rates, therefore, the prayer for relief in these rates will be denied. No evidence was introduced in support of the prayer for relief in rates to the Mississippi River crossings, because this situation, it is stated, was then before the Commission in reopened Paper and Paper Articles to New Orleans, 210 I. C. C. 122,2 decided July 17, 1935, wherein fourth-section relief authorized in previous reports in that proceeding was modified to apply only in connection with rates on newsprint paper from points in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Canada to New Orleans, La. This and certain other general prayers including the prayer for relief in rates on such additional paper articles as may be later included in the present commodity descriptions, not supported by adequate testimony explaining the rate bases, need for relief and justification therefor, will not be further considered upon this record.

The proposed rates apply on newsprint paper and other paper articles on which rates are generally based 110, 1331%, and 150 percent of the rates on newsprint paper. Under the proposed rate structures, departures occur at origins and destinations over both the direct and indirect routes. The present grouping of origins and destinations is urged as grounds for not imposing the equidistant provision.

In Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 66 I. C. C. 571, division 4 prescribed rates on certain kinds of paper and paper articles from northern paper-producing points in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, designated as groups 1 to 8 in this application, to representative points in the Southwest, and from Chicago, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., to Wichita, Kans., and to Oklahoma City and Okmulgee, Okla. In establishing that adjustment to the named destinations and related points in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, applicants revised the rates from defined territories in central and western trunk-line territories specified in Agent J. E. Johanson's tariff I. C. C. no. 2517 to reflect the then existing relation with the St. Louis group. The rates from the Port Arthur group are related to the rates from groups 1 to 8.

In Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 139 I. C. C. 535, 567, the Commission found that the rates on paper and paper articles from St. Louis, the Missouri River cities, Kansas-Missouri territory, and the defined territories to points in northeast Texas should not exceed the contemporaneous rates to Oklahoma City by more than specified rate differences. Following that decision applicants established another set of rates from groups 1 to 8, the Port Arthur group, defined territories, Kansas City, Mo., Atchison and Leavenworth,

'Prior reports, 88 I. C. C. 345 and 96 I. C. C. 600.

Kans., St. Joseph, Mo., Memphis, Cairo, Ill., St. Louis, and Quincy, Ill., to northeast Texas and all points in Oklahoma. In this adjustment the grouping of origins and destinations is the same as that which was used in establishing class rates pursuant to Consolidated Southwestern Cases, supra, except that to Oklahoma one large group covering the entire State is used. The rates outlined in this paragraph and those described in the preceding paragraphs are subject to an alternative tariff provision under which the lowest rate applies. In addition to the foregoing, applicants request relief in rates (1) from points in the Miami Valley of Ohio, such as Cincinnati, Middletown, and Dayton, to points in northeast Texas, which rates are related to the Oklahoma adjustment pursuant to Consolidated Southwestern Cases, supra, and (2) from defined territories to the Marshall-Jefferson, Tex., group, which rates are related to the rates to Shreveport, La., pursuant to the findings by division 4 in Cities of Marshall and Jefferson v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 85 I. C. C. 115.

Departures over direct routes may be illustrated as follows: From St. Paul, Minn., to Jefferson over lines of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company to Kansas City, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company to Texarkana, Ark.-Tex., and the Texas and Pacific Railway Company beyond, 1,026 miles, the rate is 63 cents, which is the rate that was prescribed in Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., supra, while from the first and last higher-rated intermediate points, Albert Lea, Minn., and Bradford, Iowa, 926 and 860 miles to Jefferson, the rate is 66 cents. These intermediate rates reflect the relation adjustment with Oklahoma City established following Consolidated Southwestern Cases, supra. In this and similar illustrations it is not entirely clear why the rates over the direct routes at the more distant and higher-rated intermediate points are not on the same relative basis. It may be that to maintain the prescribed and related adjustments some measure of relief is necessary over certain direct routes, but the evidence respecting these situations is too general to either justify the broad relief sought or to identify with any degree of certainty the particular situations in which relief may be justified. In the circumstances relief over direct routes will be denied.

Departures over indirect routes generally result from such routes traversing higher-rated points or groups to reach lower-rated points or groups. For example, from St. Louis to Marshall over an indirect route composed of the St. Louis-San Francisco to Poteau, Okla., Kansas City Southern to Texarkana, and Texas & Pacific beyond, 674 miles, or 21 percent longer than the direct route, the proposed rate is 41 cents, while from intermediate points Springfield, Mo., and Johnsons, Ark., 435 and 326 miles to Marshall, the rate is 42 cents. The rates from the more distant and higher-rated

intermediate points were published as a result of Cities of Marshall and Jefferson v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., supra. Also, from Fort William, Ontario, to Little Rock, Ark., over an indirect route 1,573 miles in length, or 8 percent longer than the direct route, the proposed rate is 61 cents, while to Mansfield, Ark., the highest-rated intermediate point, and Magazine, Ark., the equidistant point, 1,433 and 1,462 miles from Fort William, the rate is 64 cents. In this instance the rates to the more distant and higher-rated intermediate points were established pursuant to Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., supra.

Over seven typical indirect routes of record ranging from 674 to 1,633 miles in length, and from 2 to 39 percent circuitous, as compared with the direct routes between the same points, the proposed rates yield earnings ranging from 6.9 to 12.4 mills per ton-mile and, based on 53,140 pounds, from 18.4 to 32.9 cents per car-mile. The limitations hereinafter prescribed, which have been imposed in several recent cases under substantially similar circumstances, will limit the relief to routes over which the rates will be reasonably compensatory.

Applicants urge that since the prayer for relief is based primarily upon the alleged necessity for maintaining intact the grouping under the existing rate structures, rather than circuity, the equidistant provision should not be imposed. As previously indicated, to northeast Texas and Oklahoma the proposed alternating rate structures are based upon two entirely dissimilar systems of grouping, one the old so-called defined groups and the other the comparatively new and smaller groups which were used by carriers generally in establishing class rates pursuant to Consolidated Southwestern Cases, supra. The defined groups apparently are observed in the proposed rates to the other destination points. Upon this record we are not convinced that the continued maintenance of the so-called defined groups constitutes sufficient grounds for relief. In these circumstances the only basis for relief is circuity, and therefore the imposition of the equidistant provision is mandatory.

In the twenty-first supplemental report of the Commission in Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 205 I. C. C. 601, the groups are materially changed from those which were established as a result of the prior reports in that proceeding. At the hearing herein applicants were unable to state what changes, if any, in the proposed rates and groups would be necessary as a result of the later decision. They ask, however, for such relief as will enable them to use the new groups in the event they find that a revision of the rates on paper is necessary. It has heretofore been found that the equidistant provision is not required to be applied where relief is granted to preserve a proper system of grouping. Cement in Trunk-Line Terri

tory, 174 I. C. C. 224, 229. We conclude that the equidistant provision is not applicable where the rates are uniformly based upon the grouping approved in the Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I. C. C. 203, as modified by later reports therein, and relief is necessary to maintain such groups.

Applicants having circuitous lines or routes will be authorized to establish and maintain on paper and paper articles, as described in item 1199-E of supplement 57 to Agent J. E. Johanson's tariff I. C. C. no. 2531, from the described points in western trunk-line, central, and southwestern territories, and the Port Arthur group to points in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, as described herein, rates the same as those contemporaneously in effect on like traffic over the corresponding direct lines or routes from and to the same points in instances where the rates over such direct lines or routes are constructed on the bases prescribed or approved from and to the same points on the same commodities in Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 139 I. C. C. 535, Cities of Marshall and Jefferson v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., and Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., supra, or, as to points not embraced in those proceedings, are properly related to the prescribed or approved rates; and to maintain higher rates from and to intermediate points, provided, (1) that the relief authorized herein shall not apply with respect to any rates which exceed those constructed on the basis prescribed or approved on the same commodity from and to the same points in any decision of this Commission, as modified by later decisions dealing with the same traffic, or, in the case of points not embraced in such proceedings, rates properly related to the prescribed or approved rates, (2) that the rates at any higher-rated intermediate points shall in no case exceed the lowest combination of rates subject to the act, (3) that the relief authorized herein shall be subject to the equidistant provision, except that this provision shall not apply where the rates are uniformly based upon the grouping approved in the Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I. C. C. 203, as modified by later reports therein, and relief is necessary to maintain such groups, and (4) that the relief authorized herein shall be subject to the circuity limitations specified in the footnote.3

All other and further relief prayed will be denied. An appropriate order will be entered.

Relief shall not apply where the distance over the short line or route (a) does not exceed 1,000 miles and the longer line or route is more than 50 percent circuitous, and (b) exceeds 1,000 miles and the longer line or route is more than 33% percent circuitous, except that where the distance over the short line or route exceeds 1,000 miles and the distance over the longer line or route does not exceed 1,500 miles, relief will apply to such longer line or route even though it is more than 33% percent circuitous.

CONSOLIDATED SOUTHWESTERN CASES 1

Decided December 2, 1935

1. Upon reconsideration, findings in prior report, 205 I. C. C. 601, amended (a) to provide that the prescribed all-rail adjustment shall be governed by the western classification instead of by destination-territories classifications as prescribed in said report; (b) to modify authorized addition of 15 miles to distances in excess of 200 miles from Houston, Tex., for purpose of grouping that point with Galveston and Texas City; (c) to provide for grouping of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Denton, Tex., under rates between them and key points in defined territories; and (d) with interpretation of prior finding 13 respecting construction of rates between New Orleans, La., and other east-bank Mississippi River gateways, on one hand, and points in southwestern zone III, on the other. Otherwise, prior findings affirmed.

2. Appendix C to prior report amended by substitution of corrected first-class key rates for application between certain named points.

3. Upon further hearing, pursuant to petitions by chambers of commerce of St. Joseph, Mo., and Atchison and Leavenworth, Kans., for restoration of former rate parity with Kansas City, Mo., to and from points in southwestern territories, adjustment prescribed in next prior report found to embody lawful rates and relations from and to those points. 4. Findings in original report, 123 I. C. C. 203, and later ones amended so far as necessary to authorize elimination of certain commodities from the cases and the publication of reduced rates on certain other commodities for application from and to particular points, as per amendatory order heretofore entered.

B. F. Batts, C. S. Burg, W. E. Davis, W. T. Hughes, H. R. Jones, H. H. Larimore, M. G. Roberts, J. L. Stewart, Robert Thompson, F. L. Wallace, and E. A. Boyd for petitioners; J. C. Murray and Chas. H. Winslow for chambers of commerce, in opposition.

W. L. Thornton, Jr., Carl R. Cunningham, C. F. Kilgore, J. T. Ryan, E. L. Hunt, L. A. Schwartz, E. H. Thornton, A. L. Reed, Ed. P. Byars, and C. E. Holloman for petitioners.

E. V. Rhodes and F. S. Robinson for parties in opposition to petitions.

This report embraces, upon reconsideration, the proceedings, except nos. 15217 and 15231, listed in the first paragraph in the margin of the first page of the original report, 123 I. C. C. 203, so far as they pertain to all-rail rates between the various points, and, upon further hearing, nos. 13535 and 14880, so far as they pertain to all-rail rates between Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., St. Joseph, Mo., and Atchison and Leavenworth, Kans., on the one hand, and points in southwestern territories, on the other, together with certain incidental matters.