Maximum first-class key rates, in cents per 100 pounds-Continued Section 3.-Maximum key rates from and to points in western trunk-line territory: Maximum first-class key rates, in cents per 100 pounds—Continued NOTE.-Eliminate Denton, Tex., from section 3 (see section 4 (a) as amended). Denton, Tex Key point Same rates as Fort Worth, Tex 211 I. C. C. 1 CONSOLIDATED SOUTHWESTERN CASES 1 Submitted November 19, 1934. Decided December 3, 1935 Upon further hearing respecting ocean-rail rates in these proceedings: 1. Finding 11 of original report, 123 I. C. C. 203, modified by eliminating the finding of undue prejudice and preference as between northeast Texas cities and the north Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico ports. 2. Finding 12 of the original report, to the effect that tariffs naming one-factor through ocean-rail rates without concurrence of the rail lines to the north Atlantic ports were unlawful, affirmed. Petition of certain ocean carriers that finding 12 be rescinded denied. 3. Maximum reasonable ocean-rail rates prescribed in finding 11 of the original report changed as indicated. 4. The prescribed rates are to be governed by the concurrent western classification. 5. Maximum reasonable percentage relations of the several lower classes to first class prescribed. 6. Upon petition of certain ocean carriers, rates to and from New Orleans proper eliminated from the findings. 7. Complaints in nos. 23557, 26108, and 26133 dismissed. Ed. P. Byars, Albert L. Reed, and Carl B. Calloway for complainants in no. 14880. P. W. Coyle and D. A. Cole for complainants in no. 15463. Paul A. Walker and C. B. Bee for Corporation Commission of Oklahoma; A. D. Beals and J. C. Murray for Arkansas Corporation Commission. G. H. Muckley, J. R. Bell, William Simmons, J. T. Green, G. W. Delaney, T. A. O'Brien, Henry Thurtell, W. P. Levis, W. G. Hayden, J. C. Whiteford, T. N. Cook, Alexander Gawlis, Edward K. Laux, and F. M. McCarthy for ocean carriers, defendants or interveners. Elmer Westlake, C. S. Burg, Wallace T. Hughes, Frank Andrews, W. E. Davis, M. G. Roberts, E. A. Boyd, Fred L. Wallace, T. L. Bothwell, G. B. Ross, S. G. Reed, B. H. Stanage, J. O. Hamilton, Harvey Allen, R. H. Schultz, George E. Schnitzer, W. L. Cook, E. L. Beach, J. F. Eshelman, F. R. Garrison, H. A. Lindmark, H. L. 1 This report embraces the following proceedings listed in the first paragraph in the margin of the first page of the original report, 123 I. C. C. 203; Nos. 14880 and 15463 and Investigation and Suspension Dockets Nos. 2097 and 2271; and also embraces No. 23557, Pool Manufacturing Company v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey et al.; No. 26108, Chamber of Commerce v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company et al.; and No. 26133, Same v. Same. Sheffield, A. E. Allen, C. D. Bordelon, T. D. Gresham, R. S. Shapard, A. L. Burford, R. F. White, Robert Thompson, F. A. Key, Jr., John W. Murphy, and Charles R. Webber for rail defendants. H. D. Arnold, Edward W. Bailey, Frederick L. Ballard, M. P. Bauman, Charles L. Belsterling, I. G. Bentley, D. H. Berry, Francis W. Brown, Frederick E. Brown, Walter H. Brusche, Frederick W. Burton, W. H. Chandler, Orion L. Chapin, J. W. Chatham, Clark & LaRoe, W. G. Clayton, Jr., R. B. Coapstick, S. J. Cole, Homer J. Conley, W. S. Cornell, A. M. Corp, G. Walter Coyle, George B. Cromwell, John H. Crooker, T. C. Crouch, J. P. Daly, John W. Daniel, L. F. Daspit, J. M. Davison, W. H. Day, Charles Donnley, Francis J. Dowd, W. M. Dyer, H. C. Eargle, George W. Edmonds, R. A. Eldridge, C. J. Fagg, A. H. Ferguson, H. J. Fernandez, C. W. Gallagher, A. G. Garvey, T. D. Geoghegan, Carl Giessow, F. W. Grueling, Byrd Harris, J. P. Haynes, John D. Heffernon, Edward L. Hefron, Samuel Herndon, John J. Hickey, C. E. Hochstedler, John V. Howey, C. E. Holloman, Spencer E. Hughes, J. C. Huntting, R. C. Hyett, W. H. Kimball, R. G. Kreitler, Wilbur LaRoe, Jr., Edward F. Ledwidge, William A. Lockyn, G. E. Mace, Mason Mangham, F. M. Manson, Harry E. Marsales, W. J. Mathey, Walter W. McCoubrey, Frank H. McMahon, J. V. McMahon, William F. Medford, C. A. Mitchell, Donald O. Moore, Frank G. Moore, P. W. Moore, William R. Moore, C. I. Moors, Edgar Moulton, J. C. Murray, A. A. Nelson, C. S. Nelson, C. N. Nesom, George R. Nuzum, Fred N. Oliver, U. S. Pawkett, G. H. Pouder, W. F. Price, Fred M. Renshaw, H. D. Rhodehouse, W. B. Rosenbaum, Mart H. Royston, F. L. Ruland, John C. Ryan, Charles R. Seal, C. H. Schweitert, L. M. Sheppardson, E. G. Siedle, C. W. Stadell, Richard J. Stakelum, John P. Street, E. R. Tanner, E. J. Taroff, E. H. Thornton, Frederick M. Varah, H. J. Wagner, A. C. Welsh, W. J. Westerman, Karl S. White, S. H. Williams, E. E. Williamson, W. H. Willis, E. B. Wilson, G. D. Winstein, A. T. Witcher, and John M. Zackery for various interveners. TWENTY-THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, ON FURTHER HEARING MILLER, Commissioner: In the original report in these cases, 123 I. C. C. 203, we prescribed a general basis for construction of all-rail rates for application to, from, and between points in the southwestern territories. Rates so constructed and applicable to classes and to many commodities became effective July 14, 1928. We also prescribed ocean-rail 2 The term "ocean-rail" will be used in this report to include ocean-rail, rail-ocean, and rail-ocean-rail rates and routes, as the several cases may be. rates for application between points in trunk-line and eastern defined territories, hereinafter collectively called seaboard territory, and points in the southwestern territories, over routes through south Atlantic ports and Gulf of Mexico ports. In the first supplemental report, 139 I. C. C. 535, 601, we discussed petitions of the defendant ocean carriers operating over the Gulf routes and of various commercial organizations in trunk-line territory and at the Gulf ports asking for certain modifications of the findings with respect to the ocean-rail rates. By appropriate order we postponed indefinitely the effective date of the original order so far as it embraced such rates and reopened nos. 14880 and 15463, and I. and S. Nos. 2097 and 2271 for further hearing upon the question of lawful ocean-rail rates for application from and to the points embraced by those proceedings. Further hearings were had late in 1928, at which a large amount of additional evidence was received. Various industries and commercial organizations, not previously parties to the proceedings, were permitted to intervene and submit evidence. A report proposed by the presiding examiner was served upon the several parties, exceptions were filed, oral argument was heard, and the cases were submitted November 15, 1929. By order of June 2, 1930, we reopened the cases generally upon the question of lawful all-rail rates. Pending decision of that angle the question of ocean-rail rates was left undetermined. Further hearings on the latter question were had in September 1934, to bring the record down to date, and the notice accompanying the order therefor made it clear that we desired any and all pertinent information which would in any wise modify the facts previously shown, so that the record might present a complete and correct picture of the situation as it now exists. The evidence submitted at the further hearings did not cover fully all phases of the question involved, and in many instances went no further than to indicate that no important changes had taken place. It should be understood, therefore, that this report deals with the facts as shown by the 1928 hearings, except as otherwise indicated. The reopened all-rail angle has now been made the subject of our twenty-first supplemental report, 205 I. C. C. 601, with some modification by our twenty-second supplemental report, December 2, 1935, 211 I. C. C. 575, which decision will hereinafter be termed the 1935 all-rail revision. When the adjustment therein prescribed becomes effective it will change the present structure of all-rail class rates within, and to and from, the southwestern territories. The proceedings embracing the all-rail and the ocean-rail rates, although heard separately, are parts of one general investigation. The new all-rail rate structure and evidence upon which it is based are therefore properly to be considered in determining the ocean-rail issue now before us. |