Manchester and Summitville are local points on the Sparta branch of defendant's line. The shipments were delivered to complainant at Boyce, a point within the Chattanooga switching district. It is served by defendant and the Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called the Cincinnati Southern. Complainant's plant at Boyce is served only by the latter carrier and shipments thereto move over defendant's line to Chattanooga and thence are switched 6 miles by the Cincinnati Southern. Chattanooga is 95 miles from Manchester and 103 miles from Summitville. The applicable commodity rate is 11.5 cents to Chattanooga, plus a switching charge of $5.85 per car on shipments to the Boyce plant.

Complainant assails the 11.5-cent rate to Chattanooga and seeks rates of 8 cents from Manchester and 8.5 cents from Summitville, produced by the application of defendant's local mileage scale on billets to the distances over the routes of movement.

In the complaint it is alleged that a violation of the aggregateof-intermediates provision of section 4 results from the fact that the charges exceed those based on defendant's local mileage scale rates to Boyce, plus the switching charges of defendant and the Cincinnati Southern between Boyce and Chattanooga. This allegation can not be sustained for the reason that the local mileage scale is not applicable where specific rates are published and defendant maintains to Boyce the 11.5-cent rate that applies to Chattanooga. Furthermore, Boyce is not intermediate to Chattanooga on shipments moving from the considered origin points over defendant's line.

The allegation charging a violation of the long-and-short-haul clause of section 4 is based upon the fact that the rate assailed is higher than rates on this commodity from the same origins to more distant points beyond Chattanooga on the Atlanta division of defendant's line. On shipments destined to Boyce this allegation fails, for the reason that delivery was made at a point on the Cincinnati Southern; therefore the destination of the shipments is not intermediate over the route of movement between the considered origins and the more distant points located on defendant's line. However, a departure exists at Chattanooga which is protected by fourth-section application No. 458, now pending. In the absence of a showing of actual shipments delivered to complainant on defendant's line at Chattanooga, no damages have been proved as the result of such departure.

A violation of section 4 is indicated by complainant's evidence showing that the rate from McMinnville to Chattanooga of 13 cents exceeded a combination rate of 12.5 cents contemporaneously in effect from and to the same points, based on Lookout, Tenn. This rate

situation was not stated in the complaint in accordance with Rule III (o) of the Rules of Practice, but defendant agreed to submit the matter on the informal docket if the tariffs in fact showed that a violation existed. No testimony was offered by complainant under the fourth-section issue concerning the rates from New Market, Stevenson, and Bass.

Complainant's rate comparisons consist chiefly of rates on billets applying between local stations on defendant's lines, and rates maintained by other southern carriers to Chattanooga and other points in Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Generally speaking, the rates instanced for similar distances are the same as, but in a few instances are slightly lower than, the rates sought, which, as stated, are derived from defendant's local mileage scale. Defendant explains that its local mileage scale was established on a low basis to local points in order to equalize the inbound rates on billets with outbound lumber-products rates said to be higher from local stations than from junction points. Hence, to common points such as Chattanooga, Nashville, and Memphis, Tenn., the rates on billets are on a higher basis. Justification for rates on this commodity higher than those in effect in the South generally is found by defendant in the more difficult operating conditions it encounters, its greater dependence on the transportation of forest products, and the more valuable species of timber produced throughout the territory it serves.

Defendant contends that lumber rates represent the normal basis for billets, but shows that the assailed rates are generally lower than corresponding rates on lumber. In Rates on Lumber and Lumber Products, 52 I. C. C. 598, it was found that billets, rived, split, or sawed, might properly take the same rates as lumber. In Card Lumber Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 172 I. C. C. 183, division 5 found not unreasonable rates on lumber to Chattanooga of 14 cents from Coalmont, Tenn., 92 miles, and 16 cents from Palmer, Tenn., 103 miles.

The case of Blanchard Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., supra, presents issues similar to those here considered. We found therein that a rate of 11.5 cents on hickory billets from New Market to Chattanooga, 101 miles, was not unreasonable. Rates of 8 and 8.5 cents, which are equivalent to those sought herein, were found not unreasonable for distances of 39 and 45 miles, respectively, from Stevenson and Bass.

We find that the rates assailed were not and are not unreasonable. The complaint will be dismissed.

No. 17000

RATE STRUCTURE INVESTIGATION, PART 9

LIVESTOCK-WESTERN DISTRICT RATES

Decided December 6, 1932

The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company allowed arbitraries on edible livestock over the rates prescribed for Mountain-Pacific territory in the original report, 176 I. C. C. 1.

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

PORTER, Chairman:

In the original report herein, 176 I. C. C. 1, we prescribed reasonable maximum rates on edible livestock, in carloads, in the western district. By petition of May 16, 1932, the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company seeks further consideration of its request made at the original hearings for a higher level of rates on its lines than was found reasonable for Mountain-Pacific territory. Short and weak lines in general and the D. & R. G. W. in particular are dealt with in the original report at pages 96-98, and a cost study covering operations on this railroad is discussed at pages 55-60. Reference should be made to that report for recital of facts upon which this decision in part rests. Narrow-gage lines of this respondent were specifically excepted from the application of our order in so far as it prescribed rates, and, therefore, this report will deal only with its standard-gage lines.

Pursuant to suggestion in the original report, respondent applied to the Public Utilities Commission of Colorado for approval of such arbitraries as it desired to apply on its lines. By report of April 16, 1932, that commission denied the petition, but retained the cause upon its docket in view of our having reopened the entire investigation on January 11, 1932, for the purpose of bringing the record down to date. At the said further hearings respondent pressed its plea for higher rates. For the year 1931 this road had a deficit of $225,651.96. For the first three months of 1932 the deficit was $1,166,532.71.

Upon further consideration we find that maximum reasonable interstate rates on this respondent's standard-gage lines lying between Pueblo and Walsenburg, Colo., on the east, and Provo, Utah, on the west, including branch lines connecting with the main lines between

the points named, will be made by adding to the rates prescribed by our order herein of June 8, 1931, the following arbitraries:

EX PARTE No. 102

APPLICATION OF AMERICAN BARGE LINE COMPANY

Decided December 10, 1932

Barge-rail and rail-barge-rail rates on cotton, in carloads, from certain points in Arkansas and Memphis, Tenn., to eastern territory and New England prescribed. Prior reports, 182 I. C. C. 521 and 185 I. C. C. 483.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS Meyer, Eastman, and MahaffiE BY DIVISION 4:

In the original report in this proceeding, 182 I. C. C. 521, we granted applicant a certificate of public convenience under the provisions of section 3 (e) of the Inland Waterways Corporation Act, as amended by the so-called Denison Act, covering its operations on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, and required the establishment of through routes and joint rates, on both class and commodity traffic, between points in trunk-line territory and southern New England, on the one hand, and Memphis, Tenn., and points in Arkansas on the other hand. Certain additional routes and rates were required by a supplemental report, 185 I. C. C. 483. The prior reports were adopted March 11 and June 14, 1932, respectively, and the findings provided for joint barge-rail and rail-barge-rail rates differentially related to the corresponding all-rail rates contemporaneously applicable and made by use of the so-called Ex parte 96 formula originally adopted for use in connection with the Federal barge lines. Rates and differentials will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds.

At the time of the adoption of the orders above referred to, the all-rail rates on cotton from points in the Southwest were anyquantity rates on the basis prescribed in Rate Structure Investigation, Part 3, Cotton, 165 I. C. C. 595. The rate on compressed cotton from Little Rock, Ark., to Boston, Mass., for example, was $1.10. About September 1, 1932, the southwestern railroads published carload rates on cotton to various points, including those in trunk-line territory and New England, considerably lower than the any-quantity rates.

These new carload rates were established because of competition from unregulated truck and water carriers and bear an expiration date of July 31, 1933. In November, 1932, the new carload rates