It was also shown that coal somewhat inferior to the Colorado coal is produced at Pittsburg, Kans., in the southeastern part of the State. The rates for hauling this coal to points in the State of Kansas appear to have been the result of a compromise between the Kansas railway commission and the defendant Santa Fe Railway Company. The latter now claims that these rates are unusually low, but it has adopted and published them to the territory in question, as follows: Of the three grades or classes of coal involved, all of which are taken from the same mine at the same time, that designated as lump coal sells for the highest price, nut coal comes next in value, and slack is the lowest. For domestic purposes and for locomotive use lump coal is used practically exclusively. For thrashing and plowing, nut coal is used. For steam making in stationary plants slack coal serves very satisfactorily. In defense of the rates here attacked it was testified that the continuation of the rate of $3.25 per ton to all points between Dodge City and Ardmore, Okla., is made necessary by the competition of coal from the fields at Pittsburg, Kans., and in Oklahoma. With a higher rate than $3.25 per ton, it is claimed Colorado coal could not move beyond Dodge City. In addition to the claim that the Kansas state rate should not be considered for purposes of comparison because it was not made by the railroads entirely of their own motion, it was also claimed that the mines at Pittsburg, Kans., are more accessible than the Colorado mines, and therefore that the conditions are radically different; it was shown that in gathering coal from the Colorado mines empty cars are distributed up steep grades at considerable expense. It appears, however, that practically the entire haul from the Colorado mines to Dodge City is on an easy down grade. The haul from Pittsburg to the western end of the State, on the other hand, is practically all up grade. Upon full hearing and consideration of all the issues and matters involved herein, it is the opinion and conclusion of the Commission that the rates complained of for the transportation of the several sorts or grades of coal, as hereinbefore stated, except those applying from Trinidad on slack coal, are each and all of them unreasonable, unjust, and therefore unlawful. It is our further conclusion that just and reasonable maximum rates to be hereafter charged for this transportation should not exceed the following: The relation of these rates resulting from the grouping of the destination points involved as now done by the respondent carrier will not be changed, since there is no complaint of this, and the complainant as well as the respondent have expressed their satisfaction with the same. We are not unmindful that a modification of these rates may make necessary changes in rates to other points and this has been suggested as a reason why their modification should not be required. However, this is not a consideration which should interfere with the correction of unreasonable rates. As to rates not involved in this controversy we can make no order herein nor express any opinion in respect thereto. An order will be entered in accordance with these conclusions. No. 1083. HENNEPIN PAPER COMPANY v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. Submitted August 30, 1907. Decided December 5, 1907. 1. It is the duty of a carrier, in the absence of routing instructions to the contrary, to forward shipments, having due regard to the interests of the shipper, ordinarily by that reasonable and practicable route over which the lowest charge for the transportation applies; and damage resulting to a shipper from a disregard of this obligation by the carrier can only be repaired by reparation to the extent of the difference between the higher rate applied over the line by which the traffic improperly moved and the lower rate which would have been applied had the freight been properly forwarded. 2. To require reparation in such a case is only to require the carrier to make just compensation for injury resulting from failure to perform its duty; but to require or permit any other carrier than the one responsible for the misrouting to participate in the making of such reparation would be to permit or require departure from established rates, which is expressly forbidden by law. 3. Order entered awarding reparation to complainant in the sum of $1,760.62. Wilson & Mercer and B. F. Nelson for complainant. C. A. Hart and J. G. Woodworth for Northern Pacific Ry. Co. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. CLEMENTS, Commissioner: The original complaint in this case was directed against the rate of $2.17 per 100 pounds on print paper in carloads from Little Falls, Minn., to Boise, Idaho, when moving via Butte, Mont., over the lines of the defendant carriers. It was alleged that a reasonable rate via this route would be not more than $1.30. The prayer was for the establishment of a reasonable through rate, and for reparation on the basis thereof on six carloads of print paper, shipped in the latter part of 1905 and during the first half of 1906, on which freight had been paid by the complainant at the rate of $2.17. The amount of reparation claimed on this basis is $1,760.62. According to the complaint, at the time of the shipments above referred to there were three through routes with published through rates from Little Falls to Boise, as follows: The Northern Pacific and Oregon Short Line railroads, via Butte; distance, 1,546 miles, rate, $2.17 per 100 pounds, this being the rate against which the complaint was directed. The Northern Pacific, Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company and Oregon Short Line, via Portland, Oreg.; distance, 2,450 miles; rate, $1.30, made by combination upon Portland. The Northern Pacific; the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha; the Union Pacific, and the Oregon Short Line railroads, via Minnesota Transfer and Omaha; distance, 1,812 miles; rate, $1.36, made by combination upon St. Paul. An examination of the tariffs in the files of the Commission shows that the rate via the last-mentioned route should be made by a combination of the rate of 20 cents, Little Falls to Omaha; and $1.10, Omaha to Boise, thus making a rate of $1.30 per 100 pounds-the same as that applying via the Portland route. At the hearing the complainant stated that this paper was forwarded via Butte by the defendant carriers, this fact having been discovered after the filing of the original petition. Complainant also stated that having been informed that the rate over the through route via Minnesota Transfer and Omaha would be reduced to $1.30, it desired to abandon that portion of its petition asking for a lower rate via Butte. However, it appears that this $1.30 rate via Omaha is now and has been in effect for some years. By agreement of the parties at the hearing, the pleadings were amended, the complainant alleging that the six carloads of paper had been misrouted by defendants, thereby causing the application of an unreasonable rate to the extent of the difference between $1.30 and $2.17 per 100 pounds. By an amendment to the answer the above allegation was admitted. It was further stipulated that the amount claimed in the complaint as reparation, viz, $1,760.62, was the correct amount of the difference between the freight actually paid and the amount that would have been charged had the six carloads been routed via Omaha or Portland, instead of via Butte. Although it had no part in the misrouting of these shipments, the Oregon Short Line caused to be entered in the record an admission of its willingness to join the Northern Pacific Railway in making reparation. It would be obviously improper for the Oregon Short Line to do this. The misrouting was entirely the fault of the initial line, the Northern Pacific. The Oregon Short Line had no part therein, and can neither be legally, held responsible therefor nor permitted to contribute to the payment of reparation on account thereof. While it is the duty of a carrier to adhere to its established rates, it is also the duty of the initial carrier, in the absence of routing instructions to the contrary, to forward shipments, having due regard to the interests of the shipper, ordinarily by that reasonable and practicable route over which the lowest charge for the transportation applies. Damage resulting to the shipper from a disregard of the latter obligation on the part of the carrier can only be repaired by reparation to the extent of the difference between the higher rate applied over the line by which the traffic improperly moved and the lower rate which would have been applied had the freight been properly forwarded. To require this in such a case is only to require the carrier to make just compensation for injury resulting from failure to perform its duty; but to require or permit any other carrier than the one responsible for the misrouting to participate in a refund would be to permit or require departure from its established rates, which is expressly forbidden by law. Moreover, if all the roads composing a through line over which misrouted traffic moves could be lawfully permitted to contribute to such reparation as may be necessary to protect the shipper in his just rights, there would be an ever-present temptation and effective method for the misrouting of traffic for competitive reasons without the previous establishment of competitive rates as contemplated by law for the full information and free use of all shippers without discrimination. An order will be made awarding reparation to complainant in the sum of $1,760.62, said order to run against the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the carrier responsible for the misrouting, without recourse on its part to any other line for any portion thereof. 12 I. C. C. Rep. |