INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS. No. 6324. BITUMINOUS COAL RATES TO THE SOUTHEAST. Submitted March 13, 1918. Decided May 6, 1918. Upon the petition of the Cotton Manufacturers' Association of North Carolina, intervener, for a modification of the finding made in our original report herein; Held, That the facts submitted on rehearing do not justify the proposed change in the rate groupings or the placing of Charlotte, N. C., in a lower rate group. Petition dismissed. William A. Wimbish for Cotton Manufacturers' Association of North Carolina, intervener. Otis Mouser for Stonega Coke & Coal Company. T. D. Hobart for Norfolk & Western Railway Company. J. J. Campion for Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway Company. Other appearances as shown in the original report. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON REHEARING. HARLAN, Commissioner: This further hearing in the above-entitled proceedings was had for the purpose of determining whether any error was made under the original report in the grouping of Charlotte in the state of North Carolina. In the original report, 37 I. C. C., 652, we considered (a) the rates charged for the transportation of bituminous coal from mines in the states of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, to destinations in the southeast, principally in the states of North Carolina and South Carolina; and (b) the rate relationship of the several producing fields. We found the rates unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory in the particulars pointed out in the report and suggested a basis for reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates for the future. The principal coal fields involved in this proceeding are at Coal Creek in east Tennessee, Appalachia, and Dante in southwest Virginia, and Pocahontas in West Virginia. The rate groups involved by the findings of the original report, supra, are referred to in Union Sulphur Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. (39 I. C. C., 349) . - B. C. R. R. Co. (234 U. S., 29)... Dickson (15 Pet., 141). L. & N. R. R. Co. (235 U. S., 314) Pennsylvania R. R. Co. (242 U. S., 208). Tynan (11 Wall., 88).. Page. 380 152 603 761 722 United States Glue Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (Unrep. A-930). (38 I. C. C., 432). . Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. S. Ry. Co. (Unrep. 680) - - - -- West Virginia Rail Co. v. C. & O. Ry. Co. (50 I. C. C., 110).. Call Pub. Co. (181 U. S., 92). Commercial Milling Co. (218 U. S., 406). White v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (33 I. C. C., 500)- -- -- Windsor Turned Goods Co. v. C. & O. Ry. Co. (18 I. C. C., 162). Woodward-Bennett Co. v. S. P., L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co. (29 Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Zemurray (238 Fed., 789).... 760 84 45 757 307 757 757 757 756 33, 51 533 102 758 572 224 50 I. C. C. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORTS. No. 6324. BITUMINOUS COAL RATES TO THE SOUTHEAST. Submitted March 13, 1918. Decided May 6, 1918. Upon the petition of the Cotton Manufacturers' Association of North Carolina, intervener, for a modification of the finding made in our original report herein; Held, That the facts submitted on rehearing do not justify the proposed change in the rate groupings or the placing of Charlotte, N. C., in a lower rate group. Petition dismissed. William A. Wimbish for Cotton Manufacturers' Association of North Carolina, intervener. Otis Mouser for Stonega Coke & Coal Company. T. D. Hobart for Norfolk & Western Railway Company. J. J. Campion for Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway Company. Other appearances as shown in the original report. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON REHEARING. HARLAN, Commissioner: This further hearing in the above-entitled proceedings was had for the purpose of determining whether any error was made under the original report in the grouping of Charlotte in the state of North Carolina. In the original report, 37 I. C. C., 652, we considered (a) the rates charged for the transportation of bituminous coal from mines in the states of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, to destinations in the southeast, principally in the states of North Carolina and South Carolina; and (b) the rate relationship of the several producing fields. We found the rates unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory in the particulars pointed out in the report and suggested a basis for reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates for the future. The principal coal fields involved in this proceeding are at Coal Creek in east Tennessee, Appalachia, and Dante in southwest Virginia, and Pocahontas in West Virginia. The rate groups involved by the findings of the original report, supra, are referred to in the present record as zones 1, 2, and 3. Zone 1 includes points on and north of the line of the Southern Railway from Winston-Salem through Greensboro, Durham, Raleigh, and Selma to Goldsboro; zone 2 includes points in the territory south of this line and on and east of a line beginning at Barber Junction and passing through Salisbury, Norwood, Wadesboro, Florence, and Lanes to Georgetown; and zone 3 includes points west of the last-mentioned line and on and east of a line extending from Barber Junction through Charlotte, Chester, Columbia, and Denmark to Charleston. In the previous report we found that the rates from the Pocahontas district to points in zone 1 should be not less than 20 cents per ton lower than the rates from Coal Creek; that to points in zone 2 the rates from Pocahontas and Coal Creek should be the same; and that to points in zone 3 the rates from Coal Creek should be not less than 20 cents per ton lower than from the Pocahontas district. We further found that the rates from the Appalachia and Dante districts in southwest Virginia to Carolina territory, including points in zone 3, should not exceed the rates contemporaneously charged from Coal Creek to the same destinations. No groupings or rates were prescribed for the territory west of zone 3, but in that territory zone 4 and other zones west and south of zone 3 were voluntarily established by the carriers at the time the readjustments of rates to zones 1, 2, and 3 were made in conformity with our finding. Following the original report, supra, a petition was filed on behalf of the Cotton Manufacturers' Association of North Carolina, as an intervener, for a modification of the report and order therein fixing the zone adjustment indicated. That part of the petition relating to the purpose for which the rehearing was granted alleges that zone 2 as defined in the report should be enlarged and extended by drawing west and south lines thereto from Barber Junction along the line of the Southern Railway through Mooresville to Charlotte, thence along the Seaboard Air Line Railway through Monroe to Wadesboro, and thence south along the line originally defined by the Commission through Florence and Lanes to Georgetown; and that to all points in this zone as thus extended the rates from Coal Creek, southwest Virginia, and West Virginia should be the same to the respective destinations. As an alternative it is suggested that a new zone be created, defined as follows: Beginning at Barber Junction, thence along the line of the Southern Railway through Mooresville to Charlotte, thence along the line of the Norfolk Southern to Norwood, and thence along the west line of zone 2 through Salisbury to Barber Junction. It is asked that the rates from Pocahontas to Charlotte and points in the proposed new zone shall not exceed the rates from Coal Creek and southwest Virginia by more than 10 cents a ton. It may be well at this point to state that since the original hearing in this proceeding all the rates then under consideration have been advanced by 10 cents a ton under a permission granted in connection with The Fifteen Per Cent Case, 45 I. C. C., 303. This advance, however, did not affect the relationship of any of the rates required under the original report herein. The following table shows the rate situation, by the ton, at Charlotte before and after the effective date of the original order herein, together with the rates that would prevail under the proposed extension of zone 2 or the creation of a new zone as suggested by the petitioner. It will be observed that prior to this proceeding the rate from the West Virginia mines to Charlotte was 10 cents higher than from the southwest Virginia mines, and 20 cents higher than from the Tennessee mines. As a result of our finding the rate from the West Virginia mines to Charlotte was made 20 cents a ton higher than from the Tennessee and southwest Virginia mines by a reduction of 10 cents a ton in the rate from southwest Virginia, the rates from West Virginia and Tennessee remaining the same as before. Under the proposed enlargement of zone 2 the rates from West Virginia, southwest Virginia, and Tennessee to Charlotte would be made the same by a reduction of 20 cents in the rate from West Virginia. Under the alternative proposition of a new zone, suggested in behalf of the complainant, the present rate from West Virginia to Charlotte would be reduced 10 cents a ton and would exceed the rates from southwest Virginia and Tennessee by 10 cents a ton. It seems obvious that the principal, if not the only purpose, of the petition is to reduce the rate from West Virginia mines to Charlotte. It does not appear, however, that Charlotte has any cause of complaint under the original decision in the case. As a matter of fact it obtained a reduction of 10 cents a ton on coal from the southwest Virginia mines while the rates from the West Virginia and Tennessee mines were not changed. It was shown that Charlotte consumes 100,000 tons or more of coal a year, practically all of which is obtained from the West Virginia |