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

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

Colorado to the towns of Coolidge, Lakin, Garden City, Cimarron, and Dodge City, Kans. These rates are alleged to be unreasonable, as well as unduly discriminatory, against the places just enumerated and in favor of other points on the Santa Fe road from Hutchinson, Kans., to Ardmore, Oklahoma, both inclusive.

The board of railroad commissioners of the State of Kansas has intervened in support of the complaint.

The Santa Fe Railway traverses Hamilton, Kearney, Finney, Gray and Ford counties in southwestern Kansas and is the only line of railroad reaching or serving the inhabitants of the first four counties named. Ford County is crossed also by the Rock Island Railway, but is very largely dependent upon the Santa Fe. Certain other counties south of those above named are entirely without railroad facilities but are tributary to the Santa Fe. The population of that portion of the State consuming coal shipped on the rates here involved is about 30,000. The shipment of coal over the Santa Fe to this territory in the year 1906 amounted to 600 carloads, or 16,173 tons, on which $43,699.65 was paid in freight. These figures do not include shipments to a large sugar refinery at Garden City, because prior to the hearing it adopted crude petroleum for fuel and therefore is not now a consumer of coal.

This portion of Kansas is without coal deposits or timber. Its rapidly growing towns and industries, as well as its increasing farming population, use coal for fuel. The country for 25 miles or more on each side of the railroad secures coal from the towns located on it. Not only do the farmers depend upon coal for domestic use, but they also burn it in the engines which furnish power for plowing. The mines from which this coal comes are at or near Trinidad and Rockvale, Colo. These mines are not immediately on the line of the Santa Fe, but some of them are connected by railways 10 or 12 miles in length belonging to the same interests that own the mines, while others are on the rails of the Denver & Rio Grande Railway. The rates here in question, however, are made by the Santa Fe from the mines, an allowance of 10 cents per ton being made out of same to the connecting lines first above referred to and a switching allowance, the exact amount of which is not shown by the testimony, to the Denver & Rio Grande. These connecting lines referred to, other than the Denver & Rio Grande, are parties defendant, but have made no answer or appearance. The rates complained of and for which the Santa Fe assumes responsibility are found in its tariff 6081-C, I. C. C. 3229. The following table shows the distance in miles from Rockvale to the towns complaining, also the rates in cents per ton on lump

12 I. C. C. Rep.

coal (L), nut coal (N), and slack coal (S), as construed and applied by the respondent, and also the earnings per ton-mile at these rates:

There appears to be some uncertainty concerning the rates as published on slack coal to these points. Testimony on behalf of the Santa Fe was to the effect that the rates on this coal from Rockvale to these places were published and filed at $2.75 per ton, reference being made to Item 95, Amendment 49 to Santa Fe Tariff I. C. C. 3229. The statement was made that this item makes slack-coal rates from Rockvale the same as those on nut coal. A reference to this item of the tariff, however, shows that the rates on slack coal from Rockvale to the points above named are the same as those on soft coal. By what was probably an inadvertence in the use of the word "soft," rather than the word "nut," the rates on slack coal as legally published would appear to be $3.25 to all these points, except Coolidge, to which place the rate is $3.05. But it seems this was not intended, and the rates are stated below as understood and applied by the respondent, with the distances from the mines at Trinidad to Coolidge, Lakin, Garden City, Cimarron, and Dodge City, together with the earnings upon this traffic:

From April 15 to July 31 of the current year, both dates inclusive, the rates on lump coal shown above were reduced 25 cents per ton, for the purpose, it was stated, of stimulating the shipment and storage of coal at points of consumption' during that period.

It was shown that towns beyond Dodge City also receive coal from the mines at Trinidad and Rockvale, their supply passing through the towns named in the above tables. These more remote communities are Hutchinson, Newton, and Saffordville, Kans.; Oklahoma City, and Ardmore, Okla. The mileage, rates, and earnings on shipments to these towns are shown by the following table: