outbound cars containing small quantities of fruit move as carload freight out of the transit point, wasteful transportation results and expenses are incurred by them not contemplated in the handling of through carload traffic. The present difficulties appear to arise out of the ambiguity in the existing tariff and its failure to state clearly what minimum weights are applicable in connection with movements out of transit points in the Southwest. Clearly carriers are entitled to reasonable minimum weights on carload traffic. The proposed rule would not apply at Waco, Tex., on the Texas & New Orleans Railroad because that company has an individual tariff applying at Waco which provides rules the same as those now in effect and no change has been made therein. Protestants contend that if the protested tariff becomes applicable at Fort Worth they will be subjected to undue prejudice and Waco shippers will obtain an undue preference. However, at the hearing the Texas & New Orleans stated that its failure to change the separate tariff applying at Waco was an oversight and that if the proposed rule is found justified for application elsewhere in the Southwest, a corresponding change will be made in its Waco tariff. The proposed rule would have the effect of making greater charges for smaller shipments than for larger ones. In other words, under the rule respondents will charge for empty space although if the space be filled with fruit no charge will be made. It is unreasonable to charge more for empty space than for space loaded with fruit. As hereinbefore noted, rates on fruits from the Pacific northwest to destinations in the territory east of the Rocky Mountains are on a blanket basis, the rate from a given origin being the same to a territory several hundred miles in extent. Therefore if a car is shipped direct from an origin in the Pacific Northwest to a destination near the western edge of the blanket and another car is shipped from the same origin direct to a destination near the eastern edge of the blanket, the charge in each case will be the same. While the transit charge of 6 cents is not in issue, there is no reason to believe that it does not afford respondents fair compensation for the expenses incident to storage in transit. Therefore there is no more reason for the assessment of charges out of the transit point in addition to the transit charges than there would be for charging a higher rate to points in the eastern part of the blanket than to points in the western part. Presumably the rate for the blanket is based on the average haul to the blanket. We find that paragraph (b) of the rule in the suspended schedule and the increased charges resulting therefrom have not been justified. An order will be entered requiring cancellation of the suspended schedule and discontinuing this proceeding, without prejudice to the establishment of the provisions of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d), the wording of the latter to be clarified. Respondents at the hearing asked us to interpret the present tariff in order to clear up the present uncertainty as to the applicable charges in particular cases. The establishment of the provisions of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) will in part correct the ambiguity of the present rules. It is not necessary in this proceeding for us to attempt to interpret the existing rules, as that question is not directly in issue. However, respondents should promptly undertake to clarify the existing rules. 190 I. C. C. No. 24516 KEOKUK TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Decided December 7, 1932 Finding in former report, 188 I. C. C. 211, that intrastate rates on iron and steel articles, in carloads, from certain origins in Illinois to certain destinations in Illinois were unduly preferential of those destinations and unduly prejudicial to Keokuk, Iowa, rescinded. Original order vacated and complaint dismissed. Appearances as shown in original report. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, BRAINERD, AND LEE BY DIVISION 3: In the original report herein, 188 I. C. C. 211, we found that the rates on iron and steel articles, in carloads, between points in Illinois and Keokuk, Iowa, were not unreasonable. We further found that the maintenance of a lower level of Illinois intrastate rates on the same commodities from certain origins in Illinois to certain destinations in the State than between those points and Keokuk resulted in undue preference of those points and undue prejudice to Keokuk. The rates assailed between Illinois points and Keokuk were those prescribed in Iron and Steel Articles, 155 I. C. C. 517, 161 I. C. C. 386, 161 I. C. C. 608, and 168 I. C. C. 107. The intrastate rates between points in Illinois were established following Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 96 I. C. C. 682, and are lower than those prescribed in Iron and Steel Articles, supra. The undue preference and prejudice found to exist was ordered removed by the establishment and maintenance of rates from and to the Illinois points not less than the rates prescribed from the Illinois origins to Keokuk in Iron and Steel Articles, supra. Complainant and defendants have filed a joint petition requesting modification of the original report and order so as to relieve defendants from establishing the increased Illinois intrastate rates prescribed therein, or in the alternative that we set aside our previous report and order herein, and dismiss the complaint. One of the interveners concurred in the petition and none has objected to it. Petitioners aver that on October 1, 1932, subsequent to the original report and order, defendants have established rates on iron and steel articles from Illinois origins to Keokuk which correspond with those in effect on intrastate traffic between points in Illinois; that is, rates upon basis of those prescribed in Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., supra. As the undue preference and prejudice found to exist have been removed, our original finding is rescinded. The order previously entered will be vacated and the complaint dismissed. 190 I. C. C. No. 25108 CHANDLER DAVIS COMPANY ET AL. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. Submitted August 27, 1932. Decided December 2, 1932 Weights and charges on citrus fruit, in bushel baskets, in carloads, from Clermont and Lakeland, Fla., to Portland, Me., not shown to be unreasonable. Complaint dismissed. H. J. Flack for complainants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, BRAINERD, AND LEE BY DIVISION 3: The shortened procedure was followed herein. Defendants filed exceptions to the report proposed by the examiner. Our conclusions differ from those recommended by him. Complainants allege that the estimated weights and charges collected on three carloads of oranges, two of tangerines, and one mixed carload of oranges, tangerines, and grapefruits, in boxes and bushel baskets, shipped between January 31 and March 9, 1929, from Clermont and Lakeland, Fla., to Portland, Me., were unreasonable and seek reparation. Charges were collected at the applicable rates of $1.19 and $1.21 per 100 pounds from Clermont and Lakeland, respectively, based upon estimated weights of 67.5 pounds per bushel basket and 90 pounds per box. The rates, as such, are not assailed. Only the estimated weight per bushel basket is in issue. Complainants seek reparation based upon an estimated weight of 60 pounds per bushel basket, and refer to Chandler Davis Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 171 I. C. C. 125, wherein division 5 awarded reparation on the basis here sought. In that case several of the baskets of oranges were weighed and found to weigh from 49 to 52 pounds. Two of the complainants herein are the same as those in the case cited and it is said that three of the shipments here considered came from the same groves as the shipment considered in that case. As a result of test weights made by carriers showing an average weight per bushel basket of approximately 60 pounds and of similar tests made by shippers showing actual weights of from 50 to 55 pounds per bushel, the carriers reduced the estimated weight thereon from 67.5 to |