Furthermore, if only switching to and from a reasonable point of interchange on the industry tracks is considered, instead of from or to loading or unloading points within the plant, the time required would be reduced materially, which would effect a further decrease in the respondent's cost. The paper company submitted a cost study for the period of 17 months from January 1, 1931, to May 31, 1932, inclusive, which indicated that the cost per loaded car to perform the switching with its locomotive was $4.66. That cost was compared with the allowance of $3.60 to show that the paper company derived no financial benefit therefrom. This study also embraced the entire switching movement between respondent's siding and the loading and unloading points on the industry tracks and showed that the average time consumed per loaded car was 1.3 hours. Considering the layout of the industry tracks, the switching required beyond the point at which the International delivers and receives traffic of the paper company, which is on the main line of the paper company between its connection with the International's lead track and the first industrial spur, must be considered as being in excess of that required in making simple placement or the equivalent of team-track spotting, and therefore in excess of the service required of the respondent under its line-haul rates. Accepting the paper company's figure of $4.66 per loaded car, that cost is apportionable between such excess service and that which it is the obligation of the respondent to perform. And it may fairly be assumed that at least one-half of the 1.3 hours per loaded car required to do the switching is consumed in the excess service. If the cost of $4.66 be apportioned equally between the services to and beyond the reasonable point of interchange, the cost to the paper company of performing the respondent's portion of the switching would not exceed $2.33. We find that the obligations of the respondent under the interstate line-haul rates are fully discharged by the delivery and receipt of carload freight on the track, hereinabove described, at present used for this purpose by the International, which is reasonably convenient; that the service performed by the paper company beyond the point of interchange found reasonable is a plant service; and that by the payment of an allowance to the paper company for such plant service the respondent provides the means by which the paper company enjoys a preferential service not accorded to shipments generally, and refunds or remits a portion of the rates or charges collected or received as compensation for the transportation of property, in violation of section 6 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act. By their joint letter of May 22, 1941, the respondent and the paper company requested leave to withdraw their exceptions to the re port proposed by the examiner, and agreed to reduce the allowance under consideration from $3.60 to $2.33 per loaded car. No order will be entered at this time. The respondent will be expected to advise the Commission within 15 days from the service of this report that its tariff authorizing the allowance has been amended in conformity with our conclusions herein and the aforesaid agreement between it and the paper company. No. 28476 THORNTON QUARRIES CORPORATION v. CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Submitted October 21, 1940. Decided July 2, 1941 Rates on sand and gravel, in carloads, from Dickason, Ind., to Champaign and T. N. Cook, L. P. Day, Elmer A. Smith, and H. E. Spencer for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ALLDREDGE, Commissioner: 1 The shortened procedure was followed. Complainant filed exceptions to the examiner's report, and defendant, The New York Central Railroad Company, replied to the exceptions. Subsequently the record was supplemented by responses to special interrogatories. The conclusions herein differ somewhat from those proposed by the examiner. Complainant is a corporation operating a sand and gravel pit at Dickason, Ind. By complaint filed May 10, 1940, it alleges that the joint-line rates on sand and gravel, in carloads, from Dickason to Champaign and Urbana, Ill., are unreasonable and unduly prejudicial to complainant and unduly preferential of sand and gravel operators with pits at Attica, Kern, and Terre Haute, Ind. Reasonable and nonprejudicial rates and relations for the future are sought. Rates and differences in rates will be stated in cents per net ton. This proceeding is an outgrowth of Sand, Gravel, and Stone to Champaign and Urbana, Ill., 237 I. C. C. 773, in which division 2 authorized the New York Central Railroad Company and the Wabash Under the authority of section 17 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, the aboveentitled proceeding was referred by the Commission to Commissioner Alldredge for consideration and disposition. Railway Company (Norman B. Pitcairn and Frank C. Nicodemus, Jr., receivers) to reduce their interstate single-line rates to Champaign and Urbana on sand and gravel from Attica, Kern, and Terre Haute and on crushed stone from Greencastle, Ind., and Lehigh, Ill., by 17 cents, without making corresponding reductions to intermediate destinations, in order to meet truck competition from a wayside. quarry, not served by railroad, at Fairmont, Ill., and a wayside pit, not served by railroad, at Penfield, Ill. Complainant here and its proprietary company, which operates the quarry at Fairmont, were the only protestants. The relief granted in that proceeding was originally until December 3, 1940, but was subsequently extended by division 2 until December 20, 1941, upon a showing that the competitive situation had not changed except that operations at the Penfield pit had ceased but that sand was moving by truck from a new pit opened up at Dillsburg, Ill. In addition to the New York Central and the Wabash, the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company (Benjamin Wham, trustee), the originating carrier serving Dickason, and the Illinois Central Railroad Company and the Illinois Terminal Company, the other destination carriers serving Champaign and Urbana, were made defendants in the present proceeding. The rate situation presented is set forth in the following table: The rates prior to December 20, 1937, are those established January 1, 1926, in accordance with the order of division 2 in Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 2306, Crushed Stone Between Indiana and Illinois Points, and Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 2307, Sand and Gravel Between Indiana and Illinois Points, and subsequent proceedings, the last three rates having been specifically prescribed from Dickason in Sand, Gravel, and Crushed Stone, 181 I. C. C. 373. Under the adjustment of January 1, 1926, joint rates where in effect were made from 20 cents for the shorter hauls to 13 cents for the longer hauls higher than the single-line rates for similar distances and where the transportation services were otherwise substantially similar. Two rates over the Illinois Terminal route, namely, 98 and 84 cents, were agreed upon in that adjustment for application from Summit Grove, Ind., a more distant origin than Dickason, subject to the following proviso: Where two rates are shown as agreed upon, the establishment of the lower rate is not required, but the parties are of opinion that if such lower rates were established it would not jeopardize the proposed adjustment. In other words, waiver of the joint-line arbitrary in connection with the Illinois Terminal was authorized to the extent indicated. When that adjustment became effective on January 1, 1926, the 98cent rate was published over this route from Summit Grove and was not superseded by the 84-cent rate until December 14, 1928. The Dickason pit did not begin operations until July 15, 1929. The 84cent rate was published from Dickason over the Illinois Terminal route, effective May 25, 1929. As indicated in the table, this rate became 92 cents under the general increase of 1938 and was met by the Wabash route on August 25, 1939. Prior to July 3, 1940, the effective date of the reduced rates from the other Indiana points, complainant shipped substantial quantities of sand from Dickason to this market, including 65 carloads during the 4-month period beginning March 5, 1940, the coarse aggregate for the same construction projects being shipped by truck in the form of crushed stone from its proprietary company's quarry at Fairmont. Since July 3, 1940, the latter has continued to ship substantial quantities of crushed stone to this market, but no sand from Dickason. Under the circumstances, complainant obviously cannot set up the truck rates on crushed stone from Fairmont as & basis for a claim for a reduction in the rates on gravel from Dickason. The reduced single-line rates from the Indiana points were handled under the so-called cooperative procedure described in Chicago Gravel Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 234 I. C. C. 664. Ordinarily, the rates approved under the cooperative procedure do and should reflect the same reductions under the normal rates from the plants of all interested producers so as to preserve the origin differentials, although the shippers and carriers have not usually requested reductions in the joint-line rates. Where, as here, a joint-line shipper indicates that it is interested in a given market and it is obvious that, as to a given commodity (in this instance sand), it is affected by the same competition as the single-line shippers, according reductions below the normal basis to the single-line shippers and denial of like reductions to the joint-line shipper would deprive the latter of the fair opportunity to which it is entitled under the law. Complainant contends that the 92-cent rate is the "normal" rate from Dickason and that it is entitled to a rate of 17 cents lower, or 75 cents, reflecting spreads of 15 cents over Attica and Kern and 4 cents over Terre Haute. The New York Central and the Wabash are the only defendants which participate in the traffic from both Dickason and the other Indiana points. As shown by the above table, the normal rates from Dickason in connection with those defendants are 99 and 105 cents, respectively, or 22 cents over Kern and 11 cents over Terre Haute in connection with the New York Central and 28 cents over Attica in connection with the Wabash. In considering the protest of the complainant herein against the granting of fourth-section relief in Sand, Gravel, and Stone to Champaign and Urbana, Ill., supra, division 2 said: Whether additional reductions should be made from Dickason cannot be determined on this record, in view of protestant's failure to adduce evidence as to the present competitive situation, the origin line serving Dickason not being a party to this proceeding. Indeed, such reductions are not sought by protestants, their real object being to prevent the reductions proposed from the plants of their rail competitors. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the proposed rates will result in undue prejudice against protestants within the meaning of the act. It is established by the present record that so far as sand is concerned the failure to accord complainant a reduction in rates similar to those accorded competitors at the alleged preferred points is violative of section 3 of the act. It is found that the rates assailed are and for the future will be unduly prejudicial to complainant and unduly preferential of shippers at Attica, Kern, and Terre Haute, to the extent that the rate on sand from Dickason in connection with the New York Central or Wabash exceeds or may exceed the single-line rates that are, or hereafter may be, concurrently maintained from Kern and Attica by more than 22 cents, and the single-line rate from Terre Haute by more than 11 cents. It is further found that the rates assailed are not otherwise unlawful. An appropriate order is entered herewith. 246 I. C. C. |