the Springfield Line, and leaving both places at 3 o'clock P. M. by the Shore Line. When this complaint was filed, August 4, 1903, the dollar rate was charged to intermediate points on the Shore Line train leaving New York and Boston at 5 o'clock P. M., but the lower rates to intermediate points are now allowed on that train. On other trains carrying parlor cars, aside from the three just mentioned, the dollar rate is charged only for a through seat between New York and Boston, the charge to intermediate points being fifty cents or seventy-five cents according to distance. In other words, the parlor car rate from intermediate points to the terminals is never more than fifty cents or seventy-five cents, according to distance, while on the three trains in question the parlor car rate from the terminals to intermediate points is one dollar, the same as the through rate. This is the discrimination of which complaint is made.

Parlor cars were originally put in service to accommodate through or long-distance travel between Boston and New York by furnishing easier and more comfortable seats. At first there was little demand for parlor cars, but the business has developed to quite large proportions and there is now an extensive demand for such cars, especially by passengers traveling through between the terminals above named.

The defendant justifies the through rate of one dollar to intermediate points on the three trains mentioned by reason of the following facts: In the first place, the number of persons taking parlor cars to or from intermediate points is small in comparison with the total number of parlor car passengers. For example, the average number of local parlor car passengers on the train leaving New York at 3 p. m. is only about ten per cent of the whole number of passengers using parlor car accommodations on that train. Therefore, as the parlor cars are patronized chiefly by long-distance travelers and the parlor car service primarily maintained for their benefit, it is necessary on some trains to guard against filling up the parlor cars at the terminals with local or short-distance travelers, and thus leaving insufficient accommodations for through or long-distance passengers. It is said that all or nearly all the parlor car seats on these trains are frequently required for the use of through travelers,

and that such travelers would often be deprived of desired accommodations if seats were sold at lower rates to intermediate points. For this reason, the defendant says, the dollar rate is charged to intermediate points on four (now three) trains which are operated largely for through travel, and on which as a rule the entire parlor car space is needed for through passengers.

The further statement is made that it is not feasible to increase the parlor cars on the trains in question, because the number now used is as great as can be hauled at the high rate of speed maintained by those trains. Moreover, at both New York and Boston the yards where trains are made up are at considerable distances from the passenger stations, while the physical conditions at those stations are such that additional cars cannot be put in after the trains have been placed at the passenger platforms. As a practical matter, it is insisted, the trains must be made up with reference to their scheduled time and the usual number of passengers carried, and that an increase of parlor car accommodations cannot be provided. In other words, the dollar rate is charged on these trains to all points not for the purpose of added revenue but in the interest of through passengers who have the greatest need of parlor car accommodations. The evidence sustains defendant's contention in this regard and the facts are found accordingly.

We further find that the number of trains and parlor cars on which the lower parlor car rates to intermediate points are allowed, together with the hours at which such trains leave the respective terminals and arrive at intermediate stations, are reasonably sufficient for the accommodation of the public. Taking all the circumstances into account, including due provision for through passengers, it is not perceived that any real hardship or injustice results from the dollar charge to all points on the three trains in question.

The conclusion follows so plainly from the facts found in this case that argument is unnecessary. It is not a violation of law to charge more in one direction on certain trains than is charged in the other direction on all trains between the same points. Macloon v. Boston & M. R. R. Co. et al. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 642.

85.

Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 6 I. C. C. Rep.

The defendant furnishes adequate parlor car accommodations at the lower rates for local and short-distance passengers, and the discrimination against such passengers by reason of the dollar rate to intermediate points on three of defendant's trains is not undue or unreasonable. In the interest of through passengers the defendant had the right to make the regulation in question. In the case of Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illi nois, 177 U. S. 514, 44 L. ed. 868, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, after discussing several cases called to its attention, the Supreme Court said:

"With no disposition whatever to vary or qualify the cases above cited, neither the conclusions of the court nor the tenor of the opinions are opposed to the principle we hold to in this case, that, after all local conditions have been adequately met, railways have the legal right to adopt special provisions for through traffic

We are of the opinion that no violation of the Act has been shown and that the complaint should be dismissed.

10 L. C. C. REP.-15.

GLADE COAL COMPANY

2.

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.

Decided April 28, 1904.

1. Defendant's refusal to furnish cars to complainants between February 25 and March 26 on the Deal side-track at Meyersdale and the side-track of the Savage Fire Brick Company at Keystone Junction, while furnishing and offering to furnish cars to complainants' competitors at other points, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence and described in the findings, was undue and unlawful discrimination against complainants, for which they are entitled to reparation.

2. Making certain charges for the transportation of coal shipped in carloads when the coal is loaded by tipple, and exacting a higher charge when it is loaded in some other way, and for that reason, is not justified by difference in cost to the carrier between different methods of loading, or by other facts appearing in this case, and renders the higher rates thus made unreasonable and unduly discriminatory, first, as against complainants, and, second, as against all other shippers of coal except those who load by tipple, and constitutes a violation of sections 1 and 3 of the Act to regulate commerce.

P. J. Farrell for the Commission.

Hugh L. Bond, John G. Wilson and Geo. Dobbins Penniman for defendant.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

KNAPP, Chairman:

The complainants in this case charge that between January 8 and March 26, 1903, defendant discriminated against them in the matter of rates charged and facilities furnished for the transportation of coal in carloads from Meyersdale and Keystone Junction in the State of Pennsylvania to market points in other

States, in violation of section 3 of the Act to regulate commerce; they also allege that said rates are unreasonable and unjust, in violation of section 1 of said act, and ask reparation for the injury they claim to have suffered in the premises.

Defendant, in its answer, denies the alleged violations of law, and advances some new matter in explanation and justification of the actions complained of.

Facts deemed material to a determination of the questions involved are found as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT.

On or about January 8, 1903, the complainants, W. H. Deal, C. E. Deal and E. J. Boyles, formed a partnership and began the business of mining, selling and shipping coal under the firm name of "Glade Coal Company," with headquarters at Meyersdale. They purchased one coal mine and leased another. For convenience, the former will be called the Glade City mine and the latter the Mosgrave mine. The Glade City mine is located adjacent to defendant's railroad and about midway between Meyersdale and Keystone Junction, while the Mosgrave mine is located a short distance westerly of Meyersdale. The distance from the Glade City mine to either Meyersdale or Keystone Junction is about one mile, perhaps a little more, and the distance from the Mosgrave mine to Meyersdale is about two miles. Defendant is a common carrier of interstate traffic and furnishes the only transportation facilities enjoyed by the localities of Meyersdale and Keystone Junction.

From time to time between January 8 and March 26, 1903, complainants, wishing to make interstate shipments of coal in carloads from the shipping points last above mentioned, requested defendant to furnish cars therefor. During the month of January, 1903, complainants were able to obtain only 8 cars, which they loaded at Meyersdale. From that time until March 26, 1903, the date the complaint in this case was filed, defendant refused to furnish them any cars to load with coal at either Meyersdale or Keystone Junction, but offered to permit such loading at Sand Patch, Rockwood and Boynton, stations on defendant's railroad in the State of Pennsylvania.