the points in question, cents rate, to the order he purchased 50 carloads of cotton seed at intending to bill them to Texarkana at the 12 of complainant, and then to re-bill them from Texarkana to Hope at the 5 cents rate. As is shown in the report of the Commission upon the first petition filed before us by this complainant, Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. Rep., 696, seventeen cars actually went forward to Hope in that manner and at a total rate of 17 cents per 100 pounds. The remaining cars were never shipped. The general freight agent of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, learning that Hope was the ultimate and real destination of the remaining cars, insisted that the through joint rate of the two defendants was the lawful rate between those points of origin in Louisiana and Hope, and would have to be applied to all further shipments. As the only joint through rate on cotton seed then in effect between those points was the rate for Class A, to which cotton seed belonged, and which yielded a rate of 67 cents per 100 pounds, the remaining cars could not be shipped, that rate being absolutely prohibitive. It amounted in fact to almost as much per ton as cotton seed ordinarily cost at that time at those points. In the report of the former case it is said in this connection by Mr. Commissioner Prouty (p. 698): "To insist upon a rate of 67 cents per 100 pounds was, therefore, for all practical purposes, to decline to receive the cotton seed for shipment on any terms." And it is to be inferred from the record in this second proceeding that the complainant has shipped little, if any, cotton seed from those points to his mill since that statement was made by the Commission. Upon the first proceeding the Commission held that while the Texas & Pacific Railway Company was entitled to insist upon the application of the through class rate of 67 cents upon shipments billed through to Hope,it could not lawfully refuse to receive and transport complainant's cotton seed, under its local rate of 12 cents to Texarkana, when billed only to that point. And reparation in the amount of $2,240 was awarded the complainant on account of damages resulting from the refusal of the principal defendant to accept certain shipments on that basis, either when consigned to the complainant's own order at Texarkana or to the order of a local transfer company or otherwise. A subsequent action for the enforcement of this award, in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas, was dismissed by that court on the ground that, as the shipments were intended ultimately to reach Hope, the complainant had no right to ship first to Texarkana and then to reship to Hope and thus avoid the payment of the higher joint through rate. It is interesting to observe, however, that the theory of law upon which the award of reparation was made by the Commission, namely, that the defendant could not lawfully refuse to receive and transport complainant's cotton seed to an intermediate point on the local rate, when billed to that point, seems since to have been affirmed, in principle, by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403. Since our report was made in the first proceeding and reparation awarded the complainant as stated, there seems to have been no change in the rates in question until after this second petition was filed on October 30, 1906. Cotton seed, when the second proceeding was instituted, was still classified under Class A. And the only through rate applicable between the points in question was the class rate yielding, as was the case in December, 1903, a through rate of 67 cents. The local rate from the several points of production in Louisiana to Texarkana remained at 12 cents per 100 pounds, and the local rate from Texarkana to Hope was still 5 cents. These local rates in fact are still in effect. The purpose of this second proceeding is to secure a reasonable joint through rate to Hope. It is averred in the petition that the through joint rate of 67 cents is an unjust and unreasonable as well as a discriminatory rate, and that a just and reasonable rate would be a through rate equal to the sum of the present local rates in and out of Texarkana. And it therefore asks for an order establishing a joint through rate of 17 cents per 100 pounds from the points in question to Hope. The answer of the principal defendant filed on December 18, 1906, sets up that the 67-cent rate was canceled on December 5, 1906, on which day the two defendants put in effect, between the points in question and Hope, a joint through rate of 30 cents per 100 pounds on cotton seed in carloads, with a minimum weight of 30,000 pounds per car. This the principal defendant avers to be a reasonable and just rate. It is also averred in the answer that This defendant would further state that it has a perfect right to protect its local territory in order that it may build up industries along its line, and that any rate that would prohibit it from doing so would be an unreasonable, unjust, and unfair rate. Just what is meant by that is not altogether clear. If it is an assertion of a right to discriminate in favor of mills on the line of the Texas & Pacific Railway as against those just off its line, we can not accept it as sound doctrine. The rate of 12 cents into Texarkana is a voluntary interstate rate. The rate of 5 cents out of Texarkana to Hope was established by the state railroad commission of Arkansas. If the answer means that this 5-cent rate is too low and that the combination of the two locals would therefore give the complainant at Hope an unfair advantage over the mills on the line of the Texas & Pacific Railway, evidence ought to have been adduced to support that conten tion. While a rate fixed by a state statute or a state commission is naturally and properly entitled to respectful consideration, it has no greater sanctity, as applied to interstate traffic, than a rate established by a railroad company, and we should not hesitate, upon proper evidence that a rate so established would be unjust either to a carrier or to a shipper, to refuse to accept it as a basis for fixing an interstate rate. But the Texas & Pacific Railway Company did not appear at the hearing. A letter from its solicitor was presented advising the Commission that it had put in effect a new joint through rate of 30 cents, and asking, on that ground, that the complaint be dismissed. No testimony was offered on behalf of either defendant. Nor has any brief been filed. We are therefore left to a decision of the case upon the record without any evidence in support of the issue made by the answer and without the benefit of any suggestions by counsel. Upon the record, therefore, we see no reason why the prayer of the petition should not be granted, or why, from points on the line of the Texas & Pacific Railway, north of Shreveport, to Hope, on the line of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway, a joint through rate should not be established on cotton seed in carloads, of 17 cents per 100 pounds, being the sum of the present locals, with a minimum carload weight of 30,000 pounds. In the absence of any testimony impeaching the reasonableness of the local rates we not only indulge the presumption that the present through rate of 30 cents, which is nearly twice the sum of the locals, is an unreasonable rate, but in comparison with other rates on cotton seed in the adjacent territory, shown in evidence by the complainant, we affirmatively find it to be an unreasonable rate. An order will be entered accordingly. 12 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1024. MCRAE TERMINAL RAILWAY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY. Submitted June 19, 1907. Decided June 24, 1907. 1. Complainant, owning a railroad, about 1 mile long, from a point near the Southern Railway, in McRae, Ga., to a point near the Seaboard Air Line, alleges that such railways decline to make with it physical connections at its termini: Held, upon the facts and circumstances of the case, that as such connections are practicable, can be made without hazard to the public, and the complainant's prospective business is sufficient to justify the connections, defendants should give complainant the physical connections asked for, but they should be made at the expense of complainant. Definite order withheld pending action of defendants and taking of further testimony. 2. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company v. Jacobson, 179 U. S., 287, that an order of the State commission of Minnesota directing a physical connection between two railroads of that State in pursuance of a statute of the State was a valid exercise of authority, and this Commission sees no reason why Congress may not, as it has done, exercise the same authority over a railway handling interstate traffic which the State can exercise with respect to State traffic. George H. Harris and Max L. McRae for complainant. J. R. Anderson for Seaboard Air Line Ry. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. PROUTY, Commissioner: The complainant is a railroad corporation chartered by the State of Georgia. It has duly organized and constructed a railroad about 1 mile in length from a point near the right of way of the Southern Railway Company in the city of McRae to a point upon the Seaboard Air Line Railway near the mill of the McRae Oil & Fertilizer Company. It complains that the defendants, which are railway companies engaged in the transportation of traffic between points within and points without the State of Georgia, decline to make with it a physical connection at its termini and asks this Commission to order such connection under the provisions of the first section. The defendants deny the jurisdic tion of the Commission to make the order and further insist that if the jurisdiction exists no order should be made upon the facts. This railroad, as already said, is about 1 mile in length. It is fairly well constructed, being laid with new 60-pound rails and has cost about $9,000. The company owns one flat car, which is upon its line of railroad, and has purchased a locomotive, which has not yet been received. The McRea Oil & Fertilizer Company operates a mill of considerable size located upon the Seaboard Air Line at the northern terminus of the Terminal Railway. A switch track connects this oil mill with the main line of the Seaboard. The Terminal Railway was built so that it butted against the end of this switch track, its iron being laid nearly or quite up to the rails of the switch, thus forming a continuous track with the switch and so effecting a physical connection with the Seaboard. It appears that cars were at one time actually run from the switch track onto the tracks of the Terminal Railway, but owing to some accident at that point the Seaboard removed a portion of its rails, so that there is not now and has not been for some time any actual connection at that point. It would be a matter of very little expense to restore these rails, and thereby connect the Terminal Railway with this switch track, and this, as a practical matter, would afford a switch connection with the Seaboard Air Line which it would cost that company nothing to maintain and which would add nothing to the hazard which now arises from the maintenance of its present switch at the oil mill, except in so far as the increased use of the switch track might change present conditions. It did not appear whether this switch was owned by the railway company or the fertilizer company, nor was the length of it shown; neither did it appear what the expense would be of making an independent connection at this point with the Seaboard Air Line Railway, but the testimony does fairly show that such a connection would be entirely feasible and comparatively inexpensive. In order to connect with the Southern it would be necessary to do a small amount of grading. A connection at that point is entirely practicable and the total expense of making it would not exceed $200, according to the testimony. Its maintenance would involve the ordinary risk which always accompanies the maintenance of a switch in the main line of a railroad. This switch connection would be in the city of McRae at no great distance from the passenger station of the Southern Railway; but it was not claimed that the point of connection was for any reason an unsuitable one if a connection was to be made at all. The McRae Oil & Fertilizer Company, already referred to, handles in and out of its mill about 65 carloads of freight per year, of which |