tabulated and are set forth in Appendix 2.19 The tabulation groups the traffic into movements to markets and from markets, and also separates stocker and feeder livestock and livestock fit for slaughter, and discloses the amount of the increases or reductions on each group. It also discloses the result of respondents having maintained since January 25, 1932, either for competitive or other reasons, rates lower than those authorized by us. It will be seen that application of the rates found reasonable in western trunk-line and southwestern territories would have netted the carriers an increase of 5.11 per cent, but that under the rates actually maintained the increase amounts to but 2.29 per cent. The amount of the increase which would have been received under the rates found reasonable is approximately what we had anticipated. The information for Mountain-Pacific territory does not include the lines of the Southern Pacific Company. It discloses that under the rates found reasonable the reduction would have aggregated 5.18 per cent. Under the rates published the reduction was 5.43 per cent. In view of the difference between the rates found reasonable and the rates maintained, it will be interesting to note the further segregation of the figures for fat livestock to markets under rates published in cents per 100 pounds, as between interstate and intrastate traffic given in Appendix 2, Table IV. In this showing a segregation was not made as between territories. It will be seen that the intrastate traffic constituted 29.74 per cent of the total tonnage and produced 19.25 per cent of the revenue; that under the rates maintained after January 25, 1932, it produced 19.10 per cent of the revenue, and under the rates found reasonable it would have produced 20.58 per cent of the revenue.

An exhibit of the Fort Worth and Denver City Railway Company and the Wichita Valley Railway Company, purports to show the revenue changes that would have occurred under the prescribed rates if applied on shipments of stocker cattle and calves from Texas origins on those lines to destinations, except livestock markets, in Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, during April and October, 1931. Slightly more than 10 per cent of the stock cattle and calves handled by those respondents in the year 1931 are included.

The witness presenting this evidence was not conversant with the bases for the rates charged or any of the details of the transportation. In many cases the charges collected are a combination of the 2797 scale stocker-cattle rates to Wichita or some other point in Kansas and either the stocker or fat cattle rates beyond, subject

19 Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, partially within Appendix H scale territory and partially within Appendix J scale territory, have been treated as wholly within that territory in which the market was located.

to a minimum of 22,000 pounds. Some of the charges collected are on the basis of per car rates on range cattle. Charges have generally been assessed upon the basis of the minimum weights applying in connection with standard cars, 36 feet 7 inches, inside measurement. The shipments listed as having moved in April, 1931, which are those hereinafter discussed, total 220 carloads. All except 3 cars were stocker cattle. The exhibit indicates that the Docket No. 17000 (Part 9) rates, herein called the new rates, applied to the same traffic would return $3,596.40 less than was actually received on such shipments.

A check of the single-car shipments discloses some discrepancy in many instances. For example, it is shown that on a carload of stock cattle weighing 24,000 pounds, moved from Dimmitt to Walnut, Kans., the charges collected were $115.80. Reference to the tariff shows that a per car rate of $94 was applicable from and to those points. On a shipment weighing 22,000 pounds, from Texline to Goodland, Okla., charges appear as $110. The rate was 36.5 cents, which would make the charges $80.30.

There are 51 cars listed, with total weight of 960,000 pounds, as having moved from Fulda to Cassoday, Kans., on which charges of $3,666 are shown to have been collected. The shipments moved 550.7 miles. The short-line distance is 368.8 miles. Charges of $3,111 are indicated as assessable on basis of the new rate, 30.5 cents, for 1,020,000 pounds, and a decrease of $555 is shown. The rate applicable was 33 cents and charges even for the higher weight would be $3,366, or $300 less than is shown to have been collected.

Thirty-five cars from Fulda to Virgil, Kans., moved 603 miles. There was no joint rate, and the combination of the 2797 scale rate on stocker cattle to a point in southern Kansas, and 75 per cent of the fat-cattle rate therefrom, minimum 22,000 pounds, was charged. The total revenue received was $3,202, which is equivalent to 41.5 cents per 100 pounds. The 2797 scale fat-cattle rate for the shortline distance, 416.3 miles, is 42.5 cents, 1 cent higher than 85 per cent of the fat-cattle rate under the Cactus scale.20 The present stocker rate is 32.5 cents. It is not surprising that less revenue would be received under the new joint rate than under the former combination basis. Three cars shipped from Dalhart to Knapp, Ill., which moved via Fort Worth, Tex., were transported 1,211.5 miles. The short-line distance is 800 miles. The total charges were $491.70, based upon a combination of rates, as there was no joint feeder-cattle rate in effect. Charges on basis of the joint feeder rate available

20 Arizona Packing Co. v. A. E. R. R. Co., 81 I. C. C. 115, the highest scale ever prescribed by us for those distances.

after January 24, 1932, for the short-line distance are $303.60, but they would not cover transportation over the route of movement. Furthermore, no change of ownership is allowed at the Fort Worth market on basis of the through interstate rates. If change of ownership occurred at Fort Worth, and presumably it did, present charges under the interstate rates would be $574, a combination of the fatcattle rate to that point, plus the stocker rate therefrom. The State of Texas did not accept our finding that stocker-feeder rates need not be made applicable to public livestock markets, and on intrastate shipments to Fort Worth the rates are 85 per cent of the fatcattle rates. By two separate transactions, the stocker rates to and from livestock markets in Texas are now available on shipments destined to points outside the State.

Several shipments originating at points on the Wichita Valley, destined to points in Kansas, moved via Fort Worth over routes that are from 41 to 50 per cent circuitous. Whether the livestock so transported was sold on the Fort Worth market is not disclosed. If, however, the shipments were sold under the arrangement then available and the same transportation and method of handling were to be followed under the new rates, the charges would be based upon the combination of the fat-cattle rate and minimum to Fort Worth, plus the stocker rate and minimum therefrom, resulting in charges greatly in excess of those based upon the new stocker rate for the short-line distance as indicated in the exhibit, or the charges collected.

Rates on stocker-feeder livestock from points in Texas to destinations north of the 2797 scale territory in southern Kansas were in a chaotic condition at the time of the original hearing. See our report, page 154, et seq., respecting rates on stocker cattle involved in Docket No. 20224.

The exhibit lists four carloads of stocker cattle from Hartley to McCook, Nebr., where they were fed in transit, and from which they were later moved to South Omaha, Nebr., a public livestock market. The charges collected were $488.40. Charges indicated as assessable after January 24, 1932, are based upon the stocker rate and minimum for the short-line distance to Omaha via Trinidad, Colo. Stocker rates do not apply to South Omaha. Our revision shows that $13.20 additional revenue would be received, instead of the loss of $100.40 indicated by the exhibit. On three carloads from Washburn to South Omaha, fed in transit at Marnett, Colo., $396 was collected. Our revision shows the new rates would return $415.80 instead of $306 as shown, the increased revenue being $19.80. There are six other similar misapplications of rates on 23 carloads. A cor

rection of the charges on the South Omaha shipments based entirely upon the old and new rates to that point, results in increased revenue of $24.20, whereas the exhibit reflects decreased earnings of $852.96. Through rates made up of combinations to and from some intermediate point ordinarily result in higher charges than would accrue under joint rates, the more so when one factor is subject to a higher minimum than the joint rates. This situation occurs in various instances in this exhibit. The exact bases for the charges collected and the entire transportation record are not disclosed, however, and it is difficult to ascertain whether the lowest combination has been used. In so far as the showing made is intended to disclose the extent of reductions under the new rates the exhibit is entitled to little, if any, weight. It is certain that on stocker cattle moved between points in the 2797 scale territory comprising the entire States of Texas and Oklahoma, and portions of New Mexico and Kansas, our original decision increased the rates.

Most of the Class I lines operating in Mountain-Pacific territory made another test in which they took all of their interstate traffic moving intraterritorially and interterritorially January 25 to and including April 25, 1932, under rates published pursuant to our finding, and rerated it at rates applying prior to January 25.21 An exhibit purporting to disclose the result of that test shows an aggregate loss of $79,123.08 on the intraterritorial traffic and $373,310.51 on the interterritorial. No supporting data from which any conclusion as to the accuracies or inaccuracies of the figures used to arrive at the loss of $452,433.59, shown to result from the new rates, was presented at the hearing.

In an appendix to its brief the Southern Pacific Company included a statement showing 46 shipments from and/or to points on its lines taken from the work sheets used in compiling the above-described showing, which examples are put forward as typical. The accuracy and value of the showing must therefore be judged by these examples. Of the examples, 8 describe shipments of feeder cattle, 7 beef cattle, 14 fat sheep in double-deck cars, 7 hogs in single-deck cars, and 10 hogs in double-deck cars. All moved westbound to California destinations, except the sheep, which moved to Chicago, Ill., Denver, Colo., Kansas City, Mo., and Omaha, Nebr. The first shipment listed, feeder cattle from El Paso, Tex., to Gilroy, Calif., was charged $133 at the 66.5-cent rate, minimum 20,000 pounds, for a distance of 1,206 miles. It is shown that on this shipment, if

21 Lines included in the test are the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad, Northern Pacific Railway, Oregon Short Line Railroad. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company, Southern Pacific, Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway, and Western l'acific Railroad.

moved prior to January 25, $165, the fat-cattle per car rate, would have been received. In Quinto Ranch Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 165 I. C. C. 46, 80 per cent of the fat-cattle rates under the ArizonaCalifornia scale was found reasonable as a basis for reparation on shipments of feeder cattle, from points in Arizona to Kingdon, Calif. That basis would make charges of $141.60, while 85 per cent. of the Cactus scale used for reparation in Lane v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 159 I. C. C. 431, on feeder cattle from points in Arizona and New Mexico, to destinations in New Mexico and Texas, amounts to $141. The Cactus scale rates have never been exceeded by any scale of rates prescribed by us for application on livestock. Upon proper showing by complainants we have rather consistently held rates in excess thereof to be unreasonable and have awarded reparation to that basis in cases involving shipments in this general territory for the past several years. On the other seven shipments of feeder cattle listed, respondents use as the former rates either combinations of fat-cattle rates per car to San Francisco, Calif., applied at Stockton, Calif., an intermediate point, plus the fat-cattle rates therefrom, or combinations of feeder-cattle rates to El Paso and the fat-cattle rates beyond, or per car group rates applying on fat cattle. Contrasted with 85 per cent of the fat-cattle rates for the same distances under the Cactus scale as extended by us for reparation purposes on page 137 of Livestock-Western District Rates, under the subheading "No. 19785,” 176 I. C. C. 1, they are $227.50 versus $165.37, $195.50 versus $135.30, $203.90 versus $124, $269.30 versus $165.15, $190 versus $132.93, $248.50 versus $164.83, and $142.50 versus $105. They exceed charges based on the fat-cattle rates under the Cactus scale by $36.70, $34.90, $57.90, $74.94, $33.86, $55.14, and $18.50, respectively.

Shipments of beef cattle from points in Texas, including Fort Worth, to Los Angeles, Porterville, and Visalia, Calif., returned charges of $212.90, $203.09, $181.50, $187.02, $199.08, and $167.20. The weights appear as 24,900, 23,210, 22,000, 22,947, 23,700, and 22,000 pounds and the distances as 1,430, 1,487, 1,358, 1,337, 1,382, and 1,196 miles, respectively. To all such shipments the former per car group rate, $248.50, has been assigned. This rate would transport as much cattle as could be safely loaded in the cars, to points in northern California, a distance of 2,100 miles from Fort Worth. It exceeds charges based upon the fat-cattle rate under the Cactus scale as extended, by amounts ranging from $36.13 to $81.30. Reparation was awarded, using the usual relation to the Cactus scale fat-cattle rates, on calves, single deck, from the same origin territory to Los Angeles, in No. 19785, cited in the preceding paragraph, and on hogs, single deck and double deck, from the same origin territory to