tinuously violated the Act to Regulate Commerce in the following respects:
It published rates on interstate shipments of coal from minee in Colorado
and New Mexico, which, under the tariffs, applied only to the transpor-
tation 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 & Iron Company by the railway company.
While giving rebates to the Fuel & Iron Company from such tariff rates, it
charged the full tariff rates on interstate shipments of coal by other ship-
pers, 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.
40. Making certain charges for the transportation of coal shipped in car-
loads when the coal is loaded by tipple, and exacting a higher charge
when it is loaded in some other way, is not justified by difference in cost
to the carrier between different methods of loading, and renders the higher
rates thus made unduly discriminatory, first, as against complainants, and,
second, as against all other shippers of coal except those who load by
tipple. Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 226.
41. The act of February 19, 1905 (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 & Sante
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.
42. 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 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 con-
trolled 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 Transpor-
tation of Salt from Hutchinson, 1.
43. 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. Re Division of Joint Rates, etc. 661.
44. 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 pay-
ments to the Grant Chemical Company and the Eclipse Transfer Company
are illegal. Id.
45. Shippers are not entitled, as a matter of fact, to mill grain in tran-
sit 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
allowance 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. Koch v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 675.
46. 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 con-
stitute rebates, and are illegal. Re Division of Joint Rates, 661.
47. 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.
48. 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, Minnesota; as such discrimination is not justified by differences in
cost of transportation or otherwise. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chi-
cago G. W. R. Co. 428.
49. Defendant's 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 de-
scribed 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, does not, upon the facts of the case, unjustly discriminate in its ap-
plication to complainant's traffic. Wrigley v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R.
Co. 412.
50. 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. Re Division of Joint Rates,
etc. 385.
51. 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. Id.
52. An unlawful preference in favor of the International-Harvester Com-
pany 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.
53. 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 compensation
to him for the cost of bringing his logs to the mill by steam railroad, horse
railroad, wagon, or any other means of conveyance. Central Yellow Pine
Asso. v. Vicksburg S. & P. R. Co. 193.
54. The construction of grain elevators by a shipper, and the allowance
by the carrier of 14 cents per 100 lbs. for elevator or transfer services to
the corporations controlled by the shipper and which conduct the elevators,
does not amount to a rebate. Re Allowance to Elevators, 309.
55. 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, 385.
56. The second section of the Act to Regulate Commerce, which prohib-
its rebates whereby one shipper is preferred to another, refers to a like
and contemporaneous service performed under similar circumstances and
conditions; and, in the absence of a showing of such similarity of cir-
cumstances 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 com-
plainants located in a different section of the country. Central Yellow
Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg 8. & P. R. Co. 193.
57. The share of the through rate for the transportation of salt from
producing points in Michigan to points on the Missouri River, which is al-
lowed 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 cor-
porations 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 service as to amount to a rebate in favor of the salt interests which
control the boat line. Re Transportation of Salt, 148.
58. 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 earn-
ings 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 Kansas, 1.
59. The allowance by a carrier to an elevator company which it has pro-
cured to construct elevators, of 14 cents per 100 lbs. as an elevator or
transfer charge, does not amount to a discrimination in favor of grain
shippers who own and control the elevator company. Matter of Allowances
to Elevators, 309.
60. There is no discrimination against individuals by an arrangement
among carriers dividing the traffic of transporting immigrants from At-
lantic ports westward in agreed proportions, where the immigrants are
transported at domestic published rates. Re Transportation of Immigrants
from New York, 13.
61. No undue discrimination against individuals is made in the grant-
ing of divisions in rates to lumber mills owning or controlling short orig-
inating roads called "tap lines," while other carriers fail or refuse to allow
like concessions to members of the complaining association located in a
different section of the country. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg,
S. & P. R. Co. 193.
62. The Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company is justified in making a lower
rate of charges from St. Louis, Mo., East St. Louis, and Cairo, Ill., to Mo-
bile, Ala., and Meridian, Miss., than for the shorter distances to Tupelo,
Aberdeen, Columbus, West Point, and Starkville, Miss., by actual and con-
trolling competition which creates substantial dissimilarity in the circum-
stances and conditions affecting transportation. Aberdeen Group Com-
mercial A880. v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 289.
63. Prior to April 25, 1903, defendant had in effect rates per 100 lbs. on
bananas in carloads from Charleston, which were 43 cents to Danville and
20 cents to Lynchburg. The rate of 20 cents to Lynchburg was 13 cents
below the rate which was justified by competition from Baltimore or else-
where. Such relation of rates was in violation of section four of the Act
to regulate commerce. Gardner & Clark v. Southern R. Co. 342.
64. Applying the law as construed by the United States Supreme Court,
the traffic from New York and other eastern points is carried to Nashville
through Chattanooga under substantially different circumstances and con-
ditions from those pertaining to traffic from the same points to Chatta-
nooga, the shorter distance; and consequently a higher rate to Chattanooga
is not unlawful under section four of the statute. Chamber of Commerce
of Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 111.
65. No undue discrimination results to Sheridan by reason of the fact
that the rate from that place to Boston is 2 cents per 100 lbs. more than
from Indianapolis to Boston, although the latter is the longer distance
point by the defendant's line, which runs north from Indianapolis through
Sheridan, connecting at various points with lines to Boston; as Indianapolis
is a competitive point, and the short lines from Sheridan to the east are
through Indianapolis, and by those lines Sheridan is a longer distance point.
G. C. Pratt Lumber Co. v. Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. 29.
66. The defendants were not shown to be guilty of any wilful or inten-
tional violation of the law, where it was charged that they imposed charges
in excess of the tariff rate on certain shipments of fruit from Michigan
points to Chicago, and the facts showed the existence of errors in charges
arising from lack of knowledge by the Chicago agent of the kind of pack-
age used, or the actual contents of the package shipped to complainant,
the shipments having been unloaded by complainant, and that such errors
also arose from a practice of the agent of the initial carrier at one point
temporarily used as a receiving station for fruit, of making a charge in
addition to the freight rate, without the knowledge of the railroad com-
pany. Davis v. Pere Marquette R. Co. 405.
67. It is at least doubtful whether section five of the Act to Regulate
Commerce, which forbids the pooling of freights, applies to a practice where-
by the transportation of immigrants from Atlantic ports westward is di-
vided between the carriers in agreed proportions based upon the propor-
tion of the domestic passenger traffic done by each line, where
such a practice cannot be made effective in respect to any other
class of passenger business, and the immigrants are carried at do-
mestic published rates, and the arrangements adopted by the carriers in
connection with the immigration authorities of the United States have ef-
ficiently promoted the protection and greatly improved the treatment and
|