Interstate Commerce Commission Reports

Rates prescribed in 73 I. C. C. 189 for joint haul on coal from mines on the
Denver & S. L. R. were not maximum reasonable rates and did not preclude award
of reparation under principle in 284 U. S. 370. Id. (56).

Proof: When complainant's witness offering purported paid freight bills as
proof of damages had no personal knowledge concerning payment of the charges,
proper identification of the documents was not established. Complainant allowed
30 days within which to request further hearing for submission of proof. William
Kelly Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 53 (67).

Although witness had no personal knowledge of payment of charges on ship-
ments but prepared statements at request of claimants, claims were supported by
original freight bills or certified copies and by letters signed by defendants' agents
certifying that complainants paid charges. Evidence was sufficient to prove that
complainants were entitled to reparation. Board of Railroad Commrs., Montana,
v. Bay Transport Co., 77 (80).

Testimony of complainant's traffic manager that he personally passed on pay-
ment of freight charges, mailed checks in payment thereof, and had personal
knowledge that complainant paid charges was sufficient to establish right of
complainant to reparation, over objection of carriers to receipt in evidence of
copies of freight bills. Id. (80).

Introduction in evidence, without objection from defendant, of purported
copies of original prepaid bills of lading, which did not bear signature of carrier's
agent or other marks of identification, did not alone establish prima facie showing
of payment. Rigo Mfg. Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 101 (102).

Complainant's affidavit as to payment and bearing of freight charges, without
supporting testimony of a witness having personal knowledge of the transaction,
was not competent evidence when objected to by defendant. Baker Produce
Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 146 (153).

Testimony given by official of complainant from personal knowledge and records
made under his supervision in regular course of business constituted identification
of freight bills offered in evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance of their
genuineness. Galesburg Horse & Mule Co., Inc., v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
197 (198).

Right of Action: Although properties of complainant had been sold since
complaint was filed, complainant was party actually damaged by unreasonable
rates paid and subsequent sale did not preclude an award of reparation to it.
Right of vendee to recover such an award from complainant did not concern
defendant or Commission. Board of Railroad Commrs., Montana, v. Bay
Transport Co., 77 (81).

Although payment had been made to another party of an overcharge claim
supported by original paid freight bill, bill of lading, and letter of general assign-
ment from the consignor, complainant who was the consignee and had paid and
borne the freight charges was the only party entitled to reparation. That an
unauthorized payment had been made to another did not bar complainant's
right to recover. Dawson Produce Co. v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 125 (126).
Law contemplates that an award of reparation shall be made to the party
actually damaged. Id. (128).

Although complainant paid charges on shipments consigned to its president or
to his associate, and charged them against him, it was not established that
payment by complainant was not merely a voluntary and gratuitous service to
the president. Reparation denied. Galesburg Horse & Mule Co., Inc., v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 197 (198).

Sale of complainant's assets under receivership to another corporation which
claimed reparation but had not been made a party did not preclude award of
reparation to original complainant. George K. Hale Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic & Y.
Ry. Co., 265 (267).

Bule V Statement: Rule V statement which failed to show rates charged,
bases used in computing reparation rates, and, where minimum charges were
applicable on single shipments, the articles shipped and separate weights thereof,
lacked essential facts. Rigo Mfg. Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 101 (102).
Voluntary Reductions: See REDUCTIONS.

Weights: See WEIGHTS AND WEIGHING.
DANGEROUS ARTICLES.

While conditions in certain parts of the country were such that use of trucks
with trailers for transportation of explosives would not be incompatible with
reasonable safety, such means of transportation would greatly increase hazard
in any fairly populous section or upon any main highway. Regulations for trans-
portation of dangerous articles were general and applied over entire country,
and record was insufficient to delimit zones where trailers might reasonably be
permitted. Regulations for Transportation of Explosives, 351 (355).

Petition for modification of regulations for transportation of explosives and
other dangerous articles by motor truck, to permit use of trucks with trailers for
the transportation of explosives, denied. By terms of law regulations must be
in accord with best known practicable means for securing safety in transit, and
modification sought did not conform to that test. Id. (355).

DEPOSITIONS.

Objection to proof of damage by deposition, on ground that depositions were
not formally submitted of record, was untenable when carriers had been served
with notice of the taking of depositions and had been represented by counsel.
William Kelly Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 53 (62).

Motion filed subsequent to submission of briefs, to take depositions of witnesses
unable to attend hearing, did not comply with rule XI (c) of Rules of Practice,
and was overruled. Rome, Ga., Chamber of Commerce v. Southern Ry. Co.,
134 (138).

DEPRESSED RATES. See SUBNORMAL RATES.

DIFFERENTIALS IN RATES AND ROUTES.

In General: That both differential routes and rate bases had general approval
was strong indication that differential routes served a very definite and useful
purpose in the transportation field and their continued participation in a reason-
able share of available traffic should not be discouraged if the routes were feasible
and their use did not place burden upon traffic generally. Differential Routes
to Central Territory, 403 (431).

Fourth-section relief granted, subject to conditions, in connection with traffic
handled over differential all-rail, lake-rail, and ocean-rail routes because such
routes were in the public interest. Differentials were required to attract volume
of traffic necessary to maintain differential bases as well as all-rail grouping
established following 164 I. C. C. 314. Id. (432).

Branch Lines: Commission has repeatedly approved charging higher rates
from points on certain branch lines and independent short lines than from main-
line points. A. Jacob & Co. v. New York Central R. Co., 278 (281).

Commodities: In the following cases the proposed rates and minimum
weights on baskets and hampers were found not justified without prejudice to
establishment of rates properly related and not exceeding 25 percent over rates
on box and crate material: Southern territory: Baskets and Hampers in Southern
Territory, 139 (144); Southwestern and Kansas-Missouri territories: Fruit and
Vegetable Packages in Southwest, 155 (168).

Differential of 6 cents on low-grade oils under rate on refined products, on
traffic from Southwest to Colorado points, was not unreasonable or unduly
prejudicial. Ace Petroleum Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 555.

Groups and Group Rates: Flexible fourth-section relief granted on sugar
from group 1 points in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming to midwestern destina-
tions, with differentially related rates from other western trunk-line and inter-
mountain groups. Sugar from California to Chicago, 239 (260).

Lake-and-Rail: That differential all-rail routes had met standard lake-rail
rates during navigation season on traffic from New York to Chicago, Ill. and
Milwaukee, Wis., did not of itself justify fourth-section relief to continue that
practice in the future nor was justification shown for lower basis to Chicago and
Milwaukee than to other points in the same general territory served by standard
lake-rail routes. Differential Routes to Central Territory, 403 (415).

Localities: Colorado-Nebraska-Wyoming: Alternative rates and minima
authorized in connection with fourth-section relief on sugar from group points in
Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming to midwestern destinations should maintain
existing spread over lowest all-rail rates from New Orleans. Sugar from Cali-
fornia to Chicago, 239 (260).

Florida Points: Differentials for hauls in Florida peninsula added to scale
rates to determine basis for reparation and basis for future on shipments of dairy
products from Southwest to Florida points. Swift & Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
528 (533).

Mountain-Pacific Territory: Rate made 15 percent higher than revised zone
III scale rate found reasonable as basis for reparation on wrought-iron pipe from
Sheridan, Wyo., to Glasgow, Mont. Bowdoin Utilities Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q.
R. Co., 440.

Western trunk-line territory: Distance arbitraries based on differences between
first-class rates fixed in eastern and western class-rate cases between points on
Missouri River and respective Mississippi River crossings, prescribed on cotton
piece goods from southern territory to western trunk-line points for that portion
of the haul which is in western trunk-line territory, to be added to the rates
prescribed or approved up to Mississippi River gateways. Cotton, Woolen, and
Knitting Factory Products, 692 (763).

Narrow-gage Lines: When arbitrary is added to joint rates to and from
narrow-gage points the portion of rate added on that account should accrue to
carrier operating the narrow-gage line, as in the case of an arbitrary authorized
for short or weak line. Divisions of Freight Rates, 17 (18).

Port Differentials: See PORT DIFFERENTIALS.

Rail-and-Water: See WATER-AND-RAIL under this heading.

River Crossings: Differentials for river crossings added to scale rates to
determine basis for reparation on dairy products from southwestern territory to
Florida peninsula. Swift & Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 528 (533).

Water: Fourth-section relief granted. to establish minimum rates on sugar
from California to Milwaukee and Lake Michigan points on basis 34.5 cents
higher than lowest Federal Barge Line-and-rail rate from New Orleans; to points
on Mississippi River and tributaries reached by Federal Barge Line, rates 32.5
cents higher than barge rates; and to interior points rates 32.5 cents higher than
lowest barge-rail rates, rates to apply in connection with 80,000 pounds minimum.
Minimum rates 5 cents higher authorized for minimum of 60,000 pounds. Sugar
from California to Chicago, 239 (255).

Water-and-Rail: Although all-rail rates from Norfolk, Va., were higher than
differential ocean-rail rates from more distant points, traffic originating at Nor-
folk moved all-rail and was accorded rates specifically prescribed in 164 I. C. C.
314 and subsequent cases, whereas the differential basis from more distant points
was intended to reflect the disabilities of the ocean-rail movement. Differential
Routes to Central Territory, 403 (419).

Rule V Statement: Rule V statement which failed to show rates charged,
bases used in computing reparation rates, and, where minimum charges were
applicable on single shipments, the articles shipped and separate weights thereof,
lacked essential facts. Rigo Mfg. Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 101 (102).
Voluntary Reductions: See REDUCTIONS.

Weights: See WEIGHTS AND WEIGHING.
DANGEROUS ARTICLES.

While conditions in certain parts of the country were such that use of trucks
with trailers for transportation of explosives would not be incompatible with
reasonable safety, such means of transportation would greatly increase hazard
in any fairly populous section or upon any main highway. Regulations for trans-
portation of dangerous articles were general and applied over entire country,
and record was insufficient to delimit zones where trailers might reasonably be
permitted. Regulations for Transportation of Explosives, 351 (355).

Petition for modification of regulations for transportation of explosives and
other dangerous articles by motor truck, to permit use of trucks with trailers for
the transportation of explosives, denied. By terms of law regulations must be
in accord with best known practicable means for securing safety in transit, and
modification sought did not conform to that test. Id. (355).
DEPOSITIONS.