Haven, & Hartford Railroad Company for the transportation from New York to Boston of peaches and other fruit shipped from Georgia points to Boston, its haul being part of the through service between the points of shipment and destination, is unreasonable and unjust; and $50 per car would be a just and reasonable charge for such transportation. Id.
103. Defendant's present rate of $1 per 100 lbs. on lemons in carloads from southern California to points on and east of the Missouri River is apparently reasonable. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. Co. 590.
104. Defendant's rate of $1.25 per 100 lbs. on oranges in carloads carried from southern California to points on and east of the Missouri River is unreasonable and unjust. Id.
105. The shippers of cattle and hogs are unduly discriminated against by the exaction of 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., as such discrimination is not justified by the difference in cost of transportation, or otherwise. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.
106. The refrigeration charges applying on shipments of citrus fruits from southern California points to the eastern markets have been reduced during the pendency of this proceeding, and the present charges for refrigeration are not found, upon the record of this case, to be unreasonable. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. Co. 590.
107. Railroad companies violate section 1 of the act to regulate commerce in making exclusive contracts with a car line company to furnish refrigerator cars, under which the car line company exacts charges for refrigeration service which greatly exceed those formerly made to cover the cost of icing by the railroad companies, and range from 50 to 150 per cent above those made prior to the contracts, by the car line company itself, as they thereby, in effect, impose upon shippers exorbitant charges for the transportation of fruits to markets in other states. Re Transportation of Fruit, 360.
108. Defendants' rule, providing that the minimum charge upon any single shipment of freight shall be for 100 pounds at the class or commodity rate applying upon the article, which is in force in the territory roughly described as south of the Ohio and Potomac and east of the Mississippi rivers, and also on traffic shipped to that territory from points in the central west,-is not, upon the facts of the case, shown to be unreasonable. Wrigley v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 412.
109. Storage rates and regulations enforced by common carriers subject. to the Act to regulate commerce must be published at their stations and filed with the Commission. Blackman v. Southern R. Co. 352.
110. A railroad freight depot and a public storage warehouse are not used for similar purposes; and the charge for storage in the railroad depot may properly be made higher than the public warehouse charge, with the object of compelling the expeditious removal of freight. Id.
111. The Southern Railway Company in applying to complainants' interstate traffic at Macon, Ga., the storage rates prescribed by the Georgia railroad commission; and the Columbia, Newberry, & Laurens Railroad Company in applying to complainants' interstate traffic at Columbia, S. C., the storage rates prescribed by the South Carolina railroad commission,— did not violate the Act to regulate commerce, although such storage rates were in excess of the usual public warehouse charges in Macon and Columbia. Id.
THROUGH RATES-DIVISION OF RATES.
112. Under the Act to regulate commerce a common carrier subject to its provisions can allow a division of rates only to another common carrier which, participating in the particular traffic to which the rate is applied, is also subject to the Act to regulate commerce. The two lines may by contract or agreement establish a joint rate from the point of origin on the one road to the point of destination on the other, and agree between themselves as to the division of the rate. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.
113. Treating the transportation of logs to mill by one line, and the transportation of the lumber from the mill by another line, as a through shipment, involves the right to mill in transit; and when that privilege is granted, the tariff should show upon its face that the transportation covers carriage of the log to and the lumber from the mill, and the division allowed to the carrier of the log should be named in all cases. Id.
114. An arbitrary charge of $80 per car imposed by the New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad Company for the transportation from New York to Boston of peaches and other fruit shipped from Georgia points to Boston, its haul being part of the through service between the points of shipment and destination, is unreasonable and unjust; and $50 per car would be a just and reasonable charge for such transportation. Georgia Peach Growers' Asso. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 255.
115. The transportation of the log to the mill by one line, and the transportation of the lumber from the mill by another line, may, under the circumstances of this case, be treated as in the nature of a through shipment from the point where the log is received to the point where the lumber is finally delivered; and the carrier of the lumber may, by joint arrangement with the log carrier, make such allowance toward the cost of moving the log as would be fairly involved in moving the lumber from the point where the log is received for carriage, provided always that the carrier of the log is a common carrier by rail; but this holding extends the application of the principle of milling in transit to the extreme limit. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.
116. While an association of shippers has no direct interest in a determination of the question as to whether divisions or allowances from published tariff rates, made by defendants to tap lines owned or controlled by other shippers, constitute departures from the published rates, it has such an indirect interest as entitles it, under the statute, to maintain a proceeding to have such division declared unlawful. Id.
117. Generally speaking, the public is not interested in the division of a
through rate, and the Commission, therefore, has no authority to con-
demn the division of the rate, unless a part of the through line and the
article shipped have a common ownership, and a grossly excessive division
is made for the purpose of paying a rebate. Re Transportation of Salt,
148.
118. The share of the through rate for the transportation of salt from
producing points in Michigan to points on the Missouri River, which is
allowed to the boat line on Lake Michigan, the controlling interest in
which is owned by the same persons who own a controlling interest in the
corporations producing salt at the point named, and which share amounts
to from 30 to 33 per cent of the through rate, and is considerably higher
than the former charge of carrying salt on Lake Michigan, but which in-
crease is partly accounted for by the fact that additional services are in-
cluded,—is not so grossly disproportionate to the value of the additional
through services as to amount to a rebate in favor of the salt interests
which control the boat line. Id.
119. No undue preference between individuals or localities is made by
defendants in the granting of divisions in rates to lumber mills owning or
controlling originating roads called "tap lines," while other carriers fail
or refuse to allow like concessions to members of the complaining associa-
tion, located in a different section of the country. Central Yellow Pine
Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.
120. The act of February 19, 1903 (the so-called "Elkins law"), which
applies both to the carrier and the party receiving the concession, has
been systematically and continuously violated by the Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fé Railway Company and the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company from
the day of its passage down to November 27, 1904, when the tariffs upon
which this coal moved were reduced in all cases, $1.15. Re Transportation
of Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.
121. Where excessive divisions of rates are granted by the carrier to
another carrier owned and controlled by a shipper, for the purpose of obtain-
ing the traffic of that shipper, they benefit the shipper, and operate as a re-
bate or other device to cut the tariff charge, in violation of the Act to
regulate commerce. Re Division of Joint Rates, etc. 385.
122. While there may be great objections to allowing shippers to build
and operate railroads over which their traffic moves, such action is not
prohibited by the Act to regulate commerce. And the mere fact that the
property of a common carrier is owned by the largest individual shipper
over it, or that it was originally constructed for the purpose of doing the
work of that shipper, furnishes no reason why it cannot make joint rates
and agree upon joint divisions with other railroads. Id.
123. The second section of the Act to regulate commerce, which prohibits
rebates whereby one shipper is preferred to another, refers to a like and
contemporaneous service performed under similar circumstances and condi-
tions; and, in the absence of a showing of such similarity of circumstances
and conditions, such section is not violated by the granting of divisions of
rates to lumber mills owning or controlling short originating roads, while
other carriers fail or refuse to allow like concessions to complainants lo-
cated in a different section of the country. Central Yellow Pine Asso.
v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.
124. The logging roads, or "tap lines," to which the defendant, the Mo-
bile & Ohio Railroad Company, grants allowances from its published rates,
are not common carriers, but such tap lines are the private property of
mill owners, and the allowances are therefore unlawful. Central Yellow
Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 505.
125. While defendant carrier was entitled to insist upon the application
of the through rate to the through shipment on its line to Hope, Ark., in-
stead of applying the sum of local rates based upon Texarkana, Ark., which
sum was less than the published through charge, it could not lawfully re-
fuse to receive and carry complainant's freight to Texarkana under the
local rate to that point, even though the complainant's attempt to ship its
freight to Texarkana was for the purpose of having it subsequently re-
shipped from that point by another line to Hope, Ark. Hope Cotton Oil
Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co. 696.
126. The Illinois Terminal Railway Company was organized in the in-
terest of the Illinois Glass Company, and uses tracks constructed by the
latter on its private grounds at Alton, Ill., for the purpose of connecting
its plant with different lines of railway. Re Division of Joint Rates, 661.
127. The Illinois Terminal Railway Company receives an excessively
large share on the division of the through rate on goods transported over
it to the Illinois Glass Company, which concession is illegal, provided the
glass company owns and operates the Illinois Terminal Railway, but a dif-
ferent question may be presented if it appears that the holders of the cap-
ital stock of the glass company own the railroad company. Id.
128. An unlawful preference to the United States Steel Corporation,
which owns and controls the Illinois Steel Company, is practised under a
division of rates whereby the Chicago, Lake Shore, and Eastern Railway
Company, a terminal road owned by the United States Steel Corporation,
and operated between the Illinois Steel Company's works, obtains a grossly
excessive division for the service rendered. Re Division of Joint Rates,
129. In holding that an allowance of compensation to a shipper by the
carrier for transferring his shipment from East St. Louis to the carrier's
St. Louis depot, where similar compensation was denied other carriers,
was illegal, no opinion was expressed as to whether lines leading west from
St. Louis may properly apply the St. Louis rate to the station of a bona fide
transfer company in East St. Louis and absorb the cost of transfer to St.
Louis; neither was any opinion expressed as to whether the rail carriers
may, by proper schedules, allow all shippers from East St. Louis a fixed
sum per 100 lbs. for transporting their merchandise to the carrier's depots in
St. Louis, those questions not being presented by the record in the same pro-
ceeding. Re Division of Joint Rates, 661.
130. An unlawful preference in favor of the International Harvester
Company is practised by means of the division of the through rate, under
which division the Illinois Northern Railroad Company, owned by such
Harvester Company, and the Chicago, West Pullman, & Southern Railroad
Company, controlled by it, receive a percentage of the rate which amounts
to about $12 per car, for services which were formerly performed by these
terminal roads as a switching charge, and which amounted to a maximum
of $3.50 per car, which was reasonable for these services. Re Division of
Joint Rates, etc. 385.
131. 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, because conditions on that line in Ohio and Indiana
may be very different from conditions in eastern Pennsylvania; but such
differences have not been shown, nor their bearing explained, and upon the
meager and incomplete facts now appearing, the Commission is not war-
ranted in making a decision which in principle, if complainant's contention
is well founded, would involve a general extension of transit privileges into
a large territory where heretofore such privileges have not been allowed.
Koch v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 675.
132. Shippers are not entitled, as a matter of fact, 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;
but allowances of the privilege by a carrier to shippers in one section must
be without wrongful prejudice to the rights of shippers in another section
served by its line. Id.
133. The Granite City, Alton, & Eastern Railroad Company was organ-
ized for the purpose of operating several thousand feet of railway used in
the business of the St. Louis Syrup & Preserving Company and located on
the latter's private grounds at Granite City, Ill. The Granite City com-
pany has constructed a short track outside the limits of the grounds of the
preserving company, and uses, jointly with other companies, another track
about 3,000 feet in length. By means of these tracks the Granite City com-
pany connects with other railroad companies, and is paid by the latter cer-
tain divisions of transportation charges on traffic shipped by the preserving
company and hauled to such connections by the Granite City company. As-
suming that the Granite City company and the preserving company are
identical in ownership, concerning which a definite finding is not made,-
Held, that the payments to the Granite City company constitute rebates,
and are illegal. Re Division of Joint Rates, 661.
134. The Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fé Railway Company grossly and
continuously violated the Act to regulate commerce in the following re-
spects: It published rates on interstate shipments of coal from mines in
Colorado and New Mexico, which, under the tariffs, applied only to the trans-
portation thereof, but which for the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company were
made by the railway company to include the price of the coal; and such
price was paid to the fuel and iron company by the railway company;
while giving rebates to the fuel and iron company from such tariff rates,
it charged the full tariff rates on interstate shipments of coal by other
|