A glance at the table of production of wheat in the states of Kansas and Texas since the hearing by the Commission in the Kauffman Milling Case, will readly suggest the principal source of the embarrassments of the milling interests in both states.

Texas raised an abnormally large crop of wheat in 1900, with the inevitable result of stimulating the erection of mills and reducing the comparative farm prices, and it will be seen that the difference of the farm price of Texas wheat below that of Kansas wheat was lower than it had ever been.

Kansas wheat sold for 55 cents per bushel on the farm and Texas wheat for 64 cents, a difference of only 9 cents per bushel, though since 1890 Texas wheat had sold on the farm at an average of above 16 cents per bushel more than Kansas wheat.

In 1900, Texas with 23,390,913 bushels and Kansas with 82,488,655 bushels, gave the competing mills of these states 105,884,568 bushels. The following year of 1901, Kansas raised its greatest crop, above 99 million bushels, and though Texas fell to but little over 6 million bushels, the joint stock of wheat in both states still aggregated 105 million bushels, about as much as for the great Texas crop year, from which the millers of these states might draw supplies.

In 1902, however, the Kansas crop fell to 45,827,495, and Texas produced but 8,633, 277 bushels, or a joint production of only 54,460,772 bushels, but little more than half the supplies. of the two preceding years, with an increased milling capacity in both states. It was inevitable that the competition of purchasers should be fierce, that each must go further afield for sup plies, that some mills must find difficulty by reason of reduced supplies and narrower margins, in securing sufficient wheat to grind full time, or sales for their products at accustomed profits. This accident of the annual crop yield amply accounts for the strain upon the flouring mills of both sections, and besides this there is comparatively little or no change in the conditions existing at the time when the question of differentials was before under consideration. In November, 1899, in the case of Railroad Comrs. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304, the Commission reviewed the Kauffman Milling Company Case and found "that it did not appear in the present proceeding that

any new conditions had come into existence, or that old conditions had been essentially modified." "In the absence of some showing that new conditions have intervened, or that the effects of the original holding have been other than were anticipated, we think that that case must control the disposition of this." No change of such importance has occurred as to warrant an interference at this time which would not as well have been justified then, and the Commission must, therefore, hold to its former opinion and decline to disturb relations of rates which as recited in the former opinion, could scarcely fail to be injurious to important vested rights.

10 I. C. C. REP.

[No. 663.]

JOHN H. PARKS

v.

THE CINCINNATI & MUSKINGUM VALLEY RAIL ROAD COMPANY.

Decided January 30, 1904.

Complainant alleged unjust discrimination by defendant in failing to furnish him with cars for the shipment of grain while supplying more than a fair proportion of cars to a competitor doing business in the same town, and that defendant subjected him to unreasonable disadvantage by providing his competitor in the coal business with a private switch and denying the like facility to him, thereby compelling him to unload coal at an inconvenient point near the outskirts of the town, and demanded reparation. It appeared that complainant desired to ship grain mainly to eastern points, concerning the transportation of which an embargo had been established by eastern lines, while his competitor in that business shipped largely by defendant's line to local points, for which complainant had no shipments, and that as to the coal business complainant really desired to use a passing siding of defendant for the purpose of unloading his coal. Upon these and other circumstances shown in the case, Held, That there was no such showing of undue preference or unjust discrimination as would warrant an order of relief or for reparation.

P. J. Farrell for the Commission.

A. P. Burgwin and F. A. Durban for defendant.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

FIFER, Commissioner:

The complaint in this case states that the complainant is a dealer in grain and seeds at New Holland, Ohio, engaged in shipping said commodities to various markets in other states,

and also engaged in the shipment of coal to New Holland for sale at that point, and that defendant is a common carrier to and from New Holland and subject to the Act to regulate commerce.

Complainant alleges unjust discrimination by defendant in failure to furnish cars for the conduct of his business, while furnishing a competitor in the same line more than his fair proportion, through which preference and discrimination complainant suffered damage and loss to the extent of four hundred dollars. Complainant further alleges that the defendant unloads coal for a competitor at a convenient point and forces complainant to go to the outskirts of the town for his coal, an unreasonable regulation and a hardship, furnishing his competitor with a private switch and refusing a like concession to complainant, illegal practices in violation of the Act.

The defendant, in its answer, admits it is a common carrier subject to the Act, but avers its road is wholly within the state of Ohio; admits complainant is a dealer in grain and seeds, shipping to other markets; admits there are two elevators of about the same capacity, and that between Nov. 10, 1902, and Feb. 1, 1903, complainant used thirteen cars furnished by defendant, and that the competing elevator used fifty-five cars in the same period; admits the complainant deals in coal at New Holland, and that defendant's agent, John E. Ferrell, is also a coal and lumber dealer, and that he has been long in the business, and that before complainant began, said Ferrell leased property from defendant's predecessor, the Cincinnati & Muskingum Valley Railway Company, upon which he erected buildings and coal bins, whereupon defendant's predecessor constructed a side track thereto; that complainant has a point at New Holland for the general delivery of coal where coal is delivered, and that complainant receives no coal from points outside the state, and ships none. Defendant denies any discrimination against complainant, and avers he was treated as well as other shippers.

FACTS.

The complainant, about 1896, came to New Holland and purchased a grain elevator, paying therefor above $3,000. He also expended nearly as much for remodeling the same. The capac

ity of the elevator is from 20,000 to 25,000 bushels. This elevator is situated alongside the line of the defendant road, a siding where cars are loaded, the same being a "passing siding" of defendant company.

Nearby is an elevator of about the same dimensions, owned and operated by a competing firm, McCrea and Vlerebome. This elevator, situated a short distance from the main line, has a short spur siding on which it receives and loads its grain cars. This competing firm, by reason of having been engaged in the operation of an elevator at this point two or three times as long as complainant, or by the use of greater capital, or longer acquaintance, or more popular business methods, or greater enterprise, or seeking of local markets instead of depending principally on sales in eastern states, or a favoritism which secures to them from defendant road greater accommodations in the matter of cars furnished for the shipment of grain, or all of these, has, by the undisputed testimony of all the witnesses and the records, managed to control and handle the greater proportion of grain elevated and shipped from this point, for the last six years, and indeed, before the advent of complainant.

For a couple of years, beginning in 1899 and terminating in 1901, the two elevators were operated under a mutual agreement by which each paid the other one cent per bushel for the grain handled, under which system it became less material who received the cars or shipped the grain, as each participated in the profits. During that period there seems to have been little complaint of discrimination in the matter of cars furnished, but the testimony tends to show that the so-called Vlerebome elevator continued to handle the larger portion of the grain business at that point. Based on proportion of cars used by each for a series of years, the agent of the defendant road claimed to furnish to the respective elevators, cars in the proportion of four to McCrea & Vlerebome, to one given complainant.

In the year 1901, according to the testimony of defendant's agent and the records, 122 carloads were shipped by McCrea & Vlerebome and 11 by complainant; in 1902, 32 by complainant and 164 by his competitors.

The failure to secure cars when needed for shipment may re