mills can, and complainants' mill could, if in operation, grind and ship grain grown east of the Alleghenies; grind western grain and ship the product in less than carloads; and grind western grain and ship the product to New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, on even terms with the miller west of Pittsburg. The evidence fails to show whether western milled products are in fact absorbing the trade at interior points of consumption east of Pittsburg, or to what extent that trade is supplied by eastern mills. Indeed, this record is made solely by the testimony of one of the complainants and the testimony of the traffic manager of the Pennsylvania, with some exhibits put in on behalf of complainants. The testimony for complainants is littlə more than a showing that their mill, if in operation, would not be able to compete in the milling of western grain with western milled products destined to interior points. What compensating advantages, if any, are enjoyed by the established millers in eastern Pennsylvania-and they appear to be quite numerousand how the transit privilege asked for would affect the inillers in that section who depend mainly upon local grain, are matters concerning which we have no information, as the testimony barely touches this aspect of the case and is so general in character as to be of little value in determining the actual or probable effect upon the milling industry of Pennsylvania of the change demanded by complainants.

CONCLUSIONS.

It seems unnecessary to determine upon the present record whether, as complainants contend, the ownership of a majority of the capital stock of the Pan Handle by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, through the medium of the Pennsylvania Company, operates to charge the former with responsibility for the rates and regulations in force on the Pan Handle line.

Shippers are not entitled as a matter of right to mill grain in transit and forward the milled product under the through rate in force on the grain from the point of origin to the place of ultimate destination (Diamond Mills v. B. & M. R. R. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 311), but allowance of the privilege by a carrier to ship

pers in one section must be without wrongful prejudice to the rights of shippers in another section served by its line.

Considering the defendants as a single line, the granting of transit milling west of Pittsburg and denying it to millers at Harrisburg is not necessarily unlawful. The conditions on the Pan Handle in Ohio and Indiana may be very different from the conditions in eastern Pennsylvania, and it does not follow that the allowance of transit privileges in the former territory requires as a matter of law the like allowance in the latter territory. But these differences have not been shown nor their bearing explained by the testimony in this proceeding. About all that appears on behalf of complainants, and perhaps all they were bound to show, is the fact, illustrated by examples, that western milled products have an important advantage over western grain milled at Harrisburg and reconsigned as product to interior destinations, because the Harrisburg miller is refused transit privileges which the western miller enjoys. On the other hand, the defendants have submitted only general grounds of justification, without any satisfactory showing as to the difference between western and eastern conditions or the probable effect upon the various interests concerned of a milling-in-transit privilege at Harrisburg. In short, there is failure to disclose the whole situation and develop all the facts and circumstances which apparently should be taken into account; and we are virtually called upon to decide the case upon the assertion of injustice by complainants and what amount to general denials by defendants, accompanied with a declaration that it is the policy of the Pennsylvania Railroad to restrict the transit privilege and prevent its extension. In pursuance of that policy the transit privilege is allowed in Pennsylvania only for products destined to the great competitive seaboard markets, and this for the purpose of allowing Pennsylvania millers to engage in that trade.

But it is difficult to see, in the absence of proof respecting local conditions, why the reason for protecting Pennsylvania millers does not apply as well to the interior trade in carload quantities of grain products. The western milled products compete as strongly with Pennsylvania mills for the trade at interior points as they do with Pennsylvania mills for the seaboard

trade. The only difference between the two classes of trade is that the seaboard traffic in part is carried by other lines, while the interior trade is confined to Pennsylvania Railroad points and is carried only by that line. Such difference shows carriers' competition at the seaboard which does not exist at these interior points, but it does not show more forceful trade or milling competition for the seaboard trade than for the trade in the interior. There may be compensating advantages accruing to the Pennsylvania millers in relation to the distribution of grain products to interior points, but as to this we are not advised.

Upon the meager and incomplete facts now appearing, we do not feel warranted in making a decision which in principle, if complainants' contention is well founded would involve a general extension of transit privileges into a large territory where heretofore such privileges have not been allowed. It is evident that the question raised affects numerous interests in a considerable section of country, and apparently other lines as well as the Pennsylvania, and therefore ought not to be determined without a more comprehensive and careful inquiry than this record permits.

For the reasons thus briefly stated, the case will be continued for further hearing at a time and place to be hereafter fixed. 10 I. C. C. REP.

No. 785.

H. B. PITTS & SON

v.

ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY AND TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

Decided April 24, 1905.

Complainants shipped two carloads of snapped corn over the railways of the St. Louis & San Francisco and Texas & Pacific companies, from Grove, Indian Territory, to Marshall, Texas. On one carload defendants exacted a charge of 442 cents per 100 pounds and on the other 312 cents. The only published rates in effect and applicable to the shipments were, an interstate rate of the former company of 21 cents per 100 pounds plus 25 per cent for the transportation to Paris, Texas, and a proportional rate of the latter for transportation from Paris to Marshall of 14 cents, except that the T. & P. Company's tariff provided that lower combinations by other roads would be protected. Upon one shipment the tariff purporting to name the rates was an association tariff consisting of 297 pages, filled with notes, exceptions and special references, indicated by a host of arbitrary signs, and was so involved that the freight officials of the carriers could not agree, and the Auditor of the Commission found it difficult to determine the rate which did apply. Held:

1. That the rate of the St. L. & S. F. Company for the transportation to Paris was excessive and unreasonable to the extent that it exceeded 21 cents per 100 pounds.

2. That the proportional rate of the T. & P. Company of 141⁄2 cents per 100 pounds is assumed to be reasonable.

3. That complainants are entitled to reparation to the extent that the charges exacted from them exceeded 352 cents per 100 pounds.

4. That it is the duty of railroad companies, under the Act to regulate commerce, to print, publish and file tariffs showing rates which are so simplified that persons of ordinary comprehension can understand them; and that a notation in the tariff of one carrier making reference to the tariff of some competing carrier does not meet the requirement of the law that the rate charged shall be published and filed.

W. L. Pitts for complainant.

Hiram Glass for St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. and T. & P.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

PROUTY, Commissioner:

Ry. Co.

The complainants in this case are merchants doing a wholesale hay and grain business at Marshall, Texas, under the firm style of H. B. Pitts & Son, and they claim to recover of the defendants an overcharge growing out of the transportation of two carloads of snapped corn from Grove, Indian Territory, to Marshall, Texas. The corn was delivered in each case to the St. Louis & San Francisco Company at Grove, by it transported to Paris, Texas, and there delivered to the Texas & Pacific Company, which carried it to Marshall. The first shipment was in January, 1903, and weighed 48,744 pounds. The second was in May of the same year and weighed 40,500 pounds. The rate charged and collected upon the first shipment was 442 cents per 100 pounds; upon the second shipment 311⁄2 cents per 100 pounds. The complainants insist that it should have been 352 cents upon both shipments.

For some time previous to December, 1902, there had been in effect a joint through rate on corn from Grove and corresponding points in Indian Territory, to Marshall, and corresponding points in Texas, via the route in question, of about 30 cents per 100 pounds. Owing to certain disputes with reference to the privilege of milling-in-transit, this joint rate was canceled by the St. Louis & San Francisco Company. Thereupon the Texas & Pacific Company put in effect from Paris to Marshall what it denominated a proportional interstate rate, which applied on interstate shipments delivered to it by the St. Louis & San Francisco Company at Paris for transportation to some other point in the state of Texas. The local rate fixed by the Texas Commission from Paris to Marshall would have been 1212 cents per 100 pounds, but this so-called interstate proportional rate for the same haul was 142 cents per 100 pounds. The General Freight Agent of the Texas & Pacific