this commodity were ordinarily made by the use of a 3.5-cent proportional arbitrary to Brunswick, Me., and sixth class beyond. The 34-cent rate to Newark, N. J., provided by this basis, exceeded the rate to C. F. A. 60 per cent territory by 3.5 cents and was used as a maximum to intermediate points. This situation is protected by an appropriate fourth-section application. The class rates to New York City and a number of Brooklyn terminals are generally on the basis of the so-called Anderson scale, which would provide a rate of 29 cents from Rumford to New York City. The New Haven, in publishing rates to Long Island points in which the Maine Central participated, observed the rate to 60 per cent territory, rather than that to Newark, as a maximum.

Points served by the Long Island are divided into four groups. Group A embraces practically all of the industrial or western section of Long Island, including Bushwick and Maspeth. Groups B, C, and D, respectively, embrace the more easterly sections of Long Island. With a few exceptions Group A points are accorded the same rates as Bushwick. Lower rates were accorded a comparatively few points, including Maspeth, by the director general during Federal control and were not restored to the group basis until 1927. Transportation conditions on the Connecting and at Fresh Pond Junction are described in Port of New York Authority v. A., T. & S. F. Ry Co., 144 I. C. C. 514, and need not be restated in detail here. The haul of the Long Island from the interchange tracks at Fresh Pond Junction to complainant's siding at Bushwick involves the use of three different engines and crews and is in the nature of a succession of switching movements through various classification yards.

Approximately 300 carloads of this commodity have moved from Holyoke and 45 carloads from Rumford to Bushwick within three years prior to the filing of the complaint herein. The movement from Rumford to points accorded a 34.5-cent rate is substantially greater than that to Bushwick.

We find that the rates assailed were not and are not unreasonable. An order dismissing the complaint will be entered.

157 I. C. C.

INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. 3270

MARBLE, GRANITE, AND STONE FROM BOSTON, MASS., AND NEW YORK, N. Y., TO CHICAGO, ILL., PEORIA, ILL., AND MILWAUKEE, WIS.

Submitted July 8, 1929. Decided August 19, 1929

Proposed restriction of application of joint commodity rates on marble, granite, and stone blocks, pieces, or slabs, carved, lettered, polished, or traced, in carloads, from Boston, Mass., rate points to destinations in central territory found justified. Order of suspension vacated and proceeding discontinued. E. H. Burgess, W. J. Larrabee, A. H. Elder, C. R. Webber, M. B. Pierce, and W. T. Pierson for respondents.

Charles O. Swartz for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, TAYLOR, AND PORTER BY DIVISION 3:

By schedules filed to become effective April 6, 1929, respondents proposed to restrict the application of the joint commodity rates on marble, granite, and stone blocks, pieces, or slabs, carved, lettered, polished, or traced, hereinafter called finished marble and stone, in carloads, from Boston, Mass., and points taking the same rates, to destinations in central territory, including Chicago and Peoria, Ill., and Milwaukee, Wis. Upon joint protest of interested shippers, the operation of the schedules was suspended until November 6, 1929. At the hearing counsel for protestants withdrew the protest without submitting any evidence in support thereof.

At the present time joint commodity rates materially lower than the class rates are applicable on finished marble and stone from Boston rate points to destinations in central territory. Specific commodity rates are not published from New York, N. Y., to the same destinations, but the Boston rates are subject to rule 77 of Tariff Circular 20 and apply over all standard routes, including routes through New York Harbor. This unrestricted routing permits the traffic to move over rail lines to Harlem River, N. Y., thence by car float down the East River to the New Jersey terminals of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, the Pennsylvania, or the Lehigh Valley and beyond over the lines of those carriers and their connections, or via

rail through Port Morris, N. Y., to Bay Ridge, N. Y., thence by car float to the New Jersey terminals of the lines specified above for movement beyond, and also permits the application of the Boston rates from New York and other intermediate points over the routes through the harbor.

Prior to February 27, 1928, the rates on rough-quarried marble and stone from Boston rate points to the destination territory here concerned were applicable in the same manner as above described, but effective that date were restricted so as not to apply over routes through New York Harbor. It is now proposed similarly to restrict the rates on finished marble and stone.

Respondents state that at the time the restriction on rough marble and stone was published it was intended that a similar restriction should be published with respect to finished marble and stone, but through an oversight such publication was not made. The proposed restriction will in no way affect shippers or consignees of finished marble and stone from Boston rate points, as a large number of routes are available over other all-rail routes. The routes through New York Harbor are, generally speaking, materially longer than over the all-rail routes.

It does not appear that the routes through New York Harbor are necessary in connection with the movement of this traffic from New England origins or that such routes are used by shippers from those points. The proposed restriction will eliminate the application of the Boston commodity rates from New York and other intermediate points over the harbor routes and require the application of the higher class rates. However, there is no evidence that finished marble and stone move in carloads from such intermediate points, or that shippers therefrom will be in any way injured by the proposed restriction.

We find that the suspended schedules have been justified. An order will be entered vacating the order of suspension and discontinuing this proceeding.

157 I. C. C.

INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. 3277

FRESH

MEATS, PACKING-HOUSE PRODUCTS, AND OTHER ARTICLES LOADED IN PEDDLER CARS, FROM ILLINOIS AND INDIANA POINTS TO KENTUCKY AND WEST VIRGINIA DESTINATIONS

Submitted May 31, 1929. Decided August 20, 1929

Proposed cancellation of rates on fresh meats, packing-house products, and other articles, in peddler cars, from Illinois and Indiana points to destinations on branch lines of Chesapeake & Ohio, diverging from its main line at Catlettsburg, Ky., and Barboursville, W. Va., found not justified. Suspended schedules ordered canceled and proceeding discontinued.

H. G. Fitzpatrick for Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and A. W. Gill for Southern Railway Company, respondents.

Joseph B. Beach and Paul E. Blanchard for Armour & Company, protestant.

DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, TAYLOR, AND PORTER BY DIVISION 3:

By schedules filed to become effective April 15, 1929, respondents propose to cancel rates on fresh meats, packing-house products, and other articles loaded in peddler cars, from East St. Louis, Ill., and intermediate stations in Illinois and Indiana to destinations on branch lines of the Chesapeake & Ohio diverging from the main line at Catlettsburg, Ky., and Barboursville, W. Va., applicable over the route of the Southern to Louisville, Ky., and thence the Chesapeake & Ohio, hereinafter called the Southern route. Upon protest of Armour & Company we suspended the operation of the schedules until November 15, 1929. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds.

The peddler-car traffic under consideration is subject to class rates. In Wilson & Co. v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 104 I. C. C. 641, hereinafter referred to as the Wilson case, we found, among other things, that the class rates applicable on fresh meats, packing-house products, and other articles, in peddler cars, from East St. Louis and Chicago, Ill., to points on those portions of the Big Sandy and Logan divisions of the Chesapeake & Ohio diverging from the main line at Catlettsburg, and Barboursville, were unreasonable and unduly prejudicial

to the extent that they exceeded the rates to the main-line junctions, plus arbitraries therein prescribed for the hauls beyond.

The rates established on March 1, 1926, in compliance with our findings and order in the Wilson case were published to apply only in connection with shipments moving over the route of the Louisville & Nashville to Evansville, Ind., the Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis to Louisville, and thence the Chesapeake & Ohio, hereinafter termed the Louisville & Nashville route. The Southern was not a defendant in the Wilson case, but, on November 1, 1928, the same rates were established over the Southern route as applied over the Louisville & Nashville route. By the suspended schedule it is proposed to cancel the rates which were established November 1, 1928, over the Southern route. The suspended schedules were published at the insistence of the Chesapeake & Ohio. The distance over the Southern route is 47 miles shorter than over the Louisville & Nashville route. The position of the Southern is that the present rates over its route should be continued as long as they are applicable over the longer Louisville & Nashville route.

The following table, showing the present and proposed rates on articles classified first, second, third, and fourth class from East St. Louis to Martin, Ky., is illustrative of the increases which would result over the Southern route if the suspended schedules become effective:

The Chesapeake & Ohio contends that the rates prescribed in the Wilson case are too low and that it does not desire to participate voluntarily in such rates over the Southern route. Its evidence relative to the levels of these rates relates to proposals by the Chesapeake & Ohio and other carriers in the pending investigation of eastern class rates. In view of our findings in the Wilson case such evidence is of little value at the present time. Apparently the principal reason for the objection of the Chesapeake & Ohio to participating in these rates over the Southern route is that it feels that it can not with consistency voluntarily participate in them and refuse requests which have been or will be made by shippers and other carriers for use of the same branch-line arbitraries in connection with shipments moving over other routes. For example, the establishment of rates to the destinations under consideration, the same as were prescribed