ful. The majority find that respondents have not justified the suspended schedules. I agree with that finding, but not with their other conclusions.

In Morrell & Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 104 I. C. C. 104, we prescribed a rate of 79 cents on fresh meats from Chicago to New York and rates from other origins in central territory to other destinations in eastern trunk-line and New England territories resulting from the application of that rate to New York, plus or minus the customary differentials under the old so-called McGraham percentage system of making rates. One of the prominent features of that system, which is described in Eastern Class Rate Investigation, 164 I. C. C. 314, 328, where it was disapproved for further use, was the very extensive grouping of destinations. On reconsideration, 120 I. C. C. 537, we prescribed rates from the Mississippi River crossings, St. Louis to Dubuque, 8 cents over the rates from Chicago. These rates were prescribed for application from central to eastern trunkline and New England territories and not as factors of through rates from western trunk-line territory. In that case we said:

It appears that many of the western factors are relatively much lower than the eastern factors, distances and transportation conditions considered, and that proportional rates lower than the locals on both fresh meats and cured meats might appropriately be established east of the Mississippi River and Chicago, but the establishment of such rates is not practicable under the issues and on the record before us. [Italics mine.]

The rates from the Mississippi River to central territory are also grouped at destinations. We are not advised by the evidence as to the basis on which they are made or the extent of the groups, but presumably they also were established only for local application.

The rates from the Missouri River cities to points in eastern trunkline and New England territories are generally the full combination of 36 cents to Chicago and the rates referred to above east thereof. Therefore, they are 28 cents higher than the rates from the Mississippi River crossings to the same destinations. To points in central territory the rates from the Missouri River cities range from 13 cents to Evansville and 19 cents to Cincinnati and Indianapolis to 26.5 cents to Detroit and Pittsburgh over the rates from the Mississippi River crossings to those destinations. These rates are not in issue and no evidence was introduced as to the reasonableness thereof.

In Swift & Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 220 I. C. C. 171, we found that the relation of the rates from the Missouri River cities and the interior Iowa points was unduly prejudicial to the former and unduly preferential of Mason City, Des Moines, and Austin. We there said that the appropriate way to relate the rates was on the basis of the differences between the fourth-class rates from interior Iowa

points and "Sioux City, the highest rated of the Missouri River cities" and prescribed the method for removing the undue prejudice described in the report. The majority state that method "works out in a manner quite unforeseen by us," that "respondents found that method would not effect its removal" and "under the circumstances we ought now to indicate the manner of removal of the unlawful situation.”

In accomplishing this purpose, the majority erroneously concluded that the rates from Cedar Rapids were found unduly preferential in Swift & Co. v. New York Central R. Co., supra, and that, therefore, the rates from that point should be increased. They point out that the difference between the rates on packing-house products from Cedar Rapids and Davenport to New York was 7 cents, and that fresh meats should take higher rates than packing-house products, and they conclude that a reasonable proportional rate from Cedar Rapids to Davenport is 8 cents. A lower rate would have resulted had Dubuque, Muscatine, Burlington, or Fort Madison, Iowa, or Hannibal, Mo., been used instead of Davenport for the spread between the rates on packinghouse products from Cedar Rapids and those points to New York was 5 cents. If the through rates on the two commodities to New York are compared, we find that the 93.5-cent rate on fresh meats was over 143 percent of the 65-cent rate on packing-house products. However, we are not here concerned with the spread in the rates on packing-house products, but with the through rates on fresh meats from interior Iowa points. If that method of determining the proportional rate from Cedar Rapids is sound, it would also seem to be sound in all instances, yet in determining the proportional rates from the other interior Iowa points it was not used, presumably because it is impractical.

Having concluded that 8 cents is a reasonable proportional rate from Cedar Rapids to Davenport, the majority then proceed to grade that rate into the 28-cent rate applicable from the Missouri River cities to the Mississippi River crossings on traffic destined to eastern trunkline and New England territories to determine the proportional rates from the other interior Iowa points. The proportional rates thus obtained, however, are not prescribed only for application on traffic to those territories, but also on traffic destined to points in central territory on which the rates from the Missouri River cities range from 13 to 26.5 cents over the rates from the Mississippi River crossings. The majority do not stop here, however, but under color of maintaining the grouping of the Missouri River cities, they use a distance of 219 miles instead of the actual distance from Cedar Rapids to Sioux City of approximately 262 miles over which to distribute the 20-cent difference between 8 and 28 cents.

The result is that the prescribed rates from some of the interior Iowa points to important markets in central territory closely ap

proach, and in some instances even materially exceed, those from the Missouri River cities to the same destinations. The short-line distances from Des Moines and Sioux City to Cincinnati are 560 and 745 miles and the rates are 64.5 and 66.5 cents respectively. Rates prescribed from other Iowa points to Cincinnati are from Albert Lea, 625 miles, 65.5 cents; from Fort Dodge, 616 miles, 67.5 cents; and from Storm Lake, 670 miles, 73.5 cents. The short-line distances from Des Moines and Sioux City to Indianapolis are 450 and 635 miles, and the rates are 57.5 and 59.5 cents respectively. The prescribed rates from other interior Iowa points to Indianapolis are from Fort Dodge, 507 miles, 60.5 cents, and Storm Lake, 560 miles, 66.5 cents. Other similar situations could be instanced.

The majority, in their solicitude to remove the undue prejudice against the Missouri River cities and undue preference of Mason City, Des Moines, and Austin without disturbing the grouping of or the rates from the Missouri River cities, have relegated to the limbo of oblivion the principal issue here, namely, the proper relation of the rates from the interior Iowa points to those from Chicago and other points in official territory, and prescribed an adjustment that creates new undue prejudice against all of the interior Iowa points, and undue preference of the Missouri River cities and all points in official territory.

Except where higher rates are prescribed from the interior Iowa points than from the Missouri River cities, the new undue preference of Chicago, the largest packing center in the country and other points in official territory is the more damaging to the interior Iowa packers. A very large preponderance of their products moves to destinations in official territory on and north of a line drawn through Pittsburgh, Columbus, and New York. The most severe competition they have in that territory is with packers located at Chicago and other points in official territory. Their economic existence is contingent on their reaching the large consuming markets in the East on reasonable interterritorial rates and rates justly and equitably related to those available to their competitors in central territory. They are just as much entitled to such rates as the Missouri River cities are to rates properly related to those from the interior Iowa points.

The controversy between the Missouri River cities and the interior Iowa packers relative to rates to official territory is of long standing. We have attempted in the past to deal with it piecemeal without success, and the present attempt is also foredoomed. It may be that the only satisfactory and equitable solution of the problem is the prescription of an entirely new adjustment of joint rates covering both territories. The evidence here does not permit such action.

If any action other than finding the suspended schedules not justified and discontinuing the proceeding is to be taken here, it must be on the assumption, and not on evidence, that the rates east of the Mississippi River are reasonable and properly related as local rates. Acting on that assumption, the way to accord the interior Iowa points fair treatment is to extend the rates now applicable from the Mississippi River to the interior Iowa points at a reasonable rate of progression, without a hump at points immediately west of the Mississippi River, but without the usual decrease in earnings for the longer hauls beyond the river. I see no justification for using the full eastern locals as proportional rates, to be added to proportional rates west of the river, made without any regard to the measure of the resulting through rates or the rights and interests of the interior Iowa packers.

I am authorized to state that COMMISSIONER PORTER joins in this expression.

COMMISSIONER LEE, being necessarily absent, did not participate in the disposition of this proceeding.

If minimum amount of changes required by the formula in Swift & Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 220 I. C. C. 171, were made.