1907, it was shown that at the time complaint was filed the rates on refined oil, which were referred to in complaint, were as follows:

and from Chanute, Coffeyville, Erie, Humboldt, Neodesha, and other Kansas refining points to points in Missouri in the neighborhood of Springfield, such as Lamar, Rich Hill, and Joplin, 15 cents.

It was also shown that on the day following that upon which this complaint was filed with the Commission the rate from Erie to Springfield was reduced from 22 cents to 20 cents, and the rates from Chanute and Humboldt to Springfield were reduced from 22 cents to 201 cents.

Defendant, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, had maintained the 15-cent rate on its own rails from Neodesha to Springfield, but had refused to join in joint rate with the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway from Erie to Springfield which did not give the Frisco its full local from junction point. This forced the higher rate from Erie, and had been defended on the ground that a joint rate over lines of two carriers ought to be higher than if entire haul was on line of one carrier. At hearing, defendants expressed willingness to establish rate from Erie to Springfield equal to the rate from Neodesha to Springfield, or 15 cents.

As is shown in the opinion in Wilhoit v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, 12 I. C. C. Rep., 138, rates on oil from Kansas producing points are in the main constructed with the view of placing and keeping the several oil producing points on as near an equal footing as possible in the markets upon which they must depend. A rate of 22 cents from Erie to Springfield is unreasonable in and of itself and in comparison with the rate of 15 cents from Neodesha to Springfield, and with other rates on like commodity in same territory. On April 20, 1907, defendants, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, issued rate of 15 cents on oil, petroleum and products from Erie and other Kansas points to Springfield and other Missouri points, effective May 29, 1907, as shown in item 80-B of Amendment No. 72 to St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Tariff I. C. C. No. 3465. This is in harmony with expressions made at hearing and establishes a rate that is believed to be reasonable in comparison with other rates on oil in that territory, and assuming of course that the action is taken in good faith and that the rate in question will be kept in proper relation to other rates, an order of dismissal will be entered.

No. 992.

EBER DE COU

v.

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, AND PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted May 1, 1907. Decided May 29, 1907.

The present difference in through rates per 100 pounds on grain, flour, and feed, carloads, from Chicago and other western points to Mount Holly and Pemberton, N. J., is 5 cents, Mount Holly taking the rate to New York, and Pemberton, 6 miles east, the New York rate plus 5 cents. Prior to February, 1903, the Mount Holly rate was the New York rate plus 3 cents, and for a long period the differential against Pemberton in favor of Mount Holly was 2 cents. The Mount Holly rate was reduced on account of developed water competition. Under the 5-cent differential complainant could save about 2 cents per 100 pounds by shipping to Mount Holly and teaming to Pemberton. Since the hearing the Pennsylvania Railroad Company has put in a tariff naming a reconsignment charge on the traffic of 2 cents (50 cents per ton) from Mount Holly to Pemberton. Held, That the present through rate to Pemberton as compared with the rate to Mount Holly is excessive and subjects complainant and Pemberton itself to unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, that the through rate to Pemberton should not exceed the New York rate plus 2 cents per 100 pounds, and should not be at any time more than 2 cents above the rate to Mount Holly.

Blanchard H. White for complainant.
George Stuart Patterson for defendants.

KNAPP, Chairman:

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

This case draws in question the reasonableness and justice of defendants' rates on grain, flour, and feed from Chicago and other western points of origin to Pemberton, N. J., with particular reference to the rates from the same points to Mount Holly, N. J.

All points in New Jersey take either Philadelphia or New York rates or arbitraries added thereto. The rates from the West on grain and grain products are 2 cents less to Philadelphia than to New York. The Philadelphia rate applies east of Harrisburg, Pa., and takes in Wilmington, Del., Camden, N. J., and a few points in that

vicinity, and northeasterly on the New York Division of the Pennsylvania road as far as Bristol, Pa., Burlington, N. J., across the Delaware opposite Bristol, and a few points near Burlington on the Amboy Division. The New York rate applies to Trenton and points north on the New York Division, and to all points on the Amboy Division north of Burlington and south to and including Mount Holly.

All points in a large territory in New Jersey east of the points described take, under present tariffs, the New York rate plus a specific or arbitrary of 5 cents. This territory includes Pemberton, located 6 miles from Mount Holly on a branch road 2 miles from Brigham, which is 4 miles from Mount Holly. Mount Holly paid the New York rate and 3 cents added up to February 7, 1903, when, on account of water competition from Philadelphia and Rancocas Creek, the flat New York rate was put in effect to that point. The creek is only navigable for small boats to Centerton, N. J., a point within 2 or 3 miles of Mount Holly, and the water traffic has been teamed from Centerton to Mount Holly. Except for manure and other fertilizers and perhaps some other very low-grade freight, the present rate to Mount Holly by rail takes the business.

Complainant does a considerable business in grain, flour, and feed, which he buys largely in the West and ships to Pemberton, except as will be described. He also operates a mill at Pemberton where he grinds some feed and quantities of rye into flour which he sells in surrounding territory, much of it in Philadelphia. He bought in the West 50 carloads of grain, flour, and feed during the year ending April 1, 1907, of which 30 were shipped by his direction to Mount Holly, there unloaded into wagons and teamed for his account to Pemberton. This was done because the teaming costs him less than the sum represented by the difference in freight rates. Since that difference is 5 cents per 100 pounds, it amounts to $1 per ton, or $30 on a car of 60,000 pounds. Complainant testified without contradiction that the difference per car averaged fully $25, and that the teaming on a 30-ton car (60,000 pounds) costs him about $15. He saves by teaming, therefore, about 2 cents per 100 pounds and defendants lose whatever revenue above the Mount Holly rate would accrue to them from a through rate which would render the resort to teaming from Mount Holly unprofitable.

The local rate of the Pennsylvania from Camden, N. J., to Pemberton is 6 cents per 100 pounds. Complainant can ship his western freight to Camden, N. J., and reship to Pemberton under a total carload rate of 214 cents, as against the present 224-cent rate through, but this represents a saving of only 1 cent per 100, as against a saving of fully 2 cents by shipping to and teaming from Mount Holly.

Columbus, on the Kinkora branch, is about 10 miles from Pemberton, and in defendants' schedule takes the New York plus 5 cents rate, but Kinkora, 2 or 3 miles away, has the New York rate, and this carload grain, flour, and feed is hauled by the Pennsylvania from Kinkora to Columbus at a rate of 50 cents per ton. This is equal to 21 cents per 100 pounds, and represents to the Columbus shipper who reships from Kinkora a saving of 2 cents per 100 pounds.

Complainant is in competition for the trade of that section with the Columbus and Mount Holly dealers, and also competes for the flour trade in Philadelphia and other points in that territory with a mill grinding rye flour in Mount Holly. The difference in rates against complainant puts him at a disadvantage in this competition, and he claims that defendants should remove the disadvantage by giving Pemberton the Mount Holly rate-that is to say, the New York basis. No claim is made that the New York rate plus 5 cents is in any quantitative sense unreasonable. For a long period prior to February 7, 1903, during which the Mount Holly rate was 3 cents above New York, the difference in rate as against Pemberton was 2 cents, and that relation was not complained of by complainant, nor did he at this hearing submit any testimony showing hardship thereunder. Though no point was made of it by the defense, the delivery at Pemberton, which is on a different branch, apparently involves some additional cost to the delivering carrier over the cost of delivery at Mount Holly, and this, besides the slight difference in haul, seems to justify a somewhat higher rate to Pemberton.

A statement put in evidence by the defense, on request made at the hearing, shows that several changes in the rates to stations near or on the dividing line between the New York and the Philadelphia rate groups, or groups taking arbitrary additions, have been made at various times since about October 1, 1898, and nothing appears to indicate that restoring the old relation of rates from the West as between Mount Holly and Pemberton, with the slight changes involved at a few near-by points, would involve extension of the Pemberton rate to more easterly points in New Jersey. Mount Holly, Pemberton, and a few other stations are in a well-cultivated region, but beyond these stations the line to the seashore is operated through a sandy and sparsely settled area. The present rate to Pemberton, as compared with that to Mount Holly, is excessive and unjust, and subjects complainant and Pemberton itself to unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage.

On April 19, 1907, three days after the hearing of testimony, the defendant, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, apparently recognizing the injustice of the arbitrary of 5 cents to Pemberton over Mount Holly, amended its tariff, effective May 25, 1907, to provide

for a reconsignment charge of 50 cents per net ton, or 2 cents per 100 pounds, from Mount Holly to Pemberton, on western shipments of grain and grain products. This is the same as the reconsignment charge from Kinkora to Columbus, above mentioned. It results from this action that the sum of rates to Mount Holly and from that point to Pemberton is less than the through rate to Pemberton by 21 cents per 100 pounds. This, according to complainant's testimony, is about equal to his cost of teaming from Mount Holly. The rate complained of in this case is the through rate to Pemberton, and if defendants can vary the actual rate to Pemberton by adding a reconsignment charge to the rate in force to Mount Holly, they can change the through rate itself and thereby avoid confusion of tariff charges. We think the old relation of rates on grain and grain products to Mount Holly and Pemberton should be restored. Defendants' joint through rate from the West to Pemberton upon the carload traffic in question should not exceed the New York rate plus 2 cents per 100 pounds, nor be at any time more than 2 cents above the rate per 100 pounds to Mount Holly, and it will be so ordered.

No. 933.

IN THE MATTER OF THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES.

Submitted May 3, 1907. Decided May 29, 1907.

1. Where a through route has been formed the rate charged is a through rate, and the shipment will move upon the rate existing at the time it is billed by the initial carrier.

2. A through route is a continuous line of railway formed by an arrangement, express or implied, between connecting carriers. It must have a rate for every service it offers; and as the route is a new unit-one line formed of two or more connecting lines-so its rate for every service is a unit, even though it be divided between the several carriers arranging themselves into the through route.

3. Existence of a through route is to be determined by the incidents and circumstances of the shipment, such as the billing, the transfer from one carrier to another, the collection and division of transportation charges, or the use of a proportional rate to or from junction points or basing points. These incidents named are not to be regarded as exclusive of others which may tend to establish a carrier's course of business with respect to through shipments.

4. Where through billing is given by the originating carrier and is recognized by all connecting carriers to destination, there is in existence a through route over which a through rate applies, which through rate is ascertainable from the 12 I. C. C. Rep.