tion joining its main track toward the south. The complainant, on the other hand, insists that its plant and the buildings attached to it were constructed with some regard to architectural effects, and that a switch track located on the grading of the former switch connection, as proposed by the defendant, would not only run too close to its main buildings, but would also destroy the flower gardens and other adornments of that kind that surround its plant. Under all the circumstances disclosed of record, we are of the opinion that a switch connection should be afforded to the complainant. We are disposed, however, in recognition of the risk that naturally arises from such interruptions of through rails, to leave its location largely to the discretion and wisdom of the defendant. For the present we shall enter no order in the case, but shall expect the parties to confer and arrive at some conclusion as to the location of the track at a point that will not unduly endanger the operations of the defendant and at the same time, so far as possible, shall not disregard the desires of the complainant. Unless such an agreement be reached within thirty days the Commission will enter an order as to the location of the track. In this connection it is proper to add that the Commission does not approve the practice of some carriers of repaying advancements made by a shipper for the construction of a switch track by making an allowance to him of a definite amount on each carload of freight shipped to or from his manufacturing plant. Such an arrangement presents too much the appearance of a purchase of property by the carrier with transportation, which is contrary to the principles of the act. Undertakings of this nature ought to be evidenced by a written contract, a copy of which ought to be filed with the Commission. Although the payments to be made by the carrier to the shipper under such contracts may properly be determined or based on the number of carload shipments made to or from the industry, such payments ought not to be made out of the rate as each car is moved, but ought to be made out of available funds at the end of definite intervals, say, of six months or a year. When the entire cost has thus been refunded a responsible officer of the company ought to file with the Commission a verified statement of the details of the entire transaction. It is the desire of the Commission that this course be followed in this instance, in case the parties arrive at an understanding. And what is here said may be taken as a general ruling of the Commission applicable in similar cases. 12 I. C. C. Rep. No. 925. CHANNEL COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY, AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Submitted May 31, 1907. Decided November 4, 1907. For reasons given in Commercial Club of Santa Barbara v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 12 I. C. C. Rep. 495, complaint dismissed. W. H. Barnes for complainant. W. F. Herrin, P. F. Dunne and C. W. Durbrow for Southern Pacific Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company and Rio Grande Western Railway Company. Robert Dunlap, Gardiner Lathrop and T. J. Norton for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner: This case is in all respects similar to that of the Commercial Club of Santa Barbara v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 12 I. C. C. Rep., 495, and for the reasons given in the report upon that matter the complaint herein must be dismissed. 12 I. C. C. Rep. No. 939. CATTLE RAISERS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS AND CHICAGO LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. Submitted June 26, 1907. Decided October 21, 1907. Upon the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record, Held, that the terminal charge of $2 per car exacted by defendants for the delivery of live stock at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago with respect to shipments from points without the State of Illinois is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory, and that such charge should not exceed $1 per car. Held, further, that the decree of a court dismissing a bill brought to enforce an order of the Commission made previous to the amendment of June 29, 1906, is not a bar to the right of the Commission to examine with respect to a date subsequent to June 29 the same rate involved in that proceeding. Cowan and Burney for the Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. PROUTY, Commissioner: The subject of this complaint is the so-called terminal charge of $2 per car imposed by the defendants for the delivery of carloads of live stock at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago. This matter has been before the Commission in one form and another for the last ten years. Much testimony has been taken, much discussion had, and four reports prepared. These reports treat the subject in every detail, and it would not be profitable, nor is it needful, to repeat those details here. A brief statement of the case is necessary to an understanding of the question to be decided. Previously to about 1865 live stock was marketed in Chicago at several different points, and competition required the various railway companies bringing live stock to that market to deliver it, according to the wish of the shipper, at any one of these several points. This was expensive and annoying, since deliveries must often be made at points off the lines of the various railways, and for the purpose of avoiding it the following arrangement was adopted: A corporation known as the Union Stock Yards & Transit Company was organized by the railways, who took most of the stock and assumed the management of the corporation. This company constructed the Union Stock Yards, consisting of chutes, pens, and the various appliances necessary for the unloading and marketing of live stock. The Union Stock Yards & Transit Company also built the railroad tracks necessary to connect the various lines of railway which then reached Chicago, with the Union Stock Yards, and entered into an arrangement with these railways by which they were to operate their own trains over the tracks of the Stock Yards Company to the stock yards without the payment of other compensation than an unloading charge of 25 cents per car. While this was the understanding there was no contract for a definite term to that effect. The purpose of this was to establish a single market for the sale and delivery of live stock in the city of Chicago, and the result was exactly as desired. The other markets were all abandoned; slaughterhouses were located in the vicinity of these stock yards, and the Union Stock Yards thus became the sole place in the city of Chicago where cattle and hogs were marketed for slaughter. It was also the principal market for horses and mules. Live stock shipped to Chicago was delivered at the Union Stock Yards as a matter of course, unless some other delivery for some special purpose or peculiar reason was directed. One of the defendants for certain local reasons had unloading chutes and pens of limited capacity in another part of the city where stock for through shipment could be fed and watered; but aside from this the defendants had no facilities of their own worth the name in the city of Chicago. The published rate to Chicago carried with it in all cases delivery at the Union Stock Yards. As time went on, the different railroad companies which had at first owned a controlling interest in the Union Stock Yards and Transit Company parted with their stock holdings, so that, in the year 1894, while a majority of the directors of that company were still representatives of various railway interests, the control of the company had entirely passed from their hands. In the spring of that year the Stock Yards Company announced its intention of imposing a charge for the use of its tracks leading to the stock yards. This purpose was earnestly resisted by the railways without avail, and a charge of 80 cents in some cases and $1.50 in others per car was exacted for the use of the tracks leading to the stock yards. When the railways became convinced that they must pay this trackage imposition they in turn imposed upon the shipper a charge of $2 per car for delivering carloads of live stock at the Union Stock Yards. The tariffs fixing this charge were duly filed and posted and the charge itself became effective on June 1, 1894. Agents at receiving points previous to this time had sent stock to the stock yards when consigned to Chicago without further direction. They now inquired of the shipper whether he desired his stock shipped to Chicago or to the Union Stock Yards. Since there was but one stock market in Chicago, and since the only practicable way of reaching that stock market was by transfer of the stock in the car to the stock yards, the shipper must of necessity elect to have the shipment delivered at the Union Stock Yards, and thereupon this additional charge of $2 was imposed. Previous to June 1, 1894, none of the defendants, with one exception, had unloading facilities which would accommodate any considerable quantity of stock in the city of Chicago. Some of them about this time provided in a very limited way such facilities at various points in and around Chicago, but in no case were these facilities adequate to the handling of any considerable number of animals. The railways perfectly understood that shippers could not avail themselves of these facilities, and the only purpose in providing them was to give color to claim that they had in the vicinity of Chicago some live stock depot other than the Union Stock Yards. Several of the defendants did not even make this pretense. It will be noticed that every incident of the transportation was precisely the same after June 1, 1894, as it had been before that date. The stock was received, transported, and delivered in exactly the same manner. The cost to the railway was exactly the same, except for the -payment of this trackage charge. The engines and crews of the defendants still hauled this live stock to the stock yards precisely as they had in the past. The sole result of the imposition of this terminal charge was to increase the cost to the shipper by $2 per car while the service remained identically what it had been. In 1896 the Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas, one of the complainants in the present case, a voluntary association of persons interested in the raising and shipping of cattle from Texas and from |