Company, and the Pennsylvania Company, to pay to complainant the sum of $42.84, or such other sum as, upon the proof to be adduced, the Commission may find complainant entitled to; and requiring all the defendants herein mentioned to wholly cease and desist from the aforesaid violation of said Act to Regulate Commerce; and that such other and further order or orders may be entered as the Commission may deem necessary in the premises and complainant's cause may appear to require. Dated at Cleveland, Ohio,

1905.

company, embracing a statement of charges made by ..

under section 13 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, approved February 4, 1887, and amended March 2, 1889.

You are hereby called upon to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same, in writing, within twenty days from this date.

For the Commission:

Secretary.

General Order Upon Filing of Informal Complaint.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

MATTER OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE

ENTERPRISE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.

Complaint having been lodged with the Commission that railroad lines leading westward from New York city unlawfully discriminate by making through charges and joint rates on passenger and freight traffic between points in New England and points on said railroad lines in New York, Pennsylvania and other States, with and in favor of the New England Navigation Company, and refusing to accord similar through charges and joint rates on passenger and freight traffic passing over the line of the Enterprise Transportation Company, which operates a line of vessels between New York city and New England points,

It is ordered: That a proceeding of inquiry and investigation into and concerning said complaint of unlawful discrimination be and is

hereby instituted, and that the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, the Erie Railroad Company, and the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company be, and they severally are hereby, made respondents in said proceedings; and

It is further ordered: That this matter be set down for hearing at United States Court Rooms in the city of New York on the 5th day of March, 1906, at ten o'clock of that day; and that said complainant, the Enterprise Transportation Company, and said respondents, are severally hereby required to appear before the Commission at said time and place, then and there prepared to make full and complete disclosures concerning the matters and things involved herein.

Demurrer.

[Filed with Commission.]

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

ROBERT M. TUTTLE

v.

NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. Co.

Defendant demurs to the petition of the complainant and for ground of demurrer assigns: that said petition does not state facts constituting a violation of the Interstate Commerce Law.

Notice is hereby given under Rule V of the Rules of Practice in proceedings before the Commission that a hearing is desired in this proceeding upon the facts as stated in the complaint.

THE

RAILROAD COMPANY.

By E. F.,
(Title of officer.)

Motion to Dismiss.

[Filed with Commission.]

HOLBROOK

v.

ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RY. Co.

Comes the defendant, the said St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company, by S. S. Burdett, its attorney, and moves the Commission to dismiss the cause and complaint herein for insufficiency.

1. Because there is no matter set out therein cognizable by this Commission under the act of Congress approved February 4, 1887.

2. Because the said petition or complaint shows on its face that the matters and things therein complained of happened prior to the approval of the act aforesaid and prior to its taking effect as a law.

3. Because said complaint contains no allegation or averment that the matters therein complained of continued after the passage of said act.

4. Because the allegation in said complaint of a belief as to what may happen in the future to the detriment of the petitioners is not ground for interposition in that behalf by the honorable Commission.

S. S. BURDETT,

Attorney for St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.

The above named defendants, for answer to the complaint in this proceeding, respectfully states:

(I.) That (here follow the usual admissions, denials and averments. Continue numbering each succeeding paragraph.)

Wherefore the defendant prays that the complaint in this proceeding be dismissed.

THE

RAILROAD COMPANY.

By E. F.,

(Title of officer.)

Answer on the Merits.

[Filed with Commission.]

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, for answer to the said petition, or so much thereof as it is advised it is necessary for it to make answer unto, saith:

First. That it admits that a through route between the various companies respondent exists, substantially as alleged in said petition, and that the rate of charges for lumber from the points indicated in said petition, that is to say, from Macon and Atlanta in the State of Georgia, and from Johnson City, in the State of Tennessee, to Boston, are, as per their tariff's filed, the same as set out in the said petition.

Second. That whether the petitioners have a large amount of money invested in business in Johnson City, which they cannot withdraw without severe loss, is a fact as to which this respondent cannot be advised, and asks that the petitioners be held to proof thereof. This respondent, however, denies that the rate which the tariff describes for lumber on said through line from Johnson City to Boston is unjust or unreasonable, or that it greatly injures or unjustly restricts the business of the petitioners. Third. That the rates from Macon of thirty-six cents and from Atlanta of thirty-four cents per 100 lbs. upon lumber, as well as the rate of thirtysix cents per 100 lbs. from Johnson City, were fixed by the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company, the initial company; and that the reasons justifying the said rates of thirty-six cents and thirty-four cents per 100 pounds respectively from Macon and Atlanta, respectively 1328 miles and 1240 miles from Boston, as compared with the rate of thirty-six cents per 100 lbs. for the shorter distance from Johnson City, in the State of Tennessee, to Boston, are as follows:

(a.) That the rates in the State of Georgia are fixed and controlled by the Railroad Commissioners of that State, that commission fixing the charges for transportation to coast cities from mills in the State of Georgia.

(b.) The fact of water competition from Brunswick, Georgia, on the Atlantic ocean, to Boston and other north Atlantic points; that adding the rate from the mills to Brunswick, as fixed by the Railroad Commissioners of Georgia, to the rate given by the coast line. water carriers to Boston, the aggregate is less than the amount charged, as aforesaid, upon the tariffs of the respondents on their through railroad carriage from Macon and Atlanta to Boston.

(c.) A large amount of freight is received at Atlanta and Macon from eastern cities, including Boston, vessels containing which would have to return empty in large part, but for the fact that they can be returned loaded with lumber.

(d.) The reason why the Atlanta charge is the same as that from Macon arises from the fact that the lumber shipped from Atlanta is manufactured at mills a considerable distance from that city, and transported there over local roads before being marketed.

(e.) That the lumber shipped from Johnson City is for the most part poplar lumber, while that which goes from Georgia territory is exclusively Georgia pine; and that the rate per 100 lbs. per mile for hauling poplar, by reason of its greater bulk, should reasonably be greater than that for hauling pine.

As to all of which matters reference is made for fuller details, to the answer of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company. Wherefore this respondent prays that the said petition be dismissed. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY,

In the matter of the petition of the Boston and Albany Railroad Com. pany against the Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation and others, dated May 21, 1887.

The Northern Railroad, named in said petition as the Northern Railroad Company, for answer to such petition, says:

First. That its road is now, and has been since the 31st day of May, A. D. 1884, in the possession of and operated by the Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation under a lease, and that the Northern Railroad during that time has not made and issued, or joined in making or issuing with the other railroad corporations named in said petition, joint rates, as set forth in the petition.

Second. The respondent corporation has not sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the other matters and things named in said petition, but it requires the same to be proved if, and so far as material, for any purpose against it. NORTHERN RAILROAD, By.....

Atty.