en route between the peach orchards in Georgia and New York is 20,398 pounds, found by actual test of 603 cars made by inspectors employed for this purpose by the Commission. This, of course, would not include the ice lost by melting while being transported or handled as freight, and it appears that the total cost of the ice used for refrigerating a car of peaches should be reckoned on the basis of 12 tons. At an average of $3 per ton, the actual cost of the ice consumed would therefore be $36 per car.

While the minimums prescribed by the railroads are 20,000 pounds for 36-foot cars and 22,500 pounds for 40-foot cars, the minimum upon which the refrigeration charges are assessed approximates 23,100 pounds for both sizes of cars, being on the basis of 550 crates, the weight of a standard crate of peaches being 42 pounds. While the percentage of 36-foot cars used in this transportation has steadily decreased and a large proportion of 40-foot cars are now used (probably 80 per cent), the minimum of 550 crates is still in excess of the normal capacity of a car as indicated by the 22,500-pound minimum prescribed by the railroads for the largest size of equipment. Thus, while the 20,000pound minimum for 36-foot cars will allow of the loading of about 476 crates and the 22,500 minimum of 535 crates, it is shown that during the season of 1906 on the Southern Railway an average of 487 crates were shipped in 36-foot cars and 530 crates in 40-foot cars, showing in the one case the refrigeration charge was assessed on 63 crates over the number actually transported and in the other on 20 crates per car in excess of the actual loading.

Another ground of complaint is the lack of facilities furnished by the carriers for handling less than carload shipments, which, as a rule, are offered either at the beginning or during the latter part of the peach season. It is claimed that to supply the markets of certain small cities where the demand is not sufficiently large to warrant shipments of 20,000 pounds, it is necessary to forward shipments of from 12,000 to 15,000 pounds. These shipments will not be accepted by the railroads except upon the basis of less than carload rates, aggregating the charges which would accrue to the carriers at the rates named to apply on carload minimum weights. In justification of these higher rates on smaller shipments, the carriers contend that special service, including the expenses of refrigeration, can not be afforded at a profit on less than carload shipments, since the cost of handling is almost, if not quite, as great as on full carloads.

The necessity for refrigeration of shipments of perishable fruits creates a relation between the carload shipment and the less than carload lot different from that which obtains as to other commodities. The cost of refrigerating and of hauling a car partly loaded with peaches would be as much as if car contained full load. The earnings

on part of a carload would therefore be inadequate unless a much higher rate per hundred was applied. The importance of some facilities for movement of less than carload lots is apparent, especially at the beginning and near the end of the season. Inasmuch, therefore, as shippers are required to pay charges upon full minimum carload for less than carload lots, the Commission is of the opinion that in the transportation of perishable freight that is shipped under refrigeration, for which an extra charge is made and paid, it would be proper for carriers to incorporate in their tariffs, under which such shipments are transported, a rule that shippers will be permitted to consolidate less than carload lots into carload shipments, car to be loaded at one place and for one destination.

Full hearing having been had upon this complaint, after service thereof and due notice of such hearing, it is the opinion of the Commission upon consideration of all the matters presented that the rates in question, to wit, 81 cents per 100 pounds from Macon and Atlanta, Ga., to Philadelphia, Pa., and New York City, and 78 cents per 100 pounds to Washington, D. C., and Baltimore, Md., for transportation services other than refrigeration involved in the movement of peaches under refrigeration, and the said charge of 12 cents per crate of 42 pounds of peaches, minimum 550 crates, for refrigeration of the same from points of origin aforesaid to destinations above named, are unreasonable and unjust; that the practice of the defendants in establishing one minimum carload requirement for transportation services other than refrigeration in respect of this traffic and a different minimum carload for refrigeration services, to which the respective rates for these separate services are applied, is unreasonable and unjust.

It is the conclusion of the Commission that the rates covering the freight service in connection with the transportation of peaches via the defendants' lines of railway from Macon and Atlanta to Philadelphia, Pa., and New York City, moving in carloads under refrigeration, should not exceed 76 cents per 100 pounds, and from the same points of origin to Washington, D. C., and Baltimore, Md., 73 cents per 100 pounds, these rates to apply on carload minimum of 20,000 pounds when shipments are made in 36-foot cars, and on a minimum of 22,500 pounds in 40-foot cars. It is also the conclusion of the Commission that the rates for the refrigeration services in connection with this transportation from and to the several points above named should not exceed 11 cents per crate of 42 pounds, to apply on carload minimum of 476 crates when shipments are made in 36-foot cars, and on a minimum of 535 crates in 40-foot cars.

We are not convinced that the charge of $5 per day for detention of cars by shippers after the expiration of twenty-four hours subsequent to the placing of the same for loading is shown to be unreasonable in

view of all the circumstances and the nature of the services necessary in the handling of this particular traffic; nor does it now appear, all things considered, that facilities for the transportation of less than carload shipments of peaches can reasonably be accorded at lower rates than those heretofore named to apply on such traffic.

An order will be made in accordance with these conclusions.

No. 967.

PRODUCERS' PIPE LINE COMPANY

v.

ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; HOUSTON & TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY; AND MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS.

Submitted April 12, 1907. Decided June 10, 1907.

1. In formal proceedings before the Commission, complaints must be prosecuted with reasonable diligence, and the Commission particularly insists that when a case has been formally assigned for hearing on a day certain, the parties shall appear and present such evidence as they may wish to offer in support of their contentions, or, in advance of the date set, request postponement on stated grounds, showing good and sufficient cause for delay.

2. Complainant having abandoned the case, complaint dismissed for want of prosecution.

F. C. Henderson for complainant.

James Hagerman and Joseph M. Bryson for M., K. & T. Ry. Co. and M., K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas.

S. H. West for St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.

Martin L. Clardy for St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

HARLAN, Commissioner:

The complainant in this case, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, has its principal office and place of business at Alluwe, in Indian Territory. It owns a pipe line commencing at Alluwe and having its terminus at Watova, a point in that Territory on the line of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, one of the defendants herein. At this terminal

station of the pipe line the complainant has its loading racks, tanks, and other facilities necessary for transferring the crude oil from its pipe line into tank cars for shipment over the rail lines of the defendants. From Watova, and apparently, also, from Nowata, another point in the same Territory and immediately north of Watova, on the line of the same railroad, the complainant makes shipments by rail to its markets in Louisiana and Texas.

Just how its oil reaches Nowata and whether by pipe line or by rail does not clearly appear from the record. The basis of the petition, however, is that the rates on crude oil in tank cars from Nowata to points in northern Texas, including Denison, Forth Worth, Dallas, and Corsicana, are unjust, unreasonable, and excessive. According to the published tariffs on file with the Commission the rate to all these points of destination is 25 cents per 100 pounds. The shortline distance from Nowata to Corsicana is said to be 393 miles and the rate mentioned is alleged to be unreasonable and discriminatory, as compared with much lower rates in effect between other points of origin and destination in the same general territory and involving much longer hauls.

The case was twice assigned for hearing at Kansas City, first on February 4 and again on April 12, 1907. On each occasion the complainant failed to appear. But on the latter date the Commission received a telegram and letter from the executive officer of the complainant company under date of April 10, indicating that an adjustment of the rates complained of was under negotiation with the defendants with an apparent prospect that they would be reduced to a basis that would be satisfactory to the complainant. Since that time nothing further has been heard of the matter.

It is the manifest duty of those who institute formal proceedings before the Commission to prosecute their complaints with reasonable diligence. We must particularly insist that when a case has been formally assigned for hearing on a day certain the parties shall appear and present such evidence as they may wish to offer in support of their contentions, or, in advance of the date set, must request a postponement of the hearing on stated grounds showing good and sufficient cause for delay. In addition to the time and expense involved when a Commissioner or special examiner goes to the appointed place to conduct the proceeding, the Commission can not permit its docket to be clogged for an indefinite period of time with cases that are not being prosecuted by the complainants to a final conclusion with proper promptness.

In this case the complainant seems to have abandoned the controversy and the complaint must therefore be dismissed for want of prosecution. It will be so ordered.

No. 890.

JOHNSTON-LARIMER DRY GOODS COMPANY

v.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; DENVER, ENID & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY; ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY; HOUSTON & SHREVEPORT RAILROAD COMPANY; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY; MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY; LOUISIANA WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; BEAUMONT, SOUR LAKE & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & GULF RAILWAY COMPANY; GALVESTON, HOUSTON & HENDERSON RAILROAD COMPANY; GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; GULF & INTERSTATE RAILWAY COMPANY; HOUSTON, EAST & WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY; HOUSTON & TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; INTERNATIONAL & GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; INTERSTATE CAR TRANSFER COMPANY; KANSAS CITY, MEXICO & ORIENT RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS; PARIS & GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; SAN ANTONIO & ARANSAS PASS RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS MERCHANTS' BRIDGE TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS, SAN FRANCISCO & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY; ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & COLORADO RAILROAD COMPANY; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS; GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & SAN ANTONIO RAILWAY COMPANY; GALVESTON, HOUSTON & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; TEXAS & NEW OR