to furnish cars to shippers, this Commission should also be empowered to make rules under which free interchange of cars shall be effected or to require railroads engaging in interstate commerce to make such rules for their own protection and provide for their enforcement.

Throughout this inquiry the thought has repeatedly suggested itself that many of the problems presented must rest for their solution in the character and intelligence of the railroad managers—their foresight, initiative, adaptability, and public spirit. If it be true, as railroad men have said, that the railroads have not kept pace with the growth of the country, it must be remembered that it is within the right of a private enterprise to restrict its obligations to its known capacity without becoming subject to the slightest criticism, whereas the measure of a common carrier's obligations is undetermined and without limitation save in the demand of the public for transportation. Whatever of criticism, therefore, is to be expressed should in justice be tempered by a consciousness of the novel and perhaps unparalleled difficulties which the problem of American railroad transportation to-day presents.

This demand, however, the shipping and producing public is certainly justified in making-that every railroad shall do its utmost, not alone in and of itself, but by community of action with other roads, to render the service which is imperatively needed, and shall act in supreme good faith in endeavoring to organize and equip itself for such service. Methods which were sufficient to fully meet the needs of the largely localized traffic of a few years since are at this time properly subject to reexamination. Policies which hitherto have sufficed, if found satisfactory to the most exacting of stockholders, should now be reconsidered with respect to the requirements of new conditions and much broader considerations. The most conservative critic must hold that proper coordination of departments within individual roads and intelligent cooperation between independent roads, within entirely lawful lines, would leave far less foundation for criticism of car service than may at present be justly made.

HARLAN, Commissioner:

Little need be added to what is said by Commissioner Lane in his report on the car-shortage investigation. The evidence adduced before us at Minneapolis and Chicago clearly established these facts:

1. The inability of the carriers in the Northwest and in some other parts of the country to move the traffic ready for shipment not only results in financial loss to the particular shipper, but is reflected back in some cases to the business and prosperity of entire communities. In individual cases the loss thus suffered is substantial and often severe and the aggregate must be very large.

2. The railroad companies in order to meet the demands of increased traffic are making huge expenditures of money for additions to their car and locomotive equipment, the enlargement of their terminal facilities, and the extension of their trackage.

3. The evidence seems to amount to a demonstration that there can and ought to be improvement in the car service and in the operation of terminals. It was conceded both by the railroad men and by the shippers who came before us that cars are constantly used by shippers as warehouses, and that the time allowed to shippers for loading and unloading is in excess of real necessity and to some extent is responsible for the congestion at terminals and the consequent car shortage at points on the line. There was evidence offered at Chicago tending to show that the reconsignment privilege granted by the carriers to coal dealers is often abused. It was agreed by the shippers as well as by the railroad men that these privileges should be curtailed.

4. It is reasonably clear that there can be immediate improvement in the switching of cars in and out of terminals. The delay of many days in setting a car at the unloading point and in getting the loaded car out of the switching district and on its way to destination is often not only unexplained, but apparently inexcusable.

Reform in most of these matters lies wholly in the hands of the railroad companies and the shippers themselves. Possibly if more extensive powers were lodged in the Commission in dealing with terminal conditions it might result advantageously.

The efficacy of the proposed reciprocal demurrage legislation was not satisfactorily demonstrated by the witnesses who appeared before us. In my judgment, such a measure ought to have very full consideration before being enacted. It seems not improbable that if the railroads are penalized by Federal legislation for failing to supply cars for interstate commerce, the local commerce of the States in times of stress may be wholly neglected by the carriers in order to avoid such penalties, unless the Federal legislation is promptly followed by State legislation of the same nature. Such legislation without providing also for the compulsory interchange of cars would tend to compel carriers to keep all their cars on their own tracks in order to avoid demurrage penalties, and thus break up the advantages now enjoyed by shippers of through transportation. Some railroad men. of prominence appearing before us seemed to think that the more effective regulation of the interchange of cars by carriers would of itself go far toward remedying the present car shortage. There seem to be strong reasons for thinking that the proposed car pool or car clearing house would result in a more effective car service. If some such adjustment can not be reached by the companies themselves, it may be that legislation will become desirable and necessary.

12 I. C. C. Rep.

CASES DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMISSION WITHOUT REPORT

DURING THE TIME COVERED BY THIS VOLUME.

431. FULLER E. CALLAWAY v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of the fourth section. Fuller E. Callaway for complainant. Ed. Baxter for defendants. October 8, 1907. Dismissed on motion of complainant.

654. LA GRANGE BOARD OF TRADE v. CLYDE STEAMSHIP COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 3, and 4 in transportation of freight from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore to La Grange, Ga. Fuller E. Callaway for complainant. J. D. Campbell, Francis I. Gowen, George V. Massey, F. A. Farnham, Ed. Baxter, and Hugh L. Bond for defendants. October 9, 1907. Dismissed on motion of complainant.

689. E. P. THOMAS v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY.-Violation of sections 2, 3, and 4 in rates on freight from Hanford, Cal., to points in other states east of California. E. P. Thomas for complainant. E. D. Kenna and Robert Dunlap for defendant. November 27, 1907. Dismissed for want of prosecution.

734. George D. HENRY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.-Violation of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in rates on shelled corn from Amity, Mo., to Postville, Iowa. George D. Henry for complainant. W. T. Rankin and Carroll Wright for defendant. January 23, 1907. Dismissed; complaint satisfied.

737. KINSELLA GRAIN COMPANY v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 in rates on combined shipments of corn and oats from Blairstown, Iowa, to Chicago, Ill., and also from Colon, Nebr., to East Clinton, Ill. W. E. Kinsella for complainant. Lloyd W. Bowers and J. H. Krebs for defendants. November 13, 1906. Dismissed for want of prosecution.

775. CENTRAL GRAIN TRADE ASSOCIATION v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in rates on grain intended for export from Peabody, McPherson, Hutchinson, Wichita, Wellington, Newton, Florence, Winfield, and Arkansas City, Kans., to Galveston, Gainesville, and Fort Worth, Tex. William Finn for complainant. E. D. Kenna, Robert Dunlap, and M. A. Low for defendants. November 1, 1906. Dismissed on motion of complainant.

781. J. E. SCHMITTLE & COMPANY V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COмPANY.-Violation of sections 2, 3, and 6 in rates on coal from Glasgow, Pa., to points in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts and other New England States. W. L. Snyder and John M. Snyder for complainant. Francis I. Gowen for defendant. November 1, 1906. Complaint satisfied; dismissed on motion of complainant.

786. D. W. DURHAM v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.Violation of sections 1, 3, and 4 in rates on brick machinery from Lochland, Ky., to East St. Louis, Ill. D. W. Durham for complainant. J. M. Dickinson for defendant. November 15, 1906. Dis

missed, to file complaint under new law. (See 934.)

818. COMMERCIAL CLUB OF SANTA BARBARA, CAL., v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in rates on butter, eggs, cheese, dressed poultry, beef, grain, flour, and coal from Kansas City and Chicago to Santa Barbara, Cal. C. M. Gidney for complainant. W. R. Kelley, Gardiner Lathrop, Robert Dunlap, William F. Herrin, P. F. Dunne, and C. N. Clark for defendants. November 13, 1906. Dismissed, on motion of complainant, to file complaint under new law. (See 931.)

819. CHANNEL COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 in rates on coal, corn, flour, and canned goods from Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago to San Buena Ventura, Cal. Barnes & Selby for complainant. W. W. Weldon, William F. Herrin, W. R. Kelley, C. W. Waterman, P. F. Dunne, Gardiner Lathrop, and Robert Dunlap for defendants. November 13, 1906. Dismissed, on motion of complainant, to file complaint under new law. (See 925.)

843. MARSHALL OIL COMPANY v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 in rates on petroleum and its products from Warren, Titusville, Oil City, and Pittsburg, Pa., to Peoria, Ill. L. R. Willard and G. H. Ruth for complainants. John G. Wilson, H. L. Bond, J. J. Brooks, A. P. Burgwin, George C. Greene, and George V. Massey for defendants. November 1, 1906. Dismissed on motion of complainant.

844. MARSHALL OIL COMPANY v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.-Violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 in rates on petroleum in barrels, half barrels, cases, and half cases from points in Iowa and Nebraska to points in Minnesota, Kansas, and North and South Dakota. L. R. Willard and G. H. Ruth for complainant. W. R. Kelly, George W. Seevers, John Dille, Burton Hanson, R. A. Jackson, M. T. Rankin, and S. A. Lynde for defendants. November 1, 1906. Dismissed on motion of complainant.