Finding in 177 I. C. C. 123, of undue prejudice to interstate commerce, modified
to permit reduction in intrastate rates on crushed stone from Columbia, Blair,
Rion, and Cayce, S. C., to Charleston, S. C., to enable carriers to meet water
competition. Rates on Sand, Gravel, and Crushed Stone, 647.
Fourth-Section Relief to Meet Intrastate Rates: Fourth-section relief on
asphalt rock and various other commodities from and to points in Oklahoma via
Coffeyville, Kans., sought on ground of disparity between intrastate and inter-
state rates, denied as there was no showing that carriers' legal remedy under
sec. 13 was exhausted, but relief granted on traffic over circuitous interstate
routes subject to conditions. Union Traction Co. Commodity Rates, 318.
Relief granted, subject to conditions, in connection with rates on coal from
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia to Pennsylvania destinations to
enable carriers to meet intrastate competition without disrupting group adjust-
ment. Bituminous Coal to Stations on Reading Co. Lines, 359.
Interstate Rate Prejudicial: Prejudice against intrastate traffic is not an
issue within the purview of the act. Anchor Storage Co. v. Alton R. Co., 307
(309).
Presumptions: Theory that presumption should exist in favor of administra-
tive determination by State authorities so that findings could not be disturbed
if supported by substantial evidence and no errors of law were made, was untenable.
Such presumption would act as an effective bar to all complaints against intra-
state rates under sec. 13 and nullify Commission's power to act administratively
upon intrastate rates under that section. Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce
v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 509 (513).
Similarity of Transportation Conditions: Transportation of intrastate
traffic in Georgia and of interstate traffic between Jacksonville, Fla., and Georgia
points took place under similar circumstances and conditions except to extent
they were affected by truck competition. Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce v.
Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 509 (512).
INTRASTATE RATES. See INTRASTATE COMMERCE.
ISSUE.
In General: Classification to govern a prescribed adjustment of rates is always
an issue. Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 575 (578).
Broadening: Objection to receipt of evidence dealing with rates to Annis-
ton, Ala., as unduly broadening issue was sustained when complaint assailed
rates to Rome, Ga., as unreasonable and unduly preferential of Anniston. Rates
to Anniston and Rome were not the same, and carriers were without notice prior
to hearing that rates to Anniston would be assailed. Rome, Ga., Chamber of
Commerce v. Southern Ry. Co., 134 (138).
Issues under complaint seeking application on shipment to Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, of rate named to Rouses Point, N. Y., under intermediate rule, were
not broadened when complainant, in rebuttal of carriers' showing that shipment
to Rouses Point would not move through Montreal, showed that claimed rate
applied to other points to which Montreal was intermediate. Wolfe Fruit Co. v.
Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. Co., 661 (662).
Further Proceeding: Testimony and arguments as to the bases for repara-
tion were outside scope of further hearing solely to determine amounts of repara-
tion due. William Kelly Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 53 (61).
Scope: Where allegations fairly and fully apprised defendants of fact that
complainants maintained yards and received shipments of coal at points in
Kansas and Nebraska other than those specifically named, complaints were
sufficient to include all points in those States at which complainants received
such shipments. But where no such allegation was contained in complaint and
certain points were not specifically named, they were not within the scope of
proceeding. William Kelly Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 53 (59).
Complaint which assailed rates on less-than-carload shipments of drugs, etc.,
rated first, second, or third class in western classification, giving dates and num-
bers of bills of lading as well as weights of packages and charges collected, was
sufficient to apprise carriers of issues they would be required to meet. While
original report in 208 I. C. C. 550 seemed to narrow issues to rates on drugs, repa-
ration was not so limited when complaint was broad enough to cover rates not
only on drugs but also on toilet preparations, embraced generally within descrip-
tion of drugs and related articles in tariff item naming less-than-carload rates
referred to in complainant's memorandum of facts. Rigo Mfg. Co. v. Nashville,
C. & St. L. Ry., 101 (102-103).
JOINT RATES AND FARES. See also THROUGH ROUTES.
Adjacent Foreign Country: See ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Aggregate of Intermediates, Exceeding: See AGGREGATE OF INTERMEDI-
Burden of Proof: See BURDEN OF PROOF.
Concurrences: To permit one carrier to fix rates to and from points on
lines of another without the latter's consent would be unjust. Consolidated
Southwestern Cases, 601 (623).
Restrictions: See RESTRICTED RATES.
Water-and-Rail: Although carriers were only required to establish joint
ocean-rail rates between Atlantic seaboard and southwestern territories through
ports through which lowest rates were prescribed, they were authorized to meet
lower rates over competing routes, if they could do so without undue prejudice,
without reducing intermediate-point rates below prescribed bases, and without
tending to break down prescribed adjustment. Consolidated Southwestern
Cases, 601 (630).
JURISDICTION. See particular tribunals or functions by name.
KNOCKED-DOWN ARTICLES. See CLASSIFICATION (PROPERTY).
LAKE-AND-RAIL.
In passing upon fourth-section application for relief over differential routes
embracing water hauls, distances used were actual rail distances plus actual
statute miles on lake, when actual lake distance was less than 300 miles, or when
greater, the lake distance was equated on basis of 2 lake miles to 1 rail mile.
Differential Routes to Central Territory, 403 (411).
LEGAL RATE. See SCHEDULES (APPLICABILITY AND INTERPRETATION).
LESS THAN CARLOAD.
Carload Ratings, Relation: Maintenance of less-than-carload rates on iron
and steel articles between points in western trunk-line territory, on basis only
slightly higher than carload rates, was found not unduly prejudicial. Less-than-
carload rates were established to meet truck competition, both carload and less-
than-carload rates were compensatory, and all shippers were treated alike.
Omaha Chamber of Commerce Traffic Bureau v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
473 (478).
When an unreasonable joint rate had been collected, liability of carriers parties
to such action was joint and several, and reparation might be awarded against
one of carriers which participated in transportation, even though other carriers
which performed a part of the service were not made parties defendants. Like-
wise, lack of proof of all participating carriers did not preclude the issuance of
order against those known. William Kelly Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F.
Ry. Co., 53 (58, 59).
Fourth-section relief granted in 200 I. C. C. 425 on rags and scrap paper from
New York City stations, New York lighterage points, N. Y., and New Jersey
points to Lockport and North Tonawanda, N. Y., modified to include all New
York Harbor lighterage points as points of origin. Rags and Paper to Lockport
and North Tonawanda, N. Y., 685.
Allegation in informal complaint that rate "is now unreasonable and has been
for the past two years" could not be construed as covering shipments moving
pendente lite under 269 U. S. 217. Shipments moving subsequent to filing of
informal complaint but more than two years prior to date of filing formal complaint
were barred. District of Columbia Paper Mfg. Co. v. New York Central R.
Co., 41.
Informal complaint filed within two years from accrual of action tolled the
statute so that formal complaint filed within period required by Rules of Practice
after closing informal complaint, but not within two years from date of accrual
of action, was not barred. William Kelly Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F.
Ry. Co., 53 (57).
Claims based on unreasonable charges were barred when complaint was not
filed until more than two years after delivery of shipments and more than 90
days after collection of undercharges. Baker Produce Corp. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 146 (147).
In General: Carrier to which shipment is tendered is entitled to a line haul,
and is not required to surrender shipment to competitor having a lower rate.
Letellier-Phillips Paper Co., Inc., v. Illinois Central R. Co., 189.
Stoppage for Partial: See TRANSIT.
LOCATION. See ADVANTAGES.
LONG AND SHORT HAUL.
In General: Under principle in 283 U. S. 686, rates on livestock from West
Virginia to Pittsburgh, Pa., higher than rates to Cleveland, Ohio, did not violate
sec. 4, when to haul such traffic through Pittsburgh to Cleveland would create
fourth-section violations and shorter route was available. Producers Co-Opera-
tive Comm. Assn. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 105 (107).
When Commission had authorized reduced all-rail rates to meet truck-water
rates under fourth-section application, the fact that rates were published with
expiration date did not violate par. 2 of sec. 4 of the act. Citrus Fruit from
Florida to North Atlantic Ports, 535 (550).
Burden of Proof: See BURDEN OF PROOF.
Circuity: See CIRCUITY.
Compensatory Rates: See COMPENSATORY RATES.
Competition Authorizing Relief: See COMPETITION.
Equidistant Clause: When fourth-section relief is granted to maintain
integrity of adjustment established pursuant to Commission's decision, there
is no statutory requirement that it be made subject to the equidistant clause.
Cement from Kansas Gas Belt, 315 (317).
Fourth-section relief sought without imposition of equidistant clause, on
ground that basis for relief was disparity between interstate and intrastate rates,
denied when carriers had not exhausted remedies under sec. 13, but relief granted
because of circuity subject to equidistant clause. Union Traction Co. Com-
modity Rates, 318 (321).
Maintenance of rates uniformly on distance basis established would constitute
substantial compliance with equidistant provision of sec. 4. Cotton Waste in
the Southeast, 459 (460).
Fourth-section relief may be granted without imposition of the equidistant
clause to preserve grouping not specifically approved by the Commission when
there is no reason for condemning the groups under other sections of the act.
Lumber from Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, 480 (485).
Fourth-section relief granted without imposition of equidistant clause when
based on necessity of maintaining over existing routes prescribed rates based on
distances over shortest route for handling carload traffic without transfer. Rails
and Crossties in Official Territory, 487 (489).
When fourth-section relief was justified on ground of water competition and
not on circuity, imposition of equidistant provision was not mandatory. Plumb-
ing and Electrical Materials from Sheboygan, Wis., 505 (507).
Imposition of equidistant provision of sec. 4 is not required where relief is
granted to preserve a proper system of grouping. But when maintenance of
existing intermediate groups did not constitute sufficient grounds for relief, and
only remaining ground was circuity, imposition of equidistant clause was man-
datory. Paper to the Southwest, 570 (573–574).
Fourth-section relief sought on coal from Louisville & N. R. mines to points on
Illinois Central R., without observance of equidistant clause in order to maintain
existing groups, denied when evidence did not show grouping to be reasonable.
Relief granted on ground of circuity, subject to equidistant clause. Coal from
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, 639 (641-642).
Imposition of equidistant clause was not required in connection with fourth-
section relief based not on circuity but on equalization of rates to certain ports.
Gulfport, Miss., Export, Import, and Coastwise Rates, 643 (645).
Fourth-section relief was granted in the following cases without the imposition
of the equidistant clause, in order to preserve approved or existing grouping:
Berries from the South, 283 (284); Bitumininous Coal to Stations on Reading Ry.
Co. Lines, 359 (360); Boxes from and to North Carolina, 117 (118); Coal and Coal
Briquettes to South Bend, Ind., 327 (330–331); Coal from Illinois to St. Louis,
Mo., 335 (336); Locomotives from and to the South, 114 (116); Lumber from
Pacific Coast, 120 (121); Paper to the Southwest, 570 (573–574); Texas Ports
Equalization of Rates, 371 (373).
Where the only basis for fourth-section relief was circuity, imposition of equi-
distant clause was mandatory: Paper to the Southwest, 570 (573-574); Union
Traction Co. Commodity Rates, 318 (322).
Fourth-section relief granted in the following case was subject to the equidis-
tant clause. Sugar from California to Chicago, 239 (262).
Intermediate Points: Water competition justifying fourth-section relief on cane
sugar from California ports to midwestern destinations also affected movement
of beet sugar from interior points, although in lesser degree, since interior refineries
must pay transportation charges to ports, plus tolls and handling charges.
Reasonable rates from interior points would exceed rates from the ports by amount
of rail rate to the port. Sugar from California to Chicago, 239 (250).
While shippers from intermediate Virginia points were at a disadvantage
because of higher rates than applied over ocean-rail routes from more distant
points, they were afforded a superior service to that over the ocean-rail route, and
the elimination of the routes through Virginia ports would not remove that dis-
advantage, because the basic competitive rate would continue in force over other
routes. Differential Routes to Central Territory, 403 (421).
Fourth-section relief sought for purpose of maintaining differential bases over
ocean-rail routes to differential territory and to maintain standard all-rail basis
to directly intermediate points in nondifferential territory, including points in
trunk-line territory, limited to instances where intermediate rates do not exceed
rates constructed on the differential basis observed at the more distant point.
Id. (423).
In determining whether fourth-section relief is justified in order to maintain an
adjustment voluntarily proposed by carriers, an important consideration is
reasonableness of proposed higher rates from or to intermediate points or groups.
Lumber from Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland, 480 (485).
Intermediate Rule: Combination rate composed of commodity-rate factor
and class-rate factor was not a commodity rate within tariff provision that inter-
mediate rule would not apply if commodity rate on the same article was named
in any other tariff. Wolfe Fruit Co. v. Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. Co., 661
(663-664).
Tariff naming rate on citrus fruits from Texas to trunk-line and New England
territories carried two intermediate rules which did not refer to each other and
were not mutually exclusive. That one of the rules applied on traffic destined
to western Canada did not prevent use of the other in determining rate to Mon-
treal, Quebec, Canada, an unnamed point intermediate to named destinations.
Id. (664).
Maximum Rates: See MAXIMUM RATES.
Minimum Rates: See MINIMUM RATES.
Minimum Weights: Fourth-section relief to maintain lower minimum on
furnace or kiln lining from southern Ohio and Olive Hill, Ky., groups to points in
southern territory than applied to intermediate destinations, denied. Furnace
Lining and Bonding Mortar to Southern Points, 111.
Presumptions: Presumption of unreasonableness arising from rate on scrap
iron from Monroe, Wis., to South Chicago, Ill., higher than rate from Madison,
Wis., a more distant point, was rebutted by showing that rate from Monroe com-
pared favorably with rates prescribed in other cases. Henry Solomon Coal &
Iron Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 677.
Relief, Generally: Fourth-section relief to maintain lower minimum on fur-
nace or kiln lining from southern Ohio and Olive Hill, Ky., groups to points in
southern territory than applied to intermediate destinations, denied. Furnace
Lining and Bonding Mortar to Southern Points, 111.
Fourth-section relief on electric sad and waffle irons, 1. c. 1., from Leeds, Ala.,
to border points between southern and official territories, Virginia cities, St. Louis,
Mo., and Chicago, Ill., over all-rail routes and to eastern port cities over rail-
water routes to meet market competition, denied. Relief would result in undue
prejudice to intermediate points. Electric Irons from Leeds, Ala., 129.
Fourth-section relief on sugar from Tasco, Calif., to Chicago and St. Louis
granted on same basis as from interior California points rather than on basis
authorized from the ports. While there was actual water competition at the ports,
from Tasco it was merely potential. Sugar from California to Chicago, 239 (251).
Flexible fourth-section relief sought on sugar traffic from California ports, to
enable carriers to reduce the rail rate from time to time to maintain a constant
relation to the all-water rate, subject to some reasonably compensatory minimum,
was desirable. Because of time required for filing, hearing, and decision of
application for modification to meet changed water rate, much or all of the traffic
could be lost to the rail lines. Id. (254).
|