W. R. R. Co. & Nav. Co., 28 I. C. C, 412. Keats Auto Co. v. S. P. & S. R. Co. (U. R. A-202), 27 I. C. C, 721. Keeveny, T. W. Lumber Co. v. Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 602. Kehoe, T. M. & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 166. Kehoe, T. M. & Co. v. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C, 166. Followed : Macbride Coal & Coke Co. v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 572. Demurrage charge of $1 per day held not unreasonable. Cited: Investigation & Suspension Docket No. 83, 25 I. C. C, 315. It is the carrier's duty to transport freight to its destination and there deliver it to the consignee; the consignee is under a duty to receive such freight within a reasonable time, and if he neglects to do so, the carrier may insist on his doing so and impose a penalty by way of demurrage. Kehoe, T. M. & Co. v. Evansville & Terre Haute R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 172. Kehoe & Co. .v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 541. Kehoe & Co. v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 555. Kehoe & Co. v. Vandalia R. R. Co. (1423), 14 I. C. C, 637. Keich, F. Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 230. Keich Mfg. Co. v. San Antonio & Arkansas Pass Ry. Co. (1424), 13 I. C. C, 685. Keith, Chas. W., v. Kentucky Central R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C, 189. Keller, Gus. C, v. St. Louis & Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 488. Kellogg Food Co. v. G. T. R. Co. of C, 26 I. C. C, 611. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co. v, C. & N. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 669, Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co. v. C, H. & D. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 711. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flakes Co. v. M. C. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 604. That portion of application No 2045, which sought authority to con- tinue lower rates on sugar from New Orleans, La., to Detroit, Mich., 552 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio, than the rate contemporaneously in effect to Battle Creek, Mich., and other intermediate stations north of the Ohio River, denied. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. United States. Not reported. November 9, 1912. Commerce Court No. 87. Case dismissed by stipulation. Kelly Commission Co. v. Northern Express Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 664. Kelly, R. A. Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., , 19 I. C. C, 60S. Kelly, Maus & Co., Interveners in Business Men's League of St. Louis, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kelly, William Milling Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 180. Kelly, G. K. Plow Co. v. T. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 581. Kemble, Edward, v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 110. Cited and approved: Export & Domestic Rates, 8 I. C. C, 214, 252, 255. Cited: In re Differential Rates, 11 I. C. G, 65. There is nothing in the act which prohibits the charging of two rates to a port one onf domestic freight and another and lower rate on freight destined for export. Kemble, Edward, v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 5 I.'C. C, 166. See Toledo Produce Ex. v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co. Cited: Kemble v. Boston & Albany R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 111, 113. The differential against Boston should not be an arbitrary one, but the Boston rate should not exceed 110 per cent of the New York rate. Cited and distinguished: In re Differential Rates, 11 I. C. C, 19, 78. The Kemble case was a matter of discrimination between two points on the same line which is quite a different matter froni the fixing of differentials over competing lines. Kemmerer Hardware & Furniture Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-293) 28 I C. C, 726. Kendrick, J. B., v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 608. Kendrick & Burrows v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. 18 I C C„ 608. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 553 Kennard, Edward M., v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 443. See Sprigg v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Kennedy, James & Co. v. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 716. Kennedy, James & Co., Ltd., v. V. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 671. Kennedy, M. A., v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 277. Distinguished: Morton Salt Co. v. M. L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 28 I. C. C, 424. In cited case the record did not show that the complainant had been damaged because of an error in the published rate. In present case dam- age is alleged and proved. Kennessee Coal Co. v. K. & T. Ry. (4720), 28 I. C. C, 712. Kenny v. C. & S. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-385), 28 I. C. C, 739. Keogh, John W., v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 26 I. C. C„ 73. Kent, I. H. Co. v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 710. Kent, Percy Co. v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 439. Kent, I. H. Co. v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 715. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 162. Defendant carrier ordered to cease denying to complainant bridge company facilities for the interchange of traffic, on the ground that such bridge company is a common carrier and that such denial is a violation "of the second paragraph of section 3 of the act. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 37 Fed. 567. January 7, 1889. C. C, D. Ky. Jackson, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that the bridge company is not a common carrier and therefore not entitled to compel a railroad company to transact business with or through it. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 149 U. S. 777. March 30, 1893. Per curiam. Case discontinued and appeal dismissed under Supreme Court rule No. 10. Cited : Annual Report of Commission, 2 I. C. C, 412. Cited : L. R. & Mem. R. R. Co. v. E. Tenn., Va. & G. R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 17. Distinguished as to questions previously passed on. 554 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Distinguished : N. Y. & U. Ry. Co. v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 716. Cited: Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 537. A bridge company engaged in transporting carloads of interstate freight across its bridge for a switching charge held a common carrier de facto and that it might maintain a petition under the act for the pur- pose of compelling /another carrier subject to the act to afford it equal facilities for the forwarding of such freight. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R. R. Co., R. R. Commission of Indiana v., 14 I. C. C, 563, See R. R. Com. of Ind. v. Ky. & Ind. B. & R. Co. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R. R. Co. et al., State Board of Agriculture, Forestry & Immigration et al. v., 18 I. C. C, 612. Kentucky & Tennessee Ry. Co., Kennessee Coal Co. v. (4720). 28 I. C. C, 712. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. v. L. & N. R. Co. (4243), 27 I. C. C, 703. Kentucky Wagon Manufacturing Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 360. Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. The transcontinental rates are affected by water competitoin. Kenworthy, W. H. & Sons v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, SIS. Keogh John W. & Co. v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 606. Cited: Rates on Excelsior & Flax Tow from St. Paul, Minn., 26 I C C, 690. Cited : Rates on Excelsior & Flax Tow from St. Paul, 29 I. C. C, 640. Cited: Morris- Johnson-Brown Mfg. Co. v. I. C. R R Co 30 I C C, 444. The rates on excelsior from St. Paul to Chicago, St. Louis and Mis- souri River points fixed not to exceed rates contemporaneously in effect on flax tow. Keogh & Co., 29 I. C. C, 640. See In re Advances, Excelsior & Flax Tow from St. Paul, Minn. Kerper v. I. N. Ry. Co. (5683), 28 I. C. C, 716. Kessler, Julius & Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 397. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 555 Kessler, Julius & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 618. Kessler & Co. v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 706. x Ketchum & Gaston Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 620. Kettering, C. W. Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. G, 613. Kewaunee, Green Bay & W. Ry. Co., Weise-Hollman Co. v. (4184), 27 I. C. C, 703. Keystone Coal Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 336. Keystone Coal Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. G, 604. Kibbe, Irvin, v. St. L. B. & M. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 661. Kiel Woodenware Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 242. Follozved: Canadian Valley Grain Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 108. When a carrier fails to post the tariff changing a rate an award of reparation will be made covering any damage sustained. Distinguished: Faribault Furniture Co. v. C. G. W. R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 41. In cited case shipper could have arranged his shipments, if he had been advised of a change in the tariff, so as to procure the lower rate, formerly effective. In present case there was no change either in the rate effective at the time of the movement nor the minimum com- plained of. Modified : Franke Grain Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 628. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in U. S. v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, posting of tariffs is not necessary to make a tariff lawfully effective. ' Kilburn Mills v. N. T. N. H. & H. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 21. Kile & Morgan Co. v. Deepwater Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 235. Cited : Nollenberger v. M. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 598. Statute of limitation interpreted. Followed : Woodward & Dickerson v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 10. Claims which originated just prior to Aug. 26, 1906, as well as those thereafter may be presented within the two-year period. The one-year provision was intended to make valid, claims which would otherwise 556 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE have been barred by the two-year clause and which were perfectly valid under state statutes prior to the amendment of Aug. 26, 1906. Cited : Cady Lumber Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 13. The application retroactively of a reconsigning privilege even though it had long been the custom of the carrier to permit reconsignment without tariff authority, will not be sanctioned. Quoted : Noble v. J., L. C. & E. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 522. Quoted: Whaley-Warren Lumber Co. v. C, C. & O. Ry., 21 I. C. C, 531. Carriers at fault in misrouting are liable for damages represented by higher charges than would have been lawfully assessable had the mis- routing not occurred, and we do not adopt defendant's contention that liability attaches for such damage only as can be reasonably seen or anticipated. A shipper cannot be deprived through a carrier's negli- gence of any lawful privilege offered by another carrier, especially after due diligence on his part to secure such advantage; but such privilege must itself be not only one which the carrier may lawfully allow after the establishment thereof, but it must also be duly established and filed with the Commission, as are rates and all privileges and services to which they apply. Kimball, F. J., v. Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., 6 I. C. C, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Kimball, F. J., v. McClelen, E. D., 6 I. C. C, 588. Ky. Central Ry. Co., Gerke Brewing Co. v., 5 I. C. C, 596. See Gerke Brewing Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Kentucky Central R. R. Co., Chas. W. Keith v., 1 I. C. G, 189. Kimbark, S. D., Intervener in Business Men's League of St. Louis, v. Atchi- son, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Kimberly, E. B., v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 335. Kindel v. Adams Express Co., 13 I. C. C, 475. Followed : Sanford v. Western Express Co., 16 I. C. C, 32. The rates on small packages are made in competit'on with the U. S. mail rates. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 557 Cited : Maricopa Co. Com. Club v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 16 I. C. G, 183. The Wells, Fargo & Co. show an income which may fairly be re- garded as too great, but this is not true of the Adams, the American or the United States upon the face of the figures offered by them. Kindel v. Adams Express Co. (U. R. A-620), 30 I. C. C, 726. Kindel, George J., & Denver Chamber of Commerce v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C, 608. Cited : Holdzkom v. Mich. Cen. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 48. Cited : Business Men's League v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 3S4. Cited: Bovaird Supply Co. v. A, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 65. Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 384. Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. Rates from the east to Pacific coast terminals are fixed by water competition via the Isthmus of Panama and around South America, fixing the all rail rate from ocean to ocean. In the east the combined competition of transcontinental lines and markets has operated to apply this water rate to substantially all the territory east of the Mississippi River. Kindel, George J., and Denver Chamber of Commerce v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 606. Cited : Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 66. Several articles were added to list that came within the same rule applicable to sugar. Competition between points of production, of products, between carriers and in rates, are matters that constitute such dissimilar conditions as will prevent the lower rate to the most distant point from violating the fourth section of act. Kindel, George J., v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa e Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 612. Kindel, George J., v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 495. Cited : Merchants' Traffic Asso. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 226. Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 389. Followed : John Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 210. The rate on cotton piece goods from New England producing points to Denver. Cited: Com. Club of Omaha v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 401. While the legality of a differential between carload and less-than- carload rates has been consistently sustained upon the ground of dif- ference in cost of service, it is significant that no such rule applies to the any-quantity basis. 558 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C C, 417. Transcontinental rates are affected by water competition. Kindel, George J., v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 514. Kindel, George J., v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 555. Carriers ordered to reduce certain rates from the Missouri River, Chicago, 111., and St. Louis, Mo., to Denver, Colo., and from Denver to Utah common points on the ground that the rates are unreasonable and unduly prejudicial to Denver. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 171 Fed. 680. August 24, 1909. C. C. N. D. 111., E. D. Grosscup, J. Commission's order held invalid on the ground that it arbitrarily created 1 trade zones. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. 218 U. S. 113. May 31, 1911. McKenna, J. Commission's order held to be valid in all respects. It did not, it was held, arbitrarily create trade zones. Cited : Receivers & Shippers Asso. v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 464. Quoted: Advance in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C, 274. Cited : Advance in Grain Rates, 21 I. C. C, 25. Cited : Com. Club of Superior, Wis., v. G. N. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C„ 102. In determining competitive rates the road of shortest mileage and most advantageous situation will not alone be considered. Cited : Com. Club of Omaha v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 402. The locals making up a combination through rate may be so low in themselves as to yield a reasonable through charge. Cited : R. R. Com. of Texas v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 485. The class rates from St. Louis to Denver furnish a guide as to proper rates to Texas common points. Cited : Minneapolis Traffic Asso. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. G, 259. Cited : Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 478. commerce Commission reports 559 Class rates from Chicago and St. Louis to Denver reduced so that for a time these were lower than rates from Minneapolis. Cited : In re Transportation of Wool, Hides & Pelts, 23 I. C. C, 175. Fourth class rate between St. Louis and Denver of 8(% cents' estab- lished in cited case. Cited: Southwestern Shippers Traffic Asso. v. A., T & S F Rv Co 24 1. C. C, 576. ■ . y. ., Affirmed: Colorado Mfrs. Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 82. Cited : Iowa St. B'd of R. R. Corns, v. A. E. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 199. The rates as established in cited case from Chicago to Denver'. Cited : Appalachia Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 195. The through rate should be less than the combination of locals. Cited: New England Electric Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co, 28 I C C, 419. The fifth class rate of 67 cents per 100 pounds was established in cited case. Kindelon, J. C, v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 251. Followed : White Bros. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 417. Followed: Maris v. So. Pac. Co., 18 I. C. C, 302. Cited: Coke Producers Asso., Connellsville, v. B. & O. R. R. Co 27 I C. C, 150. Rate on lumber from Black Rock, Ark., to San Francisco; Cal., held unreasonable by amount it exceeded 75 cents per 100 pounds. Quoted: Com. Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 537. Followed: Commercial Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 317. The shipper who has been charged an unlawful rate and who is the owner of goods transported is entitled to repayment without the imposi- tion of the impossible task upon the Commission of ascertaining the Ultimate profits accruing from the business of the shipper. Moreover, the owner of the freight who has been required to pay an unreasonable rate is entitled, upon proper complaint and showing, to reparation irre- spective of the profits accruing from his business. King, W. S. & Co. v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 251. Cited : George Rice v. At., Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 243. Fourth section of act not violated in making lower rate to San Fran- cisco and Pacific coast terminals reached by water lines. 560 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE King, Collie & Co. v. A. & S. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-519), 29 I. C. C, 732. Kingfisher Mill & Elevator Co. v.- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 214. See Haines v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. King Paper Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-673), 30 I. C. C, 733. King Powder Co v. P., C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 657. King-Ryder Lumber Co. v. L. & P. R. Co, 24 I. C. C, 726. King- Ryder Lumber Co. v. L. & P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-4SS), 29 I. C. C, 724. Kingman & Co. v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 623. Kinnier, Montgomery & Co. v. Old Dominion Steamship Co, 6 I. C. C, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va, v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Kinsella Grain Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. (737) (932), 12 I. C. C, S81, 585. Kipp, B. A. Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co, 26 I. C. C, 722. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co, 8 I. C. C, 93. See Phillips, Bailey' & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Kirkpatrick v. S. K. Ry. Co. of Texas (U. R. A-270), 28 I. C. C, 724. Kirkpatrick, J. C, Administrator E. C. Norton, deceased, v. C. & W. N. E. R. Co, 25 I. C. C, 712. Kiser, M. C. Co. et al. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 430. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount the rate on shoes and boots from Boston, Mass, and New York City to Atlanta, Ga, on the ground that the existing rates are unreasonable. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. C. C. E. D. Va. Bill to annual Commission's order transferred to Commerce Court. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission 194 Fed. 449; 1 Com. Ct. 255. December 5, 1911. Commerce Court No. 3. Carland, J. Commission's motion to dismiss bill attacking Commission's order denied. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 561 Atlantic -Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. June 4, 1912. Commerce Court No. 3.~ Case dismissed without prejudice upon motion of petitioning carrier. Kiteley-Johnson-St. Claire Hardware Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 711. Kitselman Bros. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 1SS. See Indiana Steel & Wire Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. Kittoe Boiler & Tank Co. v. E. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-319), 28 I. C. C, 730. Klauer Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, S08 Kleibacker, Fred R., v. L. & N. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 420. Klein, Philip, v Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 606. Kleine Optical Co. et al. v. American Express Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 614. Klyce, Henry A. Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 567. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (4234), 28 I. C, C, 711. Knox, S. H., v. Wabash R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 18S. Cited : Merchants & Mfg. Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 469. Cited : Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 398. The minimum weight rule for bulky articles does not apply where they can be loaded into a box car. Knoxville & Ohio R. R. Co., Heck & Petree v., 1 I. C. C, 495. See Heck & Petrie v. E. Tenn., Virginia & Ga. Ry. Co. Knoxville Traffic Bureau v. A. & V. Ry. Co. (6282), 29 I. C. C, 714. Knoxville, Tenn., Traffic Bureau v. A. & V. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-559), 30 I. C. C, 718. Koch Secret Service v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 523. Koch Butcher Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 715. Koch, W. J., v. Pa. R. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 675. Cited : Quimby et al. v. Me. Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 248. Cited : Spiegle & Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 526. Quoted : Transportation of Wool, Hides & Pelts, 23 I. C. C, 173. 562 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cases previous to amendment of June 29, 1906, hold that stopping of a commodity in transit for treatment or reconsignment is in the nature of a special privilege which carriers might concede, though shipper could not, under the law as it then stood, demand it as a matter of lawful right. But allowance of the privilege to shippers in one section must be without wrongful prejudice to the rights of shippers in another sec- tion served by its line. Koch Butchers Supply Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-281), 28 I. C. C, 725. Koch Butchers Supply Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 713. Koehler, C. Co. et al. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 606. Koehler Produce Co. v. P. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 635. Koenig, R. P. & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24 I. C. G, 594. Kohlberg, M. S. & Co. v. W. F. & Co., 24 I. C. C, 380. See In re Express Rates. ' Kohlberg & Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 28 I. C. C, 131. Kohlenberg v. B. & O. R. R. Co. (3365), 29 I. C. C, 709. Kokomo Steel & Wire Co .v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 155, See Indiana Steel & Wire Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. Kollyrite Trucking Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 176. See Murphy v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. Kollyrite Trucking Co. v. P. R. Co. (U. R. A-146), 27 I. C. C, 713. Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. (U. R. A-315), 28 I C. C, 729. Kroll Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-428), 29 I. C. C, 720. Kuh Bros. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 720. Kulm Mill Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co., 20 I C C, 665. Kulzer, J. G., v. G. N. R. Co., 24 I. C. G, 716. Kulzer v. G. N. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-540), 29 I. C. C, 735. Kunz Grain Co. v. M. & St. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-280), 28 I. C. C, 725. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 563 Kurth Co. v. C, M. & St P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 672. Kurtz, Edward L., v. Pennsylvania Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 410. Cited : Eschner v. P. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 62. Cited : Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C, 433. Mileage books and limitations prescribed in connection with their use on through routes and Pullman accommodations. La Crosse Implement Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 610. La Crosse Mnfrs.' & Jobbers' Union v. Chicago, Minn. & St. Paul Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 629. Cited : Bus. Men's Asso. of Minn. v. C, St. P., Minn. & O. Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 67. The method of grouping stations and grading stations for a continu- ous haul of freight by a railway carrier is One that is very common in this country and is not necessarily illegal, unless the results that flow from it are illegal. Quoted : Bus. Men's Asso. of Minn. v. C, St. P., Minn. & O. Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 69. Many circumstances fairly entitle, and sometimes compel, the carrier to make rates on one line proportionately less than are made on another. Cited: Business Men's Asso. of Minn. v. Chic. & N. W. Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 83. Cited : N. O. Cot. Ex. v. 111. Cen. R. Co., 3 I. C. G, 557. The comparison of rates in one portion of the country with rates in another, and rates upon one line with rates upon another, operated under substantially different circumstances and conditions, is not a fair basis. Cited: N. W. Howell v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 289. Cited : Mary O. Stone & Th. Carten v. Del., Gr. H. & M. Ry. Co., 3 I. C. C, 639. Grouping of rates inaugurated to bring certain rates within fourth section requirement. Quoted: N. H. Howell v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 294. Cited : L. Lippman & Co. v. The 111. Cen. R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C„ 587. The system (of grouping rates) itself is therefore not necessarily illegal; it only becomes illegal when it can be shown that illegal results flow from it. 564 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Lachman Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 1. C. C, 223. Lachman Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 609. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co. v. A. S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 141. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co. (U. R. A-10S), 27 I. C. C, 707. La Grange Board of Trade v. Clyde Steamship Co. (654), 12 I. C. C, 581. Lagomarino-Grupe Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 710. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 617. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 720. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-275), 28 I. C. C, 724. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-352), 28 I. C. C, 734. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. C, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. (U. R. A-122). 27 I. C. C 710. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. et al. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 151. Lagomarcino-Grupe Co. v. M. & O. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 713. Lagrange Chamber of Commerce v. Atlanta & West Point R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 178. Cited: Montezuma, Ga., v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. G, 284. The situation in the two cases held to be similar in general aspects. Cited : Mayor & Council of Douglas, Ga., v. A., B. & A. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 451. f Rates in the territory under consideration are made under the well- known basing-point system, the application of which to facts similar to those of the present case was discussed in cited case. Lair Furniture & Undertaking Co. v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. G. C, 676.. La Junta Milling & Elevator Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-507) 29 I. C. C, 731. Lake-and-Rail Butter & Egg Rates, 29 I. C. C, 45. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 565 Lake-and-Rail Class Rates from Pennsylvania D Points, 26 I. C. C, 669. Cited : Lake-and-Rail Rates from C.-F.-A. Territory, 26 I. C. C, 674. The basis of making rail-and-lake rates to the northwest from points of origin in trunk line and central freight association territories has been to grade down the seaboard rates according to the proximity of the point of origin to the port of transshipment on Lake Erie. Lake-and-Rail Rates from Central Freight Asso. Territory, 26 I. C. C, 671. Lake Erie & Western Ry. Co., Bates, Hervey, v., 4 I. C. C, 281. See Bates v. Penn. R. R. Co. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co. et al., Gilchrist, Henry M., v., 16 I. C. C, 318. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., J. J. Marley & Son v., 11 I. C. C, 616. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., National Refining Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 668. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., Palmer & Miller v., IS I. C. C, 107. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., Southern Paint & Glass Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 284. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Acme Cement Plaster Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 30. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., American Cigar Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 619. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., American Dynalite Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 713. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Anderson Vehicle Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 619. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Beaver & Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 733. See Beaver & Co. v. Pitts., Cinn. & St. L. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Bentley & Olmstead et al. v., 17 I. C. C, 56. See Bentley & Olmsted v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Boston Chamber of Commerce v., 1 I. C. C, 436. See Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., also Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston & Albany Ry. Co. 566 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Briggs & Turivas v., 26 I. C. C, 7,21. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Buffalo Union Furnace Co. et al. v., 21 I. C. C, 620. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Chamberlain Cartridge & Target Co. v. (U. R. A-482), 29 I. C. C, 725. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Channon, H. Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 551. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Fred G. Clark Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 558. See Clark Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Cleveland Board of Trade v., 5 I. C. C, 166. See Kemble v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Cleveland Stone Co. v. (4809), 27 I. C. C, 703. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Clyde Kraut Co. v. (U. R. A- 112), 27 I. C. C, 708. Lake Shore & Michigan Ry. Co., Consolidated Pump Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 519. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Crookston Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 611. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Dean Electric Co. v. (U. R. A- 464), 29 I. C. C, 725. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Detroit Traffic Association v., 21 I. C. C, 257. See Detroit Traffic Asso. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Diamond Show Case Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 709. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Erie Preserving Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 118. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Flint & Walling Manufacturing Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 336. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Franke Grain Co. v. 23 I C C, 713. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 567 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., French Battery & Carbon Co. v. (U. R. A-374), 28 I. C. C, 737. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Frost Prevention Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 711. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Globe- Wernicke Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 1S6. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Harmon, F. S. & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 394. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Harvard Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 212. See Harvard Co. v. Penn. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., S. J. Hawkins v., 9 I. C. C, 207. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Hotelier & Co. v. (1367), 14 I. C. C, 636. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Hurlburt, Frank L., v., 2 I. C. C, 122. See Hurlburt v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Inter-Mountain Auto Co. v. (U. R. A-466), 29 I. C. C, 726. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Isbell, S. M. & Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 448. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Isbell-Brown Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 604. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Isbell-Brown Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 611. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Kemble, Edward, v., ,5 I. C. C, 166. See Kemble v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., George J. Kindel v., 11 I. C. C, 495. See Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., King Paper Co. v. (U. R. A-673), 30 I. C. C, 733. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Leavitt & Co. v. (U. R. A-121), 27 I. C. C, 710. 568 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Lindsay Brothers v., 15 I. C. C, 284. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Lindsay Bros, v., 22 I. C. C, 516. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Malone Stone Co. v. (4809 Sub. 1), 27 I. C. C, 703. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co., Michigan Box Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 335. See Michigan Box Co. v. Flint & Pere Marquette R. R. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Milburn Wagon Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 144. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Milburn Wagon Co. v., 18 I. C. C... 613. See Milburn Wagon Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Milburn Wagon Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 93, 460, 511. See Milburn Wagon Co. v. L. S. &. M. S. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., Morris, S. & Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 626. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., National Hay Asso. v., 9 I. C. C, 264. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., National Machinery & Wrecking Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 581. See National Machinery & Wrecking Co. v. P., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., Natomas Consolidated of Cali- fornia v., 24 I. C. C, 707. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., M. Newman v., 11 I. C. C, 517. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Trans- portation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex v 7 I C C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Prentiss, J. I. &-Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 68. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Proctor & Gamble v., 4 I. C. C, 87, 443. See Proctor & Gamble v. C, H. & D. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Proctor & Gamble v., 9 I. C. C. 440. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., R. R. Comm. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Rau v., 12 I. C. C, 109. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Red Bank Mills v. (5861), 28 I. C. C, 719. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C, 120. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., Rosedale Foundry & Machine Co. v., 21 I. C. C. 671. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 789 Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Schmittle & Co. v. (781), 12 I. C. C, 582. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Scott Paper Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 601. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Scully Syrup Co. v. (U. R. A-360), 28 I. C. C, 735. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Sligo Store Co. v. (1018), 12 I. C. C, 587. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Snow Lumber Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 200. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., Spartanburg Ry. Gas & Electric Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 609. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., George M. Spiegle & Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 367. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Springfield Commercial Asso. v., 28 I. C. C, 511. See Springfield Com. Asso. v. Penn. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Standard Mirror Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 200. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., State of Maryland v., 30 I. C. C, 22. Pennyslvania R. R. Co., Sterling Salt Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 716. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Sterling Salt Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 38. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Stowe-Fuller Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 215. See Stowe-Fuller Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Struthers- Wells Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 291. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Swift & Co. v., 29 I. C. C, 464. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Sylvester v., 14 I. C. C, 573. See Sylvester v. P. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Thomas Iron Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 608. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Charles A. Thompson v., 10 I. C. G, 640. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Thropp v., 23 I. C. C, 497. See Thropp y. P. R. R. Cc, Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. o£ Charleston & Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. See Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston v. Northeastern R. R. Co. of S. C. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Union Pacific Tea Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 545. - 790 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., United States of America v., 17 I. C. C, 607. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., United States v. (U. R. A-641), 30 I. C. C, 729. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wagner Brewing Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 718. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Hulbert H. Warner v., 4 I. C. C, 32. See Warner v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Washburn- Crosby Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 40. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wasserman-Gattman Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 707. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Waverly Oil Works v., 11 I. C. C, 558. See Clark Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Waverly Oil Co. Works v., 28 I. C. C, 621. See Waverly Oil Works v. Penn. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Isaac Weil v., 11 I. C. C, 627. See Weil v. Pa. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wetherill Co. v. (948), 12 I. C. C, 586. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wilbert, F. Bros, et al. v., 16 I. C. C, 116. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., Wilburine Oil Works, Ltd., v., 18 I. C. C, 548. See Wilburine Oil Works, Ltd., v. P. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wilson Produce Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 170. See Wilson Produce Co. v. P. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wilson Produce Co. et al. v., 16 I. C. C, 116. See Wilson Produce Co. v. P. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wilson Produce Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 1. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Wisconsin Steel Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 152. See Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., Winona Carriage Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 334. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Worcester Excursion Car Co. v., 3 I. C. C, 577. See Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co. -COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 791 Pennsylvania Smelting Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C., 60. Penrod Walnut & Veneer Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 326. Cited : New Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. H. V. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 125. A rate may be reasonable at one period of its existence and because of changed conditions and circumstances become unreasonable at a later period. Penrod Walnut & Veneer Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. (1746), IS I. C. C, 638. Penrod Walnut & Veneer Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. (1697;, 14 I. C. C, 641. Peoples Fuel & Supply Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 24. Cited : Board of Trade of Chicago v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 439. General arrangement regarding switching charges in the Chicago switching district. Cited : People's Fuel & Supply Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 6S7. Rehearing to fix divisions. Peoples Fuel & Supply Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 657. People's Line Steamers, Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co., St. Louis, Springfield & Peoria R. R. v., 26 I. C. C, 226. See St. Louis, Springfield & Peoria R. R. v. P. & P. U. Ry. Co. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Ry. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Pepperell Manufacturing Co. v. Texas Southern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 353. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Acme Cement & Plaster Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 670. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., American Milling Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 668. 792 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., American Plow Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 621. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., American Plow Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 610. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Bagley & Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 698. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Benjamin Coal Co. v., 28 1. C. C, 645. ' Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Buick Motor Co. v. (5535), 30 I. C. C, 712. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Calaway Fuel Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 645. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Collingwood Brick Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 572. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Connelly Iron Sponge & Governor Co. y., 24 I. C. C, 725.; Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Edward G. Davies v., 10 I. C. C, 405. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Detroit Chemical Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 621. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Farmers Handy Wagon Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 621. Pere Marquette R. R. Co:, Grand Rapids Plaster Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 571. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Grand Rapids Plaster Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 68. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Heinz, H. J. Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 612. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Huron Milling Co. v. (U. R. A-396), 28 I. C. C, 740. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Isbell-Broan Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 722. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Lindsay Bros, v., 25 I. C. C, 368. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Michigan Cereal Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 572. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Miller, Albert & Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 672. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Miller & Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 715. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Miller & Co. v. (U. R. A-309), 28 I. C. C, 729. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., National Hay Asso. v., 9 I. C. C, 264. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Oshkosh Excelsior Mfg. Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 712. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Portland Gold Mining Co. v. (U. R. A-188), 27 I. C. C, 719. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Richmond Elevator Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 629. See Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Richmond Elevator Co. v. (684), 29 I. C. C, 707. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 793 *>ere Marquette R. R. Co., Ruttle v., 13 I. C. C, 179. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Scattergood & Co. v. (U. R. A-Sll), 29 I. C. C, 731. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Sunderland Bros. Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 450. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Superior Charcoal Iron Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 627. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Western Grain Products Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 713. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Wisconsin Carriage Co. v., 25 I. C. G, 713. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., Wisconsin Coal Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 645. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., Wisconsin Pulp and Paper Manufacturers v., 19- 1. C. C, 602. Perry, Charles P., v. Fla. Central & Peninsular R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 97. Followed : J. M. Rising v. Savannah, Fl. & W. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 121. Cited: Truck Farmers' Asso. v. Northeastern R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 317. Price of strawberries from Callahan, Fla., to New York City. Cited : Murphy, Wasey & Co. v. The Wabash R. Co.| 5 I. C. C, 126. Right of Commission to prescribe reasonable rate where rate in effect declared excessive. Cited : Page v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 554. The Commission not only will require the carrier by suitable order to cease and desist, from charging or doing what is ascertained to be unlawful, but from omitting to do what is found to be lawful. Cited : Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 554. A shipper paying an unreasonable rate may by showing that the rate was unreasonable, and the extent of its unreasonableness obtain an order for the payment of damages in the amount that the sum paid exceeded a reasonable rate. Cited : Gustin v. A., T. & S. F Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C, 287. Carriers having agreed under their tariffs and engaged in the course of business in the through transportation of traffic from Chicago to * Kearney, Neb., over continuous lines formed by their connected roads, are required by the act to make their rates on such transportation rea- sonable. Perry, Charles R. & Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 247. 794 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Peters, Joseph, v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 598. Followed: Schenck v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 127. The actual weight of shipments constitutes the true basis upon which to assess transportation charges, and the question is one of fact to be determined in a manner just to both parties as to which the ex parte action of either party cannot conclude the other. Peters Mill Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-332), 28 I. C. C, 732. Petersburg R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vegetables, 8 I. C. C, 585. Petersburg R. R. Co., Charles P. Perry v., 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Petersburg R. R. Co., R. R. Comm. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. Petersburg R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C, 120. Petersburg R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston & Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. See Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston, etc., v. Northeastern R. R. Co. of S. C. Petersburg R. R. Co., Wil. Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C. P. & V. R. R. Co. Petitions of Carriers for Extension of Time as to "Hours of Service Law," In re, 13 I. C. C, 140. Petition of the Order of Ry. Conductors, In re, 1 I. C. C, 8. Petition of the Traders' & Travelers' Union, In re, 1 I. C. C, 8. Petmecky Co. v. M., K. & T. Co. of Texas, 25 I. C. C, 134. Petroleum Rates to Emlenton, Pa., 29 I. C. C, 519. Peycke Bros. Commission Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. (6002), 28 I. C. C, 720. Pfister & Vogel Leather Co. v. D. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-636) 30 I C C, 728. Pfister & Vogel Leather Co. v. B. & M. R. Co. (U. R. A-238), 27 I. C. C, 726. Phelps & Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 36. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 795 « Quoted : Jerome Hill Cotton Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 616. On subject of estimated weights and resulting overcharges. Cited: Joynes v. Pa. R. R. Co, 17 I. C. C, 372. Reparation in discrimination cases. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Allentown Portland Cement Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 448. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., American Cigar Co. v., 20 I. C. G, 81. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Anthony v., 14 I. C. C, 581. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Barr Chemical Works v., 20 I. C. C, 77. « Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Barr M Chemical Works v., 21 I. C. C, 684. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Belknap Glass Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 713. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Blumenstein, William H., v., 21 I. C. C, 90. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Crane R. R. Co. v., IS I. C. C, 248. See Crane R. R. Co. v. P. & R. Ry. Co. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., DuMee, Son & Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 33. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Gets & Bichler Boiler & Sheet Iron Works v., 21 I. C. C, 683. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Globe-Wemicke Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 156. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Golding Sons Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 657. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Golding Sons Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 680. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Hearst v. (644), 29 I. C. C, 707. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., T. M. Kehoe & Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 166. See Kehoe & Co. v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., National Hay Asso. v., 9 I. C. C, 264. 796 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Transportation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N, Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Oxford Copper Co. v., 21 I. C. G, 684. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., Paine Bros. & Co. v., 7 I. C. C, 218. See Paine Bros. & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Pa. Millers State Association v., 8 I. C. C.,,531. See Pa. Millers State Asso. v. P. & R. Ry. Co. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Rogers & Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 308. See Rogers & Co. v. P. & R. Ry. Co. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., Rosenblatt, H. Sons v., 21 I. C. C, 665. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Snow Lumber Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 708. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., Traders' & Travelers' Union v., 1 I. C. C, 122. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., United States of America v., 18 I. C. C, 613. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., Walsh & Weidner Boiler Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 714. /Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., Hulbert H. Warner v., 4 I. C. C, 32. See Warner v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., Alabama Lumber & Export Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 295. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., Baltimore Butchers Abattoir & Live Stock Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 124. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., Germain Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 96. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co., Gillis & Sons v., 26 I. C. C, 61. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 797 Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., Goodman Manu- facturing Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 672. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co., Home Lumber Co. v. (956). 12 I. C. G, 586. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co., Jones, H. Clay Co. v. (902), 12 I. C. G, 585. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., Selfridge, Thomas O. v., 18 I. C. C, 614. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., Stone-Ordean- Wells Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 160. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co., White Water Farms Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 526. Philadelphia Commercial Exchange v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 1. Philadelphia Commercial Exchange v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 497. Philadelphia, Reading & New England R. R. Co., Milk Producers' Pro. Asso. v., 7 I. C. C, 92. See Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. Philadelphia Veneer & Lumber Co. v. C. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 653. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., Delaware State Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry v., 4 I. C. C, 588. See Delaware State Grange, etc., v. N. Y., Phila. & Norfolk R. R. Co. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., Charles P. Perry v., 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., R. R. Comm. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C, 120. 798 / GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., Trades League of Phila- delphia v., 8 I. C. C, 386. Philip, James, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 418. Phillip & Allsebrook v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 711. Phillips, Arthur S. v. N. Y. & Boston Despatch Express Co., IS I. C. C, 631. Phillips & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 199. See Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Phillips & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 199. See Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Phillips, Bailey & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 93. Cited: Payne-Gardner Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 642. Sugar rates to Nashville, Tenn., from New Orleans used for compari- son on claim for lower rate to Gallatin; claim made that Nashville was Commission made rate. Cited: Columbia Grocery Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 504. No justification for higher rate to Nashville than to Louisville on sugar from New Orleans. Phillips Co., A. J., v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C, 659. Phillips, A. J. Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 718. Phillips-Trawick-James Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 13 I. C. C, 644. Phoenix & Eastern R. R. Co., Maricopa Co. Com. Club v., 22 I. C. C, 218, 221. See Maricopa County Commercial Club v. P. & E. R. R. Co. Phoenix Furniture Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. «t al., 17 I. C. C, 611. Phoenix Furniture Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C„ 223. Phoenix Furniture Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 703. Ph. Zang Brewing Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 704. Pickands-Magee Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 615. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 799 Pierce, A. S., v. Duluth, Missabe & Northern Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. G, 675. Pierce, Geo. N. Co. v, New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 579. Pierce, George E, v. P. & L. E. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 89. Piermont Paper Co. v. E. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 658. Pierre, Rapid City & Northwestern Ry. Co., Ingram v., 26 I. C. C, 722. Pig Iron Rates From Virginia to Pennsylvania, 27 I. C. C, 343. Pilant, William R., v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 15 I. C. G, 178. Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 710. Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. C, M. St. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. G, 707. Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Mills Co. et al. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C„ 604. Pine Bluff & Western Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Pine Island Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 111. C. C, 687. Pioneer Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 605. Pioneer Pole & Shaft Co. v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C... 618. Pitcairn Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 654. Pittman & Harrison Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. (937), 12 I. C. C, 585. Pitts, H. B; & Son v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 691. Pitts, H. B. & Son v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 684. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., American Smelting & Refining Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 661. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Boileau v., 22 I. C. C, 640. See Boileau v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. \ Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Boileau v., 24 I. C. C, 129. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 607. 800 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et a!., Hollingshead & Blei Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 193. Pitts. & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Imperial Coal Co. & Andrew Hitchcock & Co. v., 2 I. C. C, 618. See Imperial Coal Co., etc., v. Pitts. Lake Erie R. R. Co. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., Independent Oil Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 603. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Inland Steel Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 152. See Inland Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Masurite Explosive Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 405. See Masurite Explosive Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. Pitts. & Lake Erie R. R. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R R. Co. et al., Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 607. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Pierce v., 23 I. C. G, 89. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Riddle, Dean & Co. v., 1 I. C. C, 374. See Riddle, Dean & Co. v* Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Riddle, Dean & Co. v., 1 I. C. C, 490. See Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Riddle, Dean & Co. v., 1 I. C. G, 594. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 360. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., Wilkoff Bros. Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 684. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Wisconsin Steel Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 152. See Inland Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., Wright Wire Co. et al. v., 21 I. C. C, 64. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 165. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 801 Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v., 29 I. C C, 428. Pitts. & Western Ry. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Pittsburg, Chartiers & Youghiogheny Ry. Co. et al., Fuller, W. P. & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 594. See Fuller & Co. v. P., C. & Y. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cinncinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Alexander, M. H. Co. v. (1804), IS I. C. C, 638. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., American Grocer Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 293. Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., Andrews Soap Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 41. See Andrews Soap Co. v. Pitts., Cinn. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Arcade Mfg. Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 708. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Auto Vehicle Co. v. (U. R. A-152), 27 I. C. C, 714. Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v., 3 I. C. C, 465. Defendant carrier ordered to cease issuing party-rate tickets, Dy means of which each member of a group can travel at a rate of fare that is lower than the ordinary fare charged an individual passenger traveling alone, on the ground that such party rates are illegal and constitute an unjust discrimination. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 43 Fed. 37. August 11, 1890. C. C, S. D., Ohio, W. D. Jackson, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on ground that party rates are not illegal nor in violation of sections 2 and 3. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 145 U. S. 263. May 16, 1892. Brown J. Commissions order held to be invalid on the ground stated by the Circuit Court. Held further, that section 22, permitting the issuance of commutation, excursion, and mileage tickets, is illustrative rather than exclusive. 802 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited: In re Party Rate Tickets, 12 I. C. C, 96. Cited : Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C, 434. The Commission first held that party rate tickets were unlawful as a discrimination under sections 2 and 3 of act, but Supreme Court re- versed this holding in I. C. C. v. B. & O. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, and held such tickets lawful. Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., Beaver & Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 733. See Beaver & Co. v. Pitts., Cinn. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Buckeye Buggy Co. v., 9 I. C. C, 620. See Buckeye Buggy Co. v. Cleveland, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Carhart Motor Co v., 26 I. C. C, 719. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 108. See Charlotte Shippers Asso. v. S. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce & Merchants' Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 378. See Cinn. Chamber of Commerce & Merchants' Ex. v. Baltimore & Ohio S. W. R. R. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Danciger v., 29 I. C. C, 99. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Davis Sewing Ma- chine Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 664. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Davis Sewing Machine Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 291. See Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Davis Sewing Machine Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 282. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 803 Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co., Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. (U. R. A-236), 27 I. C. C, 726. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Dickhaus, Memberg & Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 720. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Dicus, M. F. v., 16 I. C. G, 605. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Fort Smith Couch & Bedding Co. v. (U. R. A-205), 27 I. C. C, 721. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Fort Smith Traffic Bu- reau v. (8S9) (977), 12 I. C. C, S83, 586. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Globe- Wernicke Co. v., 11 I. C. C. 156. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Goodman Manu- facturing Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 95. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Harron, Rickard & McCone v., 17 I. C. C, 604. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Hartman Furniture & Carpet Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 724. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Hinkle & Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 715. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Hooper & Jennings v., 26 I. C. C.,'707. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Joynes, H. W., v., 18 I. C. C, 609. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Kelly, R. A. Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 605. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Kind Powder Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 657. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., George J. Kindel v., 11 I. C. C, 495. See Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co. Pitts., Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., W. J. Koch v., 10 I. C. C, 675. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Mack Mfg. Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 670. 804 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Mack Mfg. Co. v. (U. R. A-242), 27 I. C. C, 727. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Mayer Brick Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 670. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Mayer Brick Co. v. (U. R. A-242), 27 I. C. C, 727. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Momsen Co. v. (U. R A- 136), 27 I. C. C, 712. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Mutual Wheel Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 618. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., National Hay Asso. v., 9 I. C. C, 264. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago, St. Louis Ry. Co., National Machinery & Wreck- ing Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 581. See National Machinery & Wrecking Co. v. P., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Nehrbass Casket Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 612. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Newark Machine Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 291. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., M. Newman v., 11 I. C. C, 517. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade and Transportation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Pitts., Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., Henry Nicolai v., 5 I. C. C, 635. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Ohio Foundry Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 65. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., J. Parkhurst & Co. v., 5 I. C. C, 635. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Patent Vulcanite Roof- ing Co. of Ala. v., 25 I.. C. C, 713. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 805 Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 87. See Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louia Ry. Co., Planters' Compress Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 382. See Planters' Compress Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., Proctor & Gamble v., 4 I. C. C, 87, 443. See Proctor & Gamble v. C, H. & D. R. R. Co. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Proctor & Gamble v., 9 I. C. C, 440. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Quartz Glass & Manufacturing Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 620. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Roach & Musser Sash & Door Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 612. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Roach & Musser Sash & Door Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 658. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Schermerhorn Bros. Co. v. (U. R. A-467), 29 I. C. C, 726. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Southern Paint & Glass Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 284. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Sutphin Co. v. (6110), 30 I. C. C, 713. Pittsburgh, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Company, United States of America v. (U. S. Dist. Ct.), 11 I. C. C, 696. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Vaughn Manu- facturing Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 618. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., West Co. v. (U. R. A-538), 29 I. C. C, 735. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., Whiteland Canning Co. v., 22 I. C. C„ 261. See Whiteland Canning Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 806 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Whiteland Canning Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 92. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Wil., Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & V. R. R. Co. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., Wm. Wrigley, Jr., v., 10 I. C. C, 412. Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne & Chicago Ry. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Trans- portation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Pitts., Ft. Wayne & Chicago Ry. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., ? I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Ry. Co., Isaac Weil v., 11 I. C. C„ 627. See Weil v. Pa. R. R. Co. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 87. Distinguished : In re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C, 434. The suggested analogy between special fuel rates and export and import rates is not admitted but if such analogy did exist the later rates are open and available alike to all shippers, while the special coal rates are restricted in their use to certain shippers or are conditioned upon the commodity being put to a certain use. Quoted : In re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C, 444. The transportation of traffic originating at a foreign port from the domestic port to destination in this country is not a "like service'' to that of the transportation, independent and complete within itself of traffic starting at such domestic port, though bound for the same des- tination point. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Pittsburg, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 87. Followed : Percy Kent Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 439, 442. The rate on burlap bags is made twice that on burlap, held that this relation could not be disturbed. Cited : Chamber of Com. of Newport News v. S. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 3S5. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 807 Ocean competition as well as circumstances and conditions beyond the seaboard are to be considered in determining whether differences in rates as between foreign and domestic traffic are unreasonable or unduly discriminatory. Pittsburg. Shawmutt & Northern R. R. Co. et al., Wilson Bros. Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 672. Pittsburg Steel Co. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 173. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 149. Considerations to be taken into account in a comparison of rates on coke with those on coal. Cited: Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 416. Rates on coke from Connellsville. Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. T. & B. V. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-S8S), 30 I. C. C, 721. Pittsburg Vein Operators Asso. of Ohio v. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 280. Cited : New Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. H. V. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 246. Cited : New Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. H. V. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 123. The lake-coal rates from Pittsburgh vein No. 8 fixed at 75 cents per ton. Cited: Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co-., 27 I. C. C, 184. A tonnage of nearly 2,000,000 tons affecting the Pennsylvania, Wheel- ing & Lake Erie and the Baltimore & Ohio railroads was involved. Pittsburg Vein Operators Asso. of Ohio v. W. & L. E. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 280. See Pittsburg Vein Operators Asso. v. Perm. Co. Place, J. B., v. Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 543. Cited and quoted: Hood v. G. N. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 247. Stove wood included under western classification of immigrants' movables. Piano Milling Co. v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 360. Planters' Compress Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C, 382. Distinguished: Newman v. New York Cen. & H. R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 521. 808 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE In this case it was held that cotton was not entitled to a better rate simply because compressed to a greater density — the article was the same — here the article is distinct. Leather straps are not "leather," although composed of leather, and the classification of one should not control the other. Cited: Planters' Compress Co. v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 606. Reference made in this case to finding of fact in case just previously decided. Cited: Duncan & Co. v. N., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 593. Cost of service to the carrier can not be made the sole basis of rate- making. Cited: Investigation and Suspension Docket 76. Cited : John Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 208. Quoted : Rates on Excelsior and Flax Tow from St. Paul, 29 I. C. C, 642. No classification can be so minute as to conform to the different varieties and conditions of traffic. To separate different grades or densities of the same article into different classes with varying rates, even if it could be accomplished, would go far to defeat the real pur- pose of classification. Quoted: Woodward-Bennett Co. v. S. P., L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co., 29 I. C, 665. Quantity and density as affecting classification and rates. Planters' Compress Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 11 I. C. G. 606. Planters' Gin & Compress Co. et al. v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 131. Quoted: Texarkana Frt. Bu. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 581. Water competition at a given point may render the circumstances substantially dissimilar and justify a discrimination against points where such competition is not controlling. Such dissimilarity, however, does not relieve the carrier altogether from the restraint of the third section. Piatt, Thos. C, v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 7 I. C. C„ 323. See New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. Piatt. / Platte Bros. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 666. Platten Produce Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. (1517), (1519), 14 I. C. C, 638. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 809 Platten Produce Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 300. Platten Produce Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 14 I C C, 512. Platten Produce Co. v. Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 249. Cited: Platten Produce Co. v. Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 543. Found that the initial carrier and not the intermediate carrier as found in the original report is responsible for the misrouting. Platten Produce Co. v. Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. €., 543. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Michigan Southern R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. 810 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 532. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Toledo, Peoria & Western R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C„ 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Vandalia R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Ploughe, Sheridan, v. C. & N. W. R. Co. (U. R. A-155), 27 I. C. C, 714. Ploughe, Sheridan, v. C, B. & Q. R. Co. (U. R. A-101), 27 I. C. C, 707. Plummer v. S. & E. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-385), 28 I. C. C v 739. Plummer Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (5796), 28 I. C. C, 718. Plummer Lumber Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 607. Plummer, William Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 530. Plymouth Parlor Frame Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 6,16. Poehlman Bros. Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 89. Pole Stock Lumber Co. v. G. & S. I. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 451. Pollock, B. H. Lumber Co. v. Tioga Southeastern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Poison Implement Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 622. Poison Implement Co. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C 628. Pomeroy, L. J. & Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 17 I. C. G, 618. Ponca City Milling Co v. Mo., Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 26. Ponchatoula Farmers Association, Ltd., v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 19 I. C. G, 513. Cited : Investigation and Suspension Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 492. A carrier will not be required to count the packages tendered for transportation, since such a procedure would require time and since the particular traffic demands most expeditious handling. Quoted: R. R. Com. of Fla. v. So. Ex. Co., 28 I. C. C, 636. The law does not require the carriers to regulate the price of trans- portation upon the basis of profits to the shipper, and in authorizing the Commission to fix reasonable rates the law presumes that the measure COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 811 of reasonableness will be based upon all the many elements of the particular traffic involved. Pons, F. H., v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 20 I. C. C, 668. Poor Grain Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 418, 469. Cited : Poor Grain Co. v. C, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 469. Motion for rehearing denied. Quoted : Arkansas Fuel Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 96. Cited: So. Cotton Oil Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 181. A rate may be lawful in the sense that it is the regularly published rate and therefore the only rate under which traffic may lawfully move, and yet at the same time be unlawful in the sense that it is excessive and unreasonable in amount. Its lawfulness as a published rate is to be tested by the mere inspection of the schedules on file. * * * Whether or not it is unlawful in the sense of being excessive depends upon all the circumstances and conditions that are recognized as having a legitimate influence in rate-making. Cited : Foster Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 294. Followed: Donahue v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. G, 93. Followed : Wilburine Oil Works v. P. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 549. Follovoed : Independent Supply Co. v. C. & P. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 67. Followed: West Oregon Lumber Co. v. A. & C. R. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 152. Where a shipper gives instructions to forward his goods by a par- ticular route the carrier is relieved of the duty' of ascertaining whether the goods could be forwarded by another route at a lower rate. Cited: So. Cotton Oil Co. v. L & N. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 181. What is lawfully published rate. Cited: Ala. Lumber & Export Co. v. P., B. & W. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 296. Followed: Scott v. T. & N. O. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 168. Followed : Oster Bros. v. M. S. & T. R. R. & S. S. So., 21 I. C. C, 512. Cited: McLean Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 352. Cited: Reno Wholesale Liquor Store v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 517. The naming by the carrier either in bill of lading or otherwise of at rate less than that published and filed with the Commission, affords no proper basis for a departure from the legal rates or the payment of damages for a loss alleged to have been sustained as the result of the error. ■ 812 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 400. Poplar Bluff Light & Power Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 658. Port Arthur Board of Trade v. Abilene & Sou. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 388. Cited: Aransas Pass Channel & Dock Co. v. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 412. History of rates to Texas ports on cotton for export or tranship- ment to interstate points given in cited case. The advantages of Gal- veston both naturally and geographically described. Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. T. & Ft. S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 697. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 621. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 671. Port Royal & Augusta Ry. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville,. New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Port Royal & Augusta Ry. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Port Royal & Western Carolina Ry. Co., P. H. Loud, Jr., v., 5 I. C. C, 529. See Loud v. So. Car. Ry. Co. Porter et al. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 1. Cited : Schulz v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 405. Cited : Charles Becker v. P. M. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 659. Where a shipper is compelled to pay demurrage charges through fault of the carrier, the carrier must refund the charges so exacted. Cited: Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 569. Demurrage may not be assessed except for or because of failure on part of shipper or consignee to comply with his obligations. Portland Chamber of Commerce v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 265. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 813 Reaffirmed : Portland Chamber of Commerce v. Oregon R. R. & Navi- gation Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 640. Interstate class rates from Seattle, Wash., Tacoma and Portland, Wash., to points in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, are un- reasonable and should be reduced. Portland Chamber of Commerce v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 21 I. C. G, 640. Portland Chamber of Commerce v. O. S. L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 710. Portland Gold Mining Co. v. P. M. R. Co. (U. R. A-188), 27 I. C. C, 719. Portland Lumber Co. v. Oregon-Washington R. R. & Navigation Co., 21 I. C. C, 292. Portner, Robert Brewing Co. et al. v. Southern Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 672. Portner Brewing Co. v. S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 659. Portsmouth Steel Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 510. Post, E. E. Co. v. Delaware & Lackawanna & Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 678. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (4697), 30 I. C. C, 711. Potash and Other Commodities from North Atlantic Seaboard Points to Cincinnati, Ohio, and other Points, 29 I. C. C, 626. Potatoes, 28 I. C. C, 298. Potato Carload Minimum Weights (U. R. A-147), 27 I. C. C, 713. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 41. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co. 157 Fed., 588. December 24, 1907. C. C. E. D. Wash., E. D. Whitson, J. Pending determination by the Commission of the reasonableness of advanced rates, effective November 1, 1907, on lumber and other forest products from Washington to other States, an injunction restraining the enforcement of the new rates was denied on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to issue such injunction after the new rates had gone into effect. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. October 9, 1910. C. C. D. Minn. Per curiam. Orders of Commission held invalid on the ground that the rates fixed by the Commission are unreasonably low. 814 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. 222 U. S., 541. January 9, 1912. Lamar, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. 14 I. C. C, 41. June 2, 1908. Docket No. 1348. Op. 635. Cockrell, Comr. Carriers ordered to reduce the advanced rates on the ground that the advanced rates are unreasonable. Cited: Oregon & Wash. Lum. Mnfrs/ Asso. v. U. P. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C.,'20. Followed: Pacific Coast Lum. Mfg. Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 40. Followed : Humbird Lum. Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 449. The increase of 5 cents per 100 pounds over the old rates must be in conformity with the differentials prescribed in 14 I. C. C, 41. Limited : Big Blackfoot Milling Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 174. Followed: Kalispell Lum. Co. v. Gt. N. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 164. The Montana group taken out of the Spokane group and given a 3-cent differential under Spokane instead of being placed on a parity as under former ruling. Cited: Potlatch Lumber Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 465. Petition to rehear denied. Cited: McCloud River Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 93. Cited: Joint Rates with the Washington Western Ry., 27 I. C. C, 633. The rate on lumber fixed by the Commission from northwest terri- tory to eastern destinations. Potlatch Lumber Co. et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 465. Potter Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 514. Cited : Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 555. Each case seems to depend upon its own equities. Quoted: Peters v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., 20 I. C.. C, 599. The question (actual weight of shipments as constituting basis upon which to assess transportation charges) is one of fact to be determined in a manner just to both parties as to which the ex parte action of either party can not conclude the other. . Potts v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (5798), 28 I. C. C, 718. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 815 Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 195. Cited: John C. Haddock v. Delaware, Lack. & West R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 315. When carrier is also a producer and shipper it is especially unlawful for it to discriminate in its own behalf, and against other shippers. Pouncey Paving & Construction Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (5936), 29 I. C. C, 712. Powell & England v. G. N. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 716. Powell Fuel Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-416), 29 I. C. C, 719. Powell Fuel Co. v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. G, 706. Powell-Fullerton Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Virginia & Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 86. Power or Train Brakes, Re, 11 I. C. G, 429. Powers, Virgil, v. Cinn., New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 324. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Powers, Virgil, v. Clyde Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 324, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Powers, Virgil, v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. , Powers, Virgil, v. Ocean Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 324. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Powers, Virgil, v. S. C. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 325. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Powers, Virgil, v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 325. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 69. Cited : Fraer v. Chic. & Alton R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 456. It is the duty of a common carrier to furnish means of transporta- tion and to furnish them alike for all that are similarly situated. 816 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : Rail & River Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 94. Cited : Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 361. Cited: In re Irregularities in Mine Ratings, 25 I. C. C, 291. Cited : McCaa Coal Co. v. C. & C. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 533. The distribution of coal cars during car shortage periods based on physical capacity only is objectional on same grounds as when based on the number of coke ovens erected. Some operators erected a great number of coke ovens and never used them for coking, but simply to obtain a larger rating. Prahlow, R., v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 572. Pratt, G. C. Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 29. Cited : Saginaw B'd of Tr'd v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 132. Only three cases have been before the Commission since its organ- ization wherein complaint was made of the percentage assigned to a particular group to and from percentage-basis territory and the Atlantic coast. Prentiss, J. I. & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 68. Prescott & Northwestern R. R. Co. et al., Dian Lumber Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 670. Pressley v. Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 518. Preston, Albert, v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 565. Preston, Albert, v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 406. Preston, Albert, v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 621. Preston & Davis v. Dela., Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 114. Carrier ordered to allow the delivery of oil in tank cars at a certain terminal in Brooklyn, N. Y., on the ground that a discontinuance of delivery there subjects complainant to an undue prejudice. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 155 Fed., 512. August 10, 1907. (See 21st Ann. Rep., 87.) C. C. S. D. N. Y. Lacombe, J. Motion for preliminary injunction to restrain enforcement of Com- mission's order denied. Bill transferred to Commerce Court. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 817 Not reported. April 3, 1911. Commerce Court, No. 10. Case dismissed by stipulation. Cited : Wholesale Fruit & Produce Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 421. The Commission's power to order a continuation of deliveries of petroleum products at a certain point where such deliveries had previ- ously been made has been recognized by the courts. Prey Bros. & Cooper Livestock Commission Co. V. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 723. Price v. W. & O. D. Ry. (U. R. A-S1S), 29 I. C. C, 732. Price Cereal Products Asso. v. C. & A. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 723. Pridham Bros. Co. v. S. P. Co., 30 I. C. C, 117. Priesmeyer, A. Shoe Co. v. C. & A. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 78. Prime Lumber Co. v. Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 60S. Prime Lumber Co. v. Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 606. Prime Lumber Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 60S. Prime Lumber Co. v. Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 606. Prime Lumber Co. v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. R. Co. (1819), 14 I. C. C, 643. Procedure in Cases at Issue, In re, 1 I. C. C, 223. Procedure Concerning Questions at Law, In re, 1 I. C. C, 224. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 87, 443. Cited: Ind. Refiners' Asso. v. Penn. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 56. Cited : Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 484. Rehearing under rules of practice — the affidavits filed in support of petition make out a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner's claim. Cited : Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 482. The practice of shipping carload soap at net weight, that is, by pay- ing freight charges only on weight of the soap and not upon box in which it is packed, seems to be chief reason for formerly putting soap in same class with sixth-class articles, but most of these are now raised to fifth class. 818 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cinn., Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 440. Defendants ordered to discontinue their practice of charging higher than fourth-class rates on less-than-carload shipments of common soap. An advance to third class or .to 20 per cent less than third class was held to be unreasonable. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. 146 Fed., SS9. November 22, 1905. C. C. S. D. Ohio, W. D. Thompson, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Carriers directed to comply therewith. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 206 U. S., 142. May 13, 1907. White, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Carriers directed to comply therewith. Cited: Fels & Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 483. Held that less-than-carload shipments of common soap should take fourth-class rate. Cited: Fels & Co. v. P. R. R Co., 25 I. C. C, 154. Petition to reopen this case so as to assess reparation against other defendants denied. Cited: Investigation and Suspension Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 473. Freight classification is based upon the relations which commodities bear to each other in such respects as character, use, bulk, weight, value, tonnage, or volume, risk, cost of carriage, ease of handling and controlling conditions caused by competition. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 556. Imposition of demurrage on private cars standing on private tracks held to be proper. Complaint, attacking this practice as unreasonable, dismissed. Proctor & Gamble v. United States. 188 Fed., 221. July 20, 1911. Commerce Court No. 9. Archbald, J; Commission's action in denying relief affirmed on the merits. Proctor & Gamble v. United States. 225 U. S, 282. June 7, 1912. White, J. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 819 Held that Commerce Court has no jurisdiction of such a case as this, where the petitioner complains of a denial of relief at the hands of the Commission; but that such court has jurisdiction only of affirmative orders of the Commission. Distinguished: Central Commercial Co. v. G. & S. I. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 534. It is contended that empty car was billed to Kola for loading and thus placed in railroad service; that if it was desired to take the car out of railroad service, the railroad should have been notified. The tariff does not provide for such notice, but on other hand clearly states that empty private cars when withdrawn from the interchange track are out of service. The cited case concerned a different situation and is not controlling. Produce Exchange of Toledo, In re Petition of, 2 I. C. C, 588. Produce Exchange of Minneapolis v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 596. Producers' Pipe Line Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 186. Cited: Ocheltree Grain Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 413. The Commission will not supervise the conduct of cases before it to extent of urging parties. to follow up their complaints and may dis- miss a complaint for lack of diligent prosecution. Proportional Rates, 28 L C. C, 549. Proportional Rates on Coal, 30 I. C. C, 465. Proportional Rates on Excelsior & Excelsior Wrappers, 26 I. C. C, 44. Proportional Rates on Grain Products to Texas, 27 I. C. C, 282. See In re Advances, Proportional Rates on Grain Products to Texas. Proportional Rates on Grain and Grain Products, 30 I. C. C 16. Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, Re, 9 I. C. C, 382. Quoted: Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. 111. C. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 536. "Carriers insist that inasmuch as the prices of articles transported have advanced, the rate ought also advance otherwise expressed that they should share in the general prosperity. * * * Transportation by rail is a service of a quasi-public nature, not to be sold to the highest bidder nor subject to the law of supply and demand. This sufficiently appears from the provision of the Act, which requires the same rate to be charged all persons and enjoins the publication of that rate." 820 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Quoted : Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. 111. C. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 539. "But what is the value of a railway? Does not that value depend almost wholly upon the rate which it is permitted to charge? If rates are reduced without thereby stimulating the movement of traffic the value of the property is diminished. If its rates are advanced without loss of traffic the value of its property is increased. Stated in another way: the value of a railway depends upon what it can earn on the basis of a reasonable rate; and the reasonableness of a rate depends upon the. return which it will yield upon the value of the property. Cited: Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Sou. Pac. Co., 10 I. C. C, 620. Rate on dressed beef between Chicago and New York held not to be excessive. Cited : Burgess v. Transcontinental Ft. Bu., 13 I. C. C, 677 . Claim for increased revenue because of advance in cost of labor and supplies, overcome by increase in traffic and efficiency of carriers. Cited and followed: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 394. Cited : Receivers' & Shippers' Asso. v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 18 1. C. C, 464. Railroads cannot exist unless rates are established which will yield a fair return upon their property. In fixing rates regard must be had for all roads and no particular one. Cited: National Hay Asso. v. M. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 39-47. Rates on hay and the comparison with grain. Quoted: Advance in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C, 261. It is plain that until there be fixed, either by legislative enactment or judicial interpretation, some definite basis for the valuation of rail- road propertyand some limit up to which that property shall be allowed to earn upon that valuation, there can be no exact determination of these questions. In the absence of such a standard the tribunal, whether court or commission, which is called upon to consider this matter, can only rely upon the exercise of its best judgment. Quoted further: Advance in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C, 269. Financial condition of Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co. Cited : Com. Club of Superior, Wis., v. G. N. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 102. The interests of all lines must be considered, and not alone those of the line that can handle the traffic with the least cost. Proposed Bond Issue of the New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 147. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS - 821 Proprietary Asso. of America v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 318. Protection of Potato Shipments in Winter, 26 I. C. C, 681. See In re Protection of Potato Shipments in Winter. Protection of Potato Shipments in Winter, 29 I. C. C, 504. See In re Proctection of Potato Shipments in Winter. Providence & Springfield R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Providence & Stonington Steamship Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Providence & Worcester R. R. Co., Providence Coal Co. v., 1 I. C. C. 107. See Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & Worcester R. R. Co. Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & Worcester R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C, 107. Cited and quoted: Thurber et al. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. et al., 3 I. C. C, 508. The offer of a certain reduction in rate to large consumers, where the quantity specified is so large that only one shipper at a place can avail himself of the rate, will result in unjust discrimination, though the offer be open to everyone alike. Cited: R. R. Com. of Geo. v. Clyde Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 379. Section 2 of our Act would forbid a contract that prescribed a lesser rate to a certain shipper in consideration of a certain guaranteed minimum. Quoted: Planters' Compress Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C, 403. Cited: Woodward-Bennett Co. v. S. P., L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co:, 29 I. C. C. 665. "A discrimination which should so limit the offer that a part of those who could and might desire to accept it would he excluded from its benefits, would for that very reason he unjust and indefensible." Public Service Commission of Washington v. N. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 256. Affirmed: Public Service Commission of Washington v. N. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 272. 822 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rehearing denied and order entered in accordance with former views announced. Cited : Buffalo, Rochester & Pitts. Ry. v. Penn. Co., 29 I. C. C, 119. Dissenting opinion. Is it unlawful discrimination for a carrier to re- fuse another carrier the use of its terminals on equal terms with other lines using them? Limited: Seattle Chamber of Com. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 690. While cited case, in so far as it is of general application, sanctions the principle that a terminal road is entitled on competitive business to something above the flat rate when the line haul is given to a com- petitor, it does not hold as an inflexible rule of law that there is an obligation on the Commission, assuming it to be possible, to prohibit in all cases the absorption by competitor roads of the charge which the terminal road has established for the interchange movement. Public Service Commission of Washington v. N. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 272. Cited: Buffalo, Rochester & Pitts, v. Penn. Co., 29 I. C. C, 119. Dissenting opinion. Is a carrier guilty of an unlawful discrimination where it opens its terminals to one connecting carrier at terms lower than what it will permit another carrier to use them? Publication of Export Tariffs, In re, Order, 1 I. C. C, 658. Publication of Joint Tariffs, In re, Order, 1 I. C. C, 5. Pueblo Commerce Club v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 679. Pueblo Transportation Asso. v. Southern Pacific Company, 14 I. C. C, 82. Puget Sound Iron & Steel Works v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co. (U. R A-249) 27 I. C. C, 728. Pullman Co. et al., Loftus, George S., v., 18 I. C. C, 13S. See Loftus v. Pullman Co. Pullman Co. et al., Loftus, Geo. S., v., 19 I. C. C, 102. Pullman Co. et al., Loftus, George S., v., 20 I. C. C, 21. Pullman Co. et al., State of Arkansas v., 20 I. C. C, 25. Pullman Co. et al., State of Indiana v., 20 I. C. C, 25. Pullman Co. et al., State of Kansas v., 20 I. C. C, 25. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 823 Pullman Co. et al., State of Oklahoma v., 20 I. C. C, 25. Pullman Co., Transportation Committee of Manufacturers' Club of Buffalo v., 18 I. C. C, 614. Pulp & Paper Mnfrs.' Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 83. Rates on pulp wood declared unreasonable from Minnesota to Wis- consin and Michigan and reduced rates as maximum rates to be ob- served in the future. Frederick M. Alger v. Duluth & Northern Minnesota R. R. Co. D. C, D., Minn., 5th Div, Feb. 17, 1915. Dismissed on motion of petitioner. Followed : Duluth Log Rates, 29 I. C. C, 421, 422, 423. Rates on pulp wood fixed in cited case applied here. Cited : Currey & Whyte Co. v. D. & I. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14. Rates on pulp wood from points in Minnesota to Duluth applied as parts of the rates for through transportation to points in Wisconsin and Michigan. Pyle, James & Sons v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 465. Quoted: H. & H. Bates, Jr., v. Penn. R. Co. et al., 3 I. C. C, 447. "Classification is but a means of arriving at a rate." Cited: F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. C, R. I: & P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 67. Occasional inequalities of rate, and slight and occasional differences in the rates charged would not prove that the whole system is wrong and that when comparison is attempted to be made of classifications and rates, different conditions of transportation cannot be ignored. Cited: Investigation and Suspension Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 459, 472. One of the many embarassments connected with the transportation of freight ! by railroads consists in- the fact that there is such a lack of uniformity in the classifications of freight found in the different portions of the country. In grouping articles together in a class for the purpose of fixing rates upon them several considerations are usually deemed by the car- rier of a very controlling nature. Among these are bulk, space occu- pied, value, hazardous and extra hazardous freight, liability' to waste or injury in transit, weight or the like. Pyro Art Club v. United States Express Co., 16 I. C. C, 37. 824 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Quammen & Austad Lumber Co. v. Chicago Great Western R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 599. Quammen & Austad Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 110. Quartz Glass & Manufacturing Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati & Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 620. Queen Shoals Coal Co. v. C. & C. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 531. Questions at Law, In re, Procedure Concerning, 1 I. C. C, 224. Quimby v. Clyde Steamship Co., 12 I. C. C, 392. Quimby v. Main Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 246. Quimby v. M. C. R. R. Co. (1757), 29 I. C. C, 708. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Ry. Co. et al., Rees, S. C, v., 19 I. C. C, 606. R Racine-Sattley Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 488. Racine-Sattley Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 142. Racine-Sattley Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 612. Racine-Sattley Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 164. Radinsky, Abraham D., v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 627. Radinsky, Abraham D., v. C. & S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 661. Radinsky, Abraham D., v. C. & S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 666. Radinsky, A. D., v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 243. Rahway Valley R. R. Co., Dela., Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 191. Carrier ordered to establish- a switch connection at Summit, N. J., with complainant short line, upon application of such short line. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 825 Delaware. Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 166 Fed., 498. October 22, 1908. (22d Ann. Rep., 63.) C. C. S. D. N. Y. Per curiam. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that the Com- mission has authority to order the establishment of a switch connec- tion with a lateral brandh line of railroad only upon application of a shipper. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. 216 U. S., 531. March 7, 1910. Holmes, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground stated by the lower court. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. May 25, 1911. (See 25th Arm. Rep., 208.) Commerce Court No. 28. Commission's order held invalid and its enforcement permanently enjoined in accordance with mandate of Supreme Court. Rail & River Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 86. Carriers ordered to discontinue their existing practice of distributing coal cars in times of car shortage on the ground that it is unjustly dis- criminatory to fail to count "railway fuel cars," and "private cars" against the quota of the mines receiving such cars. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. December 14, 1908. C. C. D. Md. After denying a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Commission's order, the circuit court, being divided in opinion on the merits of the case, certified the case, undecided, to the Supreme Court. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 215 U. S., 216. December 6, 1909. Fuller, C. J. Case remanded to circuit court without decision, on the ground that a whole case can not be certified to the Supreme Court. Cited: Wholesale Fruit & Produce Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 421. Cited: Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 358. The power of the Commission to prescribe the basis upon which the rating of coal mines should be made for the purpose of determining the distribution of coal cars announced. 826 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited: In re Irregularities in Mine Ratings, 25 I. C. C, 291. The method of rating mines based upon a combination of their physical and commercial capacities more closely approximates their actual requirements than a system based only "upon physical capacity. Quoted: McCaa Coal Co. v. C. & C. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 532. "It seems to be rationally and logically a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances and conditions existing in each particular case." Rail and Water Carriers Operating in Alaska, Jurisdiction Over, In re, 19 I. C. C, 81. See In re Jurisdiction Over Rail and Water Carriers Operating in Alaska. Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners of the State of Minnesota, Inter- veners in Chicago Live Stock Ex. v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Ohicago Great Western Ry, Co. Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Minnesota, 29 I. C. C, 45. R. R. Commission of Alabama v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 460. See Morgan Grain Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. Railroad Commission of the State of Arkansas v. M. & N. A. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 488. R. R. Commission of the State of Arkansas v. St. Louis & North Arkansas R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 233. Cited : Coffeyville Brick & Tile Co. v. St. L. & San F. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 499. That the through fare should not exceed the sum of the locals is a rule that has exceptions, and when circumstances of particular case war- rant, it has been several times held with respect to passenger fares that the through charge might exceed the combination of locals. Cited: R. R. Com. of Arkansas v. M. & N. A. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 489. A charge of 80 cents for distance of 12.37 miles, from Seligman, Mo., to Beaver, Ark., complained of in cited case, the rate from Beaver to Eureka Springs being then, as now, 3 cents a mile. R. R. Commission of Arkansas v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 292. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 827 R. R. Com'rs of the State of Florida v. A. C. L. R. R. Co,, 28 I. C. C, 356. R. R. Corri. of Fla. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., S I. C. C, 324. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 13. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount their rates on oranges and lemons from Florida to New York City and other eastern points, on the ground that the existing rates are unreasonable. Repara- tion awarded. Florida Fruit Exchange v. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. 4 I. C. Rep., 400. December 1, 1892. C. C. N. D. Fla. Swayne, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Florida Fruit Exchange. 4 I. C. Rep.,. 589. May 29, 1894. C. C. A., 5th Cir. Per curiam. Commission's order held to be valid. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Florida Fruit Exchange. 167 U. S, 512. May 24, 1897. Brewer, J. , Following I. C. C. v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (167 U. S., 479), Commission's order held to be invalid, on the ground that the Com- mission is without power to fix rates. Cited: Chas. P. Perry v. Fl. Cen. & Penins. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 119. Cited : Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 554. Where claim for reparation is made in a complaint of unreasonable rates, the burden is on the complainant to show facts connected with the claim, particularly dates, quantities, points of shipment and desti- nation, transportation lines, and charges collected, and when in such cases these facts have not been sufficiently brought out to enable the Commission to justly determine what reparation is due to the com- plainant in consequence of charges found unreasonable, it will decline to award reparation. Cited: R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 136. Application for rehearing denied. Cited: Ind. R. Ass'ns Tit've & Oil City v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 458. It did not appear that the failure to give notice of the abrogation of a rate for the required time was willful, or that in consequence thereof any injury has been sustained by any shipper or other person. 828 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : P. H. Loud, Jr., v. So. Car. Ry. Co., S I. C. C, 541. Quoted: B'd of T'd of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 22. Cited: Warren-Ehret Co. v. Central R. of N. J., 8 I. C. C, 604. "The complainant has no interest in the division the defendants may make between themselves of a through rate and that division does not determine what the charge to the public should be, yet it. is not without significance in determining what are reasonable rates for the whole distance on t>he lines in question.". Quoted : The Nat. Hay Asso. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 305. "Carriers making an advance in rates should be able to present a satisfactory justification of such advance, particularly when the old rates have been of many years' standing and the advance is great and the traffic affected is of large and constantly increasing volume and of vital importance to a large section of country. Cited : Fla. Frt. & Veg. Shprs.' Prot. Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 14 I, C. C, 483, 493. Rates on oranges from Jacksonville, Fla., to New York City. In- crease of 5 cents per box justified. R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 136. R. R. Commission of Florida v. S. A. L. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 11. See Fla. Fruit & Vegetable Shippers' Protective Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. R. R. Corn's of the State of Florida v. Southern Express Co., 28 I. C. C, 634. R. R. Commission of Georgia v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 460. See Morgan Grain Co. v. A* C. L. R. R. Co. R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 324, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Ocean Steamship Co.; Trammell v. Clyde Steamship Co. Cited and followed : Mer. Union of Spokane Falls v. N. P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 502. Cited : Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. E. T., V. & G. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 547, 566. ' Construction placed on 4th Section. Cited and affirmed : Gerke Brew. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 596, 604, 605, 607, 609. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 829 Cited : Re Alleged Violations of Fourth Section, 7 I. C. C, 64. CVtof : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 406. Competition with carriers not subject to the statute is based upon natural causes and plain conditions, but the legitimate force of com- petition with carriers subject to the Act depends upon compliance with the law by each of the competitors and the special circumstances and primarily indefinite conditions in each particular case. Cited : James & Abbott v. C. P. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 629. Division of rates to be determined by carriers. Quoted : B'd of Tr'd of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 6. The total charge is only matter of interest to regulating authority — how this rate is made, whether by combination of locals of the two or more lines over which it moves is not material. Quoted: B'd of Tr'd of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 8. "The receipt successively by two or more carriers for transportation of traffic shipped under through bills for continuous carriage over their lines is assent to a common arrangement for such continuous carriage or shipment, and previous formal arrangement between them is not necessary to bring such transportation under the terms. of the law." Quoted: Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 I. C. C, 169. "The total rate or charge for a through carriage over two or more lines, whether made by the addition of established locals, or of through and local rates, or upon a less proportionate basis, is the through rate that is subject to scrutiny by the regulating authority. * * * Where two or more roads forming a continuous connecting line, between points in different States bill and carry interstate traffic through to certain station on the last road forming such line, neither the roads together, nor any one of them can evade the obligations of the Act to regulate commerce by declaring that as to such traffic it is a local carrier." Cited: Montgomery Frt. Bureau v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C., 531. The controlling effect of water competition upon rate adjustments in the Southeast and the propriety of maintaining rates to intermediate' points higher than to terminal and basing points, making the inter- mediate rates in combination on such terminal or basing point, have been several times passed on and must be considered as settled. Cited: H. W. Behlmer v. Memphis & Charleston R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 263, 264. Fourth Section construction. The competition of markets or of carry- ing lines subject to regulation under the Act does not justify carriers in making greater short-haul or lower long-haul charges over the same 830 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE line without an order issued by the Commission on application therefor and after investigation. R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Ocean Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 324. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde Steamship Co.; Trammel v. Clyde Steamship Co. Quoted : Fewell v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 373. "To determine the force and effect of such market competition in- volves the consideration of commercial questions peculiar to the busi- ness of shippers, such as advantage of business location, comparative economy of production, comparative quality and market value of com- modities, all of which are entirely disconnected from circumstances and conditions under which transportation is conducted." R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Sou. Car. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 325. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., S I. C. C, 325. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. R. R. Com. of Indiana v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 563. Cited: Mfrs.' & Mers.' Asso. v. A. & A. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 333. A bridge company filing its tariffs of rates with the Commission be- comes a common carrier and such rates must be used in constructing through rates from the South to New Albany. The tariffs were with- drawn after this decision. R. R. Commission of Indiana v. Southern Indiana R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 603. R. R. Commission of Indiana v. W. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 195. See Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C.. C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. R. R. Com'rs of the State of Iowa v. A. E. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 193, 553. Railroad Com'rs of Iowa v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. (U. R. A-222). 27 I. C. C, 724. R. R. Commissioners of Iowa v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 396. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 831 R. R. Commission of Iowa v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 181. Cited : East Dubuque Supply Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 426. The bridge fare of 30 cents for passengers across t'he Dubuque bridge approved in cited case. Quoted: Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. C, 29 I. C. C, 570. A bridge is such an expensive structure that a constructive mileage is added to the carrier's haul for which an additional charge /may be exacted. A mile of bridge haul may not be simply counted as a mile of carrier's track. R. R. Commissioners of Kansas v. Adams Express Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 283. R. R. Commissioners of Kansas v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 407. Cited: Chamber of Com. of N. Y. v. N. Y. C. & H. R R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 76. If the New York lines and other connections of the B. & O. and the Pennsylvania sj'stems participate in the haul of traffic to and from Philadelphia or Baltimore they must do so under the competitive condi- tions created by the B. & O. and the Pennsylvania at Baltimore and Philadelphia which the other lines are unable to control, and under these circumstances it is lawful if they participate in the movement of traffic to and from Philadelphia and Baltimore under competitive rates even though at t'he time they maintain higher rates to and from New York. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 144. While the comparisons of rates and distances might suggest that either one rate was too high or the other too low, the difference does not necessarily connote undue prejudice. Quoted: Gottron Bros. Co. v. G. & W. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 43. Cited : German Kali Works v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 225. The salt traffic described. While low rates have been maintained in the past under stress of competition, arid are in some cases still maintained, and while if a carrier maintains a lower rate in favor of one locality it may be required to accord equal rates to another locality, the present rate not held inherently unreasonable. R. R. Commissioners of Kansas v. M. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 24. R. R. Commission of Kentucky v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 10 1. C. C, 173. Cited : Re Transportation, etc., of Fruit, 10 I. C. C, 374. Cited: Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 293. 832 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited: Fred G. Clark Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 11 I.' C. C, 576. Cited: Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 47. Cited: Merchants' Cotton Press & Storage Co. v. I. C. R-. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 104. It has been held that a railway may provide facilities for receiving and delivering live stock by the making of an exclusive contract with one of two or more stock yards operating at the same point. Cited: Enterprise Trans. Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 331. At common law, the establishment of through routes and joint rates between different carriers was entirely a matter of contract. The orig- inal Act in. no respect modified the common law. Cited: Board of Trade of Chicago v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 443. Discrimination under the third section to be undue and unlawful must ordinarily be such that the prejudice arising out of it against one party is a source of advantage to the other alleged to be favored. R. R. Com. of Kentucky v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 300. R. R. Commission of Louisiana v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 31. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount their class rates from Shreveport, La., to certain Texas points on the ground that such interstate rates are unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory as com- pared with lower State rates from Dallas, Houston, and other cities in Texas to such Texas points. Carriers further ordered to grant at Shreveport certain concentration privileges relating to interstate cotton so long as similar privileges relating to State cotton are granted at Texas points. Houston, East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. United States. 205 Fed., 391; 1 Com. Ct., 653. April 25, 1913. Commerce Court No. 67.* Knapp, J. ♦Record transferred to District Court for the Southern District of Texas upon dissolution of Commerce Court. Commission's order held to be valid. Houston, East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. United States. 234 U. S„ 342. June 8, 1914. Hughes, J. Decree of Commerce Court affirmed and Commission's order held to be valid. Distinguished: Investigation of Alleged Unreasonable Rates on Meat 23 I. C. C, 664. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 833 Fort Worth and Oklahoma draw their cattle very largely from Texas points. Fort Worth pays the Texas commission scale, while Oklahoma City must pay the interstate rate established by the Com- mission's mileage scale. Since these rates exceed the rates of the Texas Commission, it is undoubtedly true that packing-houses at Oklahoma City do suffer a disadvantage. It is insisted on authority of cited case that this discrimination should be removed. It appears, however, that the Texas rates were prescribed long before there was a packing-house either at Fort Worth or Oklahoma City and were not made with any intent to discriminate in favor of the Texas industry. The discrimina- tion which now results is therefore not undue. \ Followed : Loeb v. T. & P. Ry. Co.^ 24 I. C. C, 305. In cited case it was held that the Texas & Pacific rate on any com- modity from Shreveport into Texas should not exceed the contem- poraneous charge for the carriage of that commodity from Dallas to- ward Shreveport for an equal distance. Cited: Southwestern Shippers' Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 587. The Texas Commission named a first-class rate of 80 cents for 245 miles, which was approved as reasonable by the Commission in the cited case. Investigation and Suspension Docket 89, 25 I. C. C, 684. Keogh v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 76. Cement Rates from Penn. to N. J Points, 26 I. C. C, 688. Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. Cited : Cited : Cited : Cited : C, 172. Cited: Pacific Coast Gypsum Co. v. O.-W. R. R. & N. Co., 30 I. C. C, 139. Quoted: Trier v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 355. Cited : Hans Rees' Sons v. So. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 586. Carriers can not unjustly discriminate against interstate in favor of intrastate traffic, though the lower rates were established by a State in the exercise of its lawful powers. Railroad Com. of Louisiana v. T. & P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-311), 28 I. C. G, 729. R. R. Commissioners of Montana v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 371. R. R. Com'rs of Montana v. D. & R. G. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 522: Railroad Com. of Montana, in Behalf of Conrad Mercantile Co., v. Great N. Exp. Co. (5199), 28 I. C. C, 714. Railroad Com'rs of Montana v. G. N. R. Co. (U. R. A-124), 27 I. C. C, 710. 834 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE R. R. Commission of Montana v. N. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. G, 4907. R. R. Commissioners of Montana in Behalf of Frank Campbell, 26 I. C. C, 482. Railroad Com'rs of Montana, in Behalf of L. H. Van Dyck Co., v. N. P. R. Co., (U. R. A-157). 27 I. C. C, 715. R. R. Commissioners of Montana, in Behalf of Olmsted-Steveson Co., v. O. S. L. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 714. Ry. Commission of Nebr. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 121. See also Nebr. State Ry. Com. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Cited: R. R. Com. of Mont. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C., 524: Coal rates from Walsenburg district in Colorado to various points in Nebraska yielding earnings of from 6.83 mills to 9.14 mills per-ton- per-mile considered in cited case and were found not unreasonable. Operating conditions in present case appear to be very similar to those in cited case. R. R. Commission of Nevada v. N. C. O. R., 22 I. C. C, 205. R. R. Commission of Nevada v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 238. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount their class rates from eastern defined territory to Reno and otlher Nevada points on the ground that the existing rates are unreasonable as compared with lower rates for the longer haul to Pacific coast points. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. C. C. N. D. Cal. Bill to annul Commission's order transferred to Commerce Court. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. April 18, 1912. Commerce Court No. 33. Case dismissed without opinion. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States. 191 Fed. 856. November 14, 1911. Commerce Court No. 50. Mack, J. Section 4 of the act as amended June 18, 1910, held to be constitu- tional, but enforcement of Commission's order temporarily enjoined on the ground that the Commission is without authority to determine the relation of long and short haul rates, irrespective of absolute rates. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 835 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States. Not reported. December 9, 1911. Commerce Court No. SO. Enforcement of Commission's order permanently enjoined for the reasons stated upon the issuance of the temporary injunction. No written opinion. United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. 234 U. S. 476. June 22, 1914. White, C. J. Decree of Commerce Court reversed. Case remanded to District Court with directions to dismiss bill for want of equity. Cited:- City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 171. The rates to Spokane were reduced not because the revenue of the carriers appeared excessive. Cited: Maricopa Co. Com. Club v. S. R, P. & P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 258. The Carriers should extend to Phoenix as to Reno a reasonable list of commodity rates. Cited : Traffiic Bu of Merchants' Ex. v. S. P. Co., 19 I. C. C, 262. "Seger Affidavit." Cited : Portland Chamber of Com. v. O. R. R. & N. Co., 19 I. C. C, 284. The Commission will proceed with great caution when large rate fabric is to be readjusted. Cited : Goerras Cooperage Co. v. G, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 7. Class D rate of $1.00 from points in group D (which includes Mil- waukee) to Reno was found unreasonable and reduced to 89 cents. Cited: Goerras Cooperage Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 331. Supplemental order as to commodity rates. Cited: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. Transcontinental rates are influenced by water competition. Cited : Corporation Com. of Okla. v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 696. Relative percentages existing in class rates prescribed from Buffalo- Pittsburg to Arizona in cited case used as basis in present case. Cited: Southwestern Shippers' Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 584. 836 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE First class rate of $2.S0 from Missouri River to Reno, a distance of about 1,600 miles, and to Winnemucca, a distance of 1,400 miles, the rate was made $2.38 in cited case. ' Cited : Pacific Creamery Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 26 I. C. C, 579: Affirmed: Transcontinental Rates from Group F, 28 I. C. C, 1. The proposed readjustment of group F, with respect to class traffic to and from south Pacific coast terminals and to and from the south- western intermountain territory not found to be justified and former grouping maintained.. Cited : Iowa St. B'd R. R. Com. v. A. E. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 197. In cited case the same rates were established to Reno from Chicago, Kansas City,, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburg as were fixed to Spo- kane in the Spokane case. R. R. Commission of Nevada v. Southern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 329. See also Maricopa County Commercial Club v. S. F., P. & P. Ry. Co. Cited : Long and Short Haul Docket 1243, 22 I. C. C, 373. Cited: R. R. Com. of Nevada v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 456. Cited: Pacific Creamery Co. v. S. P. Co., 26 I. C. C, 579. Quoted : Thomas Iron Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 609. Fourth section relief by fixing a geographical limit within which there can be no discrimination, and permitting higher rates from other territory, having regard to the extent of the competition which justifies ■ the discrimination. Cited: Topeka Traffic Asso. v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 436. Quoted : Richmond Chamber of Com. v. S. A. L. Ry Co, 30 I. C. C, 559. Rates must not only be reasonable but they must be non-discrimi- natory. Cited: Transcontinental Rates from Group F, 28 I. C. C, 1. Proposed rearrangement of one of groups adopted as basis for rates prescribed in cited case approved. Cited: Boston Chamber of Com. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 233. Rates in cited case prescribed from Atlantic seaboard to Reno and other Nevada points which were less than the Mississippi combinations. R. R. Commission of Nevada v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 456. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 837 R. R. Commission of Ohio v. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 398. See also R. R. Commission of Ohio v. H. V. Ry. Co. R. R. Commission of Ohio v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 398. Cited: Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 81. Cited and followed: Tr'aer v. Chic. & Alton R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 452, 453, 454, 456, 458. It is- the duty of railroad companies to provide suitable vehicles of transportation and to offer their use impartially to all shippers. Unjust discrimination in the matter of car distribution is provided against by act to regulate 1 commerce. Quoted: Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 447. Cited and followed: Traer v. Chic. & Alton R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 452, 453, 454, 456, 458. Reaffirmed: Rail & River Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 86, 91. Cited: Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 357. The total of the foreign railway fuel cars, the private cars, and the system cars should be taken into consideration in determining the dis- tribution. If the number of foreign railway fuel cars or of private or leased cars is less than the percentage or proportion of the company to which such cars are consigned or assigned, that company should be given all of the foreign railway fuel cars consigned to it and all of the private or leased cars belonging to it, and a sufficient number of sys- tem cars to make up its proportion. On the other hand, if the number of foreign railway fuel cars consigned to it and of private cars assigned to it is greater than its proportion, all such cars so consigned or assigned to it should be delivered to it and the available system cars should be divided among the ottier operators on the basis of a changed percentage because of the elimination of the company or companies to which the foreign railway fuel cars and private cars have been con- signed, assigned, and delivered. Quoted: Washer Grain Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 157. Every reason advanced by the Supreme Court (Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426) in support of the conclusion that the lower court had not original jurisdiction in rate matters appear to apply with equal force to our view that this Commission has original jurisdiction of questions of discrimiinatory practices prohibited by the act to regulate commerce. R. R. Commission of Oregon v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 541. 838 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE R. R. Commission of Oregon v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 181. R. R. Commission of Oregon v. O. R. & N. Co., 23 I. C. C, 151. See In re Transportation of Wool, Hides and Pelts, etc. R. R. Commission of Oregon v. O. R. & N. Co., 25 I. C. C, 185, 675. See In re Wool, Hides & Pelts. R. R. Commission of Oregon v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 273. R. R. Commission of Oregon v. S. P. Co. (4793), 29 I. C. C, 710. R. R. Commission of South Dakota v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (6098), 29 I. C. C, 713. R. R. Commission of Tennessee v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 418. Cited: Elk Cement & Lime Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 89. In so far as the carriers which make joint through rates to Detroit and other consuming points also make rates from Lehigh Valley district mills to competitive central freight association points, they unduly dis- criminate against the Michigan producers and relatively they are at a disadvantage. Cited: Ashland Fire Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 120. Cited: Scott Paper Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 604. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 140. Cited: Memphis Frt. Bu. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 548. Where joint or proportional rates were made by all the carriers leading to certain points of destination the Commission has power to put an end to discrimination as between points of origin by a reduction in the rate from a certain point that was discriminated against. Distinguished : R. R. Com. of Kansas v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 416. In cited case the lines beyond the Ohio River absolutely dominated the situation, and the discrimination would not exist except by their voluntary action. Cited: Chamber of Com., Newport News, v. S. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 353. Cited: Galveston Com. Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 227. The fact that the rails of a carrier do not extend to a certain point cannot relieve it from responsibility for the effect of rates which it controls or in which it participates. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 839 R. R. Commission of Texas v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 463. Cited: R. R. Com. of La. v. St. L., S. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 37. (Shreveport Case.) Cited: Southwestern Shippers' Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 577. The reduction of class rates from St. Louis to Texas points was sought in cited case. Cited: Lumbermen's Ex. of St. L. v. A. & S. R. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 227. Railroads in the western section have not prospered to the same degree as in some other parts of the country. Cited: Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 145. Cited: Colorado Mfrs.' Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 89. The advance in the class rates condemned and general advance in commodity rates from St. Louis to Texas common points sustained. Cited : Investigation and Suspension Docket 106, 25 I. C. C, 301, Cited: Western Fruit Jobbers' Asso. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 422. Class A rates should be reduced from 85 to 79 cents from St. Louis to Texas common points. Cited: Texas Common Point Case, 26 I. C. C, 530. Average distance from St. Louis to the Texas common points found in cited case to be 800 miles. Cited: Texarkana Frt. Bu. v. St. L, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 575. Cited case held that defendant carriers seem not to have prospered as carriers in other parts of the country. R. R. Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 85. R. R. Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 85. R. R. Commissioners of Florida v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. et al., 16 I. C. C, 1. R. R.-Telegraph Contracts, Re, 12 I. C. C, 10. See In the Matter of R. R.-Telegraph Contracts. 840 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Ry. Commission of Arizona v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 656. Ry. Commission of Arizona v. E. P. & S. W. Co., 22 I. C. C, 670. Ry. Commission of Arizona v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 20 I. C. C, 571. Ry. Commission of Arizona v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (3667), 28 L C. C, 711. Rainey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. (871), 12 I. C. C, 584. Rainey & Rogers v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 88. Cited: Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 228. Rate of 95 cents from Carbon Hill, Ala., to New Albany, Miss., via Frisco line, a distance of 113 miles, yielding a per ton mile earnings of 8.4 miles. Raleigh & Augusta Air Line, Wil. Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C. P. & V. R. R. Co. Raleigh & Gaston R. R. Co., Wil. Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C. P. & V. R. R. Co. Ralston Purina Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 671. Ralston Townsite Co. v. M. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 354. Ramsey & Co. v. R. G. & E. P. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-355), 28 I. C. C, 734. Ramsey-Wheeler Co. v. S. A. L. Ry. (U. R. A-541), 29 I. C. C, 735. Randolph Lumber Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 13 I. C. C, 601. Cited: Appalachia Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 25 I. C. G, 195. The through rate should be less than the combination of the inter- mediate rates. Randolph Lumber Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 14 I. C. C. 338. Rapid City, Black Hills & Western R. R. Co., Dakota & Western Ry. Co. v. (U. R. A-646), 30 I. C. C, 730. Rassman, F., v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 666. Rates & Practices of the Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. in the Transportation of Grain to Vicksburg, Miss., Shipped From or Through St. Louis, Mo., and East St. Louis, 111., Re, 9 I. C. C, 373. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 841 Rates Between Memphis & Points in Arkansas, 11 I. C. C, 180. Rates Charged by the Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co., 7 I. C. C, 354. Rates From St. Louis to Texas Common Points, Re, 11 I. C. C„ 238. Cited : China & Japan Trading Co. v. Ga. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 241. If, after giving due weight to the matter of how the rate was raised and all other circumstances, we are still of the opinion that the rate in effect is not too high, the mere fact that it was the product of an un- lawful combination will not justify us in setting it aside. Cited: Burgess v. Transcontinental Ft. Bureau, 13 I. C. C, 677. Cited: Advance in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C, 276. Cost of operation increasing is not necessarily a justification for advance in rates, where it also appears that the traffic has increased and methods of handling have improved bringing about greater effi- ciency. Cited: R. R. Com. of Texas v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 464. While the advance in rates on the whole seemed to be without justi- fication this did not appear with sufficient certainty to warrant the Commission in ordering the old rates to be restored. Rates From the Walesenburg Coal Field, 26 I. C. C, 85. See In re Advances on Coal From Walesenburg Coal Field. Rates on Asphalt & Asphaltum, 26 I. C. C, 614. Rates on Canteloupes & Potatoes From Ruston, La., 26 I. C. C, 101. Rates on Cartridge Shells to Missouri River and Beyond (U. R. A-262), 27 I. C. C, 730. Rates on Cement, Paving or Roofing, 26 I. C. C, 111. Rates on Cement From Pennsylvania to New Jersey, 26 I. C. C, 697. See In re Advances on Cement. Rates, Class & Commodity From Western Points, 26 I. C. C, 51. Rates on Clay Products From Brickland, New Mexico, 26 I. C. G, 51. Rates on Coal to Clinton, Iowa, 26 I. C. C, 179. See In re Advances on Coal to Clinton, Iowa. Rates on Coal to Davenport, Iowa, 26 I. C. C, 140. See In re Advances on Coal to Davenport, Iowa. 842 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rates on Coal From Iowa to the Dakotas, 26 I. C. C, 144. Rates on Coal to Milwaukee & Other Wisconsin Points, 27 I. C. C, 223. See In re Coal to Milwaukee & Other Wisconsin Points. Rates on Common Brick to Canada, 26 I. C. C, 129. Rates on Corn & Corn Products From Missouri River Points to Points in Washington, Oregon & California, 11 I. C. C, 212. Cited: Howard Mills Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 263. Differential of 5 cents in favor of corn meal sustained. Rates on Corn and Corn Products From Missouri River Points to Points in Texas, 11 I. C. C, 220. Cited: Howard Mills Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 263. Differential of 5 cents in favor of corn meal sustained. Cited: Kalmbach-Ford Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 291. The relative cost of transportation of corn and its products to the carrier is something in favor of a lower rate for the grain, which is usually carried in heavier carloads. The slightly higher value of the products would seem, too, to justify a rate something in advance of that charged on the raw material. That this is not material, however, is shown by fact that no differential is established in practically all the eastern and southern territory of the United States. Rates on Corn & Corn Products From Missouri River Points to Points in Louisiana, 11 I. C. C, 227. Quoted: Kalmbach-Ford Co v. K. C. S. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 291. A reasonable differential between any raw material and the manu- factured article is approved, but where the amount of labor and in- creased value and extra risk are so comparatively insignificant as upon grain whole and grain ground, it has not been found by the Commis- sion that any very great extra freight charge was warranted by the needs of the carrier, as a protection to any industry, or justice to the consumer, and wherever the carrier has seen fit to waive its privileges of a slightly advanced rate for the carriage of the product and the rate on the raw material was reasonably low, the Commission has not inter- fered with that discretion. Rates on Corn Milled at Oneonta, N. Y., 27 I. C. C, 367. Rates on Cottonseed From Oklahoma to Little Rock, Ark., 26 I. C. C, 211. Rates on Cotton Seed Hulls, Houston and Beaumont, Texas, to New Or- leans, La. (U. R. A-654), 30 I. C. C„ 731. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 843 Rates on Edible Nuts From Louisiana, 26 I. C. C, 213. Rates on Excelsior & Flax Tow From St. Paul, Minn., 26 I. C. C, 689. Rates on Fresh Meats & Packing House Products From Oklahoma City, Okla., & Other Points to Points in New Mexico, 26 I. C. C, 154. Rates on Fuelwood & Sawdust & Shavings, 26 I. C. C, 6S5. Rates on High Explosives (U. R. A-682), 30 I. C. C, 734. Rates on Horses & Mules From Kansas, 26 I. C. C, 47. Rates on Import and Domestic Traffic, Report of Commission, February 28, 1903, 9 I. C. C, 650. Rates on Linseed Oil, 26 I. C. C, 265. See In re Advances on Linseed Oil. Rates on News Print Paper From Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., 26 I. C. C, 13. See In re Advances on News Print Paper From Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Rates on Paper From Millinocket, Me., 26 I. C. C, 712. Rates on Phosphate Rock From Tennessee Points, 26 I. C. C, 377. Rates on Plaster & Gypsum Rock, 27 I. C. C, 67. Rates on Porch Work, 26 I. C. C, 1. Rates on Potatoes in Winter, 26 I. C. C, 681. Rates on Sand to Houston, Tex., 26 I. C. C, 677. Rates on Sashes, Doors & Blinds in Texas, 26 I. C. C, 116. Rates on the Stony Fork Branch, 26 I. C. G, 168. See In re Advances on Coal on Stony Fork Branch. Rates on Tin Cans & Other Commodities Between. California & Points in Other States, 27 I. C. C, 298. See In re Advances, Tin Cans & Other Commodities. Rates to North Carolina Points, 29 I. C. C, 550. Rates, Practices, etc., of Carrier, In re, 13 I. C. C, 123, 212. Rates, Practices, Accounts & Revenues of Carriers Subject to the Act, 29 I. C. C, 508.' Rau v. Pa. R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 199. 844 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 230. Rawson, William L., v. Newport News & Mississippi Valley Co., 3 I. C. C, 266. Cited : N. Y. B'd of Tr'd & Tr'n v. Penn. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 520. Commission will not make an order where the unlawful practice complained of was abandoned by carrier before the proceedings were begun or before hearing. Cited: Wm. H. Macloon v. Chic. & N. W. Ry. Co, 5 I. C. C, 94. Quoted: Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 384. The amendment to Section 16 removed the obstacle which was in the way of the Commission recommending reparation for past damages. The amendment, however, did not apply to pending proceedings. Raworth, E. M., v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 234. Defendants ordered to discontinue their practice of charging higher rate for the shorter haul to Fargo, N. D., from San Francisco on sugar than for the longer haul to St. Paul, Minn. It was held that the higher rate to Fargo constitutes a violation of Section 4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Not reported. C. C. D. N l . Dak. Suit by Commission to enforce obedience to its order discontinued on account of adverse decision of the Supreme Court in other cases involving Section 4. (Senate Hearings, Committee on Interstate Com- merce, 1904-5, vol 5, p. 330.) Cited: Mer. Union of Spokane Falls v. N. P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 511. Defense of Northern Pacific that it was not subject to jurisdiction of Commission by reason of certain charter provisions considered. Quoted: Freight Bureau v. Cinn., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 238. The law forbidding unjust discrimination "'applies even an case where a departure from the 'long and short haul' rule' of the statute is shown to be authorized, and the right, if established of making the greater charge for the shorter haul, does not justify a disparity in rates so great as to result in unjust discrimination." Cited: Freight Bureau v. Cinn., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 245. Cited : Com. Club of Omaha v. Chic, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 675. Each locality competing with others in a common market is entitled to reasonable and just rates at the hands of the carriers serving it and to the benefit of all its natural advantages. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 845 Cited: Kindel v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 626. Competition of roads- not subject to act found not to exist at St, Paul, but that the competition was that of markets, which could not be considered. This laist overruled by Supreme Court case. See L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Behlmer. 175 U. S., 648. Raymond, E. B., v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 230. Cited: In re the Chic, St. P. & Kansas City Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 266. Relative rates. It is assumed in the act that persons and corpora- tions, and localities are interested not only in the rates charged to them but in the rates which are charged to others also. Cited: Mnfrs.' & Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minn. & St. L. Ry. Co., 4 I. C. C, 83. Cited: Daniels v. Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 477. Cited: Page v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 557. When Congress enacted that one locality should not have undue preference in rates or facilities over another locality, or be subjected to any unreasonable prejudice or, disadvantage, it opened the door for and made material any evidence which tends to throw light upon the question of undue preference or prejudice. These terms imply com- parison of relative locations, of natural and acquired advantages, of the reasonableness of charges per se and in their relation to other rates on the various lines which serve the competing localities. Re Alleged Unlawful Discrimination, ,11 I. C. C, 287. Rea, W. R., v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 43. Cited : Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Sou. Pac. Co., 9 I. C. C, 204. Carriers are required to follow the instructions and directions given by shipper whenever practicable. Cited: Johnson v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 237. The Commission has no power, if it were so to disposed, to vary the requirements of the act in regard to publication of tariffs and under no circumstances could there be any excuse for a failure to post changes made in tariffs. Rea-Patterson Milling Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. (U. R, A-653), 30 I. C. C, 731. Rea-Patterson Milling Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co. (U, R. A-608), 30 I. C. C„ 724. Ream, Charles, v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C, 107. 846 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Receivers' & Shippers' Association of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 440. Carriers ordered to reduce their class rates from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Chattanooga, Tenn., on the ground that existing rates are unreasonable. The reduced rates prescribed by the Commission were not as low as those contended for by the shippers. Eagle White Lead Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. C. C. S. D. Ohio. Bill of shippers to annul Commission's order on the ground that the maximum rates fixed by said order are so much too high and extortion- ate as to violate the fifth amendment to the Federal Constitution, transferred to Commerce Court. Eagle White Lead Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 188 Fed. 256; 1 Com. Ct. 65. July 20, 1911. Commerce Court No. 6. Carland, J. Commission's order held to be valid and case dismissed on merits. Eagle White Lead Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 225 U. S. 302. June 7, 1912. White, C. J. Held that Commerce Court has no jurisdiction of such a case as this, where the petitioner complains of a denial of relief at the 'hands of the Commission; but that such court has jurisdiction only of affirmative orders of the Commission. Cited: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. , Transcontinental rates are influenced by water competition. Cited: Southwestern Shippers' Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 586. Cited : Fourth Section Violations in the Southeast, 30 I. C. C, 291. A first-class rate of 70 cents for a distance of 336 miles from Cin- cinnati to Chattanooga, established as reasonable, and this rate is below the average in southern territory for the distance. Cited : W. H. Edgar & Son v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 181. Fifth-class rate fixed at 38 cents per 100 pounds from Cincinnati to Chattanooga in cited case. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 150. Rates cannot be fixed solely with a view to the short line or the line that can effect the transportation at the lowest cost. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 847 Cited : Lagrange Chamber of Com. v. A. & W. P. R. R. Ca, 28 I. C. C, 183. The history of the adjustments, both with reference to the relation of rates from the various crossings and the lowering of the Atlanta rates from time to time referred to in cited case. Cited: Atlanta Freight Bu. v. N., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 483. The rate to Chattanooga from Cincinnati fixed in cited case being a reduction a similar reduction to points beyond like Atlanta not ordered in present case. Quoted : Minneapolis Civic & Com. Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 671. A maxim of rate making is that rates should be such, if possible, as to move the traffic. To this end in the south it was found that the adjustment of rates from the east with those from the west into the common southern markets do not abnormally promote the movement of traffic from either section. Receiverships of the St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. and the Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 139. Reconsignment & Storage of Lumber & Shingles, 27 I. C. C, 451. Reconsigning Case, The Detroit, 25 I. C. G, 392. See Detroit Reconsigning Case. Reconsignment Rules of the Chicago & North Western Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 620. Record Oil Refining Co. et al. v. Midland Valley R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 132. Red Ash Coal Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co. (6276), 30 I. C. C, 714. Red Bank Mills v. P. R. R. Co. (5861), 28 I. C. C, 719. Red "C" Oil Manufacturing Co. v. A. & V. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 542. Red Cloud Mining Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 I. C. C, 216. Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. The fact is that transcontinental rates are compelled -by water com- petition. Red River Oil Co. v. T. & P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 438. Cited : The Tap Line Case, 23 I. C. G, 650. Cited and reaffirmed: New Roads Oil Mill & Mfg. Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C, 168. Penalty rates criticized. 848 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Distinguished : May Bros. v. Yazoo & Miss. Valley R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 322. In cited case the rates to competitive points were, prior to the increase, apparently satisfactory and presumably reasonable, and in present case there has been no increase in long established rates to bring about the system of gross and net rates. Cited : Port Arthur B'd of Trade v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 402. It is not the province of the Commission or the carriers to adjust rates for the purpose of equalizing natural or commercial advantages. Red River, Texas & Southern Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Red Rock Fuel Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 438. Carrier ordered to cease denying to complainant a sidetrack con- nection between its line and the line of complainant while granting such facilities to other mines in the Fairmont, W. Va., district, on the ground that such denal constitutes an undue prejudice in violation of Section 3. Red Rock Fuel Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. Not reported. C. C. N. D. W. Va. This case, it is understood, was never decided. Red Wing Linseed Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 47. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount their rate on flax- seed from Britton, S. D., to Red Wing, Minn., on the ground that such rate was unreasonable. Reparation awarded. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. Bill to annul Commission's order transferred to Commerce Court. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. Not reported. April 3, 1911. Commerce Court No. 16. Case dismissed on motion of petitioning carrier. Red Wing Linseed Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 17 I C C, 624. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 849 Red Wing Sewer Pipe Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 665. Red Wing Union Stoneware Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 613. Reddick v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. (15S6), 14 I. C. C, 638. Reddick, Wm. A., v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 492. Reddick, William A., Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 615. Redpath-Vawter Chatauqua System v. A, T. & S. F. R. Co, 22 I. C. C, 135. Reduced Rates on Return Shipments, In re, 19 I. C. C, 409. See In re Reduced Rates on Return Shipments. Redwood Manufacturers' Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 612. Reed v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 616. Reed, Wm. H, v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co, 1 I. C. C. 325. Reeder, C. W, v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 608. Reeder, Walter, v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co, 6 I. C. C, 131. Rees, S. C, v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City R. R. Co. et al, 19 I. C. C, 606. Rees & Wagner v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-358), 28 I. C. C, 735. Rees' Sons v. S. Ry. Co, 30 I. C. C, 585. Refrigeration Charges on Fruits & Vegetables, 29 I. C. C, 653. Refrigeration Charges on the Kansas City Southern Ry, 26 I. C. C, 617. Refrigeration Despatch Co. of Santa Fe et al, California Fruit Growers Ex- change v, 17 I. C. C, 404. Refuge Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L, I. M. & S. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 117. Regulations Governing Sale of Commutation Tickets to School Children, In re, 17 I. C. C, 144. Regulations Restricting the Dimensions of Baggage, 26 I. C. C, 292. Rehberg, Amos & Co. v. Erie R. R. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 508. Followed : Liberty Mills v. L. & N. R. R. Co, 23 I. C. C, 183. The statute of limitations is not stopped rin its running against a carrier which participates in a rate unless named in the complaint or until so named. 850 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rehberg, Amos & Co. v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. et al, 21 I. C. C, 685. Reid & Sortie v. G. N. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-517), 29 I. C. C.,.732. Reid, Murdoch & Co., Interveners in Business Men's League of St. Louis, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Reinhardt Grain Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 710. Reinhardt Grain Co. v. M. & N. & A. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 718. Reinhardt Grain Co. v. O. C. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 715. Reiter, Curtis & Hill v. New York, Susquehanna & Western R. R. Cd., 19 I. C. C, 290. Relative Rates Upon Export & Domestic Traffic in Grain & Grain Products, & of the Publication of Tariffs Relating to Such Traffic, Re, 8 I. C. C, 214. Cited: B'd of R. R. Com. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 314. The rule of the fourth section must in all cases be observed in the making of the competitive export rates. Cited : Re Tariffs on Export and Import Traffic, 10 I. C. C, 63. Where a through rate was named and a through bill of lading issued the inland carrier might publish either the total through rate or its inland division at its option. Cited: Planters' Compress Co. v.'C, C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 410. The refusal of carriers to grant a lower rate on compress than on plantation cotton because the former loads about twice as heavy per car load, is not a violation of the act. Cited : Miller Walnut Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 44. It has been held that there are competitive conditions existing at Kansas City which justify the carriers in making a lower rate from Kansas City to Galveston on export grain than is applied from Okla- homa. Relative Tank & Barrel Rates on Oil, In re, 2 I. C. C, 365. Cited : Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y. & Penn. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 154. Cited: George Rice v. Cinn, N. & B. R. R. Co. et al, 5 I. C. C, 200. Cited: Ind. R. Ass'ns, Tit've & Oil City, v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co , 5 I. C. C, 429. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 851 The practice of carriers charging freight on the barrels in which oil is shipped condemned, where rate is made on the oil contents and some oil moves in tanks at same rate. Released Rates, In re, 13 I. C. C, 550. Quoted: Pouchatoula Farmers' Asso. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 520. Rules and regulations which are misleading, unreasonable or inca- pable of literal enforcement in a court of law are mischievous and should be revised. Distinguished: Shaffer & Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 12. Cited : Investigation and Suspension Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 608. A bill of lading setting forth the value of the shipment agreed to by shipper although such value is less than actual or invoice value, is to be distinguished from a case where carrier's liability is limited by "notices" or provisions' in a receipt or bill to which a shipper's attention is not particularly drawn and about which he has no actual knowledge. Reliance Coal Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 653. Reliance Grocery Co. v. A. G. S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 714. Reliance Textile & Dye Works v. Southern Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 48. Cited: R. R. Com. of La. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. G, 48. Rates on dyes. Remington Typewriter Co. (Inc.) v. W. S. R. R. Co. (6388), 29 I. C. C, 715. Rend, William P., v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 540. Rennert-Millette Co. v. G. H. & S. A. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 670. Reno Grocery Co. v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 400. Reno Grocery Co. v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 715. Reno Wholesale Liquor Store (Inc.) v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 516. Rentz Bros., Inc., v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 7. Reo Motor Car Co. v. M. C. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 711. Reo Motor Car Co. v. M. C. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 712. Reparation, Re, 6 I. C. C, 378, 449, 455. Report of Commission, Re, Rates on Import & Domestic Traffic, February 28, 1903, 9 I. C. C, 650. Republic Flour Mills Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (5878), 28 I. C. C, 719. 852 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Republic Metalware Co. v. E. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 565. Cited: Sidway Mercantile Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 571. The 50 per cent higher rate rule held no authority for the additional charge Restricted Rates, In re, 20 I. C. C, 426. Followed : Carter White Lead Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 41. Cited: In re Divisions of Joint Rates on Coal, 22 I. C. C, 56. Cited: In re Transportation of Company Material, 22 I. C. C, 440. Cited: Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 152. Cited: Paper Rates, Manitowbc & Milwaukee to Kaukauna, Wis., 28 I. C. C, 307. Maintenance of rates on coke dependent or based upon the uses to which the coke is put condemned. Cited : Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 274. Cited : In re Divisions of Joint Rates on Coal, 22 I. C. C, 56. Carriers have a right under the act to secure the benefits of division of joint rates for the transportation of company material. Cited : In re Divisions of Joint Rates on Coal, 22 I. C. C, 56. Cited: Chamber of Com., Newport News, v. S. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 355. Ocean competition as well as circumstances and conditions beyond the seaboard are to be considered in determining whether differences in rate between foreign and domestic traffic are unreasonable or unduly discriminatory or preferential. Return Shipments, Reduced Rates on, In re, 19 I. C. C, 409. See In re Reduced Rates on Return Shipments. Reynolds v. Southern Express Co., 13 I. C. C, 536. Reynolds, Thos. J., v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 347. Cited : John C. Haddock v. Del., Lack. & Western R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 316. Discrimination by a carrier in its own behalf is the worst form of discrimination, and is clearly within the mischiefs intended to be pre- vented by the Interstate Commerce Law. Reynolds, Thos. J., v. Western New York & Pennsylvana Ry. Co., 1 I. C C, 393. Cited: F. L. Hurlburt v. Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co 2 I C C, 129. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 853 Articles manufactured from wood which are placed by official classi- fication in fifth class enumerated and none held analogous >to hub blocks . in question. Cited: Nathan Myer v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 85. Commission has repeatedly exercised the power to order a change in classification. Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. Ft. S. W. & R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 713. Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 718. Reynolds, R. J. Tobacco Co. v. Southern Express Co. et al., 19 I. C. G, 608. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 104. Cited: Pulp & Paper Mfrs.' Traffic Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C 90. Rate of 6.95 cents per 100 pounds found reasonable for a distance of 188 miles, Michigan-Wisconsin, in cited case. A petition to rehear cited case has been granted. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 633. Cited : Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M., St. P. & S. Ste, M. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. G, 105. The reasonableness of rate on wood pulp from Duluth, Minn., to Rhinelander, a distance of 188 miles, considered, and rate of 6.95 cents per 100 pounds not found unreasonable. R. I. Egg & Butter Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 176. Rhodes v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 525. Rhodes v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. (968), 12 I. C. G, 586. See Morgan v. M., K & T. Ry. Co. Rice, George, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 228. Cited : George Rice v. Cinn., W. & B. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 202. Cited: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. The fact is that transcontinental rates are compelled by water com- petition. Rice, George, v. B. & O. Southwestern R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 660. Rice, George, v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 854 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rice, George, v. Cincinnati, Washington & Baltimore R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 186. Rice, George, v. Cincinnati, Washington & Baltimore R. R. Co., S I. C. C, .193. Cited: Ind. R. Assn's, Tit've & Oil City, v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., S I. C. C, 441. Cited: George Rice v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 661. The practice of charging freight on the barrels in which oil is shipped and not charging for the tare weight of the tank car is condemned. The order in the previous case is adopted here, pages 462, 463; quoted in page 465. Cited: Wilson Produce Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 176. The fact that discrimination between localities, commodities and cities exists in some measure will not lead necessarily to the con- clusion that it is unlawful. The discrimination may not be undue; it may be forced upon the carrier by controlling circumstances. In either case the law is not infringed. Further, such discrimination is not un- lawful unless made in the interest of a competing locality or com- modity. Rice v. Ga. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 75. Cited and followed: Sunderland Bros. Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 632. Rule providing for reweighing of coal and adjustment for shrinkage, 1 per cent with 500 pound minimum fixed for future. Cited: Chamber of Com. of Augusta, Ga., v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 236. Coal rates from Jellico mines to Augusta. Rice, George, v. Illinois Central Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 186. Rice, George, v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 193. See Rice v. Cinn., Wash. & Bait. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 503. Cited: Wm. C. Ecofield et al. v. Lake Sh. & Mich. So Rv Co 2 1 C. C, 115. " COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 855 In the case of special traffic, as petroleum oils, it is properly the business of the carrier to supply the rolling stock for the freight offered by the shipper, and if the diversities and peculiarities of the traffic are such that this is not always practical, and consignors are allowed to supply it themselves, the carrier must not allow its own deficiencies in this particular to be made the means of putting at an unreasonable disadvantage those who make use in the same traffic of the facilities he supplies. The rate, however, must be the same to such shipper as to ones where carrier furnishes cars. Cited : In re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil, 2 I. C. C, 370. Cited : Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. The Penn. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 581. A carrier must see to it that the rates charged when using its own rolling stock is no more than that charged when using cars it has obtained from others. Cited : Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y. & Penn.' R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 134. Raise in rates on oil in barrels by charging for carriage of barrels. And this case holds that the practice of charging freight on barrels when not charging for tank cars results in an unlawful discrimination which is condemned — pages 143, 145, 146, 152 and 153. Quoted : Rice v. Cinn., W. & B. R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 198. "The rule should be to consider the tank a part of the car itself, and for the load carried in it the charge ought to be the same by the hun- dred pounds as is made on the transportation of barrels of oil in car- load lots in other cars. Even then the shipper in barrels is at some disadvantages, for he must pay freight on barrels as well as on oil; but this as between him and the carrier, is not unjust." Cited: Ind. R. Ass'ns, Tit've & Oil City, v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 429. The railroads made the additional charges on the barrels in compli- ance with what they conceived to be ruling of Commission in this case. Quoted : Ind. R. Ass'ns, Tit've & Oil City, v. W.. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 433, 434. "It is properly the business of railroad companies to supply to their customers suitable vehicles of transportation and then to offer their use to everybody impartially." Rice, George, v. Mississippi & Tennessee R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 856 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rice, George, v. Mobile & OhioR. R. Co,, 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, S03. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. Newport News & Mississippi Valley Co., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. Newport News & Mississippi Valley Co. & Illinois Central Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Rice, George, v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 660. Rice, Marshall H., v. Montpelier & Wells River R. R. et al., 17 I. C. C, 628. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 389. Cited: Ind. R. Ass'ns, Tit've & Oil City, v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 427. The cited case was overruled and lawfulness of the charge for the barrel package was for first time passed upon by Commission in 4 I. C. C, 131. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., In re, 3 I. C. C, 87. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 131. Cited: John C. Haddock v. Del., Lack. & Western R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 316. A carrier may not carry on the 'business of mining coal at a loss, or in such a way that an apparent loss in mining can result in an actual profit to it only by the prostitution of its franchises as a common carrier. Cited: Ind. R. Assn's, Tit've & Oil City, v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 427. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 857 The lawfulness of the charge for the barrel package was for the first time distinctly presented for decision and passed upon by this Com- mission in above case. Cited : Rice v. Cinn., W. & B. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 201. Cited: Ind. R. Assn's, Tit've & Oil City, v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 429, 43.1, 441. Quoted: R. R. Com. of Ohio v. H. V. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 410. "It it not the business of the shipper to furnish the vehicle of trans- portation. That is the duty of the carrier. Under its franchise the carrier must do more than construct his roadway. He must equip it with the means of transportation, and these means, of whatever style or pattern, must be open impartially to all shippers of like traffic." Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 4SS. Followed: West Texas Fuel Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 491. Commission declines to award reparation under a decision formerly rendered in a case in which such reparation was not prayed for. Richards v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-S6S), 30 I. C. C, 719. Richards, E. R., v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 468. Richardson Lubricating Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 6S7. Richardson Shoe Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 607. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., B. S. Crews v., 1 I. C. C, 401. See Crews s. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., W. L. Fewell v., 7 I. C. C, 354. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., Heck & Petree v., 1 I. C. C, 495. See Heck & Petree v. E. Tenn., Virginia & Ga. Ry. Co. 858 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., Spartanburgh Board of Trade v., 2 I. C. C, 304. See Spartanburgh Board of Trade v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., P. H. Loud, Jr., v., 5 I. C. C, 529. See Loud v. So. Car. Ry. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., J. B. Pankey v., 3 I. C. C, 6S8. See Pankey v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., R. R. Comm. of Ga. v., 5 I. C. C, 324, 32S, 327. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., George D. Sidman v., 3 I. C. C, S12. Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Trans- portation of Vegetables v., 8 I. C. G, S8S. Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co., Charles P. Perry v., 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co., R. R. Comm. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C 120. Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston & Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. See Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston, etc., v. Northeastern R. R. of S. C. Richmond & Petersburg R. R. Co., Wilmington Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C. P. & V. R. R. Co. Richmond & W. Point Terminal & Warehouse Co., Heck & Petree v. 1 I C C, 495. See Heck & Petree v. E. Tenn., Virginia & Ga. Ry. Co. Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. C. & O. Ry. Co. (1026), 12 I. C. C, 587. Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. S. A. L. Ry., 30 I. C. C, 552. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 859 Richmond, E. L. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 623. Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 629. Cited : Red Rock Fuel Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 451. Cited : Traier v. Chic. & Alton R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 455. The Commission has no jurisdiction to require a carrier to furnish cars for any purpose, but it has, and has frequently exercised, authority to prohibit carriers from wrongfully discriminating between shippers in furnishing cars for the transportation of interstate traffic. Cited and quoted: Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 81. The mere showing of such a rule and claim that it works discrimi- nation is insufficient. The actual effect of the rule during the time covered by the complaint is necessary to a determination of the ques^ tion of unfairness in the distribution of cars. Richmond Elevator Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co. (684), 29 I. C. C, 707. Richmond-Eureka Mining Co. v. E. N. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 62. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vegetables v., 8 I. C. C, 585. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., Samuel K. Behrend v., 9 I. C. C, 637. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., Charles P. Perry v., 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fl.a. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co. et al., Preston, Albert, v., 18 I. C. C, 628. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., R. R. Com. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry.- Co. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C, 120. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston & Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. See Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston, etc., v. Northeastern R. R. of S. C. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. R. Co., United States of America v., 29 I. C. C, 702. 860 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Richmond Transfer Co., Cosby v., 23 I. C. C, 72. See Cosby v. R. T. Co. Rickards, E. ( v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 239. Cited: Woodward-Burnett Co. v. S. P., L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 665. Quoted: Curry & Whyte Co. v. D. & I. R. R.R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 11. The mere fact that certain traffic is hauled in trainload lots cannot be made the basis of rates different from those applied to shipments in single carloads. Rickards v. N. S. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-498), 29 I. C. C, 730. Rickel, T. A., v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 499. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C, 372. Cited : Del. State Grange, etc., v. N. Y., Phil. & N. R. R. Co., etc., 2 I. C. C, 314. The Commission will be liberal in allowing parties before it to amend complainants but this will not be extended to allowing a petitioner to make a new case. Distinguished and quoted: Glade Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 24S. In the Riddle case there was an attempt to furnish cars, but traffic was so great the carrier couldn't meet the demands but all were treated alike, and furnished cars upon a basis that was relatively and sub- stantially just. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 1 I. C. C, 608. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. New York, Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C, 594. Cited : John C. Haddock v. Del., Lack. & Western R. Co., 4 I. C. C„ 31o. Discrimination by a carrier in its own favor is the worst form of discrimination, and is clearly within the mischiefs intended to be pre- vented by the Interstate Commerce Law. Cited: Joynes v. Pa. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 362. Reparaton in discrimination cases. Cited: In re Irregularities in Mine Ratings, 25 I. C. C, 294. It is in contravention of the statute for a common carrier to refuse a shipment upon the ground that regular patron's desire to use all the facilities at hand, and to appropriate to the uses of the latter the entire available equipment. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 861 Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co., 1 I. C. G, 374. Cited: John C. Haddock v. Del, Lack. & Western R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 316. Discrimination by a carrier in its own favor is the worst form of discrimination, and is clearly within the mischiefs intended to be pre- vented by the Interstate Commerce Law. Cited and quoted : Missouri & Illinois Coal Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. G, 43. Since this early case the law has enlarged. A carrier was then held to be within its rights in not permitting its equipment to go beyond its own lines, but now in the day of through routes such an embargo is not proper. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co., \ I. C. C, 490. Cited : Michigan Congr. Water Co. v. Chic. & Gr. Tr. Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 601. Where the relation of any carrier to the matter complained of is such that it is in whole or in part materially responsible for the alleged grievance, and has a direct interest in any investigation of the subject- matter involved, that carrier should be a party to the proceeding, and if not a party no relief can be given against it. Cited: Ind. Refiners' Asso. v. Penn. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 56. The petitioner on petition for rehearing may be able to show by competent proof that the finding attached is erroneous. Ridge Fruit & Melon Growers' Asso. of S. C. v. Southern Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C, 1. Ridgewood Coal Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 183. Rigney, Thomas F., v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 72. Right of R. R. Companies to Exchange Free Transportation With Local Transfer & Baggage Express Companies, 12 I. C. C, 39. Rightsell, J. T., v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 714. Rio Grande & El Paso R. R. Co., El Paso Refining Co., Inc., v. (U. R. A-248), 27 I. C. C, 728. Rio Grande & El Paso R. R. Co., Ramsey & Co. v. (U. R. A-3S5), 28 I. C. C, 734. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 862 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., George J. Kindel v., 11 I. C. C, 495. See Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co. Risden, C. W., v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 604. Rising, J. M., v. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C., 120. Riter, Geo W., v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 443. River & Rail Coal & Coke Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 666. Rivermont Furniture Co. v. Old Dominion Steamship Co., 6 I. C. C, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Rivermont Furniture Co. v. Merchants' & Miners' Transportation Co., 6 I. C. C, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg. Va,. v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Rivers Bros. Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 22 I. C. C, 666. Riverside Fiber & Paper Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 620. Riverside Mills v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. (1624), 14 I. C. C, 640. Riverside Mills v. A. & S. Steamboat Co. (U. R. A-611), 30 I. C. C, 725. Riverside Mills v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. (1623), 14 I. C. C. 640. Riverside Mills v. C. of G. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 719. Riverside Mills v. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 153. Cited: Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 83. Although the complainant was unable to receive or unload promptly certain inbound shipments, because of damage to its mill and stock by- reason of flood, the assessment of demurrage charges held reasonable. Riverside Mills v. C. & W. C. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 663. Riverside Mills v. Ga. R. R. Co. (1622), 14 I. C. C, 640. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 863 Riverside Mills v. Georgia R. R. et al., 20 I. C. C, 423. Cited: Minneapolis Steel & Mch. Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 194. The awarding of reparation does not necessarily follow the reduc- tion of a rate whether it be by the voluntary action of the carrier or by order of the Commission. Riverside Mills v. G. R., 25 I. C. C, 434. Riverside Mills v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 264. Riverside Mills v. Southern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 388. Riverside Mills v. Southern Ry. Co. (872), 12 I, C. C, 584. Cited : So. Atlantic Waste Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 295. The question of whether cotton waste should take the same rate as cotton goods considered and held that it would be unreasonable to exact same rate. Riverside Mills v. S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 711. Riverside Mills v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 718. Roach & Musser Sash & Door Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C. ? 612. Roach & Musser Sash & Door Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 658. Roach & Seeber Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 172. Roahen-Cary Grain Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C 676. Roberts & Stewart v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 588. Roberts Cotton Oil Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 248. Cited: Johnson & Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 639. A carrier can not be charged with giving preference or advantage to a community which it does not serve; nor be charged with sub- jecting such community to prejudice or disadvantage. Robertson Bros. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 618. Robertson Paper Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R. et al., 18 I. C. C, 629. Robertson Paper Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R. et al., 21 I. C. C, 254. Robertson Paper Co. v. R. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 430. 864 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Robinson & Co. v. L. W. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 719. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 614. Robinson Clay Products Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 707. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-441), 29 I. C. C, 722. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. C. A. & C. R. Co. (3882), 27 I. C. C, 703. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 661. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. Erie R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 661. Robinson Clay Products Co. v. P. Co., 23 I. C. C, 709. Robinson Land & Lumber Co. v. M. & O. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 427. Robinson Lumber, Veneer & Box Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 438. Robinson, Tate & Co. v. Old Dominion Steamship Co., 6 I. C. G, 632. " See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Robon v. Mo., Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 525. See Morgan v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Rochester Fire Works Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 709. Rock Creek Ry. of the D. of C, Charles M. Wilson v., 7 I. C. C, 83. See Wilson v. Rock Creek Ry. of the D. of C. Rock Hill Buggy Co., Capital City Gas Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 229. Rock Island & Peoria Ry. Co., A. J. Gustin v., 8 I. C. C, 277. See Gustin v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Rock Springs Distilling Co. v. I. C. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 54. Reaffirmed: Rock Springs Distilling Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 54. The rate from East St. Louis to Owensboro, Ky., on cattle found not to exceed 15 cents per 100 pounds, with a minimum weight of 20,000 pounds; from Chicago $32 per car was fixed in cited case. With respect to rate from East St. Louis same was reaffirmed. From Chicago a rate of 18 cents per 100 pounds with 20,000-pound minimum, plus $2 per car bridge toll was fixed on rehearing. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 86'5 Rock Springs Distilling Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 18. Rockford Cedar Furniture Co. v. A. & S. Ry. Co. (6118), 30 I. C. C, 713. Rockford Lumber & Fuel Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-446), 29 I. C. C, 723. Rodehaver, C. H., v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 146. Roden, B. F. Grocery Co. v. Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 469. Rogan, R. M., v. V. & S. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 659. Rogers, J. G., v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 424. Rogers & Co. v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 308. Cited: Joynes v. Pa. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 371. Where an embargo was declared on shipments of hay and grain offered to carrier by shipper and loss resulted due principally to a fall- ing market, it was held that on showing that the shipments were inter- state in character, reparation would be awarded. Rogers & Prinkey v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 32. Rohr, Joseph A., v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 443. See Sprigg v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg R. R. Co., Re, 6 I. C. C, 328. Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v. Chicago, Indiana & Louisville Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 569. Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v. Vandalia R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 115. Followed : Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v. C, I. & L. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 569. Practice of billing stone at marked capacity of car required to cease and actual or estimated weight made basis. Limited : Prahlow v. I. H. B. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 572. The weighing principle formerly announced held not to apply to switching service. Roosevelt & Western R. R. Co. et al., Menefee Bros, v., 20 I. C. C, 672. Roper Lumber-Cedar Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 382, 397, 605. Roper Lumber-Cedar Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 606. 866 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rose, E. F. et al. v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 427. Cited: Motorcycle Mnfrs.' Asso. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 128. A rate of one and one-half times first-class 1. c. 1. on motorcycles from eastern and central freight association points to Pacific coast desti- nations found reasonable in cited case. Rose Co. v. N., C. & St. L. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 704. Rosebrough, J. E., v. Pacific Express Co., 21 I. C. C, 680. Rosedale Foundry & Machine Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 671. Roseland Truck Farmers' Asso. v. I. C. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-615), 30 I. C. G, 725. Rosenbaum Bros. v. B. & O. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 287. Rosenbaum Bros. v. C., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 62. See also Rosenbaum Bros. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Distinguished: Indianapolis Frt. Bu. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 57. In present case there are no competitive conditions affecting certain routes to the exclusion of other routes, but a tariff provision giving certain points on the same route privileges respecting grain moving over that route that are denied to intermediate points on the route. Cited and distinguished: Boney & Harper Milling Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 387. In instant case plea made to find the Cincinnati-Wilmington, N. C, rate unreasonable, whether considered as a local rate or as one applied to traffic from beyond, and that it is unjustly discriminatory for the de- fendants to maintain a proportional or shrinkage rate less than the local rate from the upper crossings to Charleston, Savannah, Brunswick, and Jacksonville and not to accord a similar shrinkage or proportional rate to Wilmington. While cited case found is discriminatory against Chi- cago, Chicago shippers and lines forming the route through Chicago for carriers to apply from the upper crossings to southeastern points on grain from shrinkage territory west of the Mississippi River moving through Chicago local rate and on grain not moving through Chicago the lower shrinkage rates. Distinguished : Scott-Mayer Commission Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 532. In cited case the question whether a carrier may maintain propor- tional or separately established rates for the same haul, varying with different points of origin or of destination was not involved. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 867 Rosenbaum Bros. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 62. See also Rosenbaum Bros. Co. v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. Carriers ordered to cease discriminating against Chicago and Cook County, 111., junctions by charging higher proportional rates on coarse grain in carloads when coming via Chicago than via other routes. Rep- aration awarded. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. United States. Commerce Court No. 74. Record transferred to District Court for the Western District of Kentucky upon dissolution of Commerce Court. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. United States. D. C. W. D. Ky. June 1,1915. Dismissed on motion of carrier. Rosenbaum, J. Grain Co. v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 664. Rosenbaum, J. Grain Co. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 610. Rosenbaum, J. Grain Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 15 I. C. G, 499. Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co. (5797), 28 I. C. C, 718. Rosenblatt, G., v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 666. Rosenblatt, H. & Sons v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. • C, 261. Cited: Rosenblatt, H. & Sons v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 261. Rate on "triplex cloth." This material is not entitled to the cotton piece rate. Rosenblatt, H. & Sons v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 447. Rosenblatt, H. & Son v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 716. Rosenblatt, H. & Sons v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 665. Rosenthal, H. & Son Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 718. Rosenthal, W. N„ v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 620. Ross, H. F., v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 631. 868 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rossie Iron Ore Co. v. New 1 Central & Hudson River R. C. Co., 17 I. C. C, 392. Cited: Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 569. Demurrage may not he assessed except for or because of failure on part of shipper or consignee to comply with his obligations. Roswell Commercial Club v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 339. Cited : Pecos Merc. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 177. Cited: Moise Bros. Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, SS4. Competition with other carriers at a longer distance point may justify lower freight rates 'to that point than to neighboring shorter distance points not having the same competition. Quoted: Pilant v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 180. As already suggested, considerable testimony was given with respect to commodities which have not been referred to in this report for the reason that they were not embraced in the complaint. From what is here decided we think the parties will be able to reach an agreement upon the other matters in dispute, and we recommend an honest attempt to do so before bringing them further to the attention of this Commis- sion. Cited: Advance in Grain Rates, 21 I. C. C, 33. Rates on wheat from Wichita, Kans., to Roswell, N. Mex., fixed at 40 cents, yielding 1.47 cents per-ton-per-mile, but the character of coun- try and density of traffic warranted such a rate. Cited: Transportation of Wool, Hides and Pelts, 23 I. C. C, 153. Rates on wool, hides and pelts were not fixed in former cases but questions involving the commodities were held up for subsequent dis- posal. Cited : Texas Common Point Case, 26 I. C. C, 532, 537. Relation is rates between Amarillo and Roswell established. Roth, Charles, v. Tex. & Pacific Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 602. Rotsted, William Co. v. Chicago & North Western R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 257. Rowel, J. S. Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. 17 I. C. C„ 625. Royal Brewing Co. v. Adams Express Co., 15 I. C. C, 255. Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 440. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 869 Royal Mantel Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 72. Royal Metal Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago, Great Western R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 25,5. Ruckcr Desk Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 611. Rucker Desk Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 610. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 610. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 608. Ruddock Orleans Cypress Co. v. L. Ry. & N. Co. (U. R. A-634), 30 I. C. C, 728. Rudgear-Merle Co. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 614. Rudgear-Merle Co. v. Goodrich Transit Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 616. Ruhman, Gus E., v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C, 713. Rules and Regulations Governing Concentration of Cotton and Cotton Linters at Points in Arkansas, 29 I. C. C, 106. Rules of Practice, in Cases and Proceedings before the Commission, 1 I. C. C, 1. Rulofson, A. C. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 722. Rulofson & Co. v. P. Co. (U. R. A-153), 27 I. C. C, 714. Rumely, M. Co. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 709. Running, S., v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 565. Rutland R. R. Co. et al., Ames-Brooks Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 479. Rutland R. R. Co., Capital City Gas Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 104. Capital City Gas Co. v. Central Germont Ry. Co. Rutland, W. W. & E. L., v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 509. Rutland R. R. Co., Roberson Paper Co. v., 26 I. C. C. 430. Rutland R. R. Co. et al., Tritch, George Hardware Co. v., 17 I. C. C„ 542. Rutland, W. W. & E. L, Partners, Doing Business as the Canadian Valley Grain Co., v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C. 108. 870 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Rutland R. R. Co., Shaw v. (S371), 30 I. C. C, 711. Ruttle v. Pere Marquette R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 179. Ryan, G. W., v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 226. Ryan & Newton Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 618. Ryan & Newton Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-495), 29 I. C. C, 729. Ryland & Brooks Lumber Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 665. Ryley, Millard P., v. W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 210. Ryley- Wilson Grocer Co., Interveners in Lehman-Higginson Grocer Co., v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 460. Sabine & East Tex. Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, S69. Sabine Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Ry. & Navigation Co., 19 I. C. C, 617. Sackett Plaster Board Co. v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Ry. Co. et al.. 18 I. C. C, 374. Safety Appliance Act of 1893, Application for Extension, 8 I. C. C, 643. Safety Appliance Act of 1903, Re, 9 I. C. C. 522. Safety of Employees and Travelers, Re, 6 I. C. C, 332. Sage & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 195. Saginaw & Manistee Lumber Co. et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 19 1. C. C, 119. Cited: Oregon & Wash. Lum. Dealers' Asso. v. S. P. Co., 21 I C C, 395. Lumber rates in Southern Arizona. Cited: Green Bros. Box & Lumber Co. v. C. & N. W Ry Co 29 I C. C. 475. The classification on lumber is made ordinarily without reference to its value or condition and the same rate frequently includes not only manufactured lumber but articles made from it, like doors, sash, blinds, etc. No reason why further classification might not be proper. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 871 Saginaw Board of Trade et al. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 128. Explained : International Salt Co. v. G. & W. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 533. It was said that alterations ought not to be made in the zone boundaries or the system subjected to other changes without adequate and just cause in percentage-basis territory. But there the system was being dealt with as a maximum schedule of rates and it was not in- tended to be understood as indicating that lower rates might not properly be established with respect to particular points under special justifying circumstances. Cited: Indianapolis Frt. Bu. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 198. Cited: Scott Paper Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 603. The basis of rates in percentage territory has remained unchanged though several times attempts to that end have been made. Cited: The Mississippi River Case, 28 I. C. C, 50. The west bank of the Mississippi River is the west boundary of what is called the percentage zone territory, and all the crossings, both upper and lower, are under the percentage basis of rates with respect to traffic to and from points east of Buffalo and Pittsburgh. St. Cloud, Minn., v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C, 346. Carriers ordered to cease charging higher rates from various points for the shorter haul to St. Cloud, Minn., than for the longer haul to St. Paul, Minn., on the ground that this practice constitutes a violation of section 4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Not reported. C. C. D. Minn. Commission's order held to be valid, carriers consenting to issuance of injunction enforcing compliance with such order. (Senate Hearings, Committee on Interstate Commerce, 1904-5, vol. 5, p. 324-325.) Cited: Danville v. Sou. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 425, 426, 429, 430. In 4th section violations the question of competition is one of fact arising upon the whole situation. The interest of the producing mar- ket, the consuming market, and the carriers should be considered and upon the whole will it be determined whether there is such a dissimi- larity of circumstances and conditions as justifies the rates in question. St. John & Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-449), 29 I. C. C, 723. St. Joseph & Grand Island Ry. Co., Charles H. Johnson v., 9 I. C. C, 221. 872 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE i St. Joseph & Grand Island Ry. Co., Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 317. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute R. R. Co., Hezel Milling Co. v., S I. C. C, 57. St. Louis & North Arkansas R. R. Company, R. R. Commission of the State of Arkansas v., 12 I. C. C, 233. See R. R. Com. of the State of Ark. v. St. L. & N. Ark. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Acme Cement Plaster Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 376. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Acme Cement Plaster Co. v., 22 I. C. C. 283. See Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Advance Elevator & Warehouse Co. et al. v., 20 I. C. C, 656. St. Louis & San Francisco R,. R. Co., Alexander v., 24 I. C. C, 253. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., Alleged Violations of the Act to Regu- late Commerce by, 8 I. C. C, 290. Cited: Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 I. C. C, 167. Through routes to certain points may be indicated by the presence of through routes to other points on the same line, although carrier may not have intended such result. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., American Land Timber & Stave Co. v. (5718), 28 I. C. C, 717. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., American Refining Co. v., 30 I. C. C, 103. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., American Warehouse Co. v. (U. R. A-103), 27 I. C. C, 707. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Anderson, Clayton & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 12. See Anderson, Clayton Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Anderson-Tully Co. v. (6169), 29 I. C. C, 713. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., Anthony Salt Co. v., 5 I. C. C, 299. See Anthony Salt Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 873 St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Arkansas Fruit Co. v. (U. R. A-304). 28 I. C. C, 728. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Armour Car Lines v., 17 I. C. C, 620. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. et al., Beekman Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 270. See Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Benton Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 665. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Blodgett v. (1731), 14 I. C. C, 642. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Board of Improvement Waterworks District No. 1, Fort Smith, Ark., v., 26 I. C. C, 541. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business men's League of St. Louis v. A.. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., J. W. Cary v., 7 I. C. C, 286. See Cary v. Eureka Springs Ry. Co. -St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Chestnut-Gibbons Grocer Co. v. (U. R. A-586) t 30 I. C. C, 721. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Chicago Live Stock Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co! St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 498. See Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 101. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., Colo, Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. 874 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Counsil, O. W., v., 16 I. C. C 188. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Cox Bros, v., 14 I. C. C, 464. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Disher Hoop & Lumber Co. v., 26 I. C, C, 488. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. (U. R. A-672), 30 I. C. C, 733. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. et al., Dueber Watch Case Manufactur- ing Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 675. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 37. See East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., East St Louis Cotton Oil Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 2, 588. See East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co. v, S. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 141. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Fine v. (6431), 30 I. C. C, 714. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Forester Hall Box Co. v. (1396). 13 I. C. C, 684. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Fort Scott Industrial Asso. v., 29 I. C. C, 629. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Fort Scott Sorghum Syrup Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 669. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Forth Smith Traffic Bureau v. (1311), 13 I. C. C, 682. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Fort Smith Traffic Bureau v., 13 I. C. C. 651. See Fort Smith Traffic Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., Charles G. Freeman v., 7 I. C. C, 202. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Frick-Reid Supply Co. v. (1629) 14 I C. C, 640. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 629. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 876 St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 114. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 668. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 672. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Gulf Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-447), 29 I. C. C, 723. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Hafey, C. J., v., IS I. C. C, 245. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Hall Lumber Co. v. (6226), 28 I. C. C, 721. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Hastings Co. v. (U. R. A-399), 28 I. C. C, 740. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Henning v. (U. R. A-141), 27 I. C. C, 712. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 342. See Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Hydraulic-Press Brick Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 532, 554. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Ingham Lumber Co. v. (1513), 14 I. C. C, 637. "v St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Investigation, 29 I. C. C, 139. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Ireland & Rollings v., 22 I. C. C, 590. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Johnston v., 12 I. C. C, 73. See Johnston v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 568. See Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Jones v., 12 I. C. C, 144. See Jones v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Company, Kansas City Hay Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 631. See Kansas City Hay Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 876 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Keich, F. Manufacturing Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 230. St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co., Laclede-Christy Clay Products Co. v. (U. R. A-10S), 27 I. C. C, 707. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Company, Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. (1076), (1077), (1107), 12 I. C. C, 588. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 148. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 37. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v., (1081), IS I. C. C, 37, 637. See Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Learned-Haynes Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 622. St, Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Lehman-Higginson Grocer Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 460. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Leonard Coal Co. v. (1207), 12 I. C. C, 589. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Long & Co. v. (U. R. A-486), 29 I. C. C, 728. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., McGregor-Noe-W Hardware Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 466. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., McKeen Motor Car Co. v. (6120), 29 I. C. C, 713. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Marshall & Michel Grain Co. v., 16 I. C. C. 385. See Marshall & Michel Grain Co.. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Marshall & Michel Grain Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 228. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 534. See Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Kans., v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 877 St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, SS8. See Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Kans.. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 17 I. C. C. 621. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. et al., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 21 1. -C. C, 113. See Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 22 I. C. C, 548. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 24 I. C. C, 602. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Memphis Grain & Hay Asso. v., 24 I. C. C, 609. See Memphis Grain & Hay Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Milliken Refining Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 445. See Milliken Refining Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Milne, R., v. (1104), 15 I. C. C, 637. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Missouri & Kansas Shippers' Asso. v., 13 I. C. C, 620. See Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Missouri Valley Banana Dealers' Asso. v., 13 I. C. C, 620. See Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Muskogee Wholesale Grocer Co. v. (U. R. A-577), 30 I. C. C, 720. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Norris v., 25 I. C-G, 416. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., National Zinc Co. v., 18 I. C. G, 609. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Noble, William K., v., 16 I. C. G, 186. 878 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., North Brothers v., 13 I. C. C, 152. See North Bros. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Ocheltree Grain Co. v., 13 I. C. G, 46. See Ocheltree Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 132. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Ozark Fruit Growers' Asso. v., 16 I. C. Co 106, 134, 153. See Ozark Fruit Growers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Paola Refining Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 605. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Paola Refining Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 606. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Penrod Walnut & Veneer Co. v. (1697). 14 I. C. C, 641. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., H. B. Pitts & Son v., 10 I. C. C, 684.. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Porter et al. v., 15 I. C. C, 1. See Porter v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Rainey & Rogers v., 18 I. C. C, 88. See Rainey & Rogers v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Rees & Wagner v. (U. R. A-358). 28 I. C. C, 735. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Republic Flour Mills Co. v. (5878), 28 I. C. C, 719. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., George Rice v., 5 I. C. C, 193. See Rice v. Cinn., Wash. & Bait. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Richardson Lubricating Co. v 22 I C C, 657. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Riverside Mills v., 24 I. C. C, 264. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., San Bernardino Board of Trade v 4 i C, 104. See San Bernardino Board of Trade v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 879 St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Sligo Iron Store Co. v., 28 I. C.C., 616. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Smith, Perry C, Grain Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 666. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Southwestern Millers League v., 26 I. C. C, 245. See Southwestern Millers League v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Southwestern Missouri Millers Club v., 29 I. C. C, 28. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Sperr Hardware Co. v. (U. R. A-217), 27 I. C. C, 723. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Springfield Traffic Bureau of the Job- bers & Mfrs. Asso. v., 29 I. C. C, 600. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Stark v. (1133), 29 I. C. C, 707. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Sunderland Bros. Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 545. See Sunderland Bros. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Texas Cement Plaster Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 68. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Texas Cement & Plaster Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 508. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Texas Cement & Plaster Co. v. (874). 12 I. C. C, 584. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v., 13 I. C. C, 620. See Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. ,& S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis v., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Traffic Bureau, Merchants Exchange of St. Louis v., 22 I. C. G, 496. See Traffic Bureau, etc.. of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Transportation Bureau of Wichita, Kans., v., 23 I. C. C, 679, 682. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Transportation Bureau of Wichita, Kans., v. (4290, 4294), 29 I. C. C, 709. 880 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., United States Gypsum Co. v. (U. R. A- 310), 28 I. C. C, 729. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., U. S. Gypsum Co. v. (5556), 29 I. C. C, 711. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Cp. et al., Vail, Aaron T., v., 21 I. C. C, 667. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 5. See Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Von Behren Mfg. Co. v. (U. R. A- 173), 27 I. C. C, 717. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Wellington v., 13 I. C. C, 534. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., White Bros, v., 17 I. C. C, 627. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Wichita Business Asso. Traffic Bureau v., 25 I. C. C, 712. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., Wills & Botts v. (1105), 15 I. C. C, 637. St. Louts & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., Winterbotham, J. H. & Sons, Inc., v., 21 I. C. C. 266. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al:, Wolter, Fred, v., 18 I. C. C, 619. St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Ry. Co., George M. Jackson v., 1 I. C. C, 184. St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. C. & O. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 360. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. C. & O. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 183. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 355. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. P. & L. E. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 360. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. Virginian Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 215. Carriers ordered to pay to complainant a certain sum of money as reparation for charging an unreasonable' rate on coke from Deepwater, W. Va., to Carondelet, Mo. Southern Ry. Co. v. United States. 193 Fed. 664; 1 Com. Ct. 305. December 5, 1911. Commerce Court No. 44, Hunt, J. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 881 Authority conferred by Congress upon the Commerce Court to sus- pend or annul "any order." Southern Ry. Co. v. United States. Not reported. January 23, 1912. Commerce Court No. 44. Case dismissed on motion of petitioners. Cited : St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. Virginian Ry. Co. et al., 24 I. C. C, 362. The original case was an award of reparation on ground of unrea- onable rates charged for the transportation of the shipments involved. An appeal was taken to Commerce Court, where it was dismissed, thereupon a petition to rehear was made to Commission which was granted. Cited : St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 3S7. Practically same situation involved as in cited case. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 360. Followed : St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 183. Cited : St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 357. Rates on coke from Page and Eagle, W. Va., to Carondelet, Mo., considered. St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 183. Cited : St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 357. Rates on coke of $2.90 per net ton from Page, W. Va., and $2.80 per net ton from Eagle, W. Va., to Carondelet, Mo., held not unlawful. St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico R. R. Co., Kibbe v., 25 I. C. C„ 661. St. Louis Business Men's League v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 669. St. Louis Coffee Importers Traffic Asso. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 484. St. Louis Cotton Exchange v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (5677), 28 I. C. C, 716. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 111. C. C, 82. Cited: Joynes v. Pa. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 372. Reparation awarded for discrimnation. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co., Illinois Central R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 486. Cited: Kehoe & Co. v. 111. Cen. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 543. 882 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Nor is it unlawful for the defendants to maintain reconsignment rates which are higher in some cases than their proportion of through rates. The service of the carriers in handling reconsigned hay is more expensive as a general rule, if not invariably, than the service per- formed in cases of through shipment, while the reconsignment privleges in question must be of substantial value to the dealers in East St. Louis. St Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 90. Carriers ordered to discontinue their practice of charging 2 cents per 100 pounds as a reconsignment charge on hay at East St. Louis, 111., on the ground that such charge is unreasonable to the extent that it exceeds 1 cent per 100 pounds, the cost of rendering the service. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Southern Ry. 149 Fed. 609. June 25, 1906. C. C. E. D. 111. Wright, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Damages awarded on basis of Commission's award of reparation. Southern Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. 153 Fed. 728. April 16, 1907. C. C. A. 7th Cir. Baker, J. Commission's order held valid. Judgment of lower court sustained. Southern Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. 214 U. S. 297. June 1, 1909. Brewer, J. Commission's order held invalid on ground that carriers are entitled to a reasonable profit over and above the cost of rendering an extra and additional service. Judgment of both lower courts reversed with directions to remand the matter to the Commission for further investi- gation and report. Quoted: St. Louis H. & G. Co. v. 111. Cen. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 493. "It is well understood that a through rate may properly be less than the sum of the locals to and from a divisional point. The mere fact, therefore, that these defendants make in connection with northern lines a joint rate on hay from points of production to points of con- sumption through East St. Louis which is less than the rate into that point added to the rate out does not establish the illegality of any of the rates involved." Cited: Quimby et al. v. Maine Central Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 248. Prior to amendment of June 29, 1906, it was held that the stopping of a commodity in transit for treatment or reconsignment was in the nature of a special privilege which the carriers might concede, though the shipper could not under the law as it then stood, demand as a matter of lawful right. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 883 Cited: Schmidt & Sons v. M. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 534. Cited: Detroit Traffic Assa. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 264. Cited: Spiegle v. S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 76. Found that the cost to the carriers of the reconsigning service at East St. Louis did not exceed 1 cent per 100 pounds and this was made basis of award of reparation. In 214 U. S. 297 this was reversed and held carriers were entitled to a profit on the service performed here as well as on transportation proper. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C„ 533. See St. Louis Hay & Grain. Co. v. M. & O. R. R. Co. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 607. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 533. Cited: Spiegle v. S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 77. Following the Supreme Court in 214 U. S., 297, the Commission allowed IK cents per 100 pounds yielding upon minimum of 20,000 pounds, $3 per car for stopping hay at warehouse and grading and sending forward. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., American Hardwood Lumber Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 673. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Anderson-Tully Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 713. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 266, 645. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Arkansas Short Leaf Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-435), 29 I. C. C, 721. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Atchison v., 22 I. C. C, 131. See Atchison v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Baker & McDowell Hardware Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 717. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Barnes Grocer Co. v. (U. R. A-283), 28 I. C. C, 725. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Barton-Reisinger-Davis Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 222. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Bayne v., 26 I. C. C, 720. 884 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis, Iron Mountain & So. Ry. Co., Beekman Lumber Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 274. See Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southwestern Ry. Co., Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 721. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Block-Pollak Iron Co. v., , 22 I. C. C, 662. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Bluff City Oil Company v., 16 I. C. C, 296. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 668. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 712. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Brook-Rauch Mill & Elevator Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 6S1. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Brook-Rauch Mill & Elevator Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 249. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Brook-Rauch Mill & Elevator Co. v. (4486), 28 I. C. C, 711. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T.. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Carpenter v., 22 I. C. C, 671. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Carpenter v. (U. R. A-520), 29 I. C. C, 733. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M.. K. & T. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Chanute Refining Co. v. (1543), 14 I. C. C. 638. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Company, Coggins & Co. v. (1681), 14 I. C. C, 641. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Craig Commission Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 727. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Davis v., 24 I. C. C. 309. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 885 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 295. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 141. . See Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Fathauer, Theo. Co. v., 18 1. C.C., 517. See Fathauer Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Ferguson, C. E. Saw Mill Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 391, 396. See Ferguson Sawmill Co. v. St. L., I. M. fij S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Ferguson Saw-mill Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 229. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & So. Ry. Co., Charles G. Freeman v., 7 I. C. C, 202. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Freeman Lumber Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 348. See Freeman Lumber Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Freeman Lumber Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 612. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Gamble-Robinson Commis- sion Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 138. See Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Goedde & Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 655. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Green River Lumber Co. v. (6455), 30 I. C. O, 714. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Company, Griffin H. Reeves Lum- ber Co. v. (1730), 14 I. C. C, 642. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Imperial Wheel Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 56. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Jarratt & Son v. (1238), 14 I. C. C, 635. 886 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Johnson & Hunt v., 24 I. C. C, 648. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Kennedy & Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 716. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Jeffris & Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 709. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Leavitt Land & Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A- 174), 27 I. C. G, 717. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Lehman-Higginson Grocer Co. v., 10 I. C. G. 460. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Lemore & Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 714. St. Louis Iron Mountain Ry. Co., Lesser-Goldman Cotton Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 496. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Lipe v. (U. R. A-562), 30 I. C. C, 719. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Little Rock Chamber of Commerce" v., 25 I. C. C, 709. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Little Rock Chamber of Commerce v., 26 I. C. C, 341. See Little Rock Chamber of Commerce v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Little Rock Cotton Oil Mill v., 21 I. C. C, 668. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Lon,e Star Brewing Co. v. (U. R. A.-531), 29 I. C. C, 734. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Manufacturers' Ry. Co. et al. v., 21 I. C. C, 304. See Manufacturers' Ry. Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Mfrs.' Ry Co v 28 I C C, 93. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Memphis Freight Bu- reau v., 22 I. C. C, 548. * See Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 887 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 24 I. C. C, 547. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Merchants' Freight Bu- reau of Little Rock, Ark., v., 18 I. C. C, 609. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock v., 26 I. C. C, 341. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock, Ark., for Mt. Olive Stave Co. v. (5935), 28 I. C. C, 720. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock v. (U. R. A-633), 30 I. C. C, 728. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Miller & Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 717. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Mixon-McClintock Co. v., 25 I. C. G, 8. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & So. Ry. Co., Monroe Progressive League v., 15 I. C. G, 534. See Monroe Progressive League v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co.' St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., J. W. Moran & Son v., 11 I. C. C, 598. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., National Lumber Exporters' Asso. v., 28 I. C. C, 215. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., National Refrigerator & Butchers Supply Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 524. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., New Roads Oil Mill & Mfg. Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 167. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Transportation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & So. Ry. Co., Parlin & Orendorff Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 145. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 335. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Pouncey Paving & Const. Co. v. (5936), 29 I. C. C, 712. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Producers' Pipe Line Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 186. See Producers' Pipe Line Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 888 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., R. R. Commission of Arkan- sas v., 24 I. C. C, 292. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Refuge Cotton Oil Co. v., 27 I. C. G, 117. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Reynolds, Davis & Co. v., 23 I. C. G, 713. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., George Rice v., 1 I. C. C, 503. See Rice v. L. & N. R. R. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., George Rice v., 4 I. C. C, 228. See Rice v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis & Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 665. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et aL, Sawyer & Austin Lum- ber Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 141. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Sawyer & Austin Lum- ber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 464. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Sawyer & Austin Lum- ber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 685. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-481), 29 I. C. C, 727. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Smith, B. E., v., 16 I. C. C, 335. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Stewart-Greer Lumber Co. v> 29 I. C. C. 120. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Street & Graves v., 24 I. C. C, 724. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & So. Ry. Co., Superior Refining Co. v. (1546), 15 I. C. C, 638. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Texarkana Freight Bureau v., 28 I. C. C, 569. See Texarkana Freight Bu. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & So. Ry. Co., Venus, D. M., v., 15 I. C. C, 136. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 889 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Virginia- Carolina Chem- ical Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 1. See Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Weaks Iron Works & Supply Co. v. (U. R. A-201), 27 I. C. C, 721. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., Wells-Higman Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 17S. See Wells-Higman Co. v.' St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Wells-Higman Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 288. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Wheeler Lumber Bridge & Supply Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 514. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Wichita Wholesale Furni- ture Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 107. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., Willman & Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 405. See Willman & Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern R. R. Co., A. J. Gustin v., 8 I. C. C. 277. See Gustin v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. St. Louis Lumbermen's Exchange v. A. & S. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 220. See Lumbermen's Ex. of St. L. v. A. & S. R. R. R. Co. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Ry. Co., American Type Founders Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 709. St. Louis Merchants' Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 700. St. Louis Millers' Association, In re, 1 I. C. C, 20. Cited: The Penn. Co. v. Lou., New A. & Chi. Ry. Co., 3 I. C. C, 224. The Commission does not give opinions on abstract questions. St. Louis, San Francisco & Tex. Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 1. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southern Ry. Co., Ault & Jackson Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 602. 890 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis Southern Ry. Co., Edwards, E. L., v., 19 I. C. C, 602. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., Abeles, Charles T. Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 668. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., Advance Lumber Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 33S. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., American Well & Prospecting Co. v. (5744), 29 I. C. C, 712. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Athens Fire Brick Co. v. (5525), 29 I. C. C, 711. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Beekman Lumber Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 532. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Celina Mill & Elevator Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 138. See Celina Mill & Elevator Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Charles G. Freeman v., 7 I. C. C, 202. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Condie-Neale Glass Co. v. (U. R. A-192), 27 I. C. C, 720. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Headington & Hedenbergh v., 24 T. C. C, 721. St. Louis South Western Ry. Co., Keller, Gus C, v., 21 I. C. C, 488. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Kennedy & Co. v., 22 I. C. C. 277. See Kennedy & Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Lee v., 29 I. C. C, 101. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., Littell, T. B., v., 18 I. C. C, 187. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, Lufkin Land & Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 725. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Tex., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 18 I. C. C, 67. See Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 891 St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 20 I. C. C, 33. See Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Memphis Freight Bureau v., 22 I. C. C, 537. See Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Mercantile Lumber & Supply Co. v., 28 1. C. C, 701. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., New Orleans Board of Trade v. (1318), 13 I. C. C, 682. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., Noble, William K., v., 20 I. C. C, 62. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Piano Milling Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 360. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v., IS I. C. C. 532. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., R. R. Com. of Louisiana v., 23 I. C. C, 31. See R. R. Com. of La. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., George Rice v., 5 I. C. C, 660. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, George Rice v., 5 I. C. C, 660. St. Louis South Western Ry. Co. et al., Samuels, S. & Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 646. See Samuels & Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Southwestern Missouri Millers' Club v., 26 I. C. C, 245, 630. See Southwestern Millers' League v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Stock Yards Cotton & Linseed Meal Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 530. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v., 16 T. C. C, 49. See Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., Welisch & Co. v. (U. R. A-423), 29 I. C. C, 720. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas et al., East St. Louis Walnut Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 582. 892 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, Hancock Bros. Fruit Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 711. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Tex., Lufkin Land & Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-455), 29 I. C. C, 724. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas, Waco Freight Bureau v., 24 I. C. C, 717. St. Louis, Springfield & Peoria R. R., P. & P. U. R. Co., v., 26 I. C. C, 226. Cited: Waverly Oil Works Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 628. There is nothing sacred about the terminals of a railroad. They are available to the public and may be regulated by the public in exactly the same way that any other part of a railroad can be. St. Louis, Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 510, SSI. See Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. St. Louis Traffic Bureau of Merchants' Exchange v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. St. Louis, Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of, v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, SSI. See Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. St. Louis Traffic Bureau of Merchants' Exchange v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. St. Louis, Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of, v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. St. Louis Traffic Bureau of Merchants' Exchange v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. St. Louis, Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of, v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 317, 551. St. Louis Traffic Bureau of Merchants' Exchange v. M. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. See Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. St. Louis, Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of, v. St. Louis & San Fran- cisco R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. St. Louis Traffic Bureau of Merchants' Exchange v. St. L. & S. F. R Co 22 I. C. C, 496. See Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 893 St. Louis, Watkins & Gulf Ry. Co. et al. Industrial Lumber Co. v., 19 I. C. c, SO. St. Matthews Produce Exchange (Inc\) v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (S870), 28 I. C. C, 719. St. Paul & Des Moines R. R. Co., Brown-Camp Hardware Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 606. St. Paul & Duluth R. R. Co., Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis v., S I. C. C, 571. See Chamber of Com. of Minneapolis v. Gt. No. Ry. Co. St. Paul & Puget Sound Accounts, 29 I. C. C, 508. St. Paul Board of Trade v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 596. St. Paul Board of Trade et al. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 285. Quoted: Red River Oil Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 444. An attempt to connect outbound interstate movements with inbound movements to a concentrating point under rates not on file with t'he Commission is unlawful. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba R. R. Co., Wm. M. Holbrook v., 1 I. C. C, 102. See Holbrook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba R. R. Co. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co., E. M. Raworth v., 5 I. C. C, 234. See Raworth v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. St. Paul Union Stock Yards Company of St. Paul, Interveners in Chicago Live Stock Ex., v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. St. Regis Paper Co. et al. v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 671. St. Regis Paper Co. et al. v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 675. Salem, Winona & Southern R. R. Co., Payson-Smith Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 715. 894 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Salina Produce Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-4S2), 29 I. C. C, 724. Salles & Chicorp v. S. P. Co. (U. R. A-216), 27 I. C. C, 723. Sallisaw Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 665. Salomon Bros. & Co. v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 332. Salt Lake, Utah, Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 218. See Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau, of Salt Lake City, Utah, v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Salt Lake City, Utah, Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 400. See Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau, Salt Lake City, v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Salt Lake Glass & Paint Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-357), 28 I. C. C, 735. Salt Rates to Louisiana Points (U. R. A-614), 30 I. C. C. 725. Salt Rates from Wisconsin to Iowa, 27 I. C. C, 526. Samuels, S. & Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 646. Cited: Mercantile L. & S. Co. v. St. L., S. W. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 702. Where an initial carrier refuses to route a shipment via a route selected by the shipper because no through rate is published via such route and forwards it via another route in connection with which there was likewise no published rate, and the charges via such route are found to be unreasonable in the amount they exceed a subsequently established rate via other routes, damages will be assessed accordingly against such carrier. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., Buffalo Cold Storage Co. v. (U. R. A-393), 28 I. C. C, 740. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., Eastern States Refrigerating Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 724. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 895 San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I C C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., Keich Manufacturing Co. v. (1424), 13 I. C. C, 684. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., Noble v. (U. R. A-677). 30 I. C. C, 734. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co., United States Packing Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 723. San Antonio & Gulf R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 104. Carriers ordered to cease charging the existing rate on various arti- cles from the Missouri River and points farther east, which are higher for the shorter haul to San Bernardino, Cal., than for the longer haul to Los Angeles, Cal., on the ground that such rates are in violation of Section 4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. 50 Fed., 295. April 25, 1892. C. C. S. D. Cal. Ross, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that the pres- ence of water competition and competition between carriers subject to the act at the farther-distance point justifies the existing rate adjust- ment. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fc Ry. Co. 149 U. S., 264. May 1, 1893. Fuller, C. J. Appeal dismissed on the ground that the case should have been taken to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Not reported. C. C. A. 9th Cir. Case abandoned after appeal was taken. 896 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : Brewer & Hanleiter v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 235. Water competition which would create dissimilar circumstances un- der Section 4 must be actual competition which is of controlling force, in respect to traffic important in amount. Cited: Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, D. & N. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 270. The fact that the Commission has not heretofore expressed an opinion on the legality of certain circulars which have been filed with it does not raise any presumption of approval by the Commission of the rules and regulations set forth therein. Cited : Holdzkom v. Mich. Cen. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, SO. Rates to San Bernardino to be no higher than to Los Angeles. Cited: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. The fact of water competition is a compelling factor in transconti- nental rates found. San Francisco & San Joaquin Valley Ry. Co., Shippers' Union of Phoenix v., 9 I. C. C, 250. See Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. San Francisco Chamber of Commerce v. Pa. R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. San Francisco Merchants' Exchange, Traffic Bureau, v. Southern Pacific Co., 19 I. C. C, 259. See Traffic Bureau of the Merchants' Exchange of San Francisco v. S. P. Co. San Francisco News Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 700. San Francisco News Co. v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 700. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Consolidated Water Power & Paper Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 169. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co., Goldfield Cons. Mines Co. v. (U. R. A-379),28 I.C. C, 737. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co., In re Free Transportation of Property by and on the Lines of (1561), 14 I. C. C, 639. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co., National Lumber Co. v., 15 I. C. C„ 434. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt .Lake R. R. Co. et al., Overell, J. M., v., 17 I. C. C, 612. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 897 San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pacific Purchasing Co. v., 17 I. C. G, 72. s See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. San Pedro Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pacific Purchasing Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 609. B San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pease Bros. Furni- ture Co. v., 17 I. C. C,. 223. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pease Bros. Furniture San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pease Bros. Furnrture Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 611. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pease Bros. Furniture Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 612. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Pease Bros. Furniture Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 613. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al., Southern California Sugar Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 6. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co., Woodward-Bennett Co v 29 I. C. C, 664. Sander-Newell v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C., 720. Saner-Whiteman Lumber Co. v. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. et al 17 I. C. C, 290. Sanford, Charles A., v. Wells, Fargo & Co. et al., 16 I. C. G, 32. Sanford, Charles A., v. Western Express Co., 16 I. C. C, 32. Sanford & St. Petersburg R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Trans- portation of Vegetables v., 8 I. C. G, 585. Sanger, Major J. P., v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 I. C. C, 134. Sangujnetti, E. F., v. I. C. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 185. Sanguinetti, E. F., v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C, 711. Santa Ana, California, Chamber of Commerce, Interveners in Business Men's League of St. Louis, v. Atchison, Tbpeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 898 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Santa Fe Central Ry. Co., Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. (922), 12 I. C. C, 58S. Santa Fe Pacific R. R. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Santa Fe Pacific Ry. Co., Consolidated Forwarding Co. v., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Santa Fe Pacific Ry. Co., Consolidated Forwarding Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern: Pacific Co. r Santa Fe Pacific Ry. Co., Southern California Fruit Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Santa Fe Pacific Ry. Co., Southern California Fruit Exchange v., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Santa Fe Pacific R. R. Co., Shippers' Union of Phoenix v., 9 I. C. C, 250. See Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry. Co. et al., Maricopa County Commercial Club v., 19 I. C. C, 257. See Maricopa County Commercial Club v. S. F. P. & P. Ry. Co. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry. Co. et al., Maricopa County Commercial Club v., 21 I. C. C, 329. See Maricopa County Commercial Club v. S. F. P. & P. Ry. Co. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry. Co., Maricopa Co. Com. Club v., 22 I. C. C, 216. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry. Co., Maricopa County Commercial Club v., 23 I. C. C, 456. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Ry. Co., Shippers* Union of Phoenix v., 9 I. C. C, 250. See Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Santa Fe Refrigerator Despatch Co. et al., California Fruit Growers' Ex- change v., 17 I. C. C, 404. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 899 Santa Monica, City of, California, v. Southern Pacific Co et al 19 I C C, 606. Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, .46. Cited: Beach v. A. A. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 412. As between communities similarly situated a discrimination in rates can not be justified merely on the ground of difference in the amount of traffic to the different points. Reaffirmed: Beach v. A. A. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 65. Rehearing. Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v. S. P. Co., 29 I. C. G, 65. Saratoga & Encampment Ry. Co., Jenson v. (U. R. A-385), 28 I. C. C, 739. Saunders, E. E. & Co. v. Southern Express Co., 18 I. C. C, 415. Cited: R. R. Com. of La. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 49. Fish rates from Mobile as compared with those from Pensacola to certain points in Alabama considered. Cited: Trier v. C, St. P., M.& O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 708. A State-made rate while entitled to respectful consideration has no greater sanctity, as applied to interstate traffic, than a rate established by a railroad and if a rate so established appears to be unjust to either carrier or shipper, it will not be accepted as a basis for fixing an inter- state rate. Savannah, Americus & Montgomery Ry. Co., Cordele Machine Shop v., 6 I. C. C, 361. See Cordele Machine Shop v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Savannah, Americus & Montgomery Ry. Co., S. J. Hill & Bro. v., 6 I. C. C, 343. See Hill, S. J. & Bro. v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co. Savannah Bu. of Freight & Trans, v. Charleston & Savannah Ry. Co., 7 I. C. G, 458. Followed: Dallas Ft. Bureau v. Texas & P. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 46. Cited: Geo. Tileston Mill. Co. v. Northern P. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 360. Competition between carriers subject to Act may be -considered as changing circumstances and conditions under 4th Section cases. 900 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Savannah Bu. of Freight & Trans, v. Charleston & Savannah Ry. Co., 7 I. C. C, 601. Cited: Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 34. Cited: Artz v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 11 I. C. C, 462. Cited: Brabham v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 474. Cited: Coffeyville Brick & Tile Co. v. St. L. & S. Fran. R. Co., 12 I. C, 499. Cited: Montgomery Frt. Bureau v. W. Ry. of Ala., 14 I. C. C, 151. Cited: Corn Belt Meat Producers' Asso. v. C, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 385. Cited: Kurtz v. Penn. Co., 16 I. C. C, 412. Cited: Trier v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 355. In two passenger cases, of which this is one, the Commission ap- proved through interstate fares that were higher than the combination of locals made effective by the States. Quoted: Trier v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 708. The maximum passenger rates fixed by South Carolina and Georgia are presumptively just and reasonable, and without justifying circum- stances the through passenger fare should not exceed the sum of such State rates laid consecutively over the interstate distance.'' Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transportation v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 377.' Cited : Warren-Ehret Co. v. Cen. R. of N. J., 8 I. C. C, 604. When an unlawful rate results from some arbitrary share or divi- sion exacted by one of the carriers, the Commission will find the facts and state its conclusions with respect to such share or division. Cited: City Gas Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 381. Where there is no difference in cost or other valid traffic reason, the preference of the carrier not to compete for certain business and make a fate so high in relation to other rates that a certain locality cannot use its tracks — such preference becomes unlawful. Cited: R. R. Com. of La. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 34. A carrier may not impose an unreasonably high local rate upon, any community because of the advantages that it properly enjoyed for securing low inbound rates. Savannah, Fla. & Western RyJ Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Trans- portation of Vegetables v., 8 I. C. C, 585. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C - L ;..'■. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala.. Midland Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 901 Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v. 6 I C C, 19S. ' • • See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville. New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Cham- ber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 19S. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co., Mayor and Council of Tifton, Ga., v., 9 I. C. ,C, 160. See Mayor and Council of Tifton, Ga., v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry., R. R. Com. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13, 136. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., Charles P. Perry v., 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C, 120. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co., Savannah Bu. of Freight & Trans, v., 7 I. C. C, 601. See Savannah Bui of Freight & Trans, v. Charleston & Savannah Ry. Co. Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co., Savannah Bureau of Freight & Trans- portation v., 8 I. C. C, 377. See Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transportation v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Savery, James C. & Co. v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 338. Cited and distinguished: Charles Elvey v. 111. Cen. R. Co., 3 I... C. C, 6SS. Rates on "immigrants" and their baggage and the transportation facilities furnished were only considered; no claim was made that house- hold, goods of immigrants should move at less rates. Such less rates held discriminatory. Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 141. 902 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 464. Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 21 1. C. C, 685. Sawyer & Austin Lumber Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-481), 29 I. c. c, m. Sayles, F. C, v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 492. Scandinavian American Trading Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-388), 28 I. C. C, 739. Scattergood & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-412), 29 I. C. C, 715, 718. Scattergood & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (.6473), 30 I. C. C, 714. Scattergood & Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-511), 29 I. C. C, 731. Schaller v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-376), 28 I. C. C, 737. Scheidel, W. & Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C, 532. Schenk v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 29 L C. C, 125. Schermerhorn Bros. Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-467), 29 I. C. C, 726. Scheuing, W. J., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 550. Schlitz, J. Brewing Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 713. Schlitz, Joseph Brewing Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 676. Schlitz, Joseph Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 359. Cited and affirmed: Re Rates on Empty Beer Packages, Returned, 26 I. C. C, 5. The present proceeding instituted to reconsider the matter pre- sented formerly by several complaints. Schlitz, Joseph Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 628. Schlitz, Joseph Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 630. Schlitz, Joseph Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. 17 1 C. C, 630. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 903 Schlitz, Jos. Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 584. Schlitz, Joseph Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C. 676. Schloss & Kahn v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (6161), 28 I. C. C, 721. Schmidt & Peters, Inc., v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 376. Schmidt, Traugott & Sons v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, S3S. Cited: Johnson & Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 639. A carrier can not be charged with giving preference or advantage to a community which it does not serve; nor be charged with subjecting such community to prejudice or disadvantage. Cited: In re Transportation of Wool, Hides and Pelts, 23 I. C. C, 163. The rate on wool, St. Louis-Boston, of 57j4 cents, and Chicago- Boston, 50 cents any quantity, the Chicago rates applying as a blanket from a considerable territory east sustained as reasonable in cited case. Distinguished: Chamber of Com., Newport News, v. S. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 352. The carrier in cited case did not participate in the through rate or serve t'he community with its own rails — here though the carriers do not reach Newport News with their own rails, they do control the rates and participate in its traffic. Cited : Chamber of Com., Newport News, v. S. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 685. Cited case was dismissed. Schmidt & Sons v. M. C. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 684. Cited: In re Wool, Hides and Pelts, 25 I. C. C, 192. Cited: Massachusetts-Maine Wool Rates, 28 I. C. C, 397. A minimum of 16,000 pounds on wool with third-class rate in terri- tory east of Mississippi River fixed in cited case. Cited: Rates on Potash and Other Commodities, 29 I. C. C, 628. The rates under consideration in present case are scaled on the per- centage principle which has long been in effect between the east and central freight association territory, which was approved in cited case. Cited : Ontario Iron Ore Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 570. Unless changed conditions are shown which justify or require a different conclusion, the decision reached in a former case cover the same situation practically, will control. 904 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Schmittle & Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co. (781), 12 I. C. C, 582. Schneider, G. H., v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. G, 658. Schonehofen, Peter Brewing Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 329. Schoenhofen, Peter Brewing Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 666. Schoenhofen, Peter Brewing Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 715. School Children's Commutation Tickets, In re, 17 I. C. C, 144. Schowalter & Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 214. See Haines v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. Schuette, William & Co. v. D. & I. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 718. Schultz-Hansen Co. y. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 234. Schulz, A. Geo. Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 403. Schulz, Joseph M. Chemical Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 620. Schumacher, F. Milling Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 61. Schuster Brewing Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 606. Schwager & Nettleton, Inc., v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 521. Schwager & Nettleton, Inc., v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. (1065), 12 I. C. C, 587. Scofield, William C, v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 2 I C C, 90. Cited: Del. State Grange, etc., v. N. Y., Phil. & N. R. R. Co, etc., 2 I. C. C, 313. Violation of common law duty or breach of contract obligation not within purview of the Act to regulate commerce, nor within jurisdiction of the Commissions Cited : In re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil, 2 I. C. C, 373. The cases before Commission are decided on the facts as presented in each case and without any purpose of making a deoision of general application. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 905 Cited: The Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 582. A carrier may not be able to supply all of its rolling stock from cars owned by it — but it must see to it that the rates charged when us- ing rolling stock obtained from others is no less than that charged when using its own cars. Cited and quoted : Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y. & Penn. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 145, 153, 154. "The shipper of oil in car-load lots in barrels pays for the full weight of the barrel in every instance as well as the oil, and furnishes the bar- rels himself, and if his barrels are hauled back to him he has to pay for that service as upon other freight. The inequalities of the transaction are very great and they are all on the side of the shipper of oil in tanks." ' Cited: Jacob Shamberg v. Del., Lack. & W. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 661. If a carrier undertakes to haul private cars of shippers it must be careful that their contracts do not become mere devices to evade the law. The purpose of the law is benign. It aims at justice, and is in- tolerant only of abuse, and as cannot be too often said, impartiality which is equality of treatment for those similarly situated with respect to the carrier, is the essence of justice. Quoted: Truck Farmers' Asso. v. Northeastern R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 317. "The duty of the carrier is obligatory at common law and by its charter to furnish an adequate car equipment for all the business it un- dertakes and advertises in its tariffs it will do. Quoted: California Com. Asso. v. Wells,. Fargo & Co., 14 I. C. C, 431. Reasons outlined for justification of lower rates on larger shipments than on smaller ones. Scott, William D., v. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 167. Scott-Mayer Commission Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 714. Scott-Mayer Commission Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-330), 28 I . C. C, 731. Scott-Mayer Commission Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 529. Scott Paper Co. v. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. G, 601. Scranton & Lehigh Coal Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-459), 29 I. C. C, 725. 906 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Scrap Iron, 28 I. C. C, 467, 525. See In re Advance, Scrap Iron Rates between Duluth, Minn., and Chicago, 111. Scudder, Raymond B., v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C. 60. Cited : Scudder, Raymond B., v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 22 I. C. C, 60. Assessment of demurrage charges when shipment moves in more ■than one car. Scudder, Raymond B., v. T. & P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 60. Scully Steel & Iron Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 622. Scully Steel & Iron Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (4884), 28 I. C. C, 712. Scully Steel & Iron Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 358. Scully Syrup Co. v. P. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-360), 28 I. C. C, 735. Seaboard Air Line, In the Matter of the Application of, 3 I. C. C, 649. Quoted: New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Piatt, 7 I. C. C, 335. "It is indispensably necessary in interstate traffic that the consent of each of several lines over which freight is to be carried should be had in the establishment and operation of what is called 'through rates.' Such rates are subject by agreement, and for their existence depend upon agreement." Seaboard Refining Co. v. A. G. S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 702. Seaboard Air Line Ry., A. L. Artz v., 11 I. C. C, 458. See Artz v. S. A. L. Ry. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Atlanta Journal Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 186. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Atlanta Journal Co. v. (4961), 29 I. C. C, 710. Seaboard Airline Ry., Board of Trade of Cheraws, S. C, v., 26 I. C. C, 364. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Camden Iron Works v. (U. R. A-508). 29 I. C. C, 731. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 108. See Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v. S. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 907 Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., A. H. Davenport v., 11 I. C. C, 650. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Florida Citrus Exchange v. (U. R. A-264), 28 I. C. C, 723. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al., Floridin Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 610. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Floridin Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 718. Seaboard Air Line Ry. et al., Gaines, J. Wesley et al. v., 16 I. C. C, 471. See Gaines v. S. A. L. Ry. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Homer Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-3S1), 28 I. C. C, 734. Seaboard Air Line Ry., T. M. Kehoe & Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 166. See Kehoe & Co. v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al., Manufacturers' Freight Department v., 21 I. C. C, 663. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Moore & Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 667. Seaboard Air Line Ry. et al., Oden & Elliott v., 19 I. C. C, 614. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Pons, F. J., v., 20 I. C. C, 668. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al., R. R. Commissioners of the State of Flor- ida v., 16 I. C. C, 1. Seaboard Air Line Ry., R. R. Com. of Florida v., 22 I. C. C, 11. See Fla. Fruit & Vegetable Shippers' Protective Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Ramsey- Wheeler Co. v. (U. R. A-S41), 29 I. C. C, 73S. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Randolph Lumber Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 601. See Randolph Lumber Co. v. S. A. L. Ry. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Randolph Lumber Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 338. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Richmond Chamber of Commerce v., 30 I. C. C, SS2. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Rock Hill Buggy Co. v., 11 I. C. C. 229. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. (1784), 14 I. C. C, 642. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al., Southern Cotton Oil Co. v., 20 I. C. C„ 671. 908 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Seaboard Air Line Ry., Sproles v. (U. R. A-416), 29 I. C. C, 719. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Sprunt, Alexander & Sons v., 18 I. C. C, 251. Seaboard Air Line Ry., H. H. Tift v., 10 I. C. C, 548. ' See Tift v. Southern Ry. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Veitch, R., v., 22 I. C. C, 4. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al., Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 623. Seaboard Air Line Ry., Williams & Shelton Co. v. (5342), 28 I. C. C, 714. Seaboard Air Line System, Wil., Tariff Asso., of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & V. R. R. Co. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al. Wood & Skilton v, 20 I. C. C, 657. Seaboard Air Line Ry, Wm. Wrigley, Jr., v, 10 I. C. C, 412. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co, Chicago Freight Bureau v, 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co, Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v, 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville. New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co, Charles P. Perry v, 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co, R. R. Com. of Fla. v, 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co, J. M. Rising v, 5 I. C. C, 120. Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co, Wil, Tariff Asso, of Wil, N. C, v, 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & V. R. R. Co. Seagull Specialty Co. v. B. S. P. Co, 27 I. C. C, 267. Sea Gull Specialty Co. v. B. S. P. Co. (U. R. A-619), 30 I. C. C, 726. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 909 Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 178. Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Transp. Bureau, v. G. N. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 683. Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Bureau, et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 265. See Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Bureau, v. N. P. Ry. Co. Seattle Chamber of Commerce Transportation Bureau et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 640. Seattle Frog & Switch Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 626. Seattle Shingle Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 364. Seavey, S. D., Trustee, v. G. N. R. Co. (U. R. A-210), 27 I. C. C, 722. Second Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 2 I. C. C, 398. Security Vault & Metal Works v. O.-W. R. & N. Co., 26 I. C. C, 717. Security Vault & Metal Works v. S. P. & A. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 711. Security Warehouse & Elevator Co. v. C. & A. R. Co. (U. R. A-221), 27 I. C. C, 724. Selfridge, Thomas O., v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 614. Separation of Operating Expenses, 30 I. C. C, 676. Serry, John J., v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 554. Followed: Boney & Harper Milling Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 389. Cited: Scott-Mayer Commission Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 531. It is not unlawful per se to make a proportional rate lower than a local rate and limit its application to traffic coming from a specified territory. Shadbolt & Boyd Iron Co. v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 630. Shannon Copper Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 604. 910 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Shaffer, J. C. & Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 8. Cited: Investigation and Suspension Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 608. Views of Commission on declared and invoice values. Shamberg, Jacob, v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 630. Cited: Milk Pro. Pro. Asso. v. Del., L. & W. R. Co., 7 I. C. C, 164. Extraordinary or unnecessary cost of operation or management can- not be permitted to cause unreasonable or unjust rates, discriminations, preferences or prejudices. Quoted: Muskogee Com. Club v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 318. When the ultimate thing done is unlawful, the steps for the purpose of its perpetration are equally unlawful. Quoted: Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 45. The geographical and physical conditions of the port of New York are such that lighterage or transfer of cars by floats is indispensable. All roads are obliged to do it, more or less, and it is done for all kinds of traffic and for shippers generally. It is simply a necessity of the situation, and doubtless an inconvenience and expense that all would be glad to avoid if possible. Shannon Copper Co. v. Southern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 605. Sharon v. C. V. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-532), 29 I. C. C, 734. Shaw v. R. R. R. Co. (5371), 30 I. C. C, 711. Shea Brothers v. T. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-558), 30 I. C. C, 718. Sheboygan Mineral Water Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 715. Sheboygan Mineral Water Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-371) 28 I C C, 736. Sheboygan Mineral Water Co. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al 18 I C C, 627. Sheboygan Mineral Water Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et al 18 I C C, 617. Sheeler v. N. J. & P. T. Co. (5160), 28 I. C. C, 713. Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co. (U. R A-630) 30 I C C, 727. " ' Sheip, Henry H. Mfg. Co. v. A. C. L. R. Co., 26 I. C. G, 178. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 911 Shelby County Washed Coal Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 714. Shelden, Willis E., v. G. T. W. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 722. Sheldon & Co. v. N. Y. C. & St. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-276), 28 I. C. C, 724. Sheldon & Co. v. N. Y. C. & St. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-501), 29 I. C. C, 730. Shenkberg, C. Co. v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 609. Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 638. Reaffirmed: Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 2S7. Cited: Hughes Creek Coal Co. v. K. & M. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 671, 678. Quoted: Omaha Grain Ex. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 30 I.'C. C, 577. The rates made by carriers from mines on its lines to market points on its lines taken as measure of reasonableness of rates to points on the line of connecting carriers. The fact that there is a two-line haul in one instance as against a one-line haul in the other given no weight, since there are no expensive terminals involved and no showing of material increase in transportation cost appears. Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 2S0. Sherman, Shreveport & Southern Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Shiel & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 210. Cited: Cady Lumber Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 13. The application retroactively of a reconsigning privilege even though it had long been the custom of the carriers to permit reconsignment without tariff authority will not be sanctioned. Shindler, D. D., v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 653. Shinn & Co. v. N. P. Co. (U. R. A-107), 27 I. C. C, 708. Ship & Son v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-557), 30 I. C. C, 718. Shippers' & Receivers' Bureau of Newark v. New York, Ontario & Western Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 264. Shippers Asso. of Bluefield v. N. & W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 519. See Bluefield Shippers Asso. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. Shippers Asso. of Fort Dodge v. C. G. & W. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. G, 76. Shippers Asso. of Fort Dodge v. C. G. W. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 539. Shippers' Protective Asso. of New York v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I- C. C, 437. 912 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE \ Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 250. Cited: Com. Club, etc., v. S. Pac. Co., 12 I. C. C, 497. Cited: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 384. Rates when made by carriers in the face of ocean competition are justifiable under the long and short haul clause of the act, and the extension of such rates to a community so situated as to be in a position to move its traffic by water or by rail is not such discrimination, as against communities not so situated, as falls within the condemnation of the law. Cited: Hardenberg, Dolson & Gray v. N. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 580. Where a certain point enjoys a compelled rate, for points inter- mediate it is the universal custom of carriers to give to such non-competi- tive point, a rate equivalent to the combination upon the point where competition is controlling. Cited: City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. The compelling force of water competition in controlling transconti- nental rates found. Shoal Creek Coal Co. v. T., St. L. & W. R. Co.," 27 I. C. C, 107. Shoecraft, S. & Son Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 492. Shoemaker, William D., v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 20 I. C. C, 614. Short Lines of R. R. Serving Industries, Allowances to, 29 I. C. C, 212. See Industrial Railways Case. Shortsville Wheel Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-387), 28 I. C C, 739. Shoupe, J. R. & Co. v. T. & B. V. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 570. Shreveport & Houston Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Shreveport & Red River Valley Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Shreveport Traffic Asso. v. Houston & Shreveport R. R. Co. (1670), 14 1 C C, 641. Shreveport Traffic Asso. v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co H687} 14 I. C. C, 641. u ; ' COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 913 Shults, D. W. & Co. v. K. & P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 723. Sibley v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. (1196), 13 I. C. C, 681. Sibley, Lake Bisteneau & S. Ry. Co., Beckman Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-119), 27 I. C. C., 709. Sibley, Lake Bisteneau & Southern Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Sidman, George D., v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 512. Sidway Mercantile Co. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 570. Sigel-Campion Live Stock Commission Co. v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 608. Signor, George W. Tie Co., Ltd., v. International & Great Northern R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. G, 615. Cited : Mercantile Lumber & Supply Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 702. The rate on ties should not exceed the rate on lumber of the same kind. Sikeston Mercantile Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R. et al., 19 I. C. C, 422. Sikeston Mercantile Co. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 719. Silver Springs, Md., Citizens v. W. R. & S. E. Co., 26 I. C. C, 708. Silver Springs, Ocala & Gulf Ry. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Trans- portation of Vegetables v., 8 I. C. C, 585. Silvester, R. W., v. C. & S. R. of W., 22 I. C. C, 201. Simmons v. T. & P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-627), 30 I. C. C, 727. Simmons Hardware Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co. (5963), 29 I. C. C, 712. Simpson, Frank Fruit Co. v. W. F. & Co., 23 I. C. C, 412. Sims v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-587), 30 I. C. C, 722. Sims, Harold M., v. O. S. L. R. Co. (U. R. A-195), 27 I. C. C, 720. Sims, W. A., et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 680. Sims, Joe Co r v. M. & W. R. R., 26 I. C. C, 275. Simonds Shields Grain Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 622. Simpson, W. P., v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 604. 914 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Sinclair, T. M. & Co., Ltd., v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 490. Cited: B'd of Trade of Chicago v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C 444. While the practice before the Commission is in no degree technical, it was held in cited case that issues not clearly raised in the pleadings cannot be considered or determined. Sioux City & Northern R. R. Co., E. J. Daniels v., 6 I. C. C, 4S8. See Daniels v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Sioux City & Pacific R. R. Co., Re, v., 6 I. C. C, 293. Sioux City & Pacific R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Sioux City & Pacific R. R. Co., Charles H. Johnson v., 9 I. C. C, 221. Sioux City & Rock Springs Coal Mining Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co. (88S). 29 I C. C, 707. Sioux City Brewing Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-401), 29 I. C C, 717. Sioux City Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau of, v. A. & S. R. R. Co., 24 I C C, 177. See Traffic Bureau of Sioux City, etc., v. A. & S. R. R. Co. Sioux City Commercial Club Traffic Bureau v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 82. Sioux City Commercial Club Traffic Bureau v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 544. Sioux City Commercial Club of the Traffic Bureau v. Chicago & Northwest- ern Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 664. Sioux City Commercial Club v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 110. Sioux City Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau of, v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (3881) 29 I. C. C, 709. Sioux City Commercial Club v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co 12 I. C. C, 253. Sioux City Live Stock Ex. of Soiux City, Interveners in Chicago Live Stock Ex., v., Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 428. Sec Chicago Live Stock Ex. v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 915 Sioux City Stock Yards Co., Interveners in Chicago Live Stock Ex. v. Chi- cago Great Western Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. Sioux City Terminal Elevator Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R, Co., 23 I. C. C, 98. Adhered to : Sioux City Terminal Elevator Co. v. C-, M, & St. P. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 458. Cited: Iowa Grain Rates, 28 I. C. C, 355. Grain rates from certain points in South Dakota to Sioux City found unreasonable but no rates fixed for the future. Sioux City Terminal Elevator Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 457. Skinner, George B., v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 443. Skinner, Thomas, v. C, B. & Q. R. Co. (U. R. A-128), 27 I. C. C, 711. Slater, James F., v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 359. Sligo Iron Store Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rv. Co., 17 I. C. C 139. Cited: Sligo Iron Store Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 529. Smithing coal is of greater value than ordinary coal, justifying a higher rate. Slider, Edward T., v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 312. Quoted: Traffic Bureau of Nashville, Tenn., v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 538. "All the coal involved in this case conies down the Ohio River in barges from Pennsylvania and West Virginia fields. Louisville is 134 miles below Cincinnati, and it costs complainant about 50 cents per ton more to get his coal from the mines than it costs Cincinnati dealers." Slider, Edward T., v. S. R. Co. (U. R. A-245), 27 I. C. C, 727. Sligo Iron Store Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co. (1018), 12 I. C. C, 587. Sligo Iron Store Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 82. Sligo Iron Store Co. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 527. Slimmer & Thomas v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 525. Slimmer & Thomas v. Pennsylvania Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 531. Sloane v. S. P. Co. (A. S. S. Lines), (U. R! A.509),. 29 I. C. C, 731. 916 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 597. Smalley Mfg. Coi v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (S6S8), 28 I. C. C, 716. Smith, B. E., v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Smith, B. E., v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Smith, B. E., v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry., 16 I. C. C, 335. Smith, B. E., v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Smith, B. E., v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain' & Southern Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 335. Smith, W. U., v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 1 I. C. C, 208. Cited and distinguished : Bus. Men's Asso. of Minn. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C, 88. Although the petitioner failed in his proof to establish his complaint, yet as the company in its answer had deliberately confessed as to an- other matter of a violation of the statute, this established such violation clearly to satisfaction, of Commission, and the company was ordered to cease such violation — here the company has riot admitted the viola- tion of the statute. Cited and distinguished : Jas. C. Savery & Co. v. N. Y. Cen. & H. R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 358. This case is not authority for contention that a distinction may not be 1 made between immigrant and second-class rates. Cited: Jas. F. Slater v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 361. Cited: Wm. H. Heard .v., Ga. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 122. Construction of Section 15 of Act. Commission required to report and act upon a violation Of 'the Act discovered by evidence before it in an investigation, although it had not been the subject of complaint in the petition. Cited: Pitts., Cin. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 471. The rule under which passenger transportation should be conducted re- quires absolute equality of payment from all persons enjoying the same accommodations. Smith & Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 205. Smith, M. & Co. v. Missouri & North Arkansas R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 449. Smith, J. Sidney & Sons v. S. P. Co., 26 I. C. C, 707. Smith-Booth-Usher Co. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 242. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 917 Smith Brothers Grain Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. (1521), 14 I. C. C, 638. Smith, C. D. Drug Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 141. See Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Smith, Perry C. Grain Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 666. Smith Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co. (U. R. A-389), 28 I. C. C, 739. Smith Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-318), 28 I. C. C, 730. Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago. Milwaukee & Gary Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 447. Smith, Orland, Receivers, Cincinnati, Washington & Baltimore R. R. Co., Proctor & Gamble v., 4 I. C. C, 87, 443. See Proctor & Gamble v. C, H. & D. R. R. Co. Smith, Payson Lumber Co. of Texas v. Maloney & Son, 24 I. C. C, 722. Smith System Heating Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-296), 28 I. C. C, 727. Smoot & Sons Co. v. S. Ry. Co. (5470), 28 I. C. C, 715. Smurthwaite Grain & Milling Co. v. O. S. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-295), 28 I. C. C, 727. Snook, William C, v. Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey, 17 I. C. C, 375. Cited : Cyrus C. Mattison v. Penn. Co., 23 I. C. C, 233. A jurisdictional question raised, but Commission will examine merits of all maitters presented to it and decide jurisdictional question after it has decided what the merits of the case are. Snook & Janes v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 356. Snow Lumber Co. v. P. & R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 708. Snow Lumber Co. v. P. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 200. Snyder-Malone-Donahue Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 498. Society of American Florists & Ornamental Horticulturists v. U. S. Express Co., 12 I. C. C, 120. Soda Ash, etc., 28 I. C. C, 613. Soft Coal Rates from Southern Illinois to Arkansas, 26 I. C. C, 135. 918 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Soldiers and Sailors, In re Disabled, 1 I. C. C, 28. Solis Cigar Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co. et al, 21 I. C. C, 667. Solvay Process Co. v. Dela., Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 246. Cited : Allowances for Transfer of Sugar, 14 I. C. C, 62S. Cited: Kaul Lumber Co. v. G. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 4SS. Cited: Manufacturers' Ry. Asso. v. St. L, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 120. Cited: Industrial Railways Case, 29 I. C. C, 229. For carriers to undertake to make allowances to shippers based upon the performance by the shippers . of services which they are legally bound to do for themselves, is for the carriers to violate the Act 'to regulate commerce. Cited : Merchants' Cotton Press & Storage Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 107, 110. Dissenting opinion. Distinguished: Alan Wood, Iron & Steel Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 546. . The industry involved was not willing that the carrier should do the switching. An allowance only was sought. Cited: Alan Wood, Iron & Steel Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 29. It is claimed that cited case does not reach illegality of industrial rule, allowing free time where analysis is made before unloading. Solvay Process Co. v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 246. Distinguished: Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co, 18 I. C. C, 313. The industrial spurs hefe considered are of a totally different char- acter from those considered in the other cases. They correspond rather to the railroad tracks leading to the interchange tracks with such industries and the switching movement given by the carriers without extra charge to such interchange tracks passed unquestioned in the other cases. Cited and adhered to : Mnfrs.' Ry. Co. v. St. L , I M & S Ry Co 21 I. C. C, 304. Tap line allowances and service for which lawful allowances may be made. Somerset, Citizens, v. W. R. & E.,Co;, 22 L C. C, 187. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS • 919 Sondheimer, E. Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 60. Cited: Sondheimer, E. Co. v. 111. Cen. R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 606. Reparation allowed. Cited: Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 240. The relation of rates between Cairo and Memphis. Cited and distinguished : Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 115, 24 I. C. C, 691. The present case involves lumber rates from southwest territory to Cairo and inasmuch as the cited case was in reference to a territory of origin different from that involved here, the division in cited case is not violated. Sondheimer, E. Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 606. Cited: Com. Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 323. Where the freight charges were tendered and paid to the delivering carrier by the consignees, but the paid expense bills were transmitted to consignors in lieu of the same amount of cash and deducted from the invoice price in settlement, the consignors are the real and sub- stantial parties in interest with respect to reparation proceedings. Sonneland, A., v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C„ 675. Souers & Langdon v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. (1360), 13 I. C. C, 684. South Brooklyn Ry. Co., Arabol Manufacturing Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 607. South Brooklyn Ry. Co., Arabol Mfg. Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 429. South Atlantic Waste Co. v. S. R- Co., 22 I. C. C, 293. South Canon Coal Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 286. South Carolina Ry. Co., Board of Trade of Chattanooga, Tenn., v., 5 I. C. C, 546. See B'd of Trade of Chattanooga v. E. Tenn., Va. &Ga. Ry. Co. S. C. Ry. Co., H. W. Behhner v., 6 1. C. C, 257. S. C. Ry. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. 920 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE S. C. Ry. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. South Carolina Ry. Co., P. H. Loud, Jr., v., 5 I. C. C, 529. See Loud v. So. Car. Ry. Co. South Carolina Ry. Co., R. R. Com. of Ga. v., 5 I. C. C, 324, 325, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. South Dakota, State of, v. A. & V. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-679), 30 I. C. C, 734. South Dakota R. R. Com'rs v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (6098), 29 I. C. C 713. South Georgia Ry, Alderman & Sons Co. v. (U. R. A-548), 30 I. C. C, 717. South Georgia Ry. Co., Georgia Iron Works v. (6769), 30 I. C. C, 716. South Omaha Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 614. South St. Joseph Live Stock Ex., Interveners in Chicago Live Stock Ex., v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. South West Smelting & Refining Co. v. El Paso & Northeastern Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 662. Southeastern Freight Asso. v. H. H. Tift, 10 I. C. C, 548. See Tift v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Bitulithic Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 588. Southern Bitulithic Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 300. Southern Bitulithic Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 626. Southern Bitulithic Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 630. Southern Bitulithic Co. v. T. & F. S. Ry. Co. (5609), 30 I. C. C, 712. Southern California Sugar Co. v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake R. R. Co. et al, 19 I. C. C, 6. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 921 Southern California Ry. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v , 9 I C C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co.. ' Southern Calif. Ry. Co., Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern California Ry. Co., Consolidated Forwarding Co. v., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern California Ry. Co., Consolidated Forwarding Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern California R. R. Co., Duncan, Blanton, v., 6 I. C. C, 85. See Duncan v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Southern California Ry. Co., Shippers' Union of Phoenix v., 9 I. C. C, 250. See Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern California Ry. Co., Southern California Fruit Exchange v., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern California Ry. Co., Southern California Fruit Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern California Fruit Exchange v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Calif. Fruit Ex. v. Southern Pacific Co k , 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C C, 275. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 617. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 434. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 18 I. C. G, 617. 922 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 434. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. F. S. & W. R. R. Co. (5911), 29 I. C. C, 712. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 180. Followed: So. Cotton Oil Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 80. Carrier should have secured the shipper's signature to the released valuation clause. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. (1784), 14 I. C. C, 642. Stacy Mercantile Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul) & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 550. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 609. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 609. Standard Knitting Mills v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 718. Standard Gilsonite & Asphaltum Co. v. Uintah Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 6SS. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 671. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 79. Cited: Miller & Lux v. So. Pac. Co., 20 I. C. C, 130. Approved: Investigation and Suspension Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 444, 477. Where the agent of the defendant signed bill of lading with full knowledge that what the shipper desired was the rate on cotton linters released to a value of 2 cents per pound, and that, having this knowl- edge the agent of the initial carrier neglected to indorse upon the said bills of lading any notation of the released valuation, the complainant is entitled to reparation for whatever be paid over and above the re- leased rates. Southern Express Co. v. Bannon, 13 I. C. C, 516. See Bannon v. S. Exp. Co. Southern Express Co. v. Franklin, Stiles & Franklin, 21 I. C. C, 88. Southern Express Co. et al., Hammond, Robert A., v., 17 I. C. C, 607. Southern Express Co., Lowery-Hanks Co. v. (5652), 28 I. C. C, 716. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 923 Southern Express Co., R. R. Com'rs of Florida v., 28 I. C. C, 634. Southern Express Co., Reynolds v., 13 I. C. C, 536. Southern Express Co. et al., Reynolds, R. J. Tobacco Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 608. Southern Express Co., Saunders, E. E. Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 415. See Saunders Co. v. S. Exp. Co. Southern Express Co., Tyler Grocery Co. v. (U. R. A-474), 29 I. C. C, 727. Southern Furniture Mfrs.' Asso. v. S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 379. Cited: Partridge & Sons Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 487. If a carrier participates in a joint rate from the territory affected and is in such position that >it may either join in such rates or decline to do so, it is then liable for the discrimination which may result from its action in joining with the other carriers in the discriminating rate or regulation. Distinguished: Standard Mirror Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 205. The rate extended to High Point applied to Pacific coast destina- tions, 3,000 to 4,000 miles distant, from points of origin previously blanketed over an extensive territory. Southern Grocery Co. v. G. Northern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 229. Cited : Chamber of Com., Ashburn, Ga., v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 149. Cited: Montezuma, Ga., v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 284. The circumstances and conditions obtaining at Moultrie not sub- stantially dissimilar from those at Tifton, Valdosta and Fitzgerald, and higher rates to Moultrie not warranted. Southern Idaho Commercial Clubs' League v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 562. Southern Illinois Millers' Asso. v. L. & N. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 672. Cited: Mo. River, 111. Wheat and Flour Rates, 27 I. C. C, 290. Cited case dealt with rates from mills in Southern Illinois to sea- board but also considered the relation of these mills to St. Louis with regard to their freight rate and it was suggested that milling-in-transit be permitted upon all lines by which the traffic can move from St. Louis to eastern destinations at a penalty not exceeding yi cent per 100 pounds. Cited: Southwestern Mo. Millers' Club v. St. L. & S. F.R. R: Co., 28 I. C. C, 29. 924 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Unjust discrimination does not exist where a proportional rate from a certain point on traffic from beyond is less than intermediaite locals to the same destination. Southern Indiana Ry. Co., Pennsylvania & Indiana Coal Co. v. (1342), 15 I. C. C, 637. Southern Indiana Ry. Co., R. R. Commission of Indiana v., 17 I. C. C, 603. Southern Iron Equipment Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 675. Southern Kansas Millers' Com. Club v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 607. Southern Kansas Millers' Com. Club v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 604. Southern Kansas Millers' Com. Club v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 15 I. C. G, 605. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. of Tex., Buick Motor Co. v. (U. R. A-647), 30 I. C, C, 730. Southern Kansas Ry. of Texas, Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Southern Kansas Ry. Co. of Texas, Kirkpatrick v. (U. R. A-270), 28 I. C. C, 724. Southern Lumber Co. v. L. Ry. & N. Co. (U. R. A-566), 30 I. C. C 719. Southern Pacific Co., Alexander v., 24 I. C. C, 306. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Allen & Higgins Lumber Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 609. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Allen & Higgins Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., American Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v., 14 I. C. C. 561. See American Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., American National Live Stock Asso. v., 26 I. C. C, 37. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange et al. v., 19 I. C. C, 148. See Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 925 Southern Pacific Co. et al., Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange et al. v., 20 I. C. C, 106. See Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific R. Co., Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v., 22 I. C. C, 149. See Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Ry. Co., Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v., 24 I. C. C, 671. Southern Pacific Co., Armour Car Lines v., 17 I. C. C, 461. Southern Pacific Co., Associated Oil Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 613. Southern Pacific Co., Ballin, Solomon, v., 19 I. C. C, S03. Southern Pacific Co., Bare Bros, v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Baskerville & Rowe Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 61S. • Southern Pacific Co., Samuel K. Behrend v., 9 I. C. C, 637. Southern Pacific Co., Bisbee Board of Trade v. (1100), 12 I. C. C, 588. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Blinn, L. W. Lumber Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 430. See Blinn Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Borgfeldt, Geo. & Co. v., 18 I. C. C„ SS2. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Breuner, John Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 608. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Breuner, John Co. v., 17 I. C. G, 611. Southern Pacific Co., Buren v., 26 I. C. G, 332. Southern Pacific Co. (Atlantic System), Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific System), Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., California Fruit Growers' Ex. v., 12 I. C. C, SS3. See California Fruit Growers' Ex. v. S. P. Co. 926 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Pacific Co., California Pole & Piling Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 507. California Pole & Piling Co. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., California Pole & Piling Co. v., 27 I. C. C. 669. Southern Pacific Co., Carstens Packing Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 6. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Carstens Packing Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 163. Southern Pacific Co., Carstens Packing Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 236. Southern Pacific Co., Thomas V. Cator v., 6 I. C. C, 113. See Cator, Thomas V., v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co., Channel Commercial Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 506. Southern Pacific Co., Channel Commercial Co. v. (819), 12 I. C. C, 582. Southern Pacific Co., City of Crawford v., 25 I. C. C, 259. Southern Pacific Co. et al., City of Monica, Calif., v., 19 I. C. C„ 606. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Clemons, Horst E. Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 663. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Coast Carriage Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Commercial Club of Omaha v., 18 I. C. C, 53. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Commercial Club of Omaha v., 20 I. C. C, 631. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Commercial Club of Santa Barbara, Calif., v., 12 I. C. C, 495. See Commercial Chib of Santa Barbara, Calif., v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Commercial Club of Santa Barbara, Calif., v. (818), 12 I. C. C, 582. Southern Pacific Co., Consolidated Forwarding Co; v., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. -Southern Pacific Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 927 Southern Pacific Co., Consolidated Forwarding Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Coors, A., v., 18 I. C. C, 352. See Coors v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Crombie & Co. et al. v., 19 I. C. C, 561. See Crombie & Co. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Crombie & Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 233. Southern Pacific Co., Crutchfield & Woolfolk v., 24 I. C. C, 651, 679. See Crutchfield & Woolfolk v. So. Pac. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Curtis Bros. & Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 372. Southern Pacific Co., Dallas Lumber & Logging Co. v. (U. R. A-475), 29 I. C. C, 727. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Dean & Humphrey Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Deming Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 598. See Deming Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Dierks v. (U. R. A-460), 29 I. C. C, 725. Southern Pacific Co., Dunbar-Hansen Co. v. (U. R.^A-234), 27 I. C. C, 725. Southern Pacific Co., Blanton, Duncan, v., 6 I. C. C, 85. See Duncan v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Eastern Outfitting Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry.. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Carl Eichenberg v., 14 I. C. C, 250. See Eichenfoerg v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Eichenberg v., 28 I. C. C, 584. Southern Pacific Co., Charles G. Freeman v., 7 I. C. C, 202. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Fuller, W. P. & Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 202. 928 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Pacific Co. et al., Fuller, George H. Desk Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 609. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Fuller, George H. Desk Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 610. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Fuller, George Desk Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 611. Southern Pacific Co., Gile & Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 298. Southern Pacific Co., Goldfield Consolidated Mines Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 718. Southern Pacific Co., Goldfield Consolidated Milling & Transp. Co. v. (U. R. A-266), 28 I. C. C, 723. Southern Pacific Co., Goldfield Cons. Mines Co. v. (U. R. A-266, A-292), 28 I. C. C, 723. Southern Pacific Co., A. J. Gustin v., 8 I. C. C, 481. See Gustin v. Burlington & Mo. River R. R. in Nebr. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Hall, W. A. & Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 665. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Harbor City Wholesale Co. of San Pedro, Calif., v., 19 I. C. G, 323. See Harbor City Wholesale Co. v. So. Pac. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Heid Bros, v., 24 I. C. C, 717. Southern Pacific Co., Holder v., 22 I. C. C, 661. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Horst, Clemens F. Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 576. Southern Pacific Co., Humphrey Supply Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 714. Southern Pacific Co., Hunt Bros. Co. v. (4897), 27 I. C. C, 704. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., In re, 1 I. C. C, 6. Southern Pacific Co. Ry., In re Application of for Relief from Fourth Sec- tion, 22 I. C. C, 366. See In re Application of S. P. Co. for Relief from Fourth Section. Southern Pacific R. Co., Jackson & Perkins Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 323. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Jackson Grocery Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 613. Southern Pacific Co. (A. S. S. Lines), Jacob v. (U. R. A-649), 30 I. C. C, 730. Southern Pacific Co., Johnson v. (U. R. A-216), 27 I. C. C, 723. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Johnston-Locke Mercantile Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 503. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 929 Southern Pacific Co., Jubitz, Assignee, v., 27 I. C. C, 44. Southern Pacific Ry. Co., Kent Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 710. Southern Pacific Co., Kent Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 715. Southern Pacific Co., George J. Kindel v., II I. C. C, 495. See Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Kindelon, J. C, v., 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Lauer, E. & Son v., 18 I. C. C, 109. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Lawrence- Wardenburg Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 638. Southern Pacific Co., Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 1. See Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pac. Co. Southern Pacific Co., The H. Lesinsky Co. v. (1588), 14 I. C. C, 639. Southern Pacific Co., Lewis- Vidger Co. v., 26 I. C. G, 718. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Louvre, The, v., 17 I. C. C, 503. Southern Pacific Co. et al., McCIoud River Lumber Co. et al. v., 19 I C C, 603. Southern Pacific R. Co., McCIoud River Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 89. Southern Pacific Co., McDaniels v., 24 I. C. C, 719. Southern Pacific Co., McGillan v., 27 I. C. C, 669. Southern Pacific Co., McGillan v. (U. R. A-303), 28 I. C. C, 728. Southern Pacific Co., McKendree v. (U. R. A-216), 27 I. C. C, 723. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Mackay, Walter S. & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Maier & Co. v., 29 I. C. C, 103. Southern Pacific Co., Maldonado & Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 714. Southern Pacific Co., Maricopa Co. Com. Club v., 22 I. C. C, 218, 429. See Maricopa County 'Commercial Club v. P. & E. R. R. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Maris, H. B., v., 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co. 930 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Pacific Co. et al., Maris, H. B., v., 17 I. C. C, 613. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Maris, H. B., v., 18 I. C. C, 301. Southern Pacific Co., John H. Martin v., 2 I. C. C, 1. See Martin v. So. Pac. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Mason Bros, v., 25 I. C. C, 35. Southern Pacific Co., Mason Bros. v. f 28 I. C. C, 402. Southern Pacific Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 534. See Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Southern Pacific Co., Medford Traffic Bureau v., 23 I. C. C, 701. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Michigan Furniture Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Miller & Lux, Inc., v., 20 I. C. C, 129. Southern Pacific Co., Mitchell Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 715. Southern Pacific Co., Mitchell, Lewis & Staver Co. v. (U. R. A-439), 29 I C. C, 722. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Montague, W. W. & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Multnomah Lumber & Box Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 123. Southern Pacific Co., Nevada- California Power Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 657. Southern Pacific Co., Nevada Hills Mining Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 721. Southern Pacific Co., Nevada Hills Mining Co. v. (U. R. A-526), 29 I C C, 734. Southern Pacific Co. et al., New Orleans Board of Trade, Ltd., v., 20 I C C, 638. Southern Pacific Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Transportation v. 4 I C C.,447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 931 Southern Pacific Co., N. Y. Team Owners' Asso. v., 12 I. C. C, 204. Southern Pacific Co., Newmark Grain Co. v., 30 I. C. C, 431. Southern Pacific Co., Northern California Lumber Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 671. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Northwestern Leather Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 66. Southern Pacific Co. et al., O'Brien Commercial Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Ogden, F. D., v., 20 I. C. C, 638. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Oregon & Washington Lumber Manufacturers' Association v., 21 I. C. C, 389. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Adolph Ottinger v., 1 I. C. C, 144. Southern Pacific Co., Pacific Coast Jobbers' & Manufacturers' Asso. v., 12 I. C. C, 319. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Pacific Coast Jobbers' & Manufacturers' Asso. v., 18 I. C. C, 333. Southern Pacific Co., Pacific Creamery Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 578. Southern Pacific Co., Pacific Creamery Co. v. (U. R. A-3S6), 28 I. C. C, 735. Southern Pacific Co., Pacific Creamery Co. v., 29 I. C. G, 405. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Pacific Purchasing Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Page & Sons, Inc., v., 23 I. C. C, 710. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Paraffine Paint Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 671. Southern Pacific Co., Parker v., 24 I. C. C, 681. Southern Pacific Co., Phillips-Trawick-James Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 644. Southern Pacific Co., Potter Manufacturing Co. v., 5 I. C. C, 514. See Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Pridham Co. v., 30 I. C. C, 117. Southern Pacific Co., Pueblo Transportation Asso. v., 14 I. C. C, 82. Southern Pacific Co. et al., R. R. Commission of Nevada v., 19 I. C. C, 238. See R. R. Com. of Nevada v. S. P. Co. 932 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Pacific Co. et al., R. R. Commission of Nevada v., 21 I. C. C, 329. See R. R. Com. of Nevada v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., R. R. Com. of Nevada v., 23 I. C. C, 456. Southern Pacific Co., R. R. Commission of Oregon v., 24 I. C. C, 273. Southern Pacific Co., R. R. Commission of Oregon v. (4973), 29 I. C. C, 710. Southern Pacific Co., E. M. Raworth v., 5 I. C. C, 234. See Raworth v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Ream v., 25 I. C. C, 107. Southern Pacific Co., Red Cloud Mining Co. v., 9 I. C. C, 216. See Red Cloud Mining Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co., Reno Grocery Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 400. Southern Pacific Co., Reno Grocery Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 715. Southern Pacific Co., Reno Wholesale Liquor Store, Inc., v., 23 I. C. C, 516. Southern Pacific Co., George Rice v., 4 I. C. C, 228. See Rice v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co., George Rice v., 5 I. C. C, 193. See Rice v. Cinn., Wash. & Bait. R. R. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Rigney, Thomas F., v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Royal Mantel Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Rucker Desk Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 610. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Rucker-Fuller Desk Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 608. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Rucker-Fuller Desk Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 610. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Ryan & Newton Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 618. Southern Pacific Co., Salles & Chicorp v. (U. R. A-216), 27 I. C. C, 723. Southern Pacific Ry. Co., San Francisco News Co. v., 24 I. C. C. 709. Southern Pacific Co., Sanger, J. P., v., 3 I. C. C, 134. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 933 Southern Pacific Co., Sanguinetti v., 25 I. C. C, 711. Southern Pacific Co., Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v., 24 I. C. C, 46. See Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Ry. Co., Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v., 29 I. C. C, 65. Southern Pacific Co., Schneider v., 22 I. C. C, 658. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Schultz-Hansen Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 234. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Serry, John J., v., 18 I. C. C, 554. See Serry v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Shannon Copper Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 605. Southern Pacific Co., Sloane v. (U. R. A-509), 29 I. C. C, 731. Southern Pacific Co., Smith & Son v., 26 I. C. C, 707. Southern Pacific Co., Smith Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-389), 28 I. C. C, 739. Southern Pacific Co., Southern California Fruit Exchange v., 9 I. C. C, 182. See Cowsolidaited Forwarding Co. v. Southern' Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co., Southern California Fruit Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 590. See Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Southern Timber and Land Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 232. Southern Pacific Co., Shippers' Union of Phoenix v., 9 I. C. C, 250. See Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Standard Hardwood Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Stone-Ordean- Wells Co. v., 18 I. C. C., 13, 15. Southern Pacific Co., Strauss & Co. v. (U. R. A-114), 27 I. C. C 709. Southern Pacific Co., Sulzberger & Sons Co. v. (U. R. A-400), 28 I. C. C, 740. Southern Pacific Co., Swayne, Inc., v., 27 I. C. C, 669. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Talbott, E. S., v., 20 I. C C, 654. 934 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Pacific Co., Traffic Bureau of the Merchants' Exchange of San Francisco v., 19 I. C. C, 259. See Traffic Bureau of the Merchants' Exchange of San Francisco v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co., Tuttle Paint & Glass Co. v. (U. R. A-169), 27 I. C. C, 716. Southern Pacific Co., Uhlman v., 25 I. C. C, 711. Southern Pacific Co., United States v., 25 I. C. C, 255. Southern Pacific Co. (A. S. S. Lines), West v. (U. R. A-649). 30 I. C. C, 730. Southern Pacific Co., Western Oregon Lumber Manufacturers' Asso. v., 14 I. C. C, 61. See Western Oregon Lumber Mfrs.' Asso. v. S. P. Co. Southern Pacific Co. et al., Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 547. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 16 I. C. C, 607. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 16 I. C. C, 608. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 16 I. C. C, 609. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 16 I. C. C, 610. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 16 I. C. C, 611. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co,. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 17 I. C. C, 627. Southern Pacific Co. et al., White Bros, v., 18 I. C. C, 308. Southern Paint & Glass Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 284. Southern Paint & Glass Co. v. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 6 I. C C, 284. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 195. Followed: Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R Co 14 T C C, 205. Protest against the payment of unreasonable and excessive freight rates is not a necessary prerequisite to the recovery of damages on ac- count of the exaction of unjust, unreasonable and unlawful charges. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 935 Southern Queen Range Co. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry, Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 608. Southern Ry. Co., Abingdon Mills v., 23 I. C. C, 710. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Alabama Coal Operators Association v., 21 I. C. C, 230. See Alabama Coal Operators' Asso. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Alderman & Sons Co. v. (U. R. A-2S1), 27 I. C. C, 728. Southern Ry. Co., Alderman & Sons Co. v. (U. R. A-548), 30 I. C. C, 717. Southern Ry. Co., Alexander v., 25 I. C. C, 32. Southern Ry. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vege- tables v., 8 I. C. C, S8S. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co. v., 16 I. C. C, S84. Southern Ry. Co., American Lumber & Export Co. v. (4624), 27 I. C. C, 703. Southern Railway Co. et al., Andy's Ridge Coal Co. et al. v., 18 I. C. C, 405. See Andy's Ridge Coal Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Ashland Fire Brick Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 115. See Ashland Fire Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Ashland Fire Brick Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 195. Southern Ry. Co., Atlanta Freight Bureau v., 29 I. C. C.» 476. Southern Ry. Co., Atlanta Machine Works v., 26 I. C. C, 715. Southern Ry. Co., Augusta Cotton Exchange & Board of Trade v., 30 I. C. C, 704. Southern Ry. Co., Balfour Quarry Co. v. (U. R. A-138), 27 I. C. C, 712. Southern Ry. Co., Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 286. See Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., John W. Blackman, Jr., v., 10 I. C. C, 352. See Blackman v. Columbia, Newberry & Laurens R. R. Co.; also Blackman v. Southern Ry. Co. 936 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Ry. Co., Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Bristol, Tenn., v., IS I. C. C, 487. Southern Ry. Co., Board of R. R. Commissioners of the State of Ky. v.i 7 I. C. C, 380. Southern Ry. Co., Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., v., 6 I. C. C, 632. See Board of Trade of the Gty of Lynchburg, Va., v. Old Dominion S.S. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Bristol Door & Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-206), 27 I. C. C, 722. Southern Ry. Co., Brown v. (U. R. A-484), 29 I. C. C, 728. Southern Ry. Co., Buffalo Hardwood Lumber Co. v. (1237), 29 I. C. C, 708. Southern Ry. Co., Burke Tanning Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 716. Southern Ry. Co., Cahill Iron Works v., 25 I. C. C, 252. Southern Ry. Co., Camden Iron Works v. (U. R. A-508), 29 I. C. C, 731. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Cannon Manufacturing Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 673. Southern Ry. Co., Central Yellow Pine Asso. v., 10 I. C. C, 505. See Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Chamber of Commerce of Augusta, Ga., v., 22 I. C. C„ 233. Southern Ry. Co., Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v., 10 I. C. G, 111. See Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Chamber of Commerce of Newport News v., 23 I. C. C, 345. Southern Ry. Co., Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 108. See Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Chattanooga Sewer Pipe & Fire Brick Co. v. (U. R. A-676), 30 I. C. C, 734. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Cohen, Michael & Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 177. Southern Ry. Co:, Collier v. (U. R. A-554), 30 I. C. C, 718. Southern Ry. Co., Columbia Chamber of Commerce v., 28 I. C. C, 339: COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 937 Southern Ry. Co., Columbus Board of Trade v. (U. R. A-493) 29 I C C, 729. Southern Ry. Co., Coosa Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-232), 27 I. C. C, 72S. Southern Ry. Co., Cozart, Winfield F., v., 16 I. C. G, 226. Southern Ry. Co. et al. Crescent Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 604. Southern Ry. Co., Dale Sand Co. v. (U. R. A-606), 30 I. C. C, 724. Southern Ry. Co., Danville, City of, v., 8 I. C. C, 409, 571. See Danville, City of, v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Danville Lumber & Mfg. Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 663. Southern Ry. Co., A. H. Davenport v., 11 I. C. C, 650. Southern Ry. Co., Davidson Lumber Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 715. Southern Ry. Co. et al., De Camp Bros, et al. v., 16 I. C. C, 144. Southern Ry. Co., Davidson Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-603), 30 I. C. C, 724. Southern Ry. Co., De Moll & Co. v., 30 I. C. C. 446. Southern Ry. Co., Duvall, Carter & Co. v. (U. R. A-527), 29 I. C. C, 734. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Denton Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 679. Southern Ry. Co., Dewey Bros. Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 481. See Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Southern Ry. Co. et al-, Duvall, Carter & Co. v„ 21 I. C. C, 666. Southern Ry. Co., Emporia Mfg. Co. v., 23 I. C. C„ 712. Southern Ry. Co., Esson Granite Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 449. Southern Ry. Co., J. K. Farrar v., 11 I. C. C, 632. Southern Ry. Co., J. K. Farrar v., 11 I. C. C. 640. See Farrar v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Farrar Lumber C,o. v., 19 I. C. C, 601. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Federal Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. G, 682. Southern Ry. Co., W. L. Fewell v., 7 I. C C, 354. Southern Ry. Co., Field v., 13 I, C. C, 298. See Field v. S. Ry. Co. 938 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Ry. Co., Florence Wagon Works v. (1640), 14 I. C. C, 640, Southern Ry. Co., Florence Wagon Works v. (1641), 14 I. C. C, 641. Southern Ry. Co., Florence Wagon Works v. (U. R. A-106), 27 I. C. C, 708. Southern Ry. Co., Forester Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-610), 30 I. C. C, 724. Southern Ry. Co., Foster Lumber Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 669. Southern Ry. Co., Gardner & Clark v., 10 I. C. C, 342. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Georgia-Carolina Brick Co. v., 20 L C. C, 148. See Georgia-Carolina Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Georgia Fruit Exchange et al. v., 20 I. C. C, 623. Southern Ry. Co., Graham v. (4667), 29 I. C. C, 710. Southern Ry. Co., Griffin Grocery Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 522. Southern Ry. Co., Griffin-Hallman Fuel Co. v., 29 I. C. C, 699. Southern Ry. Co., Guntersville Navigation Co. v. (4563), 28 I. C. C 711. Southern Ry. Co., Harriman Mfg. Co. v. (U. R. A-164), 27 I. C. C, 716. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Heilman, John, v., 18 I. C. C, 609. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Hendrle & Bolthoff Manufacturing Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 672. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Herf & Frerichs Chemical Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 613. Southern Ry. Co., Highland Park Mfg. Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 67. Southern Ry. Co., Hill, Audley & Co. et al. v., 20 I. C. C, 225. Southern Ry. Co., Holmes & Co. v., 8 I. C. C, 561, 570. See Holmes v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Homer Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-204), 27 I. C. C, 721. Southern Ry. Co., Hull Co. v., 24 I. C! C, 302. Southern Ry. Co., Hull Vehicle Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 619. Southern Ry. Co., Jackson Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 704. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Jenks, Robert H. Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 58. See Jenks Lumber Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Jones, J. R., v., 18 I. C. C, 150. See Jones v. S. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 939 Southern Ry. Co., T. M. Kehoe & Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 172. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Kessler, Julius & Co. v., 17 I. C. C. 618. Southern Ry. Co., Kessler & Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 706. Southern Ry. Co., Latham Co. v. (U. R. A-669), 30 I. C. C, 733. Southern Ry. Co., Leach & Co. v. (6049), 28 I. C. C, 720. Southern Ry. Co., E. D. McClelen v., 6 I. C. C, 588. Southern Ry. Co., Mclnnis & Sturges Milling Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 706. Southern Ry. Co., McLung & Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 582. Southern Ry. Co., McRae Grocery Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 83. Southern Ry. Co., McRae Terminal Ry. v., 12 I. C. C, 270, 545. See McRae Terminal Ry. Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Masse & Felton Lumber Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 110. See Masse & Felton Lumber Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Minersville Coal Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 440. Southern Ry. Co., Edwin E. Montell v., 7 I. C. C, 412. Southern Ry. Co., Moore v., 23 I. C. C, 716. Southern Ry. Co., Moore Stave Co. v., 30 I. C. C, 105. Southern Ry. Co., Mount Pleasant Fertilizer Co. v. (U. R. A-657), 30 I. C. C, 731. Southern Ry. Co., National Asso. of the Granite Industries of U. S. v. (3044), 29 I. C. C, 709. Southern Ry. Co. et al., North Carolina Case Workers' Association v., 18 I. C. C, 607. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Ouerbacker Coffee Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 566. Southern Ry. Co., Pate Lumber Co. v., 2 I. C. C, 726. Southern Ry. Co., Pate Lumber Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 714, Southern Ry. Co., Phillips & Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 199. "See Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Phillips, Bailey Co. v., 8 I. C. C, 93. See Phillips, Bailey & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 940 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Ry. Co., Planters' Compress Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 382. See Planters' Compress Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Portner, Robert Brewing Co. et al. v., 20 I. C. C, 672. Southern Ry. Co., Portner Brewing Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 659. Southern Ry. Co., Powell Fuel Co. v., 24 I. C. C., 706. Southern Ry. Co., Rees' Sons v., 30 I. C. C, 585. Southern Ry. Co., Reliance Textile & Dye Works v., 13 I. C. C, 48. Southern Ry. Co., Ridge Fruit & Melon Growers' Asso. of S. C. v., 8 I. C. C 1. Southern Ry. Co., Riverside Mills v., 12 I. C. C, 388. See Riverside Mills v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Riverside Mills v. (872), 12 I. C. C, 584. Southern Ry. Co., Riverside Mills v., 23 I. C. C, 711. Southern Ry. Co., Riverside Mills v., 24 I. C. C, 718. Southern Ry. Co., Rock Hill Buggy Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 229. Southern Ry. Co., Royal Coal & Coke Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 440. Southern Ry. Co., St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v., 11 I. C. G, 90. See St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Slider v., 24 I. C. C, 312. See Slider, Ed. T., v. S. R. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Slider v. (U. R. A-245), 27 I. C. C, 727. Southern Ry. Co., Smoot & Sons Co. v. (5470), 28 I. C. C, 715. Southern Ry. Co., South Atlantic Waste Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 293. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Southern Bitulithic Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 626. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Southern Bitulithic Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 630. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Southern Cotton Oil Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 79. See Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. S. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 941 Southern Ry. Co., Southern Furniture Mfg. Asso. v., 25 I. C. C, 379. See Southern Furniture Mfg. Asso. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry Co., Southern Pine Lumber Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 195. See Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Spiegle, George M. & Co. et al. v., 19 I. C. C, 522. See Spiegle & Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Spiegle & Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 82. Southern Ry. Co., Speigle v., 25 I. C. C, 71. See Speigle v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Stetson Lumber Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 199. See Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Stone & Son v., 29 I. C. C, 699. Southern Ry. Co., Strasburg Steam Flouring Mills v., 22 I. C. C, 671. Southern Ry. Co., Talge Mahogany Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 44. Southern Ry. Co., Tenn. Coal Co. v., 13 I. C. C, 440. Southern Ry. Co., H. H. Tift v., 10 I. C. C, 548. See Tift v. Southern Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Trades League of Philadelphia v., 8 I. C. C, 368. Southern Ry. Co., Union Tanning Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 112. Southern Ry. Co., Union Tanning Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 159. See Union Tanning Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. et al., United States Leather Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 323. See United States Leather Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co. et al., Victor Manufacturing Co. et al. v., 21 I. C. C, 222. See Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Victor Mfg. Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 661. See Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co. 942 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Ry. Co., Virginia-Carolina-Chemical Co. v., 23 I. C. G, 713. Southern Ry. Co., Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 600. Southern Ry. Co., Virginia- Carolina Chemical Co. v., 24 I, C. C, 721. Southern Ry. Co., Washburn-Crosby Milling Co., Inc., v., 22 I. C. C, 465. Southern Ry. Co., Warren Manufacturing Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 381. See Warren Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co. Southern Ry. Co., Wil. Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. Southern Ry. Co., Wm. Wrigley, Jr., v., 10 I. C. C, 412. Southern Sewer Pipe Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 623. Southern Shuttle & Bobbin Co. v. Tallulah Falls Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 676. Southern Timber & Land Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 18 I. C. G, 232. Southwest Washington Lumber Manufacturers' Asso. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 23. See also Pacific Coast Lumber Mfrs.' Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co. Followed: Oregon & Wash. Lum. Mnfrs.' Asso. v. U. P. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 20. Followed: Potlatch Lumber Co. v. N. P. Ry..Co., 14 I. C. C, 48. Followed: Pacific Coast Lum. Mnfrs.'' Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 465. Rates on lumber from the northwest. Southwestern Brick Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 659. Southwestern Broom & Warehouse Co., 30 I. C. C, 45. See Wichita Business Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Southwestern Kansas Farmers' & Business Men's League v. Atchison, To- peka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 530. Cited: State of Oklahoma v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. G, 519. Cited: Consumers' Ice Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 278. The reasonableness of coal rates west of Mississippi River several times investigated. Southwestern Laundry Machinery Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 685. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 943 Southwestern Millers' League v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, SS2. Cited : Transit Case, 24 I. C. C, 358. Transit and non-transit articles may be sent from the milling point in the same car at the carload rate. Modified : Transit Case, 26 I. C. C, 599. Original report modified in conformity with the Transit case 26 I C. C, 204. Southwestern Millers' League v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 599. Southwestern Millers' League v. U. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 245. Southwestern Missouri Millers' Club v. M., K. & T. R., 22 I. C. C, 422. Cited: Southwestern Mo. Millers' Club v. St. L. & S F R R Co 29 I. C. G, 30. A rate of 20J4 cents on wheat was fixed in cited case to apply in practically the same territory and distance as here involved. Quoted : Hammerschmidt & Franzen Co. v. C. & N. W Ry Co 30 I C. C 81. "We have always recognized that in the application of group rates a discrimination of necessity arose between the near and far edge of the group; but have felt that in many cases this discrimination was not un- due and therefore not unlawful." Southwestern Missouri Millers' Club v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 662. Southwestern Missouri Millers' Club v. M. P. Ry. Co. (6084), 29 I. C. C, 713. Southwestern Missouri Millers' Club v. St. L. & S. F. R., Co., 26 I. C. C, 245, 630. Quoted: N. Y. Shippers' Protective Asso. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 441. Quoted: Demurrage Allowances, 30 I. C. C, 542. The duty of shippers to provide necessary material and labor to fasten shipments to floor of car which require same, also to furnish the necessary material to make a car fit for the shipment of a particular commodity, announced. Southwestern Missouri Millers' Club v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 28. Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. G, 665. 944 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southwestern Produce Distributers et al. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 458. Cited: In re Wharfage Facilities at Pensacola, Fla., 27 I. C. C, 255. Cited by railroad in support of proposition that it has a right to employ an agent to perform services for its patrons and to grant that agent the exclusive or preferential use of the facilities necessary in the performance of such services. Southwestern Shippers' Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 570. Cited: Corporation Com. of Okla. v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 524. Cited : Cor. Com. of Okla. v. A., O & W. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 212. Class rates prescribed from Galveston to Oklahoma City used as basis for rates suggested by complainants in instant case. Followed: Colorado Mnfrs.' Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 91. The through charges by the sea and rail routes from the Atlantic, seaboard through the Gulf ports to Denver found not unreasonable. Spanley, Charles A., et al. v. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C„ 666. Sparks Milling Co. v. C, P. & St. L. R. Co. of 111. (U. R. A-203), 27 I. C. C, 721. Spartanburg Board of Trade v. Richmond & Danville R. R. Co., 2 I. C. C, 304. Cited : B'd of T'd. of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Mid. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 15. Where substantial dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions is set up by defendant carriers in justification of departures from the "long and short haul" rule of the statute, the burden is upon them to establish such dissimilarity. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Electric Co., Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al. v., 19 I C. C, 609. Speer Hardware Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co. (U. R. A-217), 27 I. C. C, 723. Spencer, Samuel, v. Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg Va 6 I C C, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Spiegle, George M. & Co. v. C. & O. R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 367. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 945 Spiegle, George M. & Co. et al. v. Southern Ry. Co. et at, 19 I. C. C. 522. Cited: Spiegle, George M. & Co. et al. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 22 I. C. C, 82. Fixing amount of reparation. Cited : Spiegle, George M. & Co. et al, v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 25 I. C. C, 72. Newport and Johnson City put on rate parity. Cited : Bristol Door & Lumber Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 88. In complying with order in cited case, the rate to Johnson City was advanced. Spiegle, George M., v. S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 82. Spiegle, George M., v. S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 71. Cited : Bristol Door & Lumber Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 88. The present case grows out of the general situation discussed in cited case, which involves the milling-in-transit rates on lumber. Quoted : Fabrication-in-Transit, 29 I. C. C, 78. Transit is a regulation or practice affecting the rate of which .the Commission has jurisdiction was the holding in" In re Wool, etc., 23 I. C. C, 151. Spillers, D. K. & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. G C, 364. Spokane, City of, Wash., v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 376. See City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co. Spokane, City of, et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 179. Spokane, Washington, et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 162. See City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co. Spokane City et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 400. See City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co. Spokane City v. N. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 454. Spokane Cycle & Supply Co. v. S. I. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-461), 29 I. C. C, 725. Spokane Drug Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-370), 28 I. C. C, 736. 946 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Spokane International Ry. Co., Graham & Co. v. (U. R. A-2S6), 27 I. C. C, 729. Spokane International Ry. Co., Northern Mercantile Co. v. (5671), 29 I. C. C, 711. Spokane International Ry. Co., Northwest Auto Supply Co. v. (U. R. A-1S8), 27 I. C. C, 715. Spokane International Ry. Co., Northern! Mercantile Co. v. (U. R. A-207), 27 I. C. C, 722. Spokane International Ry. Co., Spokane Cycle & Supply Co. v. (U. R. A-461), 29 I. C. C, 725. Spokane International Ry. Co. et al., Winkel, J. A. & Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 618. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co., Dedrick Electric Supply v., 24 I. C. C, 712. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co., Keats Auto Co. v. (U. R. A-202), 27 I. C. C, 721. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co. et al., Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 546. See Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. v. S. P. & S. Ry. Co. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co., Security Vault & Metal Works v., 24 I. C. G, 711. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co. et al., Western Mantel Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 643. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co., Wylie Bros. Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 717. Sprague, Warner & Co., Interveners in Business Men's League of St Louis v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Spreckers Bros. Commercial Co. v. Monongahela Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 190. Sprigg, Thomas F., v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 443. Followed: China & Japan Trading Co. v. Ga. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 241. Cited: Weber Club & Intermountain Fair Asso. v. O. S L R R Co 17 I. C. C, 215. Because a rate is the result of an alleged unlawful combination on part of carriers is no reason to deny its application if found reasonable per se. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 947 Followed: Field v. So. Ry. Co. et al, 13 I. C. C, 299. Cited: Eschner v. P. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 63. Commission has no authority to cause re-establishment of special party rates which has existed in past years and have been accorded theatrical troupes — such rates being lower than normal passenger-mile revenue fare. Cited: Weber Club & Intermountain Fair Asso. v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 216. The action of the carriers, although resulting in discrimination, was not unlawful, inasmuch as the statute expressly authorized the discrimi- nation. Cited and explained: Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C, 435. When cited case was before the Commission it was without power under a finding by the U. S. Supreme Court to prescribe rates for the future, under the Act as it then stood. Spring Coal Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-536), 29 I. C. C, 73S. Spring Hill Coal Co. v. Erie R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 508. Springer, T. H., v. El Paso & Southwestern R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 322. Cited: Noble v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 434. A carload rate and minimum weight when published by carrier con- stitute offer to carry at such charge and carrier may not impose an additional charge when it is not able to furnish a car of the dimen- sions ordered. Springfield Commercial Asso. v. P. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 511. Cited : Grain Rates in Central Freight Asso. Territory, 28 I. C. G, 561. Springfield, which was in 117 per cent group, placed in. 113 per cent group in cited case. Springfield Traffic' Bureau of the Jobbers' & Mfrs.' Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 432. Springfield Traffic Bureau of the Jobbers' & Mfrs.' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 600. Sproles v. S. A. L. Ry. (U. R. A-416), 29 I. C. C, 719. Sprunt, Alexander & Son v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 18 I. C. G, 251. Squire, John P. & Co. v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C, 611. Cited: Chic. Live Stock Ex. v. C. G. W. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 430. Alleged violations o* rulings of Commission as set forth in this case. 948 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited: Quimby et al. v. Maine Central R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 248. It is not province of Commission to relieve from disadvantages of unfavorable location, by an adjustment of transportation charges. Cited: Sinclair & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 499. The relative elements of risk and expense in transporting the live animal and the products, and the equalization of commercial and geo- graphical conditions through rate adjustments has been considered in minute detail by the Commission. Squire Dingee Co. v. C. & E. I. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-440), 29 I. C. C, 722. Squire Dingee Co. v. C, I. & L. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 720. Stacy, E. P. & Sons v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 670. Stacy, E. P. & Sons et al. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 674. Stacy, E. P. & Sons v. Evansville & Terre Haute R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 625. Stacy, E. P. & Sons v. M. P. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 713. Stacy, E. P. & Sons v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al, 20 I. C. C, 136. Standard Grain & Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-454), 29 I. C. C, 724. Standard Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S, P. Co. Standard Iron & Metal Co. v. D. & R. G. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 717. Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. Cumberland Valley R. R. Co, 15 I. C. C, 620. Cited: Delray Salt Co. v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co, 16 I. C. C, 511. Cited: Cedar Hill C. & C. Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 481. Cited: Rates from Walsenburg Coal Field, 26 I. C. C, 88. Cited: St. L, S. & P. R. R. v. P. & P. N. Ry. Co, 26 I. C. C, 235. Cited: Lumber Rates, Oregon and Washington to Eastern Points. A carrier may not withdraw its through rates with a connecting car- rier because it does not wish to divide the revenue on traffic which it could originate at a point on its own line. Standard Mirror Co. v. P. R. Co, 27 I. C. 0, 200. Standard Oil Co. v. A. C. L. R. Co, 24 I. C. C, 718, 722. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 949 Standard Oil Co. (Ky.) v. A. C. L. R. Co. (U. R. A-163), 27 I. C. C„ 715. Standard Oil Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 669. Standard Oil Co. v. Chicago Terminal Transfer R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 460. Standard Oil Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 669. Standard Oil Co. v. E. J. & E. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 667. Standard Oil Co. v. Indianapolis Southern R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 667. Standard Oil Co. v. I. T. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 369. Standard Oil Co. v. I. T. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 724. Standard Oil Co. v, K. C. S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 668. Standard Oil Co. v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-438), 29 I. C. C, 722. Standard Oil Co. v. P. Co. (4518), 28 I. C. C, 711. Standard Oil Co. v. P. Co., 29 I. C. G, 524. Standard Oil Co. v. P. Co. (U. R. A-485), 29 I. C. C, 728. Standard Steel Co. v. A. G. S. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-549), 30 I. C. C, 717. Standard Pharmacal Co. v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co. (U. R. A-lll), 27 I. C. C, 708. Standard Vitrified Brick Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 669. Cited: Kansas-Iowa Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C, 286. The rate of 12^ cents on brick to station on. line of the C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. approved in oited case. Stange, A. H. Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 629. Stange Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co. (U. R. A-244), 27 I. C. C, 727. Stanton Co. v. N. P. Co. (U. R. A-226), 27 I. C. C, 724. Star Coal Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 492. Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 364. Cited: Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 339. Cited : The Tap Line Case, 23 I. C. C, 281. 950 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Upon question reserved in former report, viz: allowances by regu- lar carriers to so-called "tap lines." Cited : In re Irregularities in Mine Ratings, 25 I. C. C, 295. Cited: Rates on Plaster and Gypsum Rock, 27 I. C. C, 70. Cited: Lumber Rates from Texas, Louisiana and Ark., 28 I. C. C, 473. A carrier may not, by refusing reasonable and proper through routes and joint rates, determine the markets in which its shippers shall sell their products. Star Grain & Lumber Co. et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 338. Cited: Fathauer Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 520. Allowance to tap line not permissable. Cited: Com. Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 535. No controversy will be prejudged and the effect the withdrawal of tap line allowances will have on the reasonableness of present rates. Cited: Industrial Lumber Co. v. St. L., W. & G. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 50, 52. Same issue presented and decision in former supercedes this. Cited: Mnfrs.' Ry. Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 307. Cited: The Tap Line Case, 23 I. C. C, 281. Tap line questions raised again. Star Mill & Elevator Co. v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 23 I. C. G, 709. Stark v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (1130), 29 I. C. C, 707. Stark v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (1131), 29 I. C. C, 707. Stark v. M. P. Ry. Co. (1132), 29 I. C. C, 707. Stark v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (1133), 29 I. C. C, 707. Stark v. U. P. R. R. Co. (1134), 29 I. C. C, 708. Stark, James E & Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 603. Stark Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-631), 30 I. C. C, 727. Starks Co. v. M., St. P. & S. Ste M. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-433), 29 I. C. C, 721. State Board of Agriculture, Forestry & Immigration et al. v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 612. State Corporation Commission of North Carolina v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 303. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 951 State Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 379. State of Arkansas v. Pullman Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 25. State of Florida, R. R. Com'rs, v. Southern Ex. Co., 28 I. C. C, 634. State of Florida R. R. Com'rs v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 356. State of Indiana v. Pullman Co. et al, 20 I. C. C, 25. State of Iowa, Board of R. R. Com'rs, v. A. E. R. R. Co, 28 I. C. C, 563. State of Iowa v. A. C. L. R. Co, 24 I. C. C, 134. Cited: National Syrup Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co, 28 I. C. C, 675. Rate on glucose from Chicago to Edgewater, a point in New York Harbor, reduced from 24 to 20 cents, the rate on corn between the same points being 16 cents. State of Iowa v. A, T. & S. F. Ry. Co, 28 I. C. C, 47. See also Mississippi River Case, The. Cited: Interior Iowa Cities Case, 28 I. C. C, 65. The cited case, along with present case and two others referred to as a combined effort on the part of the State of Iowa, its railroad com- mission, and its merchants and 1 shippers to secure more favorable rates into and out of the entire State. The reductions ordered in cited case in the local rates to the upper Mississippi River crossings will result in reductions in the through freight charges of the interior towns, but these lower rates will not satisfy the shippers on whose behalf the present case was filed. Cited: Mississippi River Case, 29 I. C. C, 530. The findings of the original report herein used for fixing rates for the future. State of Iowa v. A, T. & S. F. R. Co, 29 I. C. C, 530. State of Iowa v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co, 28 I. C. C, 64, 76. See also In re Interior Iowa Cities Case. See also Interior Iowa Cities Case, 28 I. C. C, 64. Followed: Cedar Rapids Com. Club v. C, R. I. & P. Ry- Co., 28 I. C. 77. The cited case disposed of the chief is the present case, and the first complaint. C 77 " The cited case disposed of the chief issue in the third complaint n allowance from the carriers was a plant facility, or was a participant in the joint rate under which the shipments moved. Cited : Cancellation of Joint Rates C, Z. & G. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 360. Principles of cited case cited as controlling by respondents. Cited : Joint Rates With the Wash. West.~Ry., 27 I. C. C, 632. Practices revealed in cited case lead to change of organization of plant line with view of coming under benefits of decision in cited case. Tariffs & Classifications of the Atlanta & West Point R. R. Co., In re, 3 I. C. C, 19. Cited : B'd of Trade v. Nash., C. & St. L. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 521. The basing-point system of rate making disapproved. Tariffs & Classifications of the Pa. R. R. Co;, Re, 7 I. C. C, 177. Tariffs of Columbus & Western Ry., In re, 1 I. C. C, 626. Cited : Mary O. Stone & Th. Carten v. Det., Gr. H. & M. Ry. Co., 3 I. C. C, 639. The group system of rate making has always been recognized by the Commission as proper except when in its operation some shippers or consignees are really damaged by the rates afforded while others are correspondingly benefited. Tariffs of Transcontinental Lines, In re, 2 I. C. C, 324. Tariffs on Export & Import Traffic, In re, 10 I. C. C, SS. Taylor v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-300), 28 I. C. C, 727. Taylor, Lafayette F., v. N. & W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 613. Taylor, Oscar P., v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 165. Followed : Wakita Coal & Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 533. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 967 The complainant in reparation case did not. appear at the hearing and no evidence being before the Commission to prove the movement of the freight, the case is dismissed. Taylor & Mason v. Coal & Coke Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 682. Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 205. Cited: Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co. 28 I. C. C, 308. Petition to rehear denied. Tayntor Granite Co. v. Montpelier & Wells River R. R., 14 I. C. C, 136. Tecumseh Celery Co. v. Cincinnati, Jackson & Mackinaw Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 663. Templeton & Sons v. C, I. & S. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-362), 28 I. C. C, 735. Tennessee Central R. R. Co., Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. et al. v., 19 I. C. C, 604. Tennessee Central R. R. Co. et al, Bookwalter Wheel Co. v, 20 I. C. C, 603. Tennessee Central R. R. Co, Williamson Veneer Co. v. (U. R. A-108), 27 I. C. C, 708. Tennessee Coal Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 440. Tennessee Copper Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-523), 29 I. C. C, 733. Tennessee Lumber Mfg Co. v. B. D. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-448), 29 I. C. C, 723. Tennessee Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co, 21 I. C. C, 671. Tennessee R. R. Commission v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 418. See R. R. Com. of Tenn. v. A. A. R. R. Co. Tennessee Ry. Co, Shea Brothers v. (U. R. A-558), 30 I. C. C, 718. Terhune, W. E. Lumber Co. v. Georgia & Florida Ry. Co. et al, 19 I. C. C, 613. Termatt & Monahan Co. v. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 109. See Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. Terminal R. R. Asso. of St. Louis, Boeckeler Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A- 533), 29 I. C. C, 734. Terminal R. R. Asso. of St. Louis, Pendleton Grain Co. v. (5469), 28 I. C. C, 715. 968 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I; C. C, 19S. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Terre Haute & Ind. R. R. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co., Planters Compress Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 382. See Planters Compress Co. v. C, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co., St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 82. See St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Terre Haute Commercial Club v. V. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 383. Territory of Oklahoma v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 367. Cited : Miller Walnut Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 44. A competitive situation prevails at Kansas City with respect to grain which has justified carriers in accepting lower rate to Galveston for ex- port than for Oklahoma City. Cited: Advance in Grain Rates, 21 I. C. C, 33. Rate of 24J4 cents per 100 pounds from Oklahoma City and certain other points to Galveston, Tex., for export was established, yielding nearly 9 mills per ton per mile. Texarkana & Ft. Smith Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Texarkana & Ft. Smith Ry. Co., Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 697. Texarkana & Fort Smith Ry. Co., Southern Bitulithic Co. v. (5609), 30 I. C. C, 712. Texarkana Freight Bureau v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 569. Cited: Rates on Fencing & Fencing Material, 30 I. C. C, 651. In cited case the discrimination found to exist against Texarkana and in favor of Shreveport was ordered removed, but the way in which it should be remedied was left to carrier. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 969 Texas & Gulf Ry. Co. et al., Waterman Lumber & Supply Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 613. Texas & Gulf Ry. Co., Waterman Lumber & Supply Co. v. (U. R. A-269), 28 I. C. C, 723, Texas & Louisiana Ry. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. et al., Bayou City Rice Mills et al. v., 18 I. C. C, 490. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Bradford-Kennedy Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-307), 28 I. C. C, 728. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Gattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Chamber of Commerce of Beaumont, Tex., v., 25 I. C. C, 695. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Dickson Car Wheel Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 706. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Houston Packing Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 456. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Houston Packing Co. v. (U. R. Ar282), 28 I. C. C, 725. Texas & N. O. R. R. Co., Mayor & City Council of Wichita, Ks., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. et al., Olive-Sternenberg Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 617. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. et al., Saner- Whiteman Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 290. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. et al., Switzer Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 290. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co., Ulmer v. (854) (921), 12 I. C. C, 583, 585. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., American National Live Stock Asso. v., 12 I. C. C, 32. See American National Live Stock Asso. v. T. & P. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Ball Lumber Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 437. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Bigham & Rose v. (U. R. A-470), 29 I. C. C, 726. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Birmingham Packing Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 29, 500. See Birmingham Packing Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co. 970 GARTNER'S , NOTES TO INTERSTATE Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Blocker-Miller Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 129. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v., I. C. C, 318. ' See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Cameron, Wm. & Co., Inc., v., 18 I. C. C.,S60. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C„ 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Commercial Club of Omaha v., 6 I. C. C, 647. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Consumers' Ice Co. et al. v., 17 I. C. C, 491. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Continental Lumber & Tie Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 129. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Crombie & Co. v., IS I. C. C, 185. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 333. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Dallas Freight Bureau v., 8 I. C. C, 33. See Dallas Freight Bureau v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Dodd v. (U. R. A-223), 27 I. C. C, 724. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Charles G. Freeman v., 7 I. C. C, 202. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Henderson, W. K. Iron Works & Supply Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 159. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Hill & Webb v., 21 I. C. G, 682. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Hope Cotton Oil Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 696. See Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Hope Cotton Oil Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 265. See Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 971 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Hope Cotton Oil Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 669. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Jeffreys v., 24 I. C. C, 715. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Kelly Plow Co., v., 26 I. C. C, 581. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Klein, Phillip v., 19 I. C. C, 606. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 1. See Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. So. Pac. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v., 5 I. C. C, 44. See Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Lehman-Higginson Grocer Co. v., 10 I. C. C, 460. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Loeb v., 24 I. C. C, 304. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Loretz & Kepley v., 17 I. C. C, 491. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-193). 27 I. C. C, 720. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Marx Hide & Tallow Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 716. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C.'C, 534. See Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kansas, v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v„ 9 I. C. C, 569. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., McLoughlin v., 26 I. C. C, 307. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Menefee Lumber Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 49. See Menefee Lumber Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Meridian Fertilizer Factory v., 26 I. C. C, 351. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Miller, Albert & Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 668. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Milwaukee Beer Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 624. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., New Orleans Live Stock Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 327. 972 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., New Roads Oil & Mill Mfg. Co., Ltd., v. (U. R. A-120), 27 I. C. C, 709. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade and Transportation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Northern Lumber Manufacturing Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 54. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., North Texas Traction Co. v. (2042), 15 I. C. C, 639. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Norton Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 722. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Ochehree Grain Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 412. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Phelps & Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 36. See Phelps & Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., H. B. Pitts & Son v., 10 I. C. C, 684. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Railroad Commission of Louisiana v. (U. R. A-311), 28 I. C. C, 729. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Rice, George, v., 4 I. C. C, 228. See Rice v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Red River Oil Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 438. See Red River Oil Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Roth, Charles, v., 9 I. C. G, 602. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Scott, William D., v., 20 I. C. C, 167. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Scudder, Raymond B., v., 21 I. C. C, 60. See Scudder v. T. & P. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Scudder v., 22 I. C. C, 60. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Simons v. (U. R. A-627), 30 I. C. C, 727. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Steinhardt & Co., v., 19 I. C. C, 609. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Steinhardt & Co. v. (U. R. A-325, A-338), 28 I. C. C, 731, 732. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Swanson v. (U. R. A-166), 27 I. C. C, 716. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 5j>73 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Swift & Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 442. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., Wells & Higman Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 671. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., West Texas Fuel Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 443. See West Texas Fuel Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., West Texas Fuel Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 491. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Youngblood, W. F., v., 21 I. C. C, 569. See Youngblood v. T. & P. Ry. Co. Texas, Arkansas & La. Ry. Co., Godfrey & Son v., 15 I. C. C, 65. Texas Brewing Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 171. Cited : Electric Malting Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 381. Cited : Malt Rates to Texas Points, 30 I. C. C, 385. A differential between malt and barley from Minneapolis to Ft. Worth, Tex., of 5 cents per 100 pounds allowed. Cited : Malt Rates to New Orleans, La., 30 I. C. C, 589. Rates fixed in eked case to Fort Worth, Tex., from Chicago of 34yi cents, and from Milwaukee of 35}4 cents, cited for comparisons. Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 68. Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. (874), 12 I. C. C, 584. Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 508. Tex. Central R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Texas Central Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Texas Common Point Case, 26 I. C. C, 528. Followed: J. E. Bryant Co. v.F. W. & D. C. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 596. Amarillo not accorded Texas common-point rates. No exception made in present case in regard to bananas and cocoanuts from New Orleans to Texas common points. Texas Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (6132) 30 I. C. C, 713. 974 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Texas Grain & Elevator Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 580. Texas Mexican Ry. Co., Cattle\ Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. Texas Midland R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Texas Midland R. R. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 534. See Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v. A., T. & S. K Ry. Co. Texas, Sabine Valley Northwestern Ry. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Texas, Sabine Valley & Northwestern Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Texas Seed & Floral Co. v. N. Y. C. & St. L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 504. Cited: George H. Lee Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 516. Minimum on brooders and incubators fixed in cited case it 24,000 pounds for 36-foot car from Buffalo to Dallas with fourth-class rate ap- plicable, but in present case it appears that only 18,000 pounds of such commodities may be loaded in a 36-foot car unless knocked down. Texas Southeastern R. R. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Texas Southern Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Texas Southern Ry. Co. et al., Pepperrell Manufacturing Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 353. Texas Trunk R. R. Co., Kauffman Milling Co. v., 4 I. C. C. 417. See Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Texhoma Mill & Elevator Co. v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 894. Texico Transfer Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 17. Cited: De Camp Bros. & Yule Iron, C. & C. Co. v. V. & S. W. Ry., 22 I. C. C, 276. An initial carrier publishing a joint rate not concurred in by con- necting carrier will be liable for any damage sustained by shipper thereby. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 975 Thatcher, Ralph W., v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 1 I. C. C, 152. Cited : Moise Bros. Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 554. Ordinarily a division of a through rate is a basis upon which to test the reasonableness of a local rate. Thatcher Manufacturing Co. v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 126. The C. K. & N. Coal Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 612. The Commutation Rate Case, 27 I. C. C, 549. Commission by report proposed that carriers reduce their com- mutation passenger rates between Greenwich, Coscob, Riverside, Sound Beach, and Stamford, Conn. The carriers having failed to file tariff containing the proposed fares, an order was entered by the Commission on December 2, 1913. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. United States. D. C. Conn. Pending. The Louvre v. Southern Pacific Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 503. Third Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 3 I. C. C, 289. Thistle Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 20 I. C. C, 664. Thomas v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.;(689); 12 I. C. C, 581. Thomas v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. (1559), 14 I. C. C, 638. Thomas, A. L, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co, 15 I. C. C, 584. Thomas, A. L, v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. et al, 16 I. C. C, 610. Thomas, A. L, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 16 I. C. C, 364. Thomas, Elmer E. et al. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 614. Thomas, Elmer E, v. U. P. R. Co, 26 I. C. C, 707. Thomas Clock Co. v. N. Y, N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-213), 27 I. C. C, 722. Thomas Iron Co. v. P. R. R. Co, 28 I. C. C, 608. Thomas Produce Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 629. 976 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Thomas Produce Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co. (4880), 27 I. C. C, 704. Thompson, Charles A., v. Pa. R. R. Co., 10 I. C. C, 640. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C G, 657. Carriers ordered to reduce from 12 to 10 cents per *00 pounds, their rate on harwood lumber from Memphis, Tenn., to New Qrleans, La., on the ground that 12-cent rate was unreasonable. Reparation to be awarded only on shipments moving after the filing of complaint with Commission. Darnell v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. 190 Fed., 656. June 23, 1911. C. C. W. D. Tenn., W. D. McCall, J. Action at law to recover damages, based on decision of Commission, dismissed on the grounds (1) that there had been no award of repara- tion by the Commission in favor of the plaintiff, and (2) that, a State court having no jurisdiction of such a case, the Federal Court acquired no jurisdiction by removal from such State court Darnell v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. 225 U. S., 243. June 7, 1912. White, C. J. Case dismissed on ground that it could not be taken directly from the Federal Circuit Court to the Supreme Court. Held, however, that the right to take cognizance of a claim based on an award of reparation by the Commission is not confined solely to the Federal Courts, but is equally possessed by State courts having general jurisdiction. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. C. C. N. D. 111., E. D. Bill to annul Commission's order in so far as it denied reparation on shipments moving prior to filing of complaint transferred to Com- merce Court. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 193 Fed., 682; 1 Com. Ct, 319. February 13, 1912. Commerce Court No. 19. Archbald, J. Held, that Commerce Court has jurisdiction of the case and that the Commission is without power to deny reparation solely on the ground of laches or to refuse to declare a rate unreasonable because its unrea- sonableness is not conclusively established by the complainant. It was held that it is only necessary for petitioners to show by a pre- ponderance of proof that the rate is unreasonable. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. October 9, 1912. Commerce Court No. 19. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 977 Following Proctor & Gamble v. U. S. (225 U. S., 282) to the effect that a denial of relief by the Commission is not an order of which the Commerce Court has jurisdiction, case dismissed for want of juris- diction. ■I Cited: Burgess v. Transcontinental Ft. Bu., 13 I. C. C, 678, 680. Rate yielding 6 mills per ton mile on lumber held unreasonable and one yielding S per ton mile established. The haul was about 400 miles. A transcontinental haul on lumber yields 7 mills per ton mile but two are not inconsistent because traffic conditions are very dis- similar. Reparation on shipments made prior to filing of complaint denied. Cited : Burgess v. Transcontinental Ft. Bu., 18 I. C. C, 83. Reparation. Cited: Lumber Rates from Memphis to New Orleans, 27 I. C. C, 474. Cited : Memphis Frt. Bu. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 516. Cited: National Lumber Exporters' Asso. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 217. The rate of 10 cents per 100 pounds for transportation over lines, of Illinois Central Railroad and Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad was established in cited case. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 566. Thompson, J. W. Lumber Co. et al. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 83. Thompson Mercantile Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-385), 28 I. C. C, 738. Thompson, J. & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 669. Thompson, M. W., v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C. 174. Thompson, W. I. & J. R., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 161. Thompson, Thayer-McCowen v. I. C. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 665. Thornhill Wagon Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-383), 28 I. C. C, 738. Thornton & Chester Milling Co. v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 13 I. C C, 37. Followed: Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. 1 C., 399. 978 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE The former case only specified certain destination points in New England, and although formerly all rates were made with relation to Boston or New York, the carriers here only complied specifically with Commission's order and put in the specific rate ordered and did not comply with the spirit of the order. Thorp, G. L. Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 684. Thropp, Joseph E., v. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 497. Cited: Ontario Iron Ore Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 571. Rate of $1.45 from Buffalo to Saxton found reasonable in cited case. Through Passenger Routes via Portland, Oregon, In re, 16 I. C. C, 300. Through Routes and Through Rates, Re, 12 I. C. C, 163. See also In the Matter of Through Rates, etc. Cited : Rosenbaum Bros. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 68. Cited : Liberty Mills v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 184. The rate for a through transportation is a single rate for a single service, and a contract for through transportation is a contract for transportation at through rate, whether jointly or separately estab- lished, in force at the -time the shipment is billed. Thurber, F. B., v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 473. Cited: Blanton Duncan v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 109. Cited: Business Men's League v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 356. The transportation of freight at a lower rate in carloads than in less than carloads is not in contravention of the Act to regulate com- merce and that the circumstances and conditions of the transportation in respect to the work done by the carriers and the revenue earned are dissimilar and may justify a reasonable difference in such rates. Quoted: I & S. Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 472. A classification is not a fixed condition to which other interests must necessarily yield. It is the creation of carriers for their own and the public convenience, and may be changed by its creators. If not compatible with the public interests, it should be modified to subserve those interests. i Tidwell v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C., 525. See Morgan v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 979 Tiedeman Elevator Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (5521), 30 L C. C, 712. Tift, H. H., v. Southern Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 548. Temporary injunction restraining carriers from making an advance of 2 cents per 100 pounds in the rate on yellow-pine lumber from Georgia to Chattanooga, Tenn., and other points, dissolved for the reason that the proposed advance had not been made effective. Tift v. Southern Ry. Co. 123 Fed., 789. July 16, 1903. C. C. S. D. Ga., W. D. Speer, J. The advanced rates being in effect, an injunction restraining the enforcement of the advance was denied for the reason that a complaint against the advance had been filed with the Commission. It was held that judicial action should be withheld until the Commission acted. Tift v. Southern Ry. Co. 138 Fed., 753. June 28, 1905. C. C. W. D. Ga., S. D. Speer, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Carriers restrained from en- forcing the advance; and reparation awarded in accordance with stipu- lation. Southern Ry. Co. v. Tift. 148 Fed., 1021. December 15, 1906. C. C. A. 5th Cir. Per curiam. Commission's order held to be valid. Carriers restrained from en- forcing the advance; and reparation awarded in accordance with stipu- lation. Southern Ry. Co. v. Tift. 206 U. S., 428. May 27, 1907. McKenna, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Carriers restrained from en- forcing the advance; and reparation awarded in accordance with stipu- lation. Cited : China & Japan Trading Co. v. Ga. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 237, 241. Cited: Rates on Excelsior and Flax Tow from St. Paul, Minn., 26 I. C, 692. If, after giving due weight to fact that rate was made as a result of an agreement and all other circumstances,. and the Commission is still of the opinion that the rate in effect is not too high, the mere fact that it was the product of an unlawful combination will not justify the Commission in setting it aside. 980 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : Detroit Chem. Works v. N. C. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 362. Quoted: Pacific Coast Lum. Mfg. Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 38. Where a railroad company has made and maintained for a long time a rate for transportation of a certain commodity, such rate is presumed to be remunerative. If the rate is increased, the presumption is that the increase is unreasonable. Cited : Thompson Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. Co., 13 I. C. G, 665. It was held that increase in the operating expenses of the roads and the prosperous condition of the lumber business generally in the South did not justify the increase in the rate. Cited: National Lum. Dealers' Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 162. The fact that shippers furnished and attached stakes to hold ship- ments of lumber on open cars was one of the elements considered in reaching conclusion that an advance of certain lumber rates was unrea- sonable. Cited : Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 200. Cited: Chic. Lum. & Coal Co. v. T. S. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 327. Cited: Jenks Lumber Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 59. Cited : Deeves Lumber Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 485. Cited : Kaul Lumber Co. v. C. of G. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 450. Cited: Oregon & Wash. Lumber Mfrs.' Asso. v. S. P. Co., 21 I. C. C, 392. Cited : Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 242. Cited: I. & S. Docket 115, 24 I. C. C, 689. Cited: Fourth Section Application, 542, et seq., 25 I. C. C, 59. Cited : Com. Club of Omaha v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 325. Cited : Eastman, Gardiner & Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 94. Sustained: Illinois Cen. R. R. Co. v. I. C. C, 206 U. S., 441. The claims for reparation were based on former case reducing rate 2 cents. Cited : Paducah B'd of Trade v. I. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 586. The rates on lumber from points west of the Mississippi River to Ohio River crossings were 2 cents higher than those from points east of the river, a general advance of 2 cents in all these rates was made, and cited case held same unreasonable in so far as the eastern rates were concerned. Tifton & Northeastern R. R. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C. 160. See Mayor and Council of Tifton, Ga., v. L. & N. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 981 Tin Cans, 28 I. C. C, 247. Tioga Coal Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 414. Followed: Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 20 I C. C, 559. The shipper or consignee may not be required to pay demurrage charges unless the carrier's tariff provides for same in clear and specific form and manner. Tioga Southeastern Ry. Co. et al., Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. et al. v., 16 I. C. C. 323. See Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. T. S. E. Ry. Co. Tioga Southeastern Ry. Co. et al., Pollock, B. H. Lumber Co. et al. v., 16 I. C. C, 335. Tionesta Valley Ry. Co., Central Pennsylvania Lumber Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 712. Tionesta Valley Ry. Co., Central Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. (U. R. A-528), 29 I. C. C, 734. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., Crane & Macmahon, Inc., v., 23 I. C. C, 711. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., Hancock Brick & Tile Co. v. (6505), 30 I. C. C, 715. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., Heisler Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 605. Toledo & Western R. R. Co. et al., fooble, Wm. K. v., 18 I. C. C, 494. Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry. Co., Place, J. B., v., 15 I. C. C, 543. See Place v. T., P. & W. Ry. Co. Toledo, Peoria & Western R. R. Co. et al., Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 335. Toledo Produce Co. v. A. A. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 536. Modified: Toledo Produce Co. v. A. A. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 498. On rehearing a schedule of rates substantially agreed upon by the interested parties is substituted. Toledo Produce Exchange v. A. A. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 498. ; 982 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Toledo Produce Exchange v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., S I. C. C, 166. See Kemble v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co. Cited: Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 31, 33. Rates to New England are higher than those to New York from all western points of origin, and the previous relation not disturbed. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co., Hydraulic-Press Brick Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 607. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co., Marion Iron & Brass Bed Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 272. Toledo, St. Louis & W. R. R. Co., Memphis Merchants' Exchange v. (U. R. A-408), 29 I. C. C„ 718. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co. et al., Milburn Wagon Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 360. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Ry. Co., Milburn Wagon Co. v., 27 I. C. C, 63. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co., National Hay Asso. v., 9 I. C. £, 264. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Ry. Co., Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 718. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co. et al., Noble, William K., v., 20 1. C. C, 661. Toledo, St. Louis & Western R. R. Co., St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v, 11 I. C. C, 82. See St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Toledo & St. Louis & Western R. R. Co., Shoal Creek Coal Co. v 27 I C C, 107. Tomatoes from Jacksonville, Fla., to Kansas City, Mo., 29 I. C. C. 522. Tomlin-Harris Machine Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 12 I C C, 133. Tone Bros. v. I. C. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 279. Tonopah Belmont Development Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Co., 26 I. C. C. 567. Tonopah Belmont Development Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U R A-644) 30 I. C. C, 729. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 983 Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 620. Cited : Lagomarcina-Grupe Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 152. Cited : Topeka Traffic Asso. v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 429. Rates on bananas retained in effect. Cited : Muskogee Traffic Bu. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 173. Per-ton-mile comparisons are often helpful in reaching a conclusion in respect 'to the reasonableness of rates, but to take that as the sole test is to scrutinize from the narrowest viewpoint. Cited: Waco Frt. Bu. v. H. &'T. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 23. Methods of handling bananas. Cited: Rates on Bananas from Gulf Ports, 30 I. C. C, 513. The rates in cited case while not found to be unreasonable per se were found to be relatively unreasonable. Topeka Traffic Asso. v. A. & V. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 428. Cited : Rates on Bananas from Gulf Ports, 30 I. C. C, 511. The rates of 70 and 80 cents to Topeka on bananas in carloads from Galveston and New Orleans held unjustly discriminatory, to the extent that they exceeded the rates contemporaneously applied on like traffic from Galveston and New Orleans to Lincoln or Beatrice, Nebr. Topeka Traffic Asso. v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 510. Torrey Cedar Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 678. Torrey Cedar Co. v, C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-588), 30 I. C. C, 722. Townley Medal & Hardware Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 378. Town of Martinsville, Va., v. N. & W. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 146. Town of Pelham, Ga., v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 433. Traders' & Travelers' Union, In re Petition of, 1 C. C. C, 8. Cited : The Penn. Co. v. Lou, New A. & Chi. Ry. Co, 3 I. C. C, 224. The Commission will not give opinions on abstract questions. Traders' & Travelers' Union v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co, 1 I. C. C, 122. Trades League of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 368. 984 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Traer v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 451. Carriers ordered to discontinue their existing practice of distribut- ing coal cars in times of car shortage on the ground that it is unjustly discriminatory to fail to count "company fuel cars,'' "foreign railway cars," and "private cars" against ithe quota of the mines receiving such cars. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Same. 173 Fed., 930. June 29, 1908. C. C. N. D. 111. Baker, J. Commission's order held invalid in so far as it required carriers to count their own fuel cars against the distributive share of the mines receiving such cars. In other respects, Commission's order held to be valid. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. 215 U. S., 452. January 10, 1910. White, J. Commission's order held valid in all respects. Company fuel cars, also, it was held, are subject to regulation by the Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. 215 U. S., 479. January 10, 1910. White, J. Commission's order held to be valid in all respects. Cited: Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 358. Cited : In re Irregularities in Mine Ratings, 25 I. C. C, 297. Company fuel cars used to haul fuel for its own use are subject to same rules of distribution as are system cars in which commercial coal is hauled for shippers upheld in 215 U. S., 452, 479. Reaffirmed : Colo. Coal Traffic Asso. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 461. Carriers have no right to send empty cars off their lines until they have furnished sufficient cars to the mines on their lines. Traer, Receiver of the 111. Collieries Co., v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 165. Traer v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 451. See Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. Traer v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 451. See Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. Traffic Asso. Colorado Coal v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 264. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 985 Traffic Asso. Colorado Coal v. D. & R. G. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 458. Traffic Asso. of Minneapolis v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 432. Traffic Asso. of Minneapolis v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 259. Traffic Asso. of Oklahoma v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 129. Traffic Association of Oshkosh et al. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 385. Traffic Asso. of St. Louis Coffee Importers v. I. C. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 484. Traffic Asso. Santa Rosa v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C, 46. See Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v. S. P. Co. Traffic Asso. of Santa Rosa v. S. P. Co., 29 I. C. C, 65. Traffic Asso. of Topeka v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 510. Traffic Bureau of Knoxville v. A. & V. Ry. Co. (6282), 29 I. C. C. 714. Traffic Bureau of Knoxville v. A. & V. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-559), 30 I. C. C, 718. Traffic Bureau of Medford v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. G, 701. Traffic Bureau of Muskogee v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 169. See Muskogee Traffic Bureau v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Traffic Bureau of Nashville, Tenn., v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 533. Rates on coal from L. & N. western Kentucky mines to Nashville and from N., C. & St. L.- mines in Tennessee and Alabama to Nashville found to be unreasonable; also that refusal of defendants to interchange •traffic to and from Tennessee Central R. R. Co. found to be unjustly discriminatory under Section 3. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. United States. 216 Fed., 672. September 1, 1914. D. C, M. D., Tenn. Order of Commission held to be valid. Cited: Richmond Chamber of Com. v. S. A. L. Ry., 30 I. C. C, 559. Where traffic moves from the same points of origin, and the switch- ing charge is absorbed in one case and not in the other, there is a violation of Section 2, as the existence of competition in the one case and not in the other clearly does not constitute a substantial dissimi- larity Where the traffic moves from different points of origin, and 986 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE where it may be that Section 3 alone applies, the competitive conditions relied on held insufficient to constitute a substantial dissimilarity. Traffic Bureau of Salt Lake City, Utah, v. Atchison, Toueka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al, 21 I. C. C, 400. See Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau of Salt Lake City, v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Traffic Bureau of Salt Lake City, Utah, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 218. Traffic Bureau of The Sioux City Commercial Club v. A. & S. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C„ 177. Cited: Lumber Rates from the Southwest to Points North, 29 I. C. C. C, 17. A rate of 30 cents on yellow pine from points in Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi to Sioux City reduced to 28 cents in cited case. Traffic Bureau of the Sioux City Commercial Club v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 82. Traffic Bureau of the Sioux City Commercial Club v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 544. Traffic Bureau of the Sioux City Commercial Club v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 664. Traffic Bureau of Sioux City Commercial Club v. G. & N. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 110. Traffic Bureau of the Sioux City Commercial Club v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (3881), 29 I. C. C, 709. Traffic Bureau of Springfield Jobbers' & Mfrs.' Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 432. Traffic Bureau of Jobbers' & Mfrs.' Asso., Springfield, Mo., v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 600. Traffic Bureau of Utica v. New York, Ontario & Western Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 168. Traffic Bureau of Utica v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 271. See Utica Traffic Bureau v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 510, 551. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 987 Cited : Nebraska-Iowa Grain Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 93. Cited : Gund & Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 18 I. C C, 366. Cited: Elevation Allowances, 24 I. C. C, 198. The service performed at the Missouri River in connection with the grain traffic, is held not to be a transfer, but elevation, not required by the railroad's but performed for benefit of grain dealers, and that pay- ment by carrier for that service then is unlawful, being discriminatory. Distinguished: Merchants' Cotton Press & S. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 104. The warehouse company does not own the cotton it compresses and stores. Cited : Merchants' C. P. & S. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 107. Held to be repugnant to decision in dissenting opinion. Cited: Traffic Bu., Mer. Ex. of St. L. v. C„ B. & Q. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 497. Rehearing. For fuller statement of facts. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. See Traffic Bu.., Mer. Ex. of St. L. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co. Carriers ordered not to exceed three-fourths of one cent per 100 pounds, in the payment of elevation or transfer allowance at the Mis- souri River, and to confine that payment to grain actually passing through the elevator in ten days. Davis (Board of Trade of Kansas City) v. United States. Not reported. February 10, 1913. Commerce Court No. 64. Case dismissed without prejudice in accordance with stipulation. Quoted and distinguished: Milwaukee Maltsters Asso. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 493. "As we understand the opinion (Diffenbaugh case, 222 U. S., 42), it holds that a railroad may employ the owner of an elevator to per- form a part of the transportation service which is encumbent upon the railroad, paying a reasonable compensation therefor, and the fact that ■the owner of the elevator during the process of transfer or elevation can subject the grain to other processes which are of incidental benefit to him does not amount to an undue discrimination." To constitute "elevation" the grain must be loaded out of the elevator as well as unloaded into it. In present case grain is mot loaded out of the elevator, but a manufactured product of the grain, more valuable than the orig- inal product, is loaded out. 988 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co., 22 I. C C, 496. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 11. Followed: Kansas City Trans. Bu. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 195. If this case were to be 'decided without any reference whatever to competitive conditions at St. Louis and Kansas City it is clear that rates from St. Louis, by virtue of its greater proximity to Little Rock and Arkansas points, ought to be less than the rates from Kansas City. If the competitive conditions which do exist are to control, then these rates ought all the more to be less from St. Louis, since these two markets deriving their supplies largely from the same source compete in this territory, and therefore rates via the several lines from points of origin to final destination ought to be substantially the same. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 105. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange, v. M. P. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Ex. of St. Louis, v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 317, 551. See Traffic Bureau, etc., St. Louis, v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 989 Traffic Bureau, Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 496. See Traffic Bu., Mer. Ex. of St. L. v. C, B. & Q. Ry. Co. Cited : In re Elevation Allowances, 24 I. C. C, 199. The opinion in the cited case was written to comply with the find- ings of the Supreme Court in Diffenbaugh v. I. C. G, 222 U. S., 42, which was an appeal from a former finding by the Commission reported 14 I. C. C, 317. Traffic Bureau of The Merchants' Exchange of San Francisco v. Southern Pacific Co., 19 I. C. C, 259. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount their class rates from Sacramento, Cal., to points upon the main line of the Southern Pacific road between Reno, Nev., and Cecil Junction, Utah, on the ground that existing rates are unreasonable. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. C. C. N. D. Cal. Bill to annul Commission's order transferred to Commerce Court. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Not reported. April 18, 1912. Commerce Court No. 32. Case dismissed without opinion. Cited : Riverside Mills v. Georgia R. R., 20 I. C. C, 425. Cited: Rates of Fruits and Vegetables, 30 I: C. G, 59. Fourth-class rate, Sacramento to Reno, reduced from 87 cents to 51 cents. Cited : Corporation Com. of Okla. v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 23 I'. C. C, 696. Rates established in cited case from California to Utah common points used as basis in present case, for proposed rates. Cited : Pulp & Paper Mfrs.' Traffic Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 94. Quoted : Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 569. A road is built and operated as a whole, and local rates are not to be made with respect to the difficulties of each particular operation, ohargihg the cost of a bridge to the traffic of one section or the cost of a tunnel to traffic between its two mouths is improper. Traffic Bureau, Wichita Business Asso., v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 712. 990 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Trail v. W. & O. D. Ry. Co. (5225), 28 I. C. C, 714. Trammell, L. N., v. Cinn., New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 324. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Trammell, L. N., v. Clyde Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 324, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde Steamship Co.; R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Ocean Steamship Co. Carriers ordered to cease charging the existing rates from the At- lantic seaboard, Cincinnati, etc., which are higher for the shorter haul to certain Georgia cities than for the longer haul to Atlanta, Ga., and other points, on the ground that the existing rates are in violation of Section 4. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co. 88 Fed., 186. June 15, 1898. C. C. N. D. Ga. Newman, J. Commission's order held to be invalid, on the ground that the Com- mission erred in not considering competition between carriers subject to the act as an element creaiting a dissimilarity of circumstances that justifies the existing rate adjustment. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Clyde Steamship Co. (two cases). Same v. Ocean Steamship Co. Same v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. Not reported. C. C. N. D. Ga. These companion cases were discontinued pending final determina- tion of I. C. C. v. W. & A. R. R. Co. (88 Fed., 186.) Interstate Commerce Commission v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co. Same v. Clyde Steamship Co. 93 Fed., 83. March 21, 1899. C. C. A., 5th Cir. McCormick, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground stated by the circuit court. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Clyde Steamship Co. (two cases). Same v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co. 181 U. S., 29. April 8, 1901. White, J. Commission's order held to be invalid, on the ground that the Com- mission erred in not considering competition between carriers subject to the act as an element creating dissimilarity of circumstances that justifies the existing rate adjustment. ' ! , COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 991 Cited: Phelps & Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 48. Cited : Freight Bureau v. Cinn., N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 233. Cited : Gustin v. Atch., T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 287. The receipt, forwarding, and delivery of traffic by connecting carriers clearly establishes the existence of a common arrangement between the carriers for continuous carriage or shipment. Reaffirmed: B'd of T'd. of Lynchburg v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 6 I. C. C, 645. Cited : Brewer & Hanleiter v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 I. C. G, 237. Overruled: Dallas Freight Bureau v. A. & N. W. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 70. A given carrier is not justified in charging more for shorter than for longer distance by the competition at the longer distance point of other carriers which are themselves subject to the Act, in the absence of authority from the Commission under the proviso clause of the Fourth Section. In such a case the circumstances and conditions are not deemed to be dissimilar, and the 'higher charge for the shorter distance is unlawful. Cited: Warren-Ehret Co. v. Cen. R. of N. J., 8 I. C. C, 604. A shipper has no direct interest in the division of a through rate, but when he complains of the unlawfulness of the through rate the amount so received by the different carriers may be significant upon the reasonableness of the aggregate charge. Trammell, L. N., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., SI. C. G, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Trammell, L. N., v. Ocean Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C, 324. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Trammell, L. N., v. Sou. Car. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C, 32S. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Trammell, L. N., v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., 5 I. C. C, 325. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Transcontinental Commodity Rates, West Bound, 26 I. C. C, 456. Transcontinental Freight Bureau, Burgess v., 13 I. C. C, 668. See Burgess v. T. F. B. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al., Burgess, George D. et al. v., 19 I. C. C, 611. See Burgess v. T. F. B. 992 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al., Jones, G. W. Lumber Co., 21 I. C. C, 397. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. v. Memphis Freight Bureau et al., 21 I. C. C, 397. Transcontinental Freight Bureau v. Michigan Hardwood Mfrs.' Asso., 22 I. C. C, 387. See Michigan Hardwood Mfrs.' Asso. v. T. F. B. Transcontinental Freight Bureau v. Mich. Hardwood Mfrs/ Asso., 24 I. C. C, 709. Transcontinental Freight Bureau v. Michigan Hardwood Mfrs.' Asso., 27 I. C. C, 32. See Michigan Hardwood Mfrs.' Asso. v. T. F. B. Transcontinental Freight Bureau v. Michigan Hardwood Mfrs.' Asso. (U. R. A-390), 28 I. C. C, 739. Transcontinental Lines, In re Tariffs of, 2 I. C. C, 324. Cited : City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 417. The fact is that the transcontinental rates are compelled by water competition. Transcontinental Rates from Group F., 1 I. C. G, 28. Transit Case, The, 25 I. C. C, 130. Transit Case, 26 I. C. C, 204. See In re Substitution of Tonnage. Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, Re, 10 I. C. C„ 360. See Matter of Charges, etc., for Fruit by P., M. & Mich. Cent. R. R. Transportation Bureau of Kansas City v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 195. Transportation Bureau of Kansas City Commercial Club v. A., T. & S. F R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 432. Transportation Bureau of Kansas City v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al 21 I. C. C, 664. Transportation Bureau of the New Seattle Chamber of Commerce v G N Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 683. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 993 Transportation Bureau of Seattle Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 265. Cited: Transportation Bu. of Seattle Chamber of Com. et al. v. North- ern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 640. Supplemental order declaring interstate class rates from Portland, Tacoma and Seattle to points in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Mon- tana unreasonable and reducing them. Transportation Bureau -of Seattle Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 640. Transportation Bureau of Wichita, Kans., v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 679, 682. Transportation Bureau of Wichita v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (429Q, 4294), 29 I. C. C, 709. Transportation Committee of the Manufacturers' Club of Buffalo, N. Y., v. Pullman Co., 18 I. C. C, 614. Transportation of Immigrants from N. Y., Re, 10 I. C. C, 13. Transportation of Land & Immigrant Agents, Re, 12 I. C. C, 7. Transportation of Salt from Hutchison, Kansas, 10 I. C. C, 1. See also Matter of Transportation of Salt, etc. Cited : Re Division of Joint Rates, 10 I. C. G, 402. The manifest intention of the Act to regulate commerce especially as expressed in the Elkins Bill, is to strike through all pretense, all ingenious device, to the substance of the transaction itself. Transportation of Salt from Points in Michigan, 10 I. C. C, 148. Reversed : Colonial Salt Co. v. M. I. & I. Line, 23 I. C. C, 367. The Michigan, Indiana & Illinois Line is a plant facility of the J. M. Morton & Co. and Morton Salt Co. Tremain, Charles, v. Dela., Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 148, 548. Tremont & Gulf R. R. Co., Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 138. Tremont & Gulf Ry. Co. et al., Tremont Lumber Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 673. Tremont Lumber Co. v. Arkansas Southern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Tremont Lumber Co. v. Tremont & Gulf Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 673. 994 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Tremont Lumber Co. v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. €., 335. Trier v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 352, 707. Cited-: Trier v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 707. Petition to rehear. Trinity & Brazos Valley Ry. Co. et al., Miller, J. G., v., 20 I. C. C, 670. Trinity & Brazos Valley Ry. Co., Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. (U. R. A-585), 30 I. C. C, 721. Trinity & Brazos Valley Ry. Co., Shoupe & Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 570. Trinity Valley Southern Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Tripod Paint Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 284. Tripod Paint Co. v. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 6 I. C. C, 284. Tritch, Geo. Hardware Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 71. Tritch, George Hardware Co. v. Rutland R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 542. Trojan Mfg. Co. v. V. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 718. Tropical Fruits from Gulf Ports to Various Destinations, 30 I. C. C. 621. Trostle, Albert & Sons v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. Trout Lake Ice Co. et al. v. Erie R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 45, 596. Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston and Vicinity v. Northeastern R R Co of S. C, 6 I. C. C, 295. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount their rates on strawberries and certain vegetables from Charleston, S. C. to north- eastern markets, on the ground that the existing rates are unreasonable. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northeastern R. R. Co. of South Carolina. 74 Fed., 70. April 30, 1896. C. C. D. S. C. Simonton, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that the Com- mission is without power to fix rates. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northeastern R. R. Co. of South Carolina. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 995 83 Fed., 611. November 3, 1897. C. C. A. 4th Cir. Goff, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on ground that Commission is without power to fix rates. No appeal. Cited : Re Transportation, etc., of Fruit, 10 I. C. C, 376. The refrigeration charge made under exclusive contracts treated as the act of the carriers themselves and order to reduce them might be made. Cited : Asparagus Growers' Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 427. Certain refrigerator charges from Charleston to New York held reasonable. Truck Growers' Association of Charleston v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 190. Cited : Jouannet v. A. C. L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 393. Cited : Bahrenburg, Bro. & Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 564. Any-quantity rate of 30 cents on bushel packages of vegetables N. O. S. from Charleston to New York City held not unreasonable. Truckers Transfer Co. v. Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 275. Cited: Merchants' & Mfrs.' Asso. v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 30 I. C. , C, 401. The right and duty rest with the Commission to establish or decline to establish additional routes and joint rates as the circumstances and conditions may in its judgment appear to require. Trumbull, Frank, v. Colo. Fuel & Iron Co., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Trussed Concrete Steel Co. v. Erie R. R. Co. (U. R. A-512, 513), 29 I. C. C, 731, 732. Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Metals Extraction & Refining Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 11. Tuffli Brothers Pig Iron & Coke Co. v. C. M. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 726. Tully, W. A. Grain Co. v. Fort Smith & Western R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 606. Tully v. Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. Co. (1554), 14 I. C. C, 638. Tully, W. A. Grain Co. v. Fort Smith & Western R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 28. 996 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Tunis-Cockey Lumber Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-366), 28 I. C. C, 736. Tunnell, E. Lynn, v. L. & N. R. Co. (5042), 27 I. C. C, 704. Turnbull, F. M. Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 123. Cited : Wholesale Producers' Asso. v. L. I, R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 414. Track storage and demurrage charges at congested yards in the larger centers of population have been several times approved. Tusten Seed & Produce Co. v. V. S. & P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 712. Tusten Seed & Produce Co. (Ltd.) v. V. S. & P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-442), 29 J. C. C, 722. Tuthill Spring Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 666. Tuthill Spring Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 622. Tuttle Paint & Glass Co. v. S. P. Co. (U. R. A-169), 27 I. C. C, 716. Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (6308), 29 I. C. C, 714. Tygarts River Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 16 I, C. C, 605. Tyler, B. F. Commission Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 16 I. C. C, 490. Tyler Grocery Co. v. Southern Exp. Co. (U. R. A-474), 29 I. C. C, 727. Tyson & Jones Buggy Co. v. Aberdeen & Asheboro Ry. Co. et al, 17 I. C. G, 330. u Uhlman, S. & F., v. S. P. & Co, 25 I. C. C, 711. Ullman v. Adams Ex. Co, 14 I. C. C, 340, 585. Cited : Ullman v. Adams Express Co, 14 I. C. C, 585, 587. This original case was reopened to permit oral argument — the for- mer opinion adhered to. Cited : Ullman v. Am. Express Co, 19 I. C. C, 354. Original complaint did not ask for reparation and rates were re- duced. A subsequent complaint for reparation will not be entertained. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 997 Ullman> Joseph, v. American Express Co. «t al., 19 I. C. C, 354. Cited : Byrnes v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 253. Principles on which reparation is disallowed. Ulmer v. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. (854), (921), 12 I. C. C, 583, 585. Ulrick & Williams v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 9 I. C C, 495. Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co., B; Brockway v., 8 I. C. C, 21. Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co., Milk Producers' Pro. Asso. v., 7 I. C. C, 92. See Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. Uintah Ry. Co., American Asphalt Asso. v., 13 I. C. C, 196. Uintah Valley Ry. Co. et al., Burton, Frank W., v., 20 I. C. C, 75. Uintah Ry. Co., Holland, Director of the Carnegie Institute of Pittsburgh, v., 28 I. C. C, 731. Uintah Ry. Co., Standard Gilsonite & Asphaltum Co. v., 20 I. C. C. : 655. Underbilling, In re, 1 I. C. C, 633. Underwood Veneer Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 660. Underwood Veneer Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 672. Union Coal & Coke Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 726. Union Coal & Coke Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 626. Union Made Garment Manufacturers' Association of America v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al, 16 I. C. C, 405. See also Asso. of Union Made Garment Mfrs.' Asso. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. Quoted: Minneapolis Traffic Asso. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C, 436. Fixing classification on cotton goods on value of material not prac- ticable. Union Match Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 626. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al. Acme Cement Plaster Co. v, 17 I. C. G, 621. Union Pacific R. R. Co, Allen v. (5635), 29 I. C. C, 711. 998 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Union Pacific R. R. Co., Anderson v. (U. R. A-243), 27 I. C. C, 727. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Beaver & Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 733. See Beaver & Co. v. Pitts., Cinn. & St. L. Ry. Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Bewsher Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 146. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Business Men's League of St. Louis v., 9 I. C. C, 318. See Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Carstens Packing Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 8. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Thomas V. Cator v., 6 I. C. C, 113. See Cator, Thomas V. v. Southern Pacific Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Cavers Elevator Co. v., IS I. C. C, 90. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. G, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Commercial Club of Omaha v., 7 I. C. C, 386. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Crowell Lumber Co. v., IS I. C. C, 90. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Dinneen v. (U. R. A-243), 27 I. C. C, 727. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Domke & Campbell v., 24 I. C. C, 70S. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Ellsworth Produce Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 182. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Thomas, Elmer E. et al. v., 17 I. C. C, 614. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Milton Evans v., 6 I. C. C, 520. See Evans v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Felton Grain Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 63. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Florien Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A- 194) 27 I C C, 720. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Gem City Grocery Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 711. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 999 Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Great Western Sugar Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 622. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Gustin, A. J., v., 8 I. C. C. 277, 481. See Gustin v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., and Gustin v. Burlington & Mo. River R. R. in Nebr. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Havemeyer, W. A. & Co. v., 17 I, C. C, 12. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Heil, Henry Chemical Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 684. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. Supply Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 714. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Hess v. (U. R. A-38S), 28 I. C. C, 738. Union Pacific R. R. Co., In re Allowances to Elevators by, 14 I. C. C, -51 5, See In re Allowances to Elevators by U. P. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Johnson, Charles H., v., 9 I. C. C, 221. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Kemmerer Hardware & Furniture Co. v. (U. R. A-293), 28 I. C. C 726. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al, Kenworthy, W. H. & Son v, 21 I. C. C, SIS. Union Pacific R. R. Co, Kindel, George J, v, 11 I. C. C, 49S. See Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co, Larsen v. (U. R. A-243), 27 I. C. C, 727. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al, Lawrence-Hensley Fruit Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 626. Union Pacific Ry. Co, Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v, 4 I. C. C, 1. See Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. So. Pac. Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co, Leverett, Leonard, v, 1 I. C. C, 185. Union Pacific R. R. Co, Lewis Lumber Co. v. (1336), 13 I. C. C, 683. Union Pacific Ry.'Co, Lincoln Board of Trade v, 3 I. C. C, 221. See Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co, Lincoln Creamery v, S I. C. C, 156. See Lincoln Creamery v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co, MacMurray v, 13 I. C. C, 531. 1000 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Union Pacific Ry. Co., Matthews, Samuel, v., 5 I. C. C, 299. See Anthony Salt Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 666. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Meanea v. (U. R. A-243), 27 I. C. C, 727. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Merchants' Union of Spokane Falls v., 5 I. C. C, 478. See Merchants' Union, etc., v. No. Pac. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Merriam & Holmquist v., 16 I. C. C, 337. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Meyer v. (U. R. A-243), 27 I. C. C, 727. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Morrell, C. O., v., 6 I. C. C. 121. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Morris & Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 657. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Nebraska-Iowa Grain Co. v., IS I. C. C, 90. See Nebraska-Iowa Grain Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Nebraska State Ry. Com. v., 13 I. C. C, 349. See Nebraska State Ry. Com. v. U. P. R..R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Nelson, Chas. Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 611. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Newland, A. S., v., 6 I. C. C, 131. See Newland v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Transportation v., 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Northwest Coal Co. v. (U. R. A-665), 30 I. C. C, 732. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Nye-Schneider-Fowler Grain Co. v., IS I. C. C, 90. See Nebraska-Iowa Grain Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Oakes & Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 715. Union Pacific R. R, Co., Omaha Grain Ex. v., 12 I. C. C, 65. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Oregon & Washington Lumber Manufacturers' Asso. v., 14 I. C. C, 1. See Oreg. & Wash. Lumber Mfrs. Asso. v. U. P. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1001 Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Pacific Lumber Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 610. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Pacific Purchasing Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 72. See Montague v. A., T. & S. F: Ry. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Poison Implement Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 628. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Raworth, E. M., v., S I. C. C, 234. See Raworth v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Rice, George, v., 4 I. C. C, 228. See Rice v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Union Pacific Ry. Co., Rice, George, v., S I. C. C, 193. See Rice v. Cinn., Wash. & Bait. R. R. Co. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. (5797), 28 I. C. C, 718. Union Pacific R. R. Co., St. John & Co. v. (U. R. A-449), 29 I. C. C, 723. Union Pacific R. R. Co., W. Scheidel & Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 532. . Union Pacific R R. Co., Sibley v. (1196), 13 I. C. C, 681. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Sioux City & Rock Springs Coal Mining Co. v. (885), 29 I. C. C. 707. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Sligo Iron Store Co. v., 19 I. C. G, 527. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Southwestern Millers League v., 26 I. C. C, 245. See Southwestern Millers League v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co, Union Pacific R. R. Co., Stark v. (1134), 29 I. C. €., 708. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Thomas v., 26 I. C. C, 707. Union Pacific R. R. Co., United States of America v., 28 I. C. C, 518. Union Pacific R. R. Co., United States Portland Cement Co. v., 125 I. C. C, 714. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Updike Grain Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 90. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Vulcan Detinning Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 93. Union Pacific R. R. Co., Warefield-Pratt-Howell Co. v. (5386), 27 I. C. C, 705. 1002 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Union Pacific, Denver & Gulf Ry. Co., Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Union Pacific Tea Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 545. Union Portland Cement Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 723. 17 I. C. C, 623. Union Sand & Material Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha, Interveners in Chicago I,ive Stock Ex., v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. Union Tanning Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 22 I. C. C... 672. Union Tanning Co. v. S. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 112. Cited: Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. G, 664. Differential between Morgantown and Canton reduced on rates from Appalachia and Dante fields of Virginia, from 55 to 35 cents, and be- tween Old Fort and Canton from 25 to 5 cents in cited case. Union Tanning Co. v. S. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 159. Quoted: B'd of Improvement, Waterworks Dist. No. 1, v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 542. While in fixing reasonable rates and relative rate adjustments, dis- tance must always be considered as bearing both upon cost to the carrier in performing the service and the value of the service to the shipper, there are many other facts, such as density or sparsity of traffic over and along the lines of movement, comparative cost of con- struction and operation, and competitive conditions, which must be given weight. United Kansas Portland Cement Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-552), 30 I. C. C, 717. United Kansas Portland Cement Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-321), 28 I. C. C, 730. United Refrigerator & Ice Machine Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 439. United States v. Adams Express Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 394. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1003 United States National League of Commission Merchants v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 132. See National League of Com. Merchants of the U. S. v. A C L R. R. Co. United States v. A. C. L. R. Co. (U. R. A-175), 27 I. C. C. 717. United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 470. United States v. B. & M. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 724. U. S. of America v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co. (U. S. Dist. Ct.), 11 I. C. C, 698. United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 7. United States v. M. P. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 709. United States v. N. Y., Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co. (1706), 14 I. C. C, 642. United States of America v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 607. United States of America v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 613. United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. (1634), 29 I. C. C, 708. United States v. N. Y., Phila. & Norfolk R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 233. United States of America v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 605. United States of America v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 607. United States v. P. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-641), 30 I. C. C, 729. United States of America v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. G, 613. United States of America v. Pittsburgh, Cinn., Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. (U. S. Dist. Ct.), 11 I. C. C, 696. United States of America v. R. F. & P. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 702. United States v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C, 255. United States of America v. U. P. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. G, 518. United States v. W. N. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 309. United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 625. 1004 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE U. S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. (U. R. A-314), 28 I. C. C, 729. U. S. Commission of Fish & Fisheries, In re, 1 I. C. C, 21. United States Commissioner of Immigration at New York Port v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 607. United States Express Co. v. Memphis Freight Bureau (U. R. A-424), 29 I. C. C, 720. United States Express Co. v. Parlin & Orendorff Plow Co. of St. Louis, 26 I. C. C, 561. See Parlin & Orendorff Plow Co. v. U. S. Exp. Co. i United States Express Co., Pyro Art Club v., 16 I. C. C, 37. U. S. Express Co., Society of American Florists & Ornamental Horticultur- ists, 12 I. C. C, 120. United States Gypsum Co. v. C, R. I. & P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 715. United States Gypsum Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-310), 28 I. C. C, 729. United States Gypsum Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (5556), 29 I. C. C, 711. United States Leather Co. et al. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 323. Cited: Union Tanning Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 159. The increase of 2 cents per 100 pounds in car load rates on leather from all producing points in the southeastern states to New York and other eastern destinations, Virginia cities, and Buffalo-Pittsburgh terri- tory to Ohio and Mississippi River crossings and other northern and western points denied in cited case. United States National League of Commission Merchants v. P. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-313), 28 I. C. C, 729. United States Packing Co. v. S. A. & A. P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 723. United States Portland Cement Co. v. U. P. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 714. United Zinc & Chemical Co v. K. C. S. R. Co. (5115), 27 I. C. C, 704. University of Wisconsin v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (5727), 28 I. C. C, 717. Updike Grain Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al 17 I C C, 628. '' ' ' Updike Grain Co. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 90. Upham Isaac Co. v. W. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 708. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1005 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 622. Utica Traffic Bureau v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C. 271. Cited: Schultz-Hausen Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 18 I. C. C, 239. Loading and unloading carload freight is considered extra service if performed by carrier. If for competitive or other reasons which were satisfactory to the carriers no charge was assessed for such service and later the reasons for such free service disappear, the carriers are justi- fied in making a reasonable charge for any service they perform over and above transportation and delivery. Utica Traffic Bureau v. New York, Ontario & Western Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 168. J V Vail, Aaron T., v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 667. Vail Cooperage Co. v. Paragould & Memphis R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 658. Val Blatz Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 626. Valley Flour Mills v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 73. Cited: Arizona Corporation Com. v. A. & N. M. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 425. The spread on wheat and flour fixed at 12 per cent. Valley Lumber & Timber Co. v. W. M. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-465), 29 I. C. C, 725. Valley Ry. Co., Harvard Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 212. See Harvard Co. v. Penn. Co. Van Brunt Manufacturing Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 195. Van Camp Burial Vault Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 713. Van Camp Burial Vault Co. v. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 79. Van Dyck, L. H. Co., Board of R. R. Com'rs of Montana, in Behalf of, v. N. P. R. Co. (U. R. A-157), 27 I. C. C, 715. 1006 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Van Natta Bros. v. C, C, C. & St L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 1. Van Voorhies & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R A-622), 30 I. C. C, 726. Vandalia R. R. Co. et al., Alphons, Custodis Chimney Constructing Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 600. Vandalia R. R. Co., American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Co. v. (U. R. A-406), 29 I. C. C, 717. Vandalia R. R., Co., Commercial Club of Terre Haute v., 29 I. C. C, 383. Vandalia R. R. Co., Ford Mfg. Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 715. Vandalia R. R. Co. et al., Highland Iron & Steel Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 601. See Highland Iron & Steel Co. v. V. R. R. Co. Vandalia R. R. Co., Hinsch-Briscoe Coal Co. (Inc.) v. (5858), 28 I. C. C, 719. Vandalia R. R. Co., Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 175. Vandalia R. R. Co., Kehoe & Co. v. (1423), 14 I. C. C, 637. Vandalia R. R. Co., Obion Hardware Co. v. (U. R. A-162), 27 I. C. C, 715. Vandalia R. R. Co. et al. Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v, 16 I. C. C, 335. Vandalia R. R. Co., Romona Oolitic Stone Company v, 13 I. C. C, 115. See Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v. V. R. R. Co. Vandalia R. R. Co, Trojan Mfg. Co. v, 26 I. C. C, 718. Vandalia R. R. Co, Wright & Co. v, 25 I. C. C, 214. Vanness, John W, v. Lehigh & Hudson River Ry. Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 307. Vaughn Mfg. Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 618. Vehicle Supply Co. v. L. R. & N. Co. (U. R. A-252), 27 I. C. C, 728. Veitch, Carlos, v. S. A. L. R, 22 I. C. C, 4. Venus, D. M, v. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & Southern Ry. Co, 15 I. C. C, 136. Vermont State Grange v. Boston & Lowell R. R. Co, 1 I. C. C, 158. Cited and followed: E. Martin, etc, v. Chic, Burl. & Quin. R. R. Co, 2 I. C. C, 51. One may complain on public grounds of a violation of the Act to regulate commerce which amounts to a public grievance, without hav- COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 100*7 ing any personal interest whatever to be affected by the violation, ex- cept as one of the public. And a voluntary State association of persons engaged in an industrial pursuit, and therefore presumably interested in railroad rates in the State, may be complainant in proceedings charg- ing a violation, of the Act. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Adams & Sons Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 709. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Adams & Sons Co. v., 29 I. C. C, 52. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. R. Co., Central Yellow Pine Asso. v., 10 I. C. €., 193. See Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Columbus Iron Works Co. v. (U. R. A-547), 29 I. C. C, 736. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., In re Investigation Concerning the Propriety of Proposed Schedules of Rates on Lumber Filed by, 20 I. C. C, S7S. Cited : Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., In re Propriety of Proposed Schedules of Rates on Lumber, etc., 21 I. C. C, 16. Petition to rehear dismissed. The rates under suspension had gone into effect and the Commis- sion is not empowered to suspend operation of a schedule of rates after it has gone into effect. Cited: Davis Bros. Lumber Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 2S9. The elimination of the through routes and joint rates via Ruston and the V., S. & P. Ry., formerly in effect justified in cited case. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., In re Investigation Concerning the Propriety of Proposed Schedules of Rates on Lumber Filed by, 21 I. C. C, 16. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wich- ita, Kans., v.j 9 I. C. C, 569. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Menefee Bros, v., 19 I. C. C, 117. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Menefee & Bros, v., 24 I. C. C, 718. 1008 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Meridian Fertilizer Factory v., 20 I. C. C, SS4. See Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. V., S. & P. Ry. Co. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Meridian Fertilizer Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 224. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., Miller, Albert & Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 6S8. Vicksburg^ Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co. et al. Noble, Wm. K, v, 18 I. C. C, 224. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co., Shreveport Traffic Asso. v. (1687), 14 I. C. C, 641. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. R. Co. et al, Tremont Lumber Co. v, 16 I. C. C, 335. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Co, Tusten Seed & Produce Co. v, 26 I. C. C. 712. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co, Tusten Seed & Produce Co. (Ltd.) v. (U. R. A-442), 29 I. C. C, 722. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific R. R. Co. et al, Williams, P. P. Co. v, 16 I. C. C, 482. See Williams Co. v. V., S. & P. Ry. Co. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. Co, Wilsey & Shaffer Mfg. Co. v, 24 I. C. C, 703. Victor Fuel Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co, 14 I. C. C, 119. Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. R. Co, 27 I. C. C, 661. Cited : Stone & Son v. S. Ry. Co, 29 I. C. C, 700. The cited case was a proceeding to obtain reparation on the basis of findings in a former hearing of the same case. An issue raised was whether claimants who received the shipments at points other than the point on which the original controversy was founded, but taking same group rate as that point could recover on basis of the case which estab- lished the unreasonableness of that rate and it was held in cited case that recovery could be had by such shippers. Victor Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al, 21 I. C. C, 222. Cited: Ala. Coal Operators' Asso. v. S. Ry. Co, 21 I. C. C, 235. Cost of production at Coal Creek is about $1.05 per ton. run-of-mine basis, while in Alabama it is not over $1.00 per ton. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1009 Cited: Chamber of Com., Augusta, Ga., v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C, 238. Coal rate Coal Creek to Spartansburg, S. C. Quoted: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O R R Co 27 I. C. C, 131. The $1.55 rate contended for by complainants is the average rate per ton on all freight. While averages are often helpful in determining the proper relationship of rates or the proper basis for their construc- tion, considering the cost of the transportation here involved, * * * we are not prepared to say a rate of $1.55 would be the reasonable max- imum rate for the haul here involved." Cited and followed : Stone & Son v. S. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 700. Rates on coal from Coal Creek to Spartansburg and points .taking same rate, reduced from $1.95 to $1.85 per ton. A like, reduction of 10 cents made in present case. Vienna, Ga., Mayor and City Council of, v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 173. See Mayor and Council of Vienna, Ga., v. Ga. Sou. & Fla. Ry. Co. Vilter Mfg. Co. v. E. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 717. Vincennes Bridge Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 719. Virginia & Southwestern Ry. Co., Board of Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Bristol, Tenn., v., 15 I. C. C, 453. See Board of Mayor and Alderman, etc., Bristol, Tenn., v. V. & S. W. Ry. Co. Virginia & Southwestern Ry. Co., Brenner Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-431). 29 I. C. C, 721. Virginia & Southwestern Ry. Co., De Camp Bros. & Yule Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 274. See De Camp Bros. & Yule Iron, Coal & Coke Co. v. V. & S. W. Ry. Co. Virginia & Southwestern Ry. Co. et al., Fullerton-Powell Hardwood Lum- ber Co. v., 20 I. C. C, 86. Virginia & Southwestern Ry. Co., Rogan v., 22 I. C. C. 659. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. A. C. L. R., 22 I. C. G, 394. Cited : German Kali Works v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 228. Sulphate of potash is a fertilizer material. The question in cited case was whether the tariffs of carriers were so stated' as to make ef- 1010 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE fective a lower rate on fertilizer than was charged. The rate charged was found to be the correct one. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. A. C. L. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 234. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 31. Cited: Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. V., S. & P. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, SS6. Cited: Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C, 646. Cited: Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 237. Rates on fertilizer, minimum carload weight 30,000 pounds, from Memphis to Arkansas points. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 711. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-660), 30 I. C. C, 731. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. S. Cited: Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. V., S. & P. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, SS6. Cited: Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 236. Rate on fertilizer, minimum carload weight 30,000 pounds, from Memphis to Arkansas points. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 1. Followed: Va.-Car. Chem. Co. v. C, R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 3. Followed: Va.-Car. Chemical Co. v. St. L. & S. F R R Co 18 I C C, S. " Cited : Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. V., S. P. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, SS6. Cited : Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry Co 25 I C C, 646. •> • • Cited : Meridian Fertilizer Co. v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 351. Cited: Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. A. C. L R R Co 27 'i C G, 236. Rates on fertilizer, minimum carload weight 30,000 pounds, Memphis to Arkansas points. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1011 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 49. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. et al., 17 I. C. C, 623. Cited: Va.-Car. Chem. Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 1. Cited: Virginia-Carolina Chem. Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 236. Carload rates on fertilizer. Cited: Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. V., S. & P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 225. The rates fixed in cited case predicated other than upon fact that incidental to the handling of its business out of Memphis, defendants paid a bridge toll or rental and that the Commission's order could not be issued merely because such a charge existed, or to overcome natural advantages enjoyed by competitive producing points. Cited: Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 353. A bridge arbitrary or toll similar to that in question here was con- sidered in cited case. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 713. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. G, 600. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. S. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 721. Virginia Highlands Citizens Asso. v. W.-V. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 593. Virginia-Lee Co. v. Black Mountain Ry. Co. (1178), 14 I. C. G, 635. Virginia Mfg. Co. v. A. C. L. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 68. Va. Midland Ry. Co., Loud, P. H., Jr., v., 5 I. C. C, 529. See Loud v. So. Car. Ry. Co. Virginia Ry.'Co., Aberdeen Lumber Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 723. Virginia Ry. Co. et al., Craig, W. P. Lumber Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 144. Virginian Ry. Co., Kennedy & Co., Ltd., v., 22 I. C. C, 671. Virginia Ry. Co., St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 360. See St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. Ry. Co. Virginian Ry. Co., Lane Bros. Co. v. (6013), 28 I. C. C, 720. Virginian Ry. Co., Loup Creek Colliery Co. v., 12 I. C. G, 471. See Loup Creek Colliery Co. v. V. Ry. Co. 1012 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Virginian Ry. Co. et al., St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 215. See St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. Ry. Co. Virginian R. R. Co., St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 183. See St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. R. R. Co. Vogeler Seed & Produce Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 603. Volco Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. (5352), 27 I. C. C, 705. Volco Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 289. Vollmar & Below Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 607. Von Behren Mfg. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co. (U. R. A-173), 27 I. C. C, 717. Voorhees, John N., v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 42, 45. Cited : Asparagus Growers' Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 427. Refrigeration charges of $48.00 on 21,125 pounds from Charleston to New York 'held reasonable. Cited: Jouannet v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 393. A 48-cent rate on lettuce, New York City from St. Andrews, a point 23 miles from Charleston, held reasonable. Voss-Barbee Manufacturing Co. v. Erie R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 674. Vote-Berger Co. v. Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 626. Vulcan Detinning Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-594), 30 I. C. C, 722. Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 93. Vulcan Steam Shovel Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 265. Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 477. Modified: Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co 27 I C C„ 468. Rate of 63 cents on iron and steel commodities to Denver. Colo., from St. Louis, Mo., and other Mississippi River crossings taking the same rates, applicable on traffic originating east of the Mississippi River, found unreasonable to extent it exceeds 45 cents. Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 468. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1013 w Wabash Coating Mills v. Wabash Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 91. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Acme Cement Plaster Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 557. Wabash R. R. Co., Aetna Powder Co. v. (U. R. A-681), 30 I. C. C, 734. Wabash R. R. Co., Anheuser-Busch Brewing Asso. v., 22 I. C. C, 667. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Bash Fertilizer Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 522. Wabash R. R. Co., Beaver & Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 733. See "Beaver & Co. v. Pitts., Cinn. & St. L. Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Beggs, Edwin, v., 16 I. C. C, 208. See Beggs v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Board of Trade of City of Chicago v., 4 I. C. C, 1S8. See Chicago Board of Trade v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Breese-Trenton Mining Co. et al. v., 19 I. C. C... 598. See Breese-Trenton Mining Co. v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 714. Wabash R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v., 10 I. C. C, 83. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C. 277, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., and Cattle Raisers* Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Chicago Live Stock Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. 1014 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Wabash Ry. Co., Commercial Club of Omaha v., 6 I. C. C 647. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Condie-Neale Glass Co. v. (U. R. A-192), 27 I. C. C, 720. Wabash R. R. Co., Cook, Simon Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 563. Wabash R. R. Co., Cutler v. (6351), 30 I. C. C, 714. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Delray Salt Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 602. Wabash R. R. Co., Dowd Knife Works v. (5035), 28 I. C. C, 713. Wabash R. R. Co., Eau Claire Board of Trade v., 5 I. C. G, 264. See Eau Claire B'd of Trade v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Evans & Howard Fire Brick Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 152. Wabash R. R. Co., Export Shipping Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 437. See Export Shipping Co. v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Gamble & Robinson Fruit Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 704. Wabash R. R. Co., Globe Elevator Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 210. Wabash R. R. Co., Globe-Wernicke Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 156. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Goldberg-Bowen & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 503. Wabash R. R. Co., Greater Des Moines Com., Inc., v., 14 I. C. C, 294. See Greater Des Moines Committee v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., A. J. Gustin v., 8 I. C. C, 277. See Gustin v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Heil, Henry, Chemical Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 518. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Houston Structural Steel Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 208. See Houston Structural Steel Co. v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Charles H. Johnson v., 9 I. C. C, 221. Wabash R. R. Co., Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v., 12 I. C. C, 51. See Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. W. R. R. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1015 Wabash R. R. Co., George J. Kindel v., 11 I. C. C, 495. See Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Knox, S. H., v., 18 I. C. C, 18S. See Knox v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Langenberg Bros. & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 617. Wabash R. R. Co., W. H. H. MacLoon v., 9 I. C. C, 642. See MacLoon v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Mason-Gregg Grain Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 628. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Mayer Fertilizer Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 684. Wabash R. R. Co. et al. Mead Auto Cycle Co. v, 21 I. C. C, 680. Wabash R. R. Co. et al, Meilink Manufacturing Co. v, 17 I. C. C, 614. Wabash R. R. Co, Mekus v., 26 I. C. C, 716. Wabash R. R. Co, Miller Mfg. Co. v, 26 I, C. C, 71. Wabash R. R. Co. et al. Mineral Point Zinc Co. v, 16 I. C. C, 440. Wabash R. R. Co, Murphy, Wasey & Co. v, S I. C. C, 122. See Murphy, Wasey & Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co, National Hay Asso. v, 9 I. C. G, 264. Wabash R. R. Co, N. Y. Board of Trade and Transportation v, 4 I. C. C, 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co, N. Y. Produce Ex. v, 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co, M. Newman v, 11 I. C. C, 517. Wabash R. R. Co. et al. Noble, William K, v, 20 I. C. C, 657. Wabash R. R. Co. et al, Ohio Iron & Metal Co. v, 18 I. C. C, 299. See Ohio Iron & Metal Co. v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al, Ottumwa Box Car Loader Co. v, 21 I. C. C, 673. Wabash R. R. Co, Omaha Elevator Co. v. (U. R. A-203), 27 I. C. C, 72h 1016 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Wabash R. R. Co., Planters' Compress Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 382. See Planters' Compress Co. v. C, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Pleasant Hill Lumber Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 335. Wabash R. R. Co., Pomeroy, L. J. & Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 618. Wabash R. R. Co., R. R. Com. of Ind. v., 23 I. C. C, 195. See Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Wabash R. R. Co., Ryley v., 25 I. C. C, 210. Wabash R. R. Co., St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v., 11 I. C. C, 82. See St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Solis Cigar Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 667. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Southwestern Laundry Machinery Co. v., 21 I. C. C, 685. Wabash R. R. Co., Southwestern Produce Distributers et al. v., 20 I. C. C, 458. See Southwestern Produce Distributers v. W. R. R. Co. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Spanley, Charles A. et al. v., 21 I. C. C, 666. Wabash R. R. Co., Sterling Pickling Works v. (U. R. A-348), 28 I. C. C, 734. Wabash R. R. Co., Tecumseh Celery Co. v., 5 I. C. C, 663. Wabash R. R. Co., Upham Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 708. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Wabash Coating Mills v., 18 I. C. C. 91. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., Western Gas Construction Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 611. Waco Freight Bureau et al. v. Houston & Texas Central R. R. Co. et al 19 I. C. C, 22. Waco Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. R. Co. of Texas, 24 I. C. C, 717. Wadell, J. P. Show Case & Cabinet Co. v. M. C. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 106. Wadsworth Salt Co. v. P. Co. (5482), 28 I. C. C, 715. Wagner & Sons v. F. E. C. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-678), 30 I. C. C, 734. Wagner & Sons v. Sugarland Ry. Co. (U. R. A-287), 28 I. C. C, 726. Wagner, H. Brewing Co. v. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 718. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1017 Wagner, Zagelmeyer & Co. v. Detroit & Mackinac Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C, 160. Wahlgren Furniture Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 717. Wahlstein & Sons v. D. & I. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 1. Wakita Coal & Lumber Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 533. Walker v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 196. Walker, Aldace F., v. Colo. Fuel & Iron Co., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Walker, Aldace F., v. Commercial Club of Omaha, 6 I. C. C. 647. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Walker, Aldace F., v. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co., 6 I. C. C, 568. See Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Walker, Job S., v. N. & W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 709. Wallace, H. C, Assignee, v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 608. Walla Walla Valley Ry. Co., City of Crawford v., 25 I. C. C, 259. Waller & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 448. Waller, Young & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 448. Waller, A. & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 17 I. C. G, 573. Wallingford v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 19. Wallkill Valley R. R. Co., Milk Producers' Pro. Asso. v., 7 I. C. C, 92. See Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. Walsh & Weidner Boiler Co. v. A. G. S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 719. Walsh & Weidner Boiler Co. v. P. & R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 714. Walter & Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 670. Walter Brewing Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. G, 710. Walton v. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. (1374), 13 I. C. C, 684. 1018 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Warfield-Pratt-Howell Co. v. U. P. R. Co. (5386), 27 I. C. C, 705. Warfield-Pratt-Howell Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-437), 29 I C. C, 722. Warner, Hulbert H., v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C 5 32. Cited: Nathan Myer v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C, 83. In the forming of a classification bulk, value, liability to damage, and similar elements affecting the desirability of the traffic should be considered, and analogous articles should ordinarily be placed in the same class. Cited : I. & S. Docket 76, 25 I. C. C, 472. Both the market value of the commodities and the volume of busi- ness they furnish to the carriers are proper elements to be considered in the classification. Warnock, William Co. et al. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 546. See also Advances in Rates by Carriers Operating between Miss, and Mo. Rivers. Adhered to : Indianapolis Frt. Bu. v. C, C, C. & St. L. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 195. Cited : State of Kans. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 676. Rates from Indianapolis and other Indiana cities to Missouri River as compared with rates from Chicago. Quoted: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 167. Cited : Interior Iowa Cities Case, 28 I. C. C, 64, 76. The supplemental prayer for reparation raises new issue in that it extends to so many more rates than the former order and is denied. Cited : Colorado Mfrs.* Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 88. It is pointed out that the charge from New York and other points in the east to Missouri River cities is 5 cents less than the combination on first-class rates on the Mississippi River, under holding in cited case. John Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 211. Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 309. Commercial Club of Terre Haute v. V. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. Cited : Cited : Cited : C, 385. Cited: Springfield Traffic Bu. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 601. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1019 The class rates on business originating east of the Indiana-Illinois line established on a basis of SS cents first class and the third class was 32 cents in cited case. Cited: Interior Iowa Cities Cases, 29 I. C. C, 537. Reasons given for departing from general principle of rate construc- tion, viz: that the longer a haul, the less should be the per-ton-mile rate. These reasons are the thinner traffic west of the "basing points, as well as the two-line hauls involved and other considerations. Followed: Hammerschmidt & Franzen Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 83. Since there is no finding that the rates up to the present time have been unreasonable, reparation is denied. Warren, Cyrus C, v. N. O. & N. E. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 715. Warren & Corsicana Pacific Ry.. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v., 9 I. C. C, 569. Warren-Dilly Tie & Timber Co., Ltd., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 606. Warren-Ehret Co., Central R. R. Co. of New Jersey, 8 I. C. C, 598. Cited: Copper Queen Cons't'd. Min. Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 157. Shipper nor consignee has no direct interest in the divisions of a through rate, nor in the amount of the division received by each carrier, but upon contesting reasonableness of through rate, the divisions may be significant. Warren Manufacturing Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 381. Cited: Riverside Mills v. Sou. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. G, 391. The reasons urged in favor of considering a rate of 41 cents on cot- ton goods from Augusta. Ga., to New York as reasonable in Warren case are quite as potent in condemning the same rate as unreasonable when applied on cotton waste baled. Cited : So. Atlantic Waste Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. G C, 296. The rates from Augusta are affected by the navigation of the Savan- nah River, especially on bulky traffic. Washburn-Crosby Milling Co. (Inc.) v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-480), 29 I. C. C. 727. Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 38. 1020 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited: Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 399. The former cases dealt only with specific destinations and although the general rate situation was considered and although the New Eng- land rates generally bear a relation to the rates to New York and Boston, the carriers only complied specifically with the Commission's order and not with the spirit, so these additional complaints are neces- sary. Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 39. Cited: Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 399. The former cases named specific destination points only and al- though the general rate situation was considered and although the New England rates generally bear a relation to the rates to Boston and New York, the carriers in complying with tflie Commission's order, complied with the letter rather than the spirit, which made these addi- tional complaints necessary. Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 40. Washburn-Crosby Milling Co., Inc., v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C, 465. Washer Grain Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 147. Followed : Am. Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 212, 215. Followed : Am. Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 315. Award of reparation in discrimination case for general damages. Cited : Gund & Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 329. The ruling in cited case compelled Missouri Pacific to put all termi- nal houses situated at different points on the Missouri River upon an equality. Washington & Old Dominion Ry„ Price v. (U. R. A-515), 29 I. C. C, 732. Washington & Old Dominion Ry. Co., Trail v. (5225), 2,8 I. C. C, 714. Washington, Alexandria & Mt. Vernon Ry. Co., Beall, O. C. v., 20 I C C, 406. See Beall v. W., A. .& Mt. V. Ry. Co. Washington, Alexandria & Mt. Vernon Ry. Coi, Finley, F. M. & Son v., 19 I. C. C, 602. Washington^ Baltimore & Annapolis Electric R. R. Co., Hirsh & Sons Iron & Rail Co. v., 26 I. C. C, 480. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1021 Washington Broom & Woodenware Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., IS I. C. C, 219. Washington, D. C, Chamber of Commerce v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 446. Washington Mill Co. v. O.-W. R. & N. Co., 25 I. C. C, 712. Washington Milling Co. v. N. & W. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 546. Cited : Page Milling Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 607. From Washington Court House, the rate to N. & W. Ry. stations east of Kenova, W. Va., to and including Bluefield, which was 19 cents, was reduced to 15 cents in cited case. Washington Public Service Commission v.' N. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 256. See Public Service Com. of Wash. v. N. P. Ry. Co. Washington Public Service Commission v. N. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 272. See Public Service Com. of Wash. v. N. P. Ry. Co. Washington Ry. & Electric Co., Citizens of Silver Springs, Md., v., 26 I. C. C, 708. Washington Ry. & Electric Co., Citizens of Somerset v., 22 I. C. C, 187. Washington Run R. R. Co., Parlin & Orendorff v., 22 I. C. C, 661. Washington Southern Ry. Co., Samuel K. Behrend v., 9 I. C. C, 637. Washington Southern Ry. Co., Harlow, Trustee, v., 26 I. C. C, 511. Washington Southern R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston and Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. Washington, D. C, Store Door Delivery, 27 I. C. C, 347. See In re Store Door Delivery in Washington, D. C. Washington-Virginia Ry. Co., Bitzer v., 24 I. C. C, 255. See Bitzer, J. H., v. W.-V. Ry. Co. Washington- Virginia Ry. Co., Citizens of Falls Church v. (U. R. A-616), 30 I. C. C, 725. Washington-Virginia Ry., Fares to Washington, D. C, 26 I. C. C, 398. See Suburban Fares on W.-V. Ry. Co. Washington- Virginia Ry. Co., Ford v., 24 I. C. C, 632. 1022 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Washington-Virginia Ry. Co., Virginia Highlands Citizens' Asso. v., 30 I. C. C, 593. Washington Western Ry. Joint Rates, 27 I. C. C, 630. Wasserman-Gattman Co. v. O. P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 707. Watchorn, Robt., U. S. Commissioner of Immigration at New York Port, v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 607. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern Ry. Co., Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock, Ark., v., 27 I. C. C, 111. Waterman Lumber & Supply Co. v. T. & G. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-269), 28 I. C. C, 723. Waterman Lumber & Supply Co. v. Texas & Gulf Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 613. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 674. Watson, H. F. Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 124. Watson, H. F. & Co. v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 612. Waukeska Lime & Stone Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 515. Wausau Advancement Asso. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 459. Waverly Oil Works v. Pa. R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 558. See Clark Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. Waverly Oil Works Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 621. Cited: Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Ry. v. Penn. Co., 29 I. C. C, 119. Dissenting opinion. The basis of relief in present case, not that announced in cited case but rather that it is discrimination for a carrier to open its terminals to one road on better terms than to another. Cited: Botsford & Barrett v. P. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 472. The right of a carrier to protect its terminals against its competitor. Quoted: Marble Rates from Vermont, 29 I. C. C, 608. "If a railroad has traffic in its possession, it shall be allowed to handle it by its own line as far as it can unless public interest will suffer thereby." COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1023 Cited: Merchants' & Mfrs.' Asso. v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 30 I. C. C, 401. The right and duty rest with the Commission to establish or decline to establish additional routes and joint rates as the circumstances and conditions may in its judgment appear to require. Explained : Seattle Chamber of Com. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 690. It is not understood that the findings in cited case prohibit in all cases the absorption by competitor roads of the 1 charge which the termi- nal road has established for the interchange movement. Waxelbaum & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 178. Quoted and followed: Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. C. V. R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 620, 625. A common carrier, in order to build up and foster industries on its own lines, can not lawfully refuse to carry the products of like indus- tries located on connecting lines. Followed : Ozark Fruit Growers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 108. The minimum weight for transportation and for refrigeration should be uniform and the same. Cited : Swift & Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 429. Reaffirmed: Georgia Fruit Exchange v. S. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C, 630. Tariff provision fixing refrigeration minimum at 15,000 pounds held reasonable. Cited : Asparagus Growers' Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 427. Refrigeration charges of $48.00 for 21,125-pound car from Charles- ton to New York held reasonable. Cited : Bahrenburg, Bro. & Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 564. The rates on peaches, Georgia points to New York, have been pre- scribed by the Commission. Weakley, R. F., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 93. See Phillips, Bailey & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Weaks Iron Works & Supply Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co. (U. R. A-201), 27 I. C. C, 721. Wearn & Co. v. A. C. L. R. Co. (U. R. A-215), 27 I. C. C, 723. 1024 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Weatherford, Mineral Wells & Northwestern Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. Seel Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co, Weaver v. W. S. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-SOS), 29 I. G. C, 731. Webb Motor Fire Apparatus Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 712. Webber-Ayers Hardware Co. v. K. C. S. R. Co. (U. R. A-217), 27 I. C. C, 723. Weber Club & Intermountain Fair Association v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 212. Webster Grocer Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 493. Followed : Webster Groc. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C, 21. Rates on cheese. Reparation awarded. Webster Grocer Co. v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 20. Weed Lumber Co. v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 604. Weil, Isaac, v. Pa. R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C, 627. Cited: Wilburine Oil Works v. P. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, S49. The fact that the eastbound rate is lower than the westbound rate does not prove that the latter is unreasonable. Cited : Com. Club of Omaha v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 401. While a differential between carload and less-than-carload rates has been recognized on ground of difference in cost of service, no such distinction has been approved between large quantity and carload rates. Weinhard Brewery v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co. (5477), 29 I. C. C, 711. Weinstock-Nichols Co. v. B. & M. R. R. (U. R. A-514), 29 I. C. C, 732. Weis Mfg. Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 620. Weise-Hollman Co. v. K. G. B. & W. R. Co. (4184), 27 I. C. C, 703. Weiss & Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 374. Welch, E. B. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 661. Welch-Cook Co. et al. v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 629. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1025 Weld, Stephen M. & Co. v. Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah et al., 21 I. C. C, 581. Weleetka Light & Water Co. v. Ft. Smith & Western R. R, Co., 12 I. C. C, 503. Welisch & Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-423), 29 I. C. C, 720. Wellington v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 534. Wells Bros. v. C. & E. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 706. Wells, Fargo & Co., Arizona Railway Commission v. (3667), 28 I. C. C, 711. Wells, Fargo & Co., Arizona Ry. Commission v., 20 I. C. C, 571. Wells, Fargo & Co., Blume & Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 53. See Blume & Co. v. W., F. & Co. Wells, Fargo & Co., Byrnes, Trustee, v., 23 I. C. C, 717. Wells, Fargo & Co., California Commercial Association v., 16 I. C. C, 458. Wells, Fargo & Co., California Commercial Association v., 21 I. C. C, 300. Wells, Fargo & Co., California Commercial Asso. v., 24 I. C. C, 380. See In re Express Rates. Wells, Fargo & Co., California Commercial Asso. v., 28 I. C. C, 131. Wells, Fargo & Co., California Commercial Asso. v., 14 I. C. C, 422. See California Commercial Asso. v. W., F. & Co. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Canadian Express Co. (1488), 15 I. C. C, 637. Wells, Fargo & Co. Express, Grossman Co. v. (881), 12 I. C. C, 584. Wells, Fargo & Co., Floran v. (U. R. A-572), 30 I. C. C, 720. Wells, Fargo & Co., Kohlberg & Co. v., 24 I. C. C, 380. See In re Express Rates. Wells, Fargo & Co., Kohlberg & Co. v., 28 I. C. C, 131. Wells, Fargo & Co., Maricopa County Commercial Club v., 16 I. C. C, 182. See Maricopa County Commercial Club v. W., F. & Co. Wells, Fargo & Co., Rivers Bros. Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 676. Wells, Fargo & Co. et al., Sanford, Charles A., v., 16 I. C. C, 32. 1026 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Wells, Fargo & Co., Simpson Fruit Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 412. Wells, Fargo & Co., Stilwell v. (U. R. A-529), 29 I. C. C, 734. Wells, Fargo & Co., Sundberg v., 24 I. C. C, 380. See In re Express Rates. Wells, Fargo & Co., Sundberg v., 28 I. C. C, 131. Wells, Fargo & Co., Western Stores Co. v. (U. R. A-530), 29 I. C. C, 734. Wells, Fargo & Co., William, Nathan B., v., 18 I. C. C, 17. Wells-Higman Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 339. Wells-Higman Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 622. Wells-Higman Co. v. G. R. & I. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 671. Wells-Higman Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 487. Wells r Higman Co. v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 175. Cited : Wells-Higman Co. v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. Co. et al., 22 I. C. C, 288. On more evidence being offered, a rate fixed and reparation awarded. Cited : West Virginia Rail Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 623. Present case a reconsideration of former holdings on point as to whether traffic moving from one point in a State to another point in same State through another State is subject to Act. The Supreme Court held such traffic to be interstate (Hanly v. K. C. S. Ry. Co.,' 187 U. S., 617), but did not say it was subject to Act. The Federal courts are divided. Commission held traffic subject to Act. Wells-Higman Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 288. Wells-Higman Co. v. T. & P. R. Co., 22 I. C C, 671. Wells Lumber Co. v. G. & S. I. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-434), 29 I C. C, 721. Werbelovsky v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Ry. Co. (1189) 13 I C C, 681. Werner, Louis Saw Mill Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 388. Wesserunset Worsted Co. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (5580) 30 I t C, 712. West v. S. P. Co. (Atlantic S. S. Lines), (U. R. A-649), 30 I. C. C, 730. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1027 West Coast Shingle Co. v. G. N. R. Co. (U. R. A-150), 27 I. C. C, 714. West Coast Shingle Co. v. C, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 718. West Co. v. E. R. Co. (U. R. A-142), 27 I. C. C, 713. West Co. v. E. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-316), 28 I. C. C, 729. West Co. v. i; & G. N. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-317), 28 I. C. C, 730. West Co. v. P., C, C & St. L. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-538), 29 I. C. C, 735. West End Improvement Club v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Ry. & Bridge Co et al., 17 I. C. C, 239. Street railway company ordered to reduce to a specified amount pas- senger rates between Omaha, Nebr., and Council Bluffs, Iowa, on the ground that such rates were unreasonable. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 179 Fed., 243. April 25, 1910. (See 24th Ann. Rep., 21.) C. C. D. Nebr. Per curiam. Enforcement of Commission's order temporarily enjoined pending determination of case by Commerce Court. Case transferred to Com- merce Court. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 191 Fed., 40. October 5, 1911. Commerce Court No. 25. Mack, J. Commission's order held to be valid on the ground that interstate street railway companies are subject to the Act. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 222 U. S., 582. November 6, 1911. PeT curiam. Enforcement of Commission's order enjoined pending final determi- nation of the case. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com- mission. 230 U. S., 324. June 9, 1913. Lamar, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that the Com- mission has no jurisdiction over interstate street railways. Cited: Citizens of Somerset v. Wash. Ry. & El. Co., 22 I. C. C, 189. Cited: Kansas City, Mo., & Kansas City, Kans., v. K C. V. & T. Co., 24 I. C. C, 25. 1028 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE An electric railway held to be a "railroad" and when engaged in interstate transportation of passengers is subject to Act. West Jersey & Seashore Ry. Co. et al., Pacific Lumber Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 611. West Jersey Express Co. et al., Davis, William M., v., 16 I. C. C, 214. West Oregon Lumber Co. v. Astoria & Columbia River R. R. Co. et al., 20 I.. C. C, 151. West Point Mfg. Co. v. C. V. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 79. West Shore R. R. Co., B. Brockway v., 8 I. C. C, 21. West Shore R. R. Co., Churchill Grain & Seed Co. v. (U. R. A-373), 28 I. C. C, 737. West Shore R. R. Co., W. H. H. MacLoon v., 9 I. C. C, 642. See MacLoon v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co. West Shore R. R. Co., Milk Producers' Pro. Asso. v., 7 I. C. C, 92. See Milk Producers' Protective Asso. V. D., L. & W. R. R. Co. West Shore R. R. Co., N. Y. Board of Trade & Transportation v., 4 I. C. C 447. See N. Y. Board of Trade, etc., v. Penn. R. R. Co. West Shore R. R. Co., N. Y. Produce Ex. v., 7 I. C. C, 612. See N. Y. Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co. West Shore R. R. Co., Remington Typewriter Co. (Inc) v. (6388), 29 I. C. C, 715. West Shore R. R. Co., Hulbert H. Warner v., 4 I. C. C, 32. See Warner v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. West Shore R. R. Co., Weaver v. (U. R. A-505), 29 I. C. C, 731. West Texas Fuel Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 443. Followed: West Texas Fuel Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 491. Same charge found to be unreasonable and reparation awarded. West Texas Fuel Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 491. West Virginia Mail Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 622. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1029 Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Board of Trade of Chattanooga, Tenn. v., 5 I. C. C, 546. See B'd of Tr'd. of Chattanooga v. E. Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Board of Trade of the City of Hampton, Fla., v., 8 I. C. C, 503. See Board of Trade of the City of -Hampton, Fla., v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Brewer & Hanleiter v., 7 I. C. C, 224. See Brewer & Hanleiter v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 108. See Charlotte Shippers' Asso. v. S. Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Wm. H. Councill v., 1 I. C. C, 339. See Council v. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cinn. Chamber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., S. J. Hill & Bro. v., 6 I. C. C, 343. See Hill, S. J. & Bro. v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R R. Co., James & Mayer Buggy Co. v., 4 I. C. C, 744. See James & Mayer Buggy Co. v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Mayor and City Council of Wichita, Kans., v, 9 I. C. C, 160. See Mayor and Council of Tifton, Ga., v. L. & N. R. R. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co. et al., Miller & Dean v., 16 I. C. C, 603. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co. et al., Miller, G. H. & Son v., 16 I. C. C, 603. 1030 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., R. R. Com. of Ga. v., S I. C. C, 325, 326. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Western & Atlantic R. R. Co., Wil. Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & C. R. R. Co. Western Chemical Mfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 715. Western Classification Committee v. James McMillan & Co., 4 I. C. C, 276. Western Express Co., Bridgeman & Russell Co. v., .22 I. C. C, 659. Western Express Co., North American Storage Co. v. (6193), 29 I. C. C, 714. Western Express Co., Sanford, Charles A., v., 16 I. C. C, 32. Western Fruit Jobbers Asso. of America v. C, R. I. & L. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 417. Western Gas Construction Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 611. Western Grain Co. v. E. R. Co. of N. M. (U. R. A-212), 27 I. C. C, 722. Western Grain Products Co. v. P. M. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 713. Western Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 683. Western Lime & Cement Co. v.' Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co et al., 17 I. C. C, 619. Western Lime & Cement Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 613. Western Lime & Cement Co. v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 682. Western Lumber & Pole Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 711. Western Mantle Co. v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co et al 2 I C C, 643. " ' * Western Maryland Ry. Co., Valley Lumber & Timber Co v. (U R A^S) 29 I. C. C, 725. Western Maryland Ry. Co., Williams v. (U. R. A-365), 28 I. C. C. 736. Western Maryland Ry. Co., Wilson Bros. Lumber Co. v., 22 I. C. C. 659. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1031 Western New York & Pa. R. R. Co., Independent Refiners' Asso. of Titus- ville, Pa., v., S I. C. C, 415. See Independent Refiners' Asso., etc., v. W. N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co. Western N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co., Independent Refiners' Asso. of Titusville, Pa., v., 6 I. C. C, 52, 378, 449. See Independent Refiners' Asso., etc., v. W. N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co. Western New York & Pa. Ry. Co., Thomas J. Reynolds v., 1 I. C. C, 347. See Reynolds v. Western New York & Pa. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 347. Western New York & Pa. Ry. Co., Thomas J. Reynolds v., 1 I. C. C, 393. See Reynolds v. Western New York & Pa. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C, 393. Western N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co., Rice, Robinson & Witherop v., 2 I. C. C, 389. See Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co. Western New York & Pa. R. R. Co., Rice, Robinson & Witherop v., 3 I. C. C, 87. Western N. Y. & Pennsylvania R. R. Co., Rice, Robinson & Witherop v., 4 I. C. C, 131. See Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western N. Y. & Penn. R. R. Co. Western N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co., Rice, Robinson & Witherop v., 6 I. C. C, 455. Western Ohio Creamery Co. v. C. N. R. R. Co. (5613), 28 I. C. C, 715. Western Oregon Lumber Manufacturers' Asso. v. S. P. Co. et al„ 14 I. C. C, 61. Carriers ordered to reduce to a specified amount an advanced rate on rougth green fir lumber from Willamette Valley, Oreg., to San Fran- cisco, Cal., on the ground that such rate is unreasonable. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. C. C. N. D. Cal. Case, undecided, certified to Supreme Court, because trial court was divided on the merits. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 215 U. S„ 226. December 6, 1909. Fuller, C. J. Certificate dismissed and case remanded to circuit court. 1032 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 177 Fed., 963. February 28, 1910. C. C. N. D. Cal. Ross, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. 219 U. S., 433. February 20, 1911. White, C. J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that it was based upon the assumed power of the Commission to prevent railroad companies from raising their rate on the theory that they were estopped to advance sudh rate on account of having maintained it for a con- siderable period. Such power, it was held, has not been conferred upon ■the Commission. Oregon & Washington Lumber Manufacturers' Asso. v. Southern Pa- cific Co., 21 I. C. C, 389. Excluding the element of estoppel from consideration, the Commis- sion again ordered the carriers to reduce to a specified amount the ad- vanced rate on rough green fir lumber from Willamette Valley, Oreg., to San Francisco, Cal., on the ground that, such rate was unreasonable. Southern Pacific Co. v. United States. 197 Fed., 167. June 7, 1912. Commerce Court No. 59. Archbald, J. Commission's order held to be valid. Southern Pacific Co. v. United States. 232 U. S., 736. Mardh 17, 1914. Dismissed on motion of appellants. Followed: Oregon & Wash. Lum. Mfrs.' Asso. v. U P. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C, 20. Cited : Beatrice Creamery Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 128. There is no such thing as a contract between the railway and the shipper that a certain rate shall be charged, for the railway rate is a matter of public concern, which can not ordinarily be made tile subject of private - contract, but in determining what is the just and reasonable thing to be done, the Commission will consider the effect upon all par- ties. Cited: Oregon & Wash. Lum. Mfrs.' Asso. v. So. Pac. Co., 21 I. C. C, 389. Rate on lumber, lath and rough green fir lumber from poif'j on main line of Southern Pacific. Western Pacific Ry. Co., Boyle Commission Co. v. (U. R. A-327), 28 I. C. C, 731. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1033 Western Ry. of Alabama, Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v., 6 I. C. C, 1. See Board of Trade of Troy, Ala., v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co. Western Ry. of Ala., Calloway, Fuller E., v., 7 I. C. C, 431. See Calloway v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Western Ry. of Ala., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Western Ry. of Ala., Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Chamber of Com- merce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Western Ry. of Alabama, W. O. Harwell v., 1 I. C. C, 236. See Harwell v. Columbus & Western R. R. Co. Western Ry. of Alabama, Montgomery Freight Bureau v., 14 I. C. C, 150. See Montgomery Freight Bureau v. W. Ry. of Ala. Western Ry. of Alabama, Montgomery Freight Bureau v., 15 I. C. C, 199. Western Ry. Co. of Alabama, R. R. Com. of Ga. v., 5 I. C. C, 326, 327. See R. R. Com. of Ga. v. Clyde S. S. Co. Western Rock Salt Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. (U. R. A-468), 29 I. C. C, 726. Western States Portland Cement Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 672. Western States Portland Cement Co. v. M. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 519. See Ashgrove' Lime & Portland Cement Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Western Stoneware Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 607. Western Stores Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (U. R. A-530), 29 I. C. C, 734. Wes^rn Tool & Forge Co. v. Adams Express Co. (U. R. A-595), 30 I. C. C, 723. Western Traffic Asso. v. B. & M. R., 24 I. C. C, 592. Western Transit Co., 29 I. C. C, 45. 1034 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Western Trunk Line, Trans Missouri and Illinois Freight Committee Terri- tories, In re Investigation of Advances of Rates in, 20 I. C. C 307. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Postal Telegraph- Cable Co. (4697), 30 I. C. C, 711. Wetherill Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co. (948), 12 I. C. C, 586. Weyl-Zuckerman & Co. v. C. M. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 493. Whaley- Warren Lumber Co. v. Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Ry., 21 I. C. C, 530. Wharton & Northern R. R. Co., United States v., 26 I. C. C, 309. Wharton Steel Co. v. C. R. Co. of N. J., 26 I. C. C, 166. Wharton Steel Co. v. D., L. & W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 303. Cited: Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 176. The traffic involved in cited case not comparable with that coming in the main currents from Lake Erie ports, besides involving a haul over two or more lines through terminals. Wheat Rates from Oklahoma to Memphis, Tenn., 30 I. C. C, 93. Wheatland Hardware Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-385), 28 I. C. C, 739. Wheat Rates from Arizona, 29 I. C. C, 424. Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 205. Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C, 141. Cited: John Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I, C. C, 211. Followed : Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 309. The 35-cent rate on cotton piece goods being a commodity rate, it was not affected by the reduction of the third-class rate. Wheeler-Holden Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 237. Wheeler-Hoden Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 675. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. Astoria & Columbia River R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C„ 10. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 343. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. C, N. & W. R. Co., 26 I C C, 720. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1035 Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 525. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 684. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 514. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge & Supply Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 547; Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., Canton Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 627. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., S. J. Hawkins v., 9 I. C. C, 212. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Metropolitan Paving Brick , Co. v., 22 I. C. C, 670. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Metropolitan Paving Brick Co. v. (U. R. A-242), 27 I. C. C, 727. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Pittsburg Vein Qperators Asso. of Ohio v., 24 I. C. C, 280. See Pittsburg Vein Operators' Asso. v. Penn. Co. Wheeling & Lake Erie R. R. Co., Railroad Commission of Ohio v., 12 I. C. C, 398. See R. R. Com. of Ohio v. H. V. Ry. Co." and Same v. W. & L. E. R. R. Co. Wheeling Corrugating Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 125. When a Cause of Action Accrues Under the Act to Regulate Commerce, Memorandum, 15 I. C. C, 201. Distinguished : Blinn Lumber Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 18 I. C. G, 431. The question here is, may Commission award damages for the im- position of an excessive rate when such rate was imposed more than two years prior to complaint being made before the Commission. Whipple, W. W. Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 6 1. C. C, 176. Whitcomb, J. A., v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 27. Cited: Hirsch & Sons Iron & Rail Co. v. W., B. & A. Elec. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 481. 1036 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE The application of a different rating to new and second-hand articles of same kind would be impracticable. White & Co. v. B. & O. Southwestern R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C, 306. Cited : Georgia Rough & Cut Stone Co. v. Ga. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 404. Actual weighing of shipments is not dispensed with in determining carload weights upon which freight is to be collected. There are many- instances where an estimated weight, prescribed in carrier's tariffs is entirely satisfactory to shippers and carriers, and is recognized as rea- sonable. White, Frederick A., v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 281. White & Williams v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 377. See Savannah Bureau of Freight & Trans, v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. White Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 607. White Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 610. White Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co. White Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al„ 17 I. C. C, 288, 416. Followed: Maris v. So. Pac. Co., 18 I. C. C, 306. Reparation. Followed : White Bros. v. So. Pac. Co., 18 I. C. C, 309. The through rates which were greater than the combination of cer- tain local held reasonable and reparation denied. White Bros. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 308. White Bros. v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 627. White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 607. White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 608. White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 609. White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 610, White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 611. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1037 White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al, 17 I. C. C, 251. See Kindelon v. S. P. Co. White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 627. White Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 308. White Oak Coal Co. v. C. & O. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-271), 28 I. C. C, 724. White Pass & Yukon Route et al., Humboldt Steamship Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 105. See Humboldt S. S. Co. v. W. P. & Y. R. White Pass & Yukon Route, Humboldt Steamship Co. v., 25 I. C. C, 136. White Water Farms Co. v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C, 526. Whiteker Bros. v. C. & N. W. R. Co. (U. R. A-218), 27 I. C. C, 723. Whiteland Canning Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 22 I. C. ,C, 261. Cited: Whiteland Canning Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 92. Petition for rehearing denied. Whiteland Canning Co. v. P., C, C. & St. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C.,'92. Whiting, Walter W., v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 680. Whiting, D. & Sons v. Boston & Maine R. R. et al., 20 I. C. C, 656. Whittaker, S. W., v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 631. Wholesale Fruit & Produce Asso. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 410. Cited : Davies v. 111. Cen. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 186. Cited : Davies v. 111. Cen. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. G, 598. A charge for assorting allowed. Cited : Utica Traffic Bu. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 273. Loading and unloading rules. Wholesale Fruit & Produce Association v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 596. Cited : Schultz-Hansen Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 18 I. C. C, 239. Followed: Utica Traffic Bu. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 271. 1038 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Loading and unloading of carload freight by the carrier is considered an extra service for which a reasonable charge may be assessed. Cited: Board of Trade of Chicago v. A., T. & S, F. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 443. Discrimination under the third section to be undue and unlawful must ordinarily be such that the prejudice arising out of it against one party is a source of advantage to the other alleged to be favored. Wholesale Granite Dealers' Asso. v. N. Y., New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. (1808), 14 I. C. C, 643. Wholesale Produce Dealers' Asso. of Brooklyn v. L. I. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 413. Wichita Board of Trade v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 376. Wichita Board of Trade v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 625. Wichita Business Asso. v. K. C. M. & O. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C, 669. Wichita Business Asso. Traffic Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 712. Wichita Falls & Northwestern Ry. Co. et al., Maxwell, W. F., v., 20 I. C. C, 197. Wichita Falls System Coal Rate Cases, 26 I. C. G, 215. Cited: Rates on Plaster and Gypsum Rock, 27 I. C. C, 70. The law implies in terms too clear and definite to be misunder- stood, that the rails of an interstate carrier must be open from one end to the other with no restriction whatever except such as naturally flows from the right of. the carrier to demand and receive a reasonable compensation for each particular service of transportation. Wichita, Kans., Transportation Bureau of, v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 679, 682. Wichita Produce Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 45, 374. Wichita Produce Co. v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 510. Wichita Transportation Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. (4290, 4294), 29 I. C. C, 709. Wichita Valley Ry. Co., Cattle Raisers' Asso. v., 11 I. C. C, 296. See Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. Wichita Wholesale Furniture Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 26 I. C. G, 107. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1039 Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 168. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 126. The rate on coke from Connellsville to Buffalo, N. Y., territory at- tacked in cited case. Cited : Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 159. Certain testimony taken in cited case quoted. Affirmed: Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 415. On rehearing found that no reason had been shown for departing from original order fixing a rate of $1.85 per ton on coke from Con- nellsville region to Buffalo, N. Y. Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 415. Wiemer & Rich v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 462. Distinguished: Kansas City Hay Dealers' Asso. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 597, 599, 602. The opinion there was intended to remove the discrimination found to exist in the minimum weights which were applicable to the destina- tion points involved. There the equipment used was understood to be small. The average weight of a bale of hay in Wiemer case was from 75 to 80 pounds, here it appears to be 65 pounds. Wiffler, Joseph J., v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 457. Wilbert, F. Bros, et al. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 116. Wilburnie Oil Works, Ltd., v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 548. Cited : Hull Vehicle Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C, 620. The mere fact that the rate in one direction exceeds the rate between the same points in the opposite direction is not a controlling test of the reasonableness of the higher rate. Wilckes-Martin-Wilckes Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 610. Wilhoit v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 138. Cited : Wilhoit v. Mo., Kans. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 159. Rates on oil from Kansas producing points are in the main con- structed with the view of placing and keeping the several oil producing points on as near an equal footing as possible in the markets upon which they must depend. 1040 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : Muskogee Traffic Bu. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 173. Per-ton-mile comparisons are often helpful in reaching a conclusion in respect to the reasonableness of rates but to take that as the sole test would be to scrutinize from the narrowest viewpoint. Wilhoit v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 158. Cited : Muskogee Traffic Bu. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C, 173. Quoted: Greater Des Moines Com. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C, 78. Distances as the sole basis of rate-making. Wilhoit v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C, 137. Wilkoff Bros. Co. v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 684. Willamette Pulp & Paper Co. v^ Boston & Albany R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 178. Willamette Pulp & Paper Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 388. Williams v. C. & S. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-38S), 28 I. C. C, 738. Williams, R. H., v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 683. Williams, O. L., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C, 377. See Savannah Bureau of Freight & Trans, v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Williams, P. P. Co. v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. et al., 16 I. C. ■ G, 482. Quoted: Sheridan Chamber of Com. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 654. Cited : Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 565, 575. "Stated in other words, differentials diminish with increasing dis- tance and vanish when the mileage on which the differential is based becomes inconsiderable in proportion to the total mileage from basing point to destination." Williams, Nathan B., v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 18 I. C. C, 17. Williams v. W. M. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-365), 28 I. C. C, 736. Williams & Sheldon Co. v. S. A. L. Ry. (5342), 28 I. C. C, 714. Williams-Voris Lumber Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 677. Williamson Veneer Co. v. T. C. R. Co. (U. R. A-108), 27 I. C. C, 708. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1041 Williamson, Sam, v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 228. Cited : Keich Mfg. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., IS I. C. C, 232. Special circular No. 6 explained. Williar, H. R. ( v. Canadian Northern Quebec Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 304. Cited : Shoupe & Co. v. T. & B. V. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 571. Carriers charged with exacting an unreasonable rate can not escape liability solely upon ground that shipment could have been transported via a route carrying a lower rate. If the rate assessed was in fact unreasonable, defendants should be required to make reparation irre- spective of the fact that the shipper would have enjoyed a lower rate if his shipments had moved through a different gateway. Willingham, E. J., v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 604. Willis, A. & Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 24 I. C. C„ 718. Willingham Fruit Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 604. Willison Co. v. Central Vermont Ry. Co. (1809), 14 I. C. C. 643. Willman & Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 405. Modified: Lathrop Lumber Co. v. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 251. In misrouting cases, a lower state rate not on file with the Com- mission may be accepted as a basis for reparation when officially veri- fied by the local authorities. Cited: Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 665. State rates afford standards of comparison of greater or less value according as they appear to be reasonable. This is especially, so when the rates are acquiesced in by the carriers. Wills & Botts v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. (1105), 15 I. C. C, 637. Wilmington & Northern R. R. Co., Paine Bros. & Co. v., 7 I. C. C, 218. See Paine Bros. & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Trans- portation of Vegetables, 8 I. C. C, 585. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. 1042 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cincinnati Cham- ber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Hilton Lumber Co. v., 9 I. C. C, 17. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Charles P. Perry v., S I, C. G, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., R. R. Com. of Fla. v., 5 I. C. C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., 5 I. C. C, 120. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston and Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. See Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston, etc., v. Northeastern R. R. Co. of S. C. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. Co., Wil., Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & V. R. R. Co. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vegetables, 8 I. C. C, 585. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., Chicago Freight Bureau v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville; New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., Freight Bureau of the Cinn. Chamber of Commerce v., 6 I. C. C, 195. See Chicago Freight Bureau v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., Charles P. Perry v., 5 I. C. C, 97. See Perry v. Fla. Cen. & Pen. R. R. Co. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., R. R. Com. of Fla. v., 5 I C C, 13. See R. R. Com. of Fla. v. Savannah, Fla. & W. Ry. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1043 Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., J. M. Rising v., S I. C. C, 120. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston and Vicinity v., 6 I. C. C, 295. See Truck Farmers' Asso. of Charleston, etc., v. Northeastern R. R. Co. of S. C. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. Co., Wil., Tariff Asso. of Wil., N. C, v., 9 I. C. C, 118. See Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & V. R. R. Co. Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. Cinn., Portsmouth & Virginia R. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 118. Carriers ordered to cease charging the existing rates from Chicago, 111., and other points, which are considerably higher to Wilmington, N. C, than to Norfolk and Richmond, Va., on the ground that the exist- ing rates are unduly prejudicial to Wilmington. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, Portsmouth & Vir- ginia R. R. Co. 124 Fed., 624. August 10, 1903. C. C. E. D. N. C. Purnell, J. Commission's order held to be invalid on the ground that competi- tion justifies the existing rate adjustment. Cited : Johnson v. Chic, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 9 I. C. C, 248. Where a certain relation is observed between rates from certain points, that should be taken as a measure of difference which should properly be observed when traffic moves from points further west of one of these points. Cited: Corporation Commission, North Carolina, v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C, 308. Questions relating to adjustment of rates to the Virginia cities from both the east and the west have been several times considered by Com- mission. Wilsey & Shaffer Mfg. Co. v. V. S. & P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 703. Wilson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C, 549. Wilson Bros. v. D., L. & W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 11. Wilson, Charles M., v. Rock Creek Ry. Co. of the D. of C, 7 I. C. C, 83. Cited and quoted: West End Imp. Club v. O. & C. B. Ry. & B. Co., 17 I. C. C, 242, 249. 1044 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Cited : Citizens of Somerset v. Wash. Ry. & El. Co., 22 I. C. C, 189. Street railway companies engaged in transporting suburban passen- gers between points in the District of Columbia and points in an ad- joining State is subject to provisions of the Act. Cited: Kansas City, Mo., v. K. C. V. & T. Co., 24 I. C. C, 25. Trolley lines carrying passengers between two States are subject to the Act. Wilson, Joseph C, v. Colo. Fuel & Iron Co., 6 I. C. C, 488. See Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. Wilson, J. C, v. Commercial Club of Omaha, 6 I. C. C, 647. See Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Wilson, Joseph C, v. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co., 6 I. C. C, 568. See Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Wilson, A. F., v. Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 630. Wilson Bros. Lumber Co. v. Norfolk & Southern R. R. Co. et al, 19 I. C. C, 293. Wilson Bros. Lumber Co. v. Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern JR. R. Co. et al, 21 I. C. C, 672. Wilson Bros. Lumber Co. v. W. M. R. Co, 22 I. C. C, 659. Wilson Lime & Cement Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. R. Co, 25 I. C. C, 366. Wilson Produce Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co, 14 I. C. C, 170. Modified as to amount: N. Y. Hay Exchange v. P. R. R. Co, 14 I. C. C, 186. Reaffirmed: Joynes v. P. R. R. Co, 21 I. C. C, 458. Cited: Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 83, 25 I. C. C, 315. Cited: Wholesale Produce Dealers' Asso. v. L. I. R. R. Co, 26 I. C. C, 413. The purpose of imposing these charges in addition to ordinary de- murrage is to prevent gross abuse upon the part of shippers in using the cars of the carriers as storehouses from which to conduct their business. The charges in "the present case was against all kinds of traffic, and the record contains no evidence of wanton failure to unload in case of any particular class of shippers. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1045 Cited: Wilson Produce Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 116. Petition to rehear was granted. Former views reaffirmed. Cited: Peale, Peacock & Kerr v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 18 I C G, 27, 33. The necessity of demurrage regulations and power of Commission to regulate terminal charges. Cited: New Orleans Storage Rules and Regulations, 28 I. C. C, 607. A carrier may impose warehouse charges on an ascending scale such as will require the removal of freight. Wilson Produce Co. et al. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C, 116. Reaffirmed: Joynes v. P. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 4S8. Cited: Wholesale Produce Asso. v. L. I. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 414. As to track storage charges of defendant levied in addition to de- murrage charges. Wilson Produce Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 1. Wilson, J. H. Saddlery Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 220. Windmills and Other Commodities, 29 I. C. C, 643. Windsor Milling & Elevator Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 349. Windsor Milling Co. & Elevator Co. v. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 662. Windsor Milling & Elevator Co. v. C. & S. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 710. Windsor Turned Goods Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 162. Winkel, J. A. & Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 625. Winkel, J. A. & Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 627. Winkel, J. A. & Co. v. Spokane International Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. G, 618, Winfield Commercial Club v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 663. Winn-Parish Lumber Co. v. Arkansas Southern Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 335. 1046 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Winona Carriage Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 334. Winona Malting Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C, 619. Winona Wagon Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 613. Winston-Salem Port of Trade v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 12. Winston-Salem Board of Trade v. N. & W. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 146. Winterbotham, J. U. & Sons v. M. C. R. Co., 24 I. C. C 722. Winterbotham, J. H. & Sons, Inc., v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 266. Winterbotham, J. H. & Sons, Inc., v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al, 21 I. C. C, 266. Winter's Metallic Paint Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co, 13 I. C. C, 409. Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. C. & E. I. R. Co, 23 I. C. C, 711. Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 16 I. C. C, 562, S87. Cited: Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 597. Rates on ground iron ore from same point of origin to points in Western Trunk Line territory, which do not include Denver, entitled to Class D rates in Western Classification. Cited : Ralston Townsite Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co, 22 I. C. C, 357. The Commission may not require a carrier to construct a "private sidetrack," its power extends only to requiring "a switch connection" with a private sidetrack. Winter Metallic Paint Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 596. Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. C, M. & St. L. R. Co, 26 I. C. C, 721. Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al. 16 I C C, 587. See Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. Wiprud, S. T, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al. 18 I C C, 628. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1047 Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. (966), 12 I. C. C, 586. Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 18 I. C. C, 626. Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 717. Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 24 I. C. C 700. Wisconsin Carriage Co. v. P. M. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 713. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. et al., Bedingfield & Co. v., 16 I. C. C, 93. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., Chicago Live Stock Ex. v., 10 I. C. C, 428. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., Hartman Furniture & Carpet Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 530. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. et al., Howard, E. A. & Co. v., 18 I. C. C, 308. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., Howard & Co. v., 23 I. C. C, 715. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. et al., Menasha Woodenware Co. v., 17 I; C. C, 625. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. et al., Menasha Woodenware Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 626. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. et al., Menasha Woodenware Co. v., 19 I. C. C, 614. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co. et al., Minneapolis Dry Good Co. v., 17 I. C. C, 620. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., Patten v., 14 I. C. C, 189. Wisconsin Central Ry. Co., Termatt & Monahan Co. v., 14 I. C. C, 109. See Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. Wisconsin Coal Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C, 645. Wisconsin Iron & Metal Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al, 20 I. C. C, 664. Wisconsin Pearl Button Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Cp. et al, 16 I. C. C, 80. Wisconsin Pulp & Paper Manufacturers v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co, 19 I. C. C, 610. 1048 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Wisconsin Pulp & Paper Manufacturers v. Duluth R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 610. Wisconsin Pulp & Paper Manufacturers v. Pere Marquette R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 602. Wisconsin Pulp Wood Co. v. G. N. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 594. Cited: Rhinelander Paper Co. v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C, 105. For a haul of 125 miles from Ericson's Spur, Minn., to Superior, Wis., a rate of 6 cents was prescribed in cited case. Cited: Pulp & Paper Mfrs.' Traffic Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 84. Rates on wood pulp from Minnesota points to Superior, Wis., held should not exceed rates on lumber between same points. Wisconsin R. R. Commission v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 85. Wisconsin R. R. Commission v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 85. Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 152. See also Inland Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 126. Cited: Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. G, 416. Rates on coke from Connellsville to Chicago district. Wisconsin University v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (5727), 28 I. C. C, 717. Wisconsin State Millers' Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 494. Withdrawal of Joint Rates on Grain via Minnesota Transfer, 26 I. C G, 595. Witt & Watkins v. Merchants' & Miners' Transportation Co., 6 I. C. C, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va.. v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. Witt & Watkins v. Old Dominion Steamship Co., 6 I. C. G, 632. See Board of Trade of the City of Lynchburg, Va., v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS 1049 Wolf, John G., v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. et al., 18 I. C C, 627. Wolf & Sons v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J. (U. R. A-298), 28 I. C. C, 727. Wolf Bros. v. Allegheny Valley Ry. Co., 7 I. C. G, 40. Wolf, Fred W. Co. v. Mallory S. S. Co., 23 I. C. C, 490. Wolf Milling Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et aL, 21 I. C. C, 680. Wolter, Fred, v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 619. Wolverine Brass Works v. G. R. & I. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 716. Wood & Skilton v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. et al., 20 I. C. C, 657. Wood, D. £. Butter Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al., 16 I. C. C, 374. Woodburn Elevator & Milling Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (5147), 29 I. C. C, 710. Woods, H. Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 22 I. C. C, 585. Woods, H. Co., Bankrupt, v. A. C. L. R. Co., 23 I. C. C, 251. Woods Co., Byrnes, Trustee for, v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-492), 29 I. C. C, 729. Woods-Evertz Stove Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-469), 29 I. C. C, 726. Woodward & Dickerson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 17 I. C. C.,9. Woodward & Dickerson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C, 170. Carriers ordered to pay to complainant, as reparation, the difference between the rate actually paid and the rate applicable via route desig- nated by the shipper on the ground that the carriers had misrouted a shipment of crude phosphate rock, moving from St. Blaise, Tenn., to Riddlesburg, Pa. A letter from complainant, setting forth the facts, was held to constitute a sufficient complaint to stop the running of the statute of limitations. Dickerson v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. 187 Fed., 874. July 26, 1910. C. C. S. D., Ohio, W. D. Hollister, J. Damages awarded on basis of Commission's award of reparation. 1050 GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Dickersoiu 191 Fed., 70S. November 7, 1911. C. C. A. 6th Cir. Knappen, J. Lower court sustained. Judgment included an allowance of attor- ney's fee in both courts. Cited : Woodward & Dickerson v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 9. Petition for rehearing denied. Cited : Fisk & Sons v. B. & M. R. R, 19 I. C. C, 300. A letter clearly setting forth the carriers, date, rate, weight and points of origin and destination sufficient to stop running of statute. Woodward-Bennett Co. v. S. P., L. A. & S. P. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 664. Woodward, Wight & Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C, 500. Woodward, Wight & Co. et al. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 6S4. i Wool Growers' National Association v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 658. Wool Rates Between Massachusetts and Maine, 28 I. C. C, 396. Woolf, John C, v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C, 588. Woolworth & Co. v. L. & N. R. Co. (U. R. A-132), 27 I. C. C, 711. Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C, 577. Cited : Merchants' Cotton Press & Storage Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C, 104. Act to regulate commerce does not prevent a railroad from hauling a particular make of private car. Wrapping Paper Rates from East Moss Point, Miss. (U. R. A-546), 29 I. C. C, 736. Wright v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (U. R. A-451), 29 I. C. C, 723. Wright, J. W & Co. v. V. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 214. Wright & Wilhelmy Co. v. C. G. W. R. Co., 25 I. C. C, 712. Wright-Backman Lumber Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 720. Wright Carriage Body Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 720. Wright Wire Co. et al. v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. R. Co. et al., 21 I C C, 64. GARTNER'S NOTES TO INTERSTATE 1051 Wrigley, Wm, Jr., v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C, 412. Wyatt & Green Paper Box Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co. (6S10), 30 I. C. C, 715. Wyeth Hardware & Mfg. Co. v. C. G. W. R. R. Co. (6107), 28 I. C. C, 721. Wylie, W. W., v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C, 145. Cited : Exchange of Free Transportation, 12 I. C. C, 42. Cited : Bayou City Rice Mills v. T. & N. O. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C, 493. A company operating omnibuses and express wagons for trie trans- fer of passengers and baggage from one depot to another is not a com- mon carrier under the Act. Cited: Cosmopolitan Snipping Co. v. Hamburg-Am. Packet Co., 13 I. C. C, 281. "Joint rates" cannot be made between carriers subject to the Act and those not so subject. Wylie Bros. Co. v. S. P. & S. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 717. Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R., 13 I. C. C, 258. Cited: Wyman, Patridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R., 15 I. C. C, 577. Petition to rehear allowed in connection with the marine insurance requirement. Cited: Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R., 19 I. C. C, 551. Reparation awarded because of unreasonable rate advances to cover marine insurance protection which was never given. Reaffirmed : Com. Club of Omaha v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 657. The through rates from trunk line and C. F. A. territories to the Twin Cities. Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R., 15 I. C. C, 577. Cited: Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R., 19 I. C. C, 551. Reparation awarded because of unreasonable rate advances to cover marine insurance protection which was never given. Cited : Com. Club of Duluth v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 650. The proximity of the Twin Cities to the head of the lakes has had and still has a material influence upon their rates. 1052 COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS Wyman, Partridge & Co. et al. v. Boston & Maine R. R. et al., 19 I. C. C, 551. Cited : Com. Club of Duluth v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 650. The proximity of the Twin Cities to the head of the lakes has had and still has a material influence upon their rates. Y Yawman & Erba Manufacturing Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (850), 12 I. C. C, 583. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C, 260. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Anderson-Tully Co. v. (6355), 29 I. C. C, 714. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., C. M. Barrow v., 10 I. C. C, 333. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Bomer & Bomer v. (5481), 30 I. C. C, 712. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R., Cohn Bros. v. (1190), 12 I. C. C, 589. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co. et al., Davenport Commercial Club v., 16 I. C. C, 209. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co. et al., Davenport Commercial Club v., 20 I. C. C, 19. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Dixie Dairymen's Asso. v., 27 I. C. C, 618. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Fitzpatrick Drug Co. v. (5762), 30 I. C. C, 712. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Holley Matthews Mfg. Co. v., 15 I. C. C, 436. Yazoo & Mississippi R. R. Co. et al., Howard, E. A. & Co. v., 18 I. C. C. 308. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Lyon Cypress Lumber Co. v. (U. R. A-224), 27 I. C. C, 724. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Mary Mac Plantation Co. v. (U R A-109), 27 I. C. C, 708. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., May Bros, v., 26 I. C. C, 323. See May Bros. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. GABTNEE'S NOTES TO INTEESTATE 1053 Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Planters' Gin & Compress Co. et al v., 16 I. C. C, 131. See Planters' Gin & Compress Co. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., Pole Stock Lumber Co. v., 26 I. C C, 451. Yellow Pine Co. of Philadelphia v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-404), 29 I C. C, 717. Yellowstone National Park Transportation Co., William W. Wylie v., 11 I. C. C, 145. See Wylie v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Yellowstone Park Association v. William W. Wylie, 11 I. C. C, 145, See Wylie v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Yetter Wall Paper Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (986), 12 I. C. C, 586. Yetter Wall Paper Co. v. N. Y. Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. (987), 12 I. C. C, 587. Young, C. E. & Son v. C. P. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 716. Young, C. E. & Son v. C. V. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 718. Young, Sam T., v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. et al., 19 I. C. C, 605. Young & Cutsinger v. I. C. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 721. Young & Cutsinger v. L. & N. R. R. Co. (U. R. A-561), 30 I. C. C, 718. Young & Vann Supply Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C, 685. Youngblood, W. F., v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 569. Distinguished: International Agr'l. Corp. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 394. In cited case the commission firm that filed the original complaint was the agent of Youngblood, the shipper, in the payment of the freight, on which reparation was sought. It was a part of their duty to see that the freight paid was correct and to file claim for any over- charge or other unreasonable exaction. In filing the complaint they were acting for the shipper. No such agency appears here and the run- ning of the statute of limitation was not stopped as to certain inter- ested parties when certain other shippers filed a complaint. 1054 COMMERCE COMMISSION EEPOBTS Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. P. & L. E. R. Co., 27 I. C, C, 165. Cited: Coke Producers' Asso. of Connellsville v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C, 126. Cited: Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C, 416. Coke rates, Connellsville to Youngstown, Ohio, considered in cited case. Cited : Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C, 184. The cited case affected an iron-ore traffic of about 6,000,000 tons and a coke traffic of 3,600,000 tons. Cited : Hammerschmidt & Franzen Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C, 83. Denial of reparation where no finding that rates have been unreason- able up to present time. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C, 428. , Yuba Construction Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 724. Yuba Construction Co. v. C, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. (U. R. A-239), 27 I. C. C. 726. Zang Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. et al., 18 I. C. C- 337. Zang, Ph. Brewing Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C, 610. Zang, Ph. Brewing Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 24 I. C. C, 704. Zang, Ph. Brewing Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 26 I. C. C, 713. Zang Brewing Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. et al., 21 I. C. C, 666. Zollerbach Paper Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C, 128. Zuber, John W., v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., 20 I. C. C, 668. Zwick & Greenwald Wheel Co. v. C, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. (U. R. A-259), 27 I. C. C. 729. KF 217^ G2k Author Gartner, Karl Knox Vol. Title Copy Gartner's notes to the Interstate Commorooi Oommiooion report o. Date Borrower's Name