sive a movement as a haul of some distance. An average rate for switching services would be from $2.50 to $3 per car. The following statement shows the charges made on some of the independent branch lines in bringing coal to the junction point: KANAWHA COAL DISTRICT. 2.50 __do____ _do____ 5.00 Island Creek Railroad, connects on branch line, haul 5 miles___-per car-- $3.00 .25 .10 .05 NEW RIVER DISTRICT. White Oak Railroad, connects on branch line, haul 7 miles ---- per ton__ .10 .10 .05 The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway has no traffic arrangements with any connecting branch line and makes no prorate or division with any of them for transporting their coal from the mines to the junction point. The carrying capacity of this railway is heavily taxed and it can not as at present equipped furnish motive power, cars, or terminal facilities adequate for the requirements of the mines upon its own line and branches, and could not supply cars for or handle the traffic from complainant's mines or the Virginian Railway without a corresponding diminution of service to patrons on its line and branches. The facilities and equipment for handling freight over this railway have been largely increased within recent years to meet the extraordinary growth of its business, but as yet it has not provided adequate means for moving the freight offered. The Virginian Railway affords the only route to market from complainant's mines and the other mines proposed to be opened and which are being opened along its lines, and this railway is being constructed for the purpose of getting coal and coke to market independent of any other railroad. It is now furnishing and proposes to furnish in the future all the cars for the shipment of coal and coke from complainant's and other mines opening on its line and branches, and it has now a very considerable number of cars when viewed in relation to the mileage in actual operation. Neither the complainant nor the Virginian Railway ask for any Chesapeake & Ohio cars, and no question of car distribution is involved in this case nor any complaint of the failure to move the coal and coke from the junction point to destination. In cases where several mines are located upon a branch and these operations have facilities for both rail and river shipments, the coal companies usually own or control the branch in order that they may make more advantageous distribution of the allotment of cars to the several mines and use the road for transferring its coal and coke from the mines to the river tipples. The allotment of cars to each mine according to its capacity is conceded to be just and equitable, and the system of penalizing for or charging up the unloaded cars is admittedly fair. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway furnishes these companies with cars for rail shipments, but said companies own the cars used for the river shipments, and in some instances the railroad company handles these cars from the mines to the river tipples, for which an independent charge is made, but none of said companies own any cars for rail shipments. Shipments by rail are preferred, but when the allotment of cars is insufficient the river fleets take the output to market, and thus enable the mines to work more days with greater economy of operation. The Virginian Railway acquired the rights and privileges for establishing river tipples at Mount Carbon, a point on the Kanawha River about 1 miles below Deepwater station, but mainly on account of the difficulty of securing terminal facilities in the cities for suitable distributing points this project for the present has been abandoned. No order establishing through routes is asked except in connection with and as a basis for fixing the joint through rates and divisions thereof, nor does it appear that such order otherwise made would be of the slightest benefit in this instance to anyone. All of the evidence which it is claimed bears upon the question of discrimination and reasonableness of the rates, as well as the argument and entire conduct of the case on behalf of the complainant and the Virginian Railway Company, have been directed alone to the ultimate and avowed purpose of securing for their mutual interests the same rates from Page and other points on the line of this road as are in effect from points in the Kanawha Coal District on the line of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, by the establishment of through routes with joint through rates on that basis and divisions thereof between the two roads. So far as the question of the reasonableness of the present rates and alleged unjust discrimination are involved, these will necessarily be disposed of in passing upon the specific application and need not be separately treated. The effect of granting the relief sought would be to reduce the joint through rates from Page on the Virginian Railway to all points on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway outside of West Virginia down to the separate individual rates of the latter from all points on its line in this district at the entire expense of the Chesapeake & Ohio, and at the same time to relieve the shipper located on the Virginian Railway of all expense in reaching the Chesapeake & Ohio. The law does not require the Commission in all cases where no through routes and joint rates exist to establish them, but only empowers it to do so in proper cases with the manifest intent of giving effect to the general purposes of the act to regulate commerce by securing reasonable facilities to the public and preventing unreasonable and unjust rates, practices, and discriminations, and in the exercise of this authority the Commission is bound by the same considerations of justice and fairness as it is in the exercise of the rate-making power in other respects. Where neither the interest of the public, nor the ends of justice as between parties directly interested, will be promoted by the establishment of through routes and joint rates and divisions thereof, a proper case for the exercise of the authority invoked has not been shown. It is claimed that the result here sought is necessary to put the operators on each of these roads in this district on a parity, the withholding of which under existing conditions would be unjust discrimination. However desirable it might be in some respects for the coal operators in an entire district to have the same rates from all points, particularly where they are not separated by great distances, we do not understand that the prohibitions of the statute against unjust discriminations in connection with the provisions for the establishment of through routes and joint rates were intended to force separate and independent carriers in such a district to make the same rates from points on their respective lines, ignoring inequalities in other respects. Such a ruling would in many cases, as in this, totally disregard the long-established practice, recognized as reasonable and just by legislatures, railway commissions, and courts, as well as carriers, of allowing two or more roads making up a through line to charge somewhat more for the through transportation, the earnings on which must be divided among all, than would be deemed reasonable and sufficient for the transportation if performed wholly by a single road. The operations served by the Chesapeake & Ohio are limited to such supply of cars as that road can furnish, which in the busy season is sometimes not more than 50 per cent of their needs, notwithstanding the substantial increase in its supply of coal cars in recent years. So long as the operations on the Virginian Railway have a full supply of cars not subject to distribution in the whole district, they have a substantial advantage over their competitors on the Chesapeake & Ohio in this regard. But it is in respect of rates only that parity is asked by complainant as between the operations on these two independent roads. Moreover, since, as appears in this case, all of the operators on branch connections of the Chesapeake & Ohio not owned by it are at the expense of getting their coal to the line of the Chesapeake & Ohio (except in the matter of furnishing cars therefor) in addition to paying the district rate, it would put at great advantage over them the operations at Page or other points on the Virginian Railway if the latter were relieved entirely of the expense of reaching the line of the Chesapeake & Ohio. Therefore, to compel the Chesapeake & Ohio to join in through rates from Page not higher than its individual rates from points on its main line and to allow out of such reduced rates a division to the Virginian Railway would be to require it to discriminate against operations in the same district on all branch connections not owned by it, or to reduce its rates and revenues materially from many points. These rates are not shown, either by comparison with other rates for like distances in this and other parts of the country or otherwise, to be unreasonable, nor is that question before us, except as it might be incidentally involved in the establishment of joint through rates and divisions thereof should we find it proper to do this. We do not therefore undertake to pass upon it at this time, except to say that upon the facts before us we would not feel justified in compelling the Chesapeake & Ohio to a course which would materially reduce its earnings on an important part of its business unless satisfied that that company was receiving excessive compensation for the services it is required to perform. While the joint through rate over a line composed of several roads often is and should be less than the sum of the local or individual rates, this is not always so, especially where the through line is composed of only two roads one of which performs only a short haul. We do not believe that the facts of this case justify the exercise of the authority invoked. The complaint will therefore be dismissed. 12 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1073. LANING-HARRIS COAL & GRAIN COMPANY v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. No. 1074. LANING-HARRIS COAL & GRAIN COMPANY v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY. Submitted October 21, 1907. Decided November 4, 1907. After the arrival, and usually after sale, of grain transported in carloads by defendant to Kansas City, owners direct delivery to points on the lines of other carriers which assess a switching charge which defendant collects for and pays to said other carriers. Complainant alleges that defendant's published rate on grain to Kansas City includes delivery at any point in Kansas City desired by shipper, whether on the line of defendant or on the lines of any other carrier, and that the switching charge is therefore unlawful and unreasonable. Held, That the act in specific terms provides that a common carrier shall not be required to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in like business; that in the absence of tariff provisions to the contrary, the transportation rate shown in a carrier's tariff on a certain commodity to a given point is understood to include delivery only to industries or unloading points located upon its own rails; that if consignee or owner of shipment desires delivery to point located on the line of another carrier he must pay the lawful charge for such service. Complaint dismissed. Burney and Sutton for complainants. Thomas R. Morrow for defendant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. CLARK, Commissioner: These complaints are directed against certain alleged unjust switching charges collected at Kansas City upon shipments of grain. The records show that these shipments moved from various points |