« PreviousContinue »
case, prices paid by complainants and others for ties in the vicinity of Bainbridge advanced to the extent of about 5 cents per tie. The manufacturers of ties were benefited by the competition created by complainants. The defendant desired to protect its tie agents from competition as far as practicable and thus obtain ties for its own consumption at lower prices than it would otherwise be compelled to pay. It sought in effect to confine the market in ties to its own line.
Between December 16, 1902, and April 6, 1903, defendant wrongfully discriminated against complainants in the matter of furnishing cars for interstate shipments of cross ties. The discrimination was undue because it was not justified by scarcity of cars, as claimed by defendant, and has not been otherwise justified.
Complainants claim they were damaged to the extent of $2,100 by the discrimination aforesaid; that is to say, that profits lost by them which they would otherwise have obtained aggregated that amount; but evidence concerning damages was indefinite and unsatisfactory. However, we think it fairly appears, and find, that between December 16, 1902, and the date of the filing of the complaint in this case, namely, February 25, 1903, complainants felt compelled to and did refuse to purchase 9,000 ties which were offered to them and which they would have purchased if defendant had not refused to furnish them cars; that they could have sold these ties at a profit of 7 cents each; that the ties were afterwards purchased by complainants' competitors; and that, therefore, the damage suffered by complainants by reason of the discrimination complained of was $630.
Complainants' allegation that defendant neglected to publish its schedules of rates, fares and charges is fully sustained by the record. However, after the complaint in this case was filed defendant posted a notice in its depot at Bainbridge stating that tariffs of rates for transportation of freight and passengers are on file for public inspection and can be seen upon application to agent.
10 I. C. C. REP.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, we conclude that the discrimination practised by defendant against complainants was a violation of section 3 of the Act to regulate commerce, and that defendant should make reparation to complainants for the damage suffered by them in consequence of such discrimination, which, as above stated, is $630. A suitable order will be entered and served.
The provisions of section 6 of the Act are not complied with by posting a notice stating that tariffs may be inspected upon application to the carrier's agent. In such case no order of the Commission is necessary, and any action based upon failure of a carrier to publish its rates as required by that section must be in accordance with the procedure defined in the statute.
The relation between the rates on lumber and ties is not complained of in this proceeding, and no opinion upon the disparity in those rates is now expressed. 10 I. C. C. REP.
THE CHICAGO LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE
PANY; THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; THE ST. PAUL
Decided January 9, 1905. 1. The complainant, an incorporated association, is entitled under section
13 of the Act to regulate commerce to bring and maintain a proceeding
of this character. 2. The defendant, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., removed the
discrimination complained of as to its lines, and it appeared that the defendant, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co., does not participate in the rates in question. Complaint as to those lines dis
missed. -3. Defendants exact higher rates for transporting cattle and hogs than
for transporting live-stock products to Chicago from points west, northwest and southwest thereof, including Missouri River points and South St. Paul, Minn. Upon all the facts and circumstances, Held:
1. That such discrimination is not justified by difference in cost of transportation or otherwise, and subjects the traffic in cattle and hogs at Chicago and other points, and those interested therein, to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, and gives to the traffic in the products of hogs and cattle, and to shippers and localities interested in such traffic, undue and unreasonable preference and advantage, in violation of the Act to regulate commerce. Chicago Board of Trade v. C. & A. R. Co., (4 I. C. C. Rep. 158) reaffirmed and the principle therein announced extended to the transporation of cattle and their products.
2. That the desire of a carrier to secure additional business for its line of road does not justify a change in the relation of rates resulting in a higher rate upon cattle and hogs, the raw material, than upon livestock product, the manufactured article, where, as in this case, the articles are in sharp competition with each other in markets of purchase and sale, where it appears that upon other lines and in other sections rates are generally no higher, and in many instances much lower, on the traffic prejudiced than on that favored by the change, and where numerous and important industries, which have been built up and maintained under the former adjustment, and those interested in such industries, will be injuriously affected by the action
taken. S. H. Cowan and T. W. Tomlinson for complainant. A. B. Stickney and F. B. Kellogg for C. G. W. Ry. Co. W. B. Biddle for A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. Thomas Wilson for C., St. P., M. & 0. Ry. Co. Wm. Brown and F. A. Wann for C. & A. Ry. Co. Thomas Miller and O. M. Spencer for the Burlington Lines. Geo. R. Peck and Burton Hanson for C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. W. T. Rankin for C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. R. A. Jackson for C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. and B., C. R. & N.
S. F. Andrews for I. C. R. R. Co.
Ira B. Mills and C. F. Staples for the R. R. & W. Com. of Minn.
Milchrist & Scott for Sioux City Stock Yards Co. and Sioux City Live Stock Exchange.
F. T. Ransom for Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha.
REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.
The subject matter of the complaint in this case is the rates exacted by defendants for transporting live stock and its products in carloads to Chicago from points west, northwest and southwest thereof, including South St. Paul, Minn., and points on the Missouri River, Sioux City, Iowa, to Kansas City, Mo., inclusive. Complainant alleges that the live-stock rates are unreasonable per se, and relatively unreasonable compared with rates applied on the products; that defendants' adjustments of rates between live stock and its products subject complainant, the locality of Chicago and producers of live stock in the states of Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and Minnesota to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage; and that by reason of the premises defendants are violating sections 1 and 3 of the Act to regulate commerce. Complainant also alleges that said adjustments are in violation of the rulings of this Commission in Chicago Board of Trade v. Chicago & Alton R. Co. et al., 4 I. C. C. Rep. 158, and Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central R. Co. et al., 4 I. C. C. Rep. 611.
In their answers, defendants, generally, deny the alleged violations of law. The St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company denies participation in the live-stock rates complained of; the Wabash Railroad Company denies complainant's right to institute this proceeding; and some of the other defendants