such joint enterprise, we do not so read the record. All of the railroads except one are now combining in the joint operation of one market. This record is not at all persuasive that any substantial loss of traffic would have resulted to any of respondents if six instead of five had pooled their interests at a common terminal. After careful study of the testimony having to do with the operating difficulties at both the Wazee and Denargo sites, we are convinced that, if all of respondents had approached those difficulties in a spirit of common helpfulness, they could have been surmounted in a manner satisfactory to all concerned and without material traffic loss to any of them. Nor is it any answer to prophesy, as do both groups of respondents, that their respective investments will eventually yield a fair return. No railroad, if it is efficiently and economically managed, will deliberately choose a more expensive rather than a less expensive route for its operations between two points, and no railroad is performing its full duty to the public, especially in times of financial stress, unless and until it has availed itself of all of the means reasonably at its disposal, including wholehearted cooperation with its competitors in enterprises such as the market situation at Denver, to function as economically and efficiently as it can. It seems to us that both sets of respondents, but especially the Union Pacific, concerned themselves too much with the needs of the local growers of fresh fruits and vegetables, who truck their produce to market, to whom the railroads owed no transportation duty, and whose needs were primarily the concern of the city. Especially at a time when the railroads in general are having financial difficulties, their primary if not their whole concern should be to perform their transportation functions efficiently and economically, and to conserve their revenues and resources for transportation purposes. The situation here is similar to the one at Buffalo, N. Y., dealt with in Duplication of Produce Terminals, 188 I. C. C. 323. Therein we referred to a statement addressed by the railroads of the country generally to the American public on July 21, 1932, in which it is stated that the railroads "pledge themselves to avoid all preventable wastes in the competitive relationship between themselves." It seems to us that respondents here, in their handling of the market situation at Denver, have failed to carry out that pledge. Respondents have much to say about the desirability of free competition, the obligation of railroad officers to use every reasonable means to protect the traffic of their respective railroads, and the duty of railroads under existing law to compete for traffic. The desirability of carrier competition is no answer here, for competition between the associated railroads has not been lessened by their common use of one market, and there is no reason to believe that healthy competition between all of these railroads would have been in any respect lessened by one joint market instead of two. Insofar as the obligation of railroad officers to their particular railroad is concerned, especially since the Transportation Act, 1920, the paramount consideration is and should be the public interest, "for now the interests of the individual carrier must yield in many respects to the public need." United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 263 U. S. 515, 525. When railroad officers persist in feeling that their obligation to their particular railroad requires the building of two produce terminals where only one is needed, and the consequent needless expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars of railroad funds, it would seem that the public interest in a healthy national transportation system demands that the future be made more secure against such practices. This we are now forced to believe can be accomplished only by additional legislation. This proceeding is discontinued. COMMISSIONER CASKIE did not participate in the disposition of this proceeding. APPENDIX I A. Gross expenditures of the Union Pacific Railroad Company at the Denver Food Terminal Market B. Major items comprising the "miscellaneous" entry 500 dinners and expenses, April 10, 1939, entertaining retail growers, Miscellaneous expenses in connection with the opening of the Food $833.36 193.98 Orchestras and entertainments_ $350.00 Payment to Public Service Company of Colorado, installing and removing poles and flood lights.. 775. 48 Premiums on liability insurance from May 20, 1939, to May 23, 1939___ 90.75 Installation of public-address system-- 50.00 Miscellaneous items, including time allowed trainmen and enginemen attending celebration, decoration, construc- 441.72 1,707.95 Payment to Denver Tramway Corporation for bus service to Denargo Dinner, April 22, 1939, Cosmopolitan Hotel___ Arbitrary assignment account meals served on business car APPENDIX II 590. 17 113.58 144.50 3,722. 36 150.00 A. Estimated gross expenditures of the associated railroads incident to organization and development of The Denver Market & Produce Terminal, Inc., as of July 31, 1939 Estimated incidental costs for rearrangement of Rio Grande tracks or facilities to permit access to Wazee market site. These expenditures advanced by Rio Grande subject to reimbursement by associated railroads. Chargeable to operating expenses---Estimated cost of right-of-way, trackage, and paving to serve The Denver Market & Produce Terminal, Inc., to be owned by the associated railroads. Costs, other than right-of-way advanced entirely by Rio Grande, to be billed against other four lines (see details below) ‒‒‒ Property acquired or to be acquired by the market company, including construction cost of facilities on Wazee site, and acquisition of real estate on Market Street. This represents expenditures by The Denver Market & Produce Terminal, Inc., to be financed through purchase of $250,000 in stock by the five associated railroads, and advances in equal proportion of amounts necessary to complete (see details below). For estimated cost of entertainment, advertising, promotion, etc., incident to establishing market. Chargeable to railroad operating expenses (see details below). Grand total---- $25,000.00 205, 468. 69 994, 130. 00 12, 500.00 1,237,098. 69 B. Engineer's estimated cost of jointly owned trackage and of land and facilities, in detail Item Estimated cost Jointly owned trackage: Engineering (4 percent of expenditures, excluding Walnut St. track, andЛland). Other right-of-way expenditures (clearing site). $2,825,72 114, 000, 00 3, 575.00 6, 180.00 7,089.85 5, 405.00 9,536,34 2,700,00 7,650.00 28, 506.78 18,000,00 205, 468. 60 16,000.00 250,000.00 10, 630.00 18,000.00 3,800.00 3,500.00 5,000.00 14,000.00 46,500.00 29,000.00 117,000.00 101,000.00 57,000.00 16,500. 00 19,000.00 109, 000, 00 200.00 2,500.00 5, 000, 00 26,000.00 144. 500.00 994, 130,00 C. Detailed promotion expenses by associated railroads at Wazee market These expenditures advanced by Rio Grande, subject to reimbursement by associated railroads, to insure equal participation in cost. Chargeable to operating expenses. 235 I. C. C. No. 16300 1 ARMSTRONG PACKING COMPANY v. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Submitted June 15, 1939. Decided January 8, 1940 1. Upon reconsideration, finding in prior report, 234 I. C. C. 74, that trustees of the successor of a complainant abandoned rights in reparation claims of this complainant, and the denial of a motion to substitute a trustee as complainant, reversed. 2. Amounts of reparation under findings in prior reports, 201 I. C. C. 393, 206 I. C. C. 325, 208 I. C. C. 483, and 234 I. C. C. 74, on certain shipments of cottonseed oil, in carloads, from origins in Texas to destinations in California, Oregon, and Washington, determined and ordered paid. Appearances same as in prior report. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION: In the prior report in these proceedings, 234 I. C. C. 74, division 4, among other things, denied a motion to substitute E. L. Flippen as complainant in the complaint of the Armstrong Packing Company and said, at page 79: Since a motion to substitute the trustees of the Pioneer Packing Company as complainants in the complaint of the Armstrong Packing Company was not made before the expiration of the legal existence of the Pioneer Packing Company extended three years after dissolution, for the purpose of settlement of its affairs, the trustees are deemed to have abandoned any rights in the reparation claim of the Armstrong Packing Company. Upon petition of Edgar L. Flippen, trustee, in which it is contended that he is entitled to reparation to which the complainant Armstrong Packing Company may have been entitled, the proceedings were reopened for reconsideration insofar as they pertain to claims of that complainant, which was a Texas corporation. As stated in the prior report, on January 28, 1928, the Armstrong Packing Company changed its name to Pioneer Packing Company, and on March 21, 1928, the latter corporation was dissolved. The motion to substitute Edgar L. Flippen as complainant was made January 21, 1937. Under provisions of statutes of the State of Texas, 1 The report embraces also proceedings of the same number, subnumbered 1 to 5, inclusive, Armstrong Packing Company et al. v. Abilene & Southern Railway Company et al. |