Page images
PDF
EPUB

Crowder City, Ind. T., to Kansas City, Mo. Defendants had specific tariff rates applicable to shipments of live stock from other points in Indian Territory to Kansas City, which shipments moved through Crowder City. Complainants allege that the local rates from points of origin of such shipments to Crowder City added to the special low rate from Crowder City to Kansas City made lower rates than the specific rates from points of origin to Kansas City, and that, therefore, defendants should refund

charges collected in excess of combination rates on Crowder City. 2. A carrier may, because of commercial conditions or competition, establish at

a given point an especially low rate, but it does not necessarily follow that all like traffic that moves through that point in the same direction must be given the benefit of that low rate, and while a through rate that is higher than the sum of the local rates between the same point is prima facie unreasonable, it can not be reduced to equal such sum of locals

except through lawful change in tariff. 3. A specific through rate is the lawful rate for a through shipment, even

though some combination of rates may make lower, and carrier may not charge the higher through rate upon one shipment and the lower combination rate upon another shipment of the same kind between the same

points at the same time. 4. While shipper may consign his shipment to a given point, pay charges on

same, assume custody and take possession of the property, and, later, reship to another point under rates lawfully applicable to such reshipment, neither a carrier nor an agent of a carrier may act as forwarding or reconsigning agent for shipper in such manner as to evade or defeat

the terms or intent or purpose of the law. 5. No complaint is made against the reasonableness of the specific through

rates. The demand for reparation is denied and the cases are dismissed.

Burney and Sutton for complainants.
C. W. Durbin for Howard & Bro.

F. J. Hoffman, James Hagerman, and J. M. Bryson for Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company.

J. J. Gibson for Fort Smith & Western Railroad Company.
J. W. McLoud for Midland Valley Railway Company.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

CLARK, Commissioner:

In these cases the complaint is the same, all are governed by the same principles, and the facts are substantially the same in each instance. They were therefore heard in one record and are disposed of in one report.

With the exception of cases 1087, 1166, and 1173, the transportation involved was all over the rails of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway. The complaint against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway was dismissed in case 1087 by request of counsel for complainant because the rates complained of did not extend to its lines.

The case in No. 1160 involved certain shipments of live stock from Stigler and San Bois, I. T., to Kansas City, and involved the same principle underlying cases 1087, etc., although in this case the combination claimed would be made on Porum, I. T.

By stipulation the parties agreed that the evidence submitted in cases 1087, etc., should be accepted as including case 1160, and that the decision of cases 1087, etc., should apply also to and include case 1160.

Complainants allege and defendants admit that defendants' tariffs contained certain specific rates applicable to shipments of live stock from certain points in Indian Territory to Kansas City, Mo. It is also alleged and admitted that for a period between July and December of 1905 defendant, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, had in effect a special and unusually low rate upon carload shipments of cattle from Crowder City, Ind. T., to Kansas City, Mo.

Complainants allege that the specific tariff rates upon live stock from certain points, to wit, Kosomo, Atoka, Kiowa, Durant, Midway, and Kinta, Ind. T., to Kansas City were higher than combinations of local rates from the same points to Crowder City plụs the specially low rate temporarily in effect from Crowder City to Kansas City, and therefore claim that instead of applying the tariff rates from points of shipment to Kansas City the defendants should have applied combinations made up on the Crowder City basis.

Defendant, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway, alleges that the specific tariff rates from points of origin of shipments were the lawful rates; that the specially low rate from Crowder City to Kansas City was forced upon it by competition of other carriers that took the initiative in temporarily inaugurating in that immediate neighborhood such low rates, and that this rate, applicable only from Crowder City, was never intended for use as a part of a rate from any other shipping point and could not lawfully be so used.

In cases 1166 and 1173, shipments moved from Kinta, Ind. T., to Crowder City over the line of the Fort Smith & Western Railroad and from Crowder City to Kansas City over the line of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway. The regularly established through rate from Kinta to Kansas City was charged and collected on these shipments.

After shipments in cases 1181 and 1182 had moved in 1905 and charges had been collected according to the tariff rates from points of origin to Kansas City defendant, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway, in August and October, 1906, paid the shippers' claims for overcharges in the sums so collected in excess of the combination rate on Crowder City. It is noted that these payments were made prior to the date upon which the complaints were filed with the Commission.

A carrier may, because of commercial conditions or competition obtaining at that point, establish at a given point an especially low rate, but it does not necessarily follow that all like traffic that moves through that point in the same direction must be given the benefit of that low rate. And such traffic moving through between points as to which specific rates apply may not be given the benefit of that low rate except through lawful tariff change.

The contention of the complainants in these cases involves direct conflict with the requirements of the law as to observance of lawfully published tariff rates and as to statutory notice of changes in rates. A local rate within a State may be changed without the necessity for such notice as is required by the act to regulate commerce of a change in an interstate rate. It can not be conceded that such change in a State rate commits the carrier to the necessity of refunding as to all interstate shipments in connection with which such local rate might be used in combination to produce a rate lower than the lawfully published interstate rate.

The Commission has announced that it will view a through rate that is in excess of the sum of the local rates between the same points as prima facie unreasonable, and if called upon to pass upon such a case under formal complaint will place the burden of proof upon the carriers to defend the reasonableness of such rate. This, however, does not assume that there may not be instances in which a through rate higher than the sum of the locals between the same points will be found reasonable. Neither does it furnish to carriers or to shippers any license to depart from the rates and terms of tariffs lawfully applicable to shipments. A specific through rate is the lawful rate upon a through shipment even though some combination might make lower. The higher rate may not be reduced except by lawful amendment to tariff, and carrier may not charge the higher through rate upon one shipment and the lower combination rate upon another shipment of the same kind between the same points at the same time.

It was suggested that shippers might take advantage of the low combination rates by unloading the stock at Crowder City and running it right back into the cars. There seems to be no doubt as to the right of a shipper to consign shipment to a given point, pay charges upon it, assume custody and take possession of the property, and later reship it to another point under rates lawfully applicable to such reshipment. A carrier or carrier's agent may not, however, act as forwarding or reconsigning agent for shipper for the purpose of evading or defeating the terms or purposes of the law or in such manner as to defeat or evade the intent of the law. To do that would be to resort to one of the devices prohibited in the act.

There is no complaint of the unreasonableness of the specific tariff rates from points of origin of these shipments to Kansas City. There is simply a demand for reparation based on the claim that the

a

low rate applicable to shipments from Crowder City should apply to all shipments that moved through Crowder City.

There is no evidence of any departure from published tariff rates on the part of defendant Fort Smith & Western Railroad Company.

The defendant Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway admits that as to other shipments of cattle from some or all of the same points of origin involved in these cases to Kansas City during the same period some were charged the specific tariff rates from points of shipment to Kansas City and others were given the benefit of lower combination rates on Crowder City. It is difficult to find explanation or excuse for that action, and it is more difficult to understand or find excuse for the refunding, on August 29 and October 1, 1906, of certain parts of the lawful charges collected in 1905 upon the shipments involved in cases 1181 and 1182.

It can not be claimed that these departures from the tariff rates and these discriminatory practices were the result of ignorance or error on the part of local agents, as the refunds to Messrs. Cobb and Dulaney were made by order and action of general officers of the company, and billing orders, made a part of the record in these cases, disclose instructions to agents to bill certain shipments at the lower rates.

The records in these cases should be referred to the department of prosecutions, and the cases should be dismissed.

12 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1011.

SOUTHWESTERN KANSAS FARMERS' AND BUSINESS

MEN'S LEAGUE.

V.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; COLORADO & WYOMING RAILWAY COMPANY, AND COLORADO & SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted November 11, 1907. Decided December 5, 1907.

Complainant questioned the reasonableness of rates on coal in carloads from

mines in the Rockvale and Trinidad districts in Colorado, to Coolidge, Lakin, Garden City, Cimarron, and Dodge City, Kansas; also alleged that these rates are unduly discriminatory as compared with the rates from said mines to Hutchinson, Kansas, and Ardmore, Oklahoma, and points between. Held, that the rates in question are unreasonable and should be superseded by those herein prescribed.

A. E. Helm for complainant.

Gardiner Lathrop, Robert Dunlap and A. A. Hurd for A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

G. F. Grattan for Board of Railroad Commissioners of Kansas, Intervener.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

CLEMENTS, Commissioner:

The complainant is a voluntary organization composed of minor associations of farmers and merchants in the towns on the line of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (hereinafter referred to as the Santa Fe), between Dodge City, Kans., and the western boundary of Kansas.

The complaint is against the rates of the Santa Fe upon coal in carloads from mines in the Rockvale and Trinidad districts in

« PreviousContinue »