DISTANCE RATES-Continued.
Rates on salt from Akron, Wadsworth, and Cleveland, Ohio and St. Clair
and Detroit, Mich., to destinations in Missouri and the Southwest found
unreasonable to the extent that they exceed column 16 basis of rates pre-
scribed in the southwestern revision for similar distances. Reasonable
rates prescribed and reparation denied. Colonial Salt Co. v. Chicago &
Erie R. Co., 67.
Proposed rates on salt from points in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and New
York to destinations in Texas, which would exceed rates prescribed for
similar distances from producing points in Kansas to destinations in the
Southwest, found not justified. Id. (68).
Commodity rates and class rates subsequently made applicable under an
alternative provision on glass bottles from East St. Louis and Alton, Ill.,
to Griffin, Ga., found unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded rates
equal to 38 per cent of the first-class rates under the distance scale pre-
scribed in the southern class-rate investigation, that also being the per-
centage relationship between commodity and first-class rates under the
scale prescribed in Consolidated Southwestern Cases and applicable in the
Southwest. Reasonable rates prescribed for the future and reparation
awarded. Creomulsion Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 95.
Rate on pulpboard from Big Island, Va., to Atlanta, Ga., found unreasonable
to the extent that it exceeded a rate equal to class 9 rates prescribed in
southern class-rate revision. Reasonable rates prescribed for the future.
Bedford Pulp & Paper Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 110.
Rates on canned fruit and vegetables from Sumter and other South Caro-
lina points to certain destinations in Iowa, Illinois, and other States, found
not unreasonable in the past but to certain Kansas and Missouri desti-
nations, unreasonable for the future to the extent they exceeded rates on
canned goods prescribed in the southwestern revision between the same
points. Rates assailed to certain other points in Illinois, Indiana, and
other States found unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the class
7 K-2 scale of rates to certain destinations and to others the 7 K-2 scale of
rates to Virginia cities and Ohio River crossings, plus the Q-1 scale of
differentials beyond, those scales and differentials having been prescribed
in the Southern Class Rate Investigation. Reasonable rates prescribed
for the future. Sumter Packing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 137.
Rates on salt and salt tailings from producing points in Louisiana, Kansas,
and Texas, to certain destinations in Arkansas and Oklahoma, found
unreasonable in the past to the extent that they exceeded those subse-
quently established in accordance with distance rates prescribed in 120
I. C. C. 91 and cases following; and rates from Louisiana points to Hugo,
Okla., and from Grand Saline, Tex., to certain Oklahoma destinations,
found unreasonable in the past and for the future to the extent that they
exceeded the distance rates prescribed in the above-cited cases. Reason-
able rates prescribed from and to the latter points and reparation awarded.
Southwest Utility Ice Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 146.
Rates on linseed oil over the circuitous route from Fredonia, Kans., to
Memphis, Tenn., moving subsequent to the establishment of rates equal
to those under the vegetable-oil scale prescribed in 98 I. C. C. 183, 267,
were not unreasonable but the rates previously in effect were unreasonable
in comparison therewith, and rates over the short single-line route were
unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded rates equal to those under
the vegetable-oil scale. Reasonable rates prescribed for the future and rep-
aration awarded. Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 151.
DISTANCE RATES-Continued.
Rate on imported prepared desiccated coconut from Galveston Tex., to Dallas,
Tex., based on the single-line distance scale prescribed in 48 I. C. C. 312 found
not unreasonable as compared with a rate subsequently established in a
general revision but the domestic rate on like traffic from New Orleans,
La., to Dallas found unreasonable to the extent that it exceeded a rate
which compared favorably with the Galveston rate under that scale.
Reparation awarded. Dennery v. Houston & Texas Central R. Co., 164.
Rates on imported anthracite coal and coke from piers in Weehawken,
N. J., to East Orange, N. J., found unreasonable in comparison with
distance rates between points in the same general territory and to extent
they exceeded rates equal to those found reasonable in 156 I. C. C. 258 from
Jersey City, N. J., to Newark and Port Newark, N. J., for comparable
distances. Reparation awarded. Feigenspan v. Erie R. Co., 176.
Class A rate on empty storage tanks, moving as routed by shipper over an
interstate route from Burkburnett, Tex., to Kingsmill, Tex., found unrea-
sonable as compared with lower interstate and intrastate rates between the
same points over other routes and to the extent that it exceeded a rate
equal to 52.5 per cent of the first-class rates under the distance scale
prescribed in the southwestern revision. Reparation awarded based on
the distance over the route of movement, that route being more than 15
per cent circuitous. Skelly Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 410.
Rates on wood pulp from Mount Tom, Mass., Berlin, N. H, and Madison,
Me., to Milford, N. J., found unreasonable as compared with rates between
various points in New England and in trunk-line territories, and to the
extent that they exceeded rates equal to those under the distance scale
prescribed in 122 I. C. C. 543. Reasonable rates prescribed for the future
and reparation awarded. Warren Mfg. Co. v. Boston & M. R., 419.
Rates on common brick from Columbus, Miss., to Jackson, Kenton, McNairy,
Henderson, and Brownsville, Tenn., found not unreasonable since they
were constructed in accordance with the distance scale prescribed in
88 I. C. C. 543, as applied to the distances over direct workable routes,
and were lower than the rates which would have resulted from the appli-
cation of the scale over shorter routes composed in part of a short or weak
line, plus the authorized differential. Columbus Brick Co. v. Columbus
& G. Ry. Co., 423.
Rates on wrought-iron pipe from Texas points to Oklahoma destinations
found unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded 35 and 38 per cent,
for single and joint line hauls respectively, of the first-class rates under the
southwestern distance scale, to which basis reparation was awarded in
the Prairie case, 132 I. C. C. 56 and 146 I. C. C. 159, distance to be com-
puted in accordance with that finding as modified in 151 I. C. C. 795.
Reparation awarded but no finding for the future warranted, pending the
finding in the Consolidated Southwestern Cases reopened for further hear-
ing. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. 451.
On reconsideration of the record facts, and in the absence of any evidence
that combination rates on acid phosphates from West Nashville, Tenn.,
to Rushville, Ind., were higher than the general level of rates applicable
from other points in the South to Rushville or from West Nashville to
other points in the same general territory as Rushville, finding in 148 I.
C. C. 351, affirmed, and rates assailed found not unreasonable in the past
and distance rates prescribed in 146 I. C. C. 419 for application in central
territory found reasonable for the future. Norris Fertilizer Co. v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 475.
DISTANCE RATES-Continued.
Class rates in effect via Rogerson-Wells cut-off between points on the South-
ern Pacific in California Group 1 and points on the Oregon Short Line in
Idaho, north and west of Pocatello, Idaho, found unreasonable to the
extent that they exceed rates based on the distance scale prescribed in
113 I. C. C. 52 and 142 I. C. C. 61, applied to the shortest distance, except
that over the cut-off proper a constructive mileage of 150 per cent of the
actual mileage was prescribed. Reasonable basis of rates prescribed
for the future. Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501.
The commission fixed rates based on the distance scale specified, with the
use of a constructive mileage of 150 per cent of the actual mileage on the
branch line, for application to and from points on branch lines not usually
accorded main-line rates. Id. (505).
As the transportation service over the shorter route involved a haul of about
100 miles over a narrow-gage line, necessitating a transfer of lading at
either end, it was clear that the rates between points in Idaho and Nevada
and between Idaho points and Los Angeles, Calif., over this route should be
higher than over the longer route based on a straight distance scale.
Rates assailed found not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. Id. (510).
Rates on silica and molding sand from Ottawa, Utica, Arenzville, and Dallas
City, Ill., to Hannibal, Mo., found not unreasonable in the past but from
Dallas City and Arenzville found unreasonable to the extent that they
exceeded rates equal to those based on the distance scale prescribed in
152 I. C. C. 749, 155 I. C. C. 687. Reasonable rates prescribed for the
future. Duffy-Trowbridge Stove Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., 543.
Class rates from Sioux Falls, S. Dak., to certain destinations in Minnesota
found not unduly prejudicial but for the future found unreasonable to the
extent that they exceed the maximum scale of distance class rates pre-
scribed in 98 I. C. C. 691. Reasonable rates prescribed for future but
without prejudice to any conclusions reached in the pending class rate
investigation. Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce v. Great Northern
Ry. Co., 555.
Rate on crude clay from Charlestown, Md., to York, Pa., found unreasonable
to the extent that it exceeded a rate equivalent to the common-brick rate
between these points, under the scale prescribed in 68 I. C. C. 213, 80
I. C. C. 179. Reparation awarded and reasonable rate prescribed for the
future. Pfaltzgraff Pottery Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 559.
Rates on ground bituminous asphalt rock from Bowling Green, Ky., to Lake
Worth, Lantana, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., found not unreasonable
as compared with rates prescribed on cement in 132 I. C. C. 427, but the
rate to Daytona Beach, Fla., found unreasonable as compared therewith.
Reparation awarded and reasonable rates prescribed for the future. Quinn
Co. v. Atlanta, B. & A. Ry. Co., 572 (574–576).
Sixth-class rates on lumber, ex-vessel from the Pacific coast, from Boston,
Mass., and New London, Conn., to destinations on New York, New Haven
& Hartford system lines in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
New York, found unreasonable as compared with lower commodity rates
between other New England points and with distance rates prescribed in
151 I. C. C. 391 for application from Providence, R. I., and Poughkeepsie,
N. Y., to the same destinations. Distance scale of reasonable rates pre-
scribed for the future and reparation awarded. Blanchard Lumber Co.
v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 643.
DISTANCE RATES-Continued.
Rates on roofing slag from Reading, Hokendauqua, Bethlehem, and Swede-
land, Pa., to Providence, Auburn, Esmond, and Cranston, R. I., and
Attleboro, Mass., found unreasonable in the past to the extent that they
exceeded rates based on those subsequently established from Bethlehem
and Hokendauqua to Providence under distance scale prescribed in 139
I. C. C. 88. Rates from Reading and Swedeland found unreasonable for
the future to the extent that they exceeded rates prescribed, based on that
scale, subject to certain methods of computation, plus an arbitrary for
car-float or lighterage service in New York Harbor. Cartier & Sons Co.
v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 649.
Generally speaking, distance tariffs are published for application in con-
nection with distance rates which refer thereto for table of distances.
Hertz Leather Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 702 (709).
Rates on broomcorn from certain points in Oklahoma and Kansas to Evans-
ville, Ind., found unreasonable in the past to the extent that they exceeded
rates from the same points to Paris, Ill., subject to rates resulting from the
southwestern revision as minima; and rates from Colorado points found
unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded 40 per cent of distance
scale of first-class rates prescribed in the southwestern revision. Reason-
able rates from Colorado points prescribed for the future, and reparation
awarded. Southwestern Broom Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
724.
Rates on salt from Weeks, La., and Hutchinson and Anthony, Kans., to
Vinita, Pawhuska, and Keota, Okla., found unreasonable as compared
with rates under the distance scale prescribed in 120 I. C. C. 91 and 128
I. C. C. 431, from Kansas salt-producing points, to which basis rates were
subsequently established from Weeks. Reparation awarded. Vinita
Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Arkansas Valley I. Ry. Co., 739.
DISTURBANCE OF ADJUSTMENT.
As a result of the southwestern revision the group adjustment of long stand-
ing was broken up and superseded by an entirely new adjustemnt and plan
of making rates. Pennington Produce Co. v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 229.
(232).
DIVERSION. See RECONSIGNMENT AND DIVERSION.
Rates resulting from carriers' disagreement as to divisions found unreasonable
to the extent that they exceeded the basis of rates previously maintained
from and to the points involved. Reparation awarded. Atlantic Lumber
Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 236 (240).
The division of a joint rate which a carrier accepts as its proportion is not,
generally speaking, of value as a test of the reasonableness of such rate.
Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 393 (394).
The commission has consistently found that disputes between carriers over
the divisions of their joint through rates are no justification for increasing
rates. Therefore, the proposed cancellation of transit services on grain
products and feed at certain points on the Baltimore & Ohio (lines west),
in connection with lines involved and points specified, which would result
in higher combination rates, found not justified. Transit on Grain on
Baltimore & O. R. Co., 536.
Divisions may not be taken as the proper measure of local rates, for the
reason that the factors to be taken into consideration in determining just
and equitable divisions of joint rates are essentially different from the
factors ordinarily considered in the determination of particular rates.
Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 752 (758–759).
Dockage is the furnishing to vessels of berthing space alongside piers. As a
rule no charge is made by the rail carriers for dockage. Wharfage Charges
at Atlantic and Gulf Ports, 663 (672).
DRAYAGE. See also LIGHTERAGE.
A common carrier may not unduly prefer one community or disadvantage
another, and if it voluntarily chooses to meet competition at one point in
respect to absorption of drayage, its obligation to other communities on
its line is clear under past decisions of the commission. Rules Covering
Freight at Bennettsville, S. C., 277 (278).
Complainant consignee was not entitled to an allowance for dunnage where
the consignor failed to specify on the shipping order the weight of the
material used for blocking, as provided by a rule in the governing classifi-
cation. Ryerson & Son v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8 (9-10).
DUTY OF CARRIER.
Although complainant tendered shipment under an erroneous impression
that a rate in effect over a certain route applied also over the route desig-
nated in the bill of lading, the carrier was not obligated to inform com-
plainant of the higher rate over the route selected, since the law charges
shippers with knowledge of existing rates and imposes no duty to furnish
them information presumed to be in their possession. South Georgia
Traffic Bureau v. Atlanta, B. & C. R. Co., 472 (473).
Municipal or private rail-water facilities are in many instances active com-
petitors of rail carriers for terminal business, and under the law carriers
are under no obligation to make their charges with a view to insuring a
profit upon operations of other public terminals but may make such rules,
regulations, and practices as will lawfully reserve traffic to their own rails
and facilities. There can be no violation of the act in carriers' failure to
place certain of their charges on a basis which will enable their competitors
to take away their business. Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf
Ports, 663 (689).
Although the duty of a carrier includes within the term "transportation"
as defined in section 1 of the act the performance of a variety of services
separable from its services as a carrier, it does not, follow that any and all
services performed by a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce
in connection with property transported are subject to the provisions of
the act. Many services are performed by a carrier in its capacity as a
bailee for hire and are only incidental to "transportation" which, by
reasonable construction, is limited to such services as a carrier is required
by law to provide upon reasonable request. Thompson v. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. Co., 775 (777-778).
Individual Lines: Visalia Electric Railroad:
Federal Fruit Distributors v. Southern Pac. Co., 343.
Pioneer Compost Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 489.
|