Page images
PDF
EPUB

shippers, in not only the general coal region involved, but in the same coal
field; which practice of the railway company resulted in closing markets
for coal to shippers competing with the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company.
Re Transportation of Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.

135. Carriers operating lines to points west of the Mississippi River
make rates to such points, which are the same from East St. Louis, III., as
from St. Louis, Mo. Most of the freight is carried from East St. Louis to
the St. Louis depots by transfer companies, who receive from the carriers
5 cents per 100 lbs. for such transfer. The Grant Chemical Company, a
shipper, receives a like sum for a similar transfer by it of its shipments
to East St. Louis, which payment is refused to other shippers. The Eclipse
"Transfer Company was organized for the sole purpose of obtaining this
payment; it uses teams owned by the Simmons Hardware Company, and
uses the storehouse of the latter for a receiving depot. These payments
to the Grant Chemical Company and the Eclipse Transfer Company are
illegal. Re Division of Joint Rates, 661.

136. division of a freight rate with another railroad company con-
stitutes a mere subterfuge to give a concession in the rate, and is un-
lawful, where the railroad company receiving the division of the rate,
while owning four or five thousand feet of railway siding adjoining one
of several plants belonging to the shipper, does not own any equipment or
rolling stock, and is not in any way engaged as a common carrier, but is in
fact controlled by the officers of the shipping company, who control its
earnings and receive the benefit of the division of the rate, thereby enabling
it to sell its produce at prices which its competitors cannot meet. Re
Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, 1.

137. Where excessive divisions of rates are granted by the carrier to an-
other carrier owned and controlled by a shipper, for the purpose of ob-
taining the traffic of that shipper, they benefit the shipper, and operate
as a rebate or other device to cut the tariff charge, in violation of the
Act to regulate commerce. Re Division of Joint Rates, etc. 385.

INSTANCES.

On baking powder. Re Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, 1.
On bananas. Gardner & Clark v. Southern R. Co. 342.
On cattle. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago, G. W. R. Co. 428.
On coal. Re Transportation of Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.
Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 226.
Denison Light & Power Co. v. Missouri P. R. Co. 337.
On cowpeas. Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 281.
On flour. Wichita v. Missouri P, R. Co. 35.
On fruits. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. R. Co. 590.

On grain. Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co.
650.

On hogs. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.
On horses. Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co, 333.
On immigrants. Re Transportation of Immigrants from New York, 13.
On lemons. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. R. Co. 590.

On live stock. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago, G. W. R. Co.
428.

On lumber. G. C. Pratt Lumber Co. v. Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. 29.
Mershon S. P. & Co. v. Central R. Co. 456.
Tift v. Southern R. Co. 548.
Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.
On mules. Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. 333.

On peaches. Georgia Peach Growers' Asso. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
Co. 255.

On perishable freight. Re Transportation of Fruit, 360.
Georgia Peach Growers' Asso. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 255.

Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co.
650.

On salt. Re Transportation of Salt, 148.
Re Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, 1.
On shingles. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth S. S. & A. R. Co. 489.
On snapped corn. H. B. Pitts & Son v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 691.

On sugar. Lehman-Higginson Grocer Co. v. Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co.
460.

Parlor car rates. Hevins v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 221.
Passenger rates. Cist v. Michigan C. R. Co. 217.

Refrigeration charges. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. R.
Co. 590.

On rye.

REBATES.

1. A division of a freight rate with another railroad company consti-
tutes a mere subterfuge to give a concession in the rate, and is unlawful,
where the railroad company receiving the division of the rate, while own-
ing four or five thousand feet of railway siding adjoining one of several
plants belonging to the shipper, does not own any equipment or rolling
stock, and is not in any way engaged as a common carrier, but is in fact.
controlled by the officers of the shipping company who control its earnings
and receive the benefit of the division of the rate, thereby enabling it to
sell its produce at prices which its competitors cannot meet. Re Trans-
portation of Salt from Hutchinson, l.

2. 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. Re Division of Joint
Rates, etc. 385.

3. Where excessive divisions of rates are granted by the carrier to an-
other 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
rebate or other device to cut the tariff charge, in violation of the Act to

4. 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. Id.

5. 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 & 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. Id.

6. The Granite City, Alton, & Eastern Railroad Company was organized 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 company 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 company connects with other railroad companies, and is paid by the latter certain divisions of transportation charges on traffic shipped by the preserving company and hauled to such connections by the Granite City company. Assuming 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.

7. 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 different question may be presented if it appears that the holders of the capital stock of the glass company. own the railroad company. Id.

8. Carriers operating lines to points west of the Mississippi River make rates to such points, which are the same from East St. Louis, Ill., as from St. Louis, Mo. Most of the freight is carried from East St. Louis to the St. Louis depots by transfer companies, who receive from the carriers 5 cents per 100 lbs. for such transfer. The Grant Chemical Company, a shipper, receives a like sum for a similar transfer by it of its shipments to East St. Louis, which payment is refused to other shippers. The Eclipse Transfer Company was organized for the sole purpose of obtaining this payment; it uses teams owned by the Simmons Hardware Company, and uses the storehouse of the latter for a receiving depot. These payments to the Grant Chemical Company and the Eclipse Transfer Company are illegal. Id.

9. 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 proceeding. Id.

10. 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.

11. 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 con-
ditions; and in the absence of a showing of such similarity of circum-
stances and conditions, such section is not violated by the granting of di-
visions of rates to lumber mills owning or controlling short originating
roads, while other carriers fail or refuse to allow like concessions to com-
plainants located in a different section of the country. Central Yellow Pine
Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.

12. Defendants publish a certain rate on lumber from stations upon
their lines, which must be strictly observed and charged to all shippers
alike; and they are not entitled, under the Act to Regulate Commerce, to
grant a division of the rate to the owner of a lumber mill as compensa-
tion to him for the cost of bringing his logs to the mill by steam railroad,
horse railroad, wagon, or any other means of conveyance. Id.

13. The construction of grain elevators by a shipper, and the allowance
by the carrier of 17 cents per 100 lbs. for elevator or transfer service to
the corporations controlled by the shipper and which conduct the elevator,
does not amount to a rebate. Matter af Allowances to Elevators, 309.

14. 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 coal moved were reduced in all cases $1.15. Re Transportation of
Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.

15. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company grossly and con-
tinuously violated the Act to Regulate Commerce in the following respects :

It published rates on interstate shipments of coal from mines in Colorado
and New Mexico, which, under the tariffs, applied only to the transporta-
tion 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
shippers in not only the general coal region involved, but in the same
coal field; which practice of the railway company resulted in closing
markets for coal to shippers competing with the Colorado Fuel & Iron Com-

pany. Id.

16. The logging roads, or “tap lines,” to which the defendant, the Mo-
bile & Ohio Railway 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.

REFRIGERATOR CARS.

1. Upon all the facts and circumstances, including, on the one hand, the
difficulties and liability to loss attending the production and shipment of
peaches, and, on the other hand, the large percentage of cars loaded above
the prescribed minimum weights for carloads, for which excess no charge
is made by the carriers, the exceptional character of the service, which
involves fast time and prompt delivery at destination, the carriage of a
large amount of nonpaying freight, return of cars without loads, and many
other conditions relating to the highly perishable nature of the traffic,-
Held, that neither the minimum carload weight nor the transportation
charge established by the defendants engaged in the carriage of peaches in
refrigerator cars from Georgia points to New York, based upon a rate of
81 cents from Atlanta to New York, is unreasonable or unjust. Georgia
Peach Growers' Asso. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 255.

2. When charges for refrigeration are applied in the transportation of
perishable freight, such charges should be published and adhered to as all
other charges for transportation are published and observed. The same
considerations of justice and public policy which require this in case of
the freight rate apply to the charge for refrigeration. Re Transportation
of Fruit, 360.

3. Railroad companies violate section one of the Act to Regulate Com-
merce in making exclusive contracts with car line companies to furnish
refrigerator cars, under which the car line companies exact 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 com-
pany tself, as they thereby in effect impose upon shippers exorbitant
charges for the transportation of fruits to markets in other states. Id.

4. The refrigeration charges applying on shipments of citrus fruits from
southern California points to the eastern markets bave been reduced during
the pendency of this proceeding, and the present charges for refrigeration

« PreviousContinue »