The testimony shows that there is in effect on this commodity from Syracuse, N. Y., and points as far east as Albany, a rate of 42 cents per 100 pounds to East St. Louis. The regular class rate from East St. Louis to Topeka is 89 cents; to Wichita, $1.19; and these combined with the 42-cent rate produce a rate from Syracuse and that group of mill points of $1.31 to Topeka and $1.61 to Wichita. The defendant steamship company, in connection with the defendant railway companies, forms a line from New York by water to Galveston and from Galveston by rail to Wichita and Topeka, as explained in the preceding case; and by this line they meet through New York the rates above mentioned. In so doing they absorb the local rate from Syracuse to New York and apply the Syracuse rate from New York and New York points.

It is evident that these rates upon knit goods from Syracuse are made by the eastern lines and that the defendants simply meet the rates thus established. It is further evident that if knit goods reach the Mississippi River for 42 cents, Topeka, by reason of its much greater proximity, is properly entitled to a lower rate than Wichita. Under these circumstances, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, these defendants do not violate the third or fourth sections of the act by charging a lower rate to Topeka than is charged at Wichita,

Neither do we think it can be said upon the evidence in this record that the rate of $1.61 to Wichita via the defendant lines is unreasonable. The competitive territory in this case is represented by Syracuse, N. Y., distant about 300 miles from the city of New York, and the local rate which these defendants absorb is 35 cents. Knit goods are much more bulky and more expensive to handle and take almost invariably a higher rate than cotton piece goods. The only evidence bearing upon the unreasonableness of this rate is the rate itself and the fact that these defendants transport this commodity through Wichita to Topeka, 189 miles further, for $1.31. It can hardly be said upon that testimony that a rate of $1.61 is excessive for the carriage of these goods from Syracuse to New York by rail, from New York to Galveston by water, and from Galveston to Wichita by rail.

It should be noted that the real question here, as in the preceding case, is upon the differential between Wichita and Topeka. It should also be noted here, as there, that if the rate to Wichita is excessive it is by reason of the fact that the rate from East St. Louis to Wichita is too high. A reduction in this rate would apply to Topeka in the same proportion as to Wichita, and the complainant would not therefore be materially benefited. In the previous case the rate of $1.36 from New York to Wichita on cotton piece goods was undoubtedly

controlled by the Gulf lines, and quite likely the cheapest mode of transporting that commodity from points of origin to Wichita was via Galveston; but in that case the Gulf lines were not made parties. In the present case the rate to Wichita is without question fixed by the eastern lines, and here those lines are not made parties. Any proceeding involving these differentials between Wichita and the Missouri River must embrace both the Gulf lines and the lines from the East, so that all conditions governing the movement of the traffic can be inquired into and so that the necessary parties may be before the Commission for the making of an order.

Two observations should perhaps be made in this connection:

The rate of 42 cents from Syracuse to East St. Louis is a lake-andrail rate, and not therefore available during the season of closed navigation. Strictly speaking, therefore, there is no competitive rate of this kind at either Topeka or Wichita to-day. We are of the opinion, however, that the influence of this rate, which is available for eight months in the year, probably so far extends throughout tho entire year that the defendants may with propriety maintain their rates at all times.

The defendants apply the Syracuse rate to New York and New York points. In fact, the direct rate from New York and the seaboard to both Topeka and Wichita is higher than the rates in question, and it is not therefore literally true that in making these rates from New York City and similar points the defendants are meeting competition, but the testimony shows that knit goods are produced mainly in the group of which Syracuse is representative, and do not move from New York and the seaboard. Should it appear that there was a very considerable movement from territory from which rates to Topeka and Wichita are materially higher the matter might deserve further consideration.

The complaint is dismissed.

12 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 907.

JAMES B. MASON

v.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted January 29, 1907. Decided March 25, 1907.

The Commission is without authority to fix rules or regulations for reciprocal demurrage.

J. C. Leonard for complainant.

E. B. Peirce for defendant.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

CLARK, Commissioner:

Complainant is engaged in farming near Center Point, Iowa, and in the interstate shipment of hay and other farm products. Complainant alleges that in November, 1904, he shipped a carload of baled straw from Center Point, Iowa, to Chicago, Ill.; that he was only able to load 19,230 pounds into the car, but that defendant charged on a minimum carload weight of 24,000 pounds, at a rate of 14 cents per 100 pounds, $33.60, instead of on weight actually loaded, which would have amounted to $26.92, a difference of $6.68, for which reparation is asked; that said minimum carload weight is unjust and unreasonable. It is also alleged that on arrival of car at Chicago defendant exacted from complainant $1 demurrage for delay in unloading the car, for which delay complainant was in no wise at fault, and that although defendant and other railway companies arbitrarily collect demurrage when cars are not promptly unloaded, that when shipments are in possession of defendant and other railway companies for transportation and are in transit an unreasonable time there is no rule or regulation which requires them to pay shippers anything, which lack of reciprocity works great injustice, and that the Commission "should establish a rule or regulation authorizing all receivers of interstate shipments of freight over defendant's line of railway and other lines of railway hauling interstate freight to deduct from the freight charges a reasonable sum per day for each day defendant or defendants retains possession of any interstate shipment for a longer length of time than is required to haul said

shipment from point of consignment to place of destination, after allowing the defendant one hour for every 30 miles from point of consignment to place of destination." Delay in furnishing cars was also alleged.

Complainant prayed for reparation in the above-mentioned sum, and correction of alleged unreasonable minimum carload weight, demurrage charges, and delay in furnishing cars.

The answer denied each and every allegation of the complaint.

On January 19 the complainant's attorney made application to the Commission to require the defendant and the Illinois and Iowa Car Service Association, of Peoria, Ill., to produce voluminous and complicated statements and records, among which were the following:

Third. Produce the book, books, or records or accounts containing the account or accounts of the amount collected on demurrage and the number, billing, bills of lading, or shipping receipts of each car on which the same was collected within the last five years, and the book, books, or records showing each just when such car was billed out at initial point or place received, and when delivered at destination and each car within the last five years.

Fourth. The official time card showing the rate of speed and time of the movement of all the trains of freight, over defendant's line of road, and the road over which each car was hauled while in transit, for which the company has collected demurrage charges within the last five years.

Fifth. The train sheets or record or other record evidence showing the movement of all freight trains, time card trains, or otherwise special freight and regular freight trains within the last five years.

Sixth. Produce the report of each agent, showing the amount of money collected as demurrage charges and for what car, giving name and number of car they received demurrage charges on during the last five years for which they collected demurrage and amount collected.

Seventh. And produce the books and records and billing or shipping receipts and name by whom billed, showing when each of said cars so numbered and named was received at point of receipt, and when said car was actually delivered to the receiver of said car and freight, to whom it was billed or consigned.

In denying this application the Commission stated that it was too broad and that it was not advised of the necessity under the issues made in the case of entering upon an examination of the records of the defendant and the car-service association for so long a period.

Case was set for hearing at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, January 28, 1907. After being so set and before the date for hearing arrived, complainant wired notice of discontinuance of case. Complainant's counsel appeared at Cedar Rapids and stated that unless the Commission had authority to fix rules governing the furnishing of cars and demurrage thereon there was no desire to continue the case simply for the recovery of the small amount of damages claimed. Statement was thereupon made that the Commission had no authority to fix rules and regulations governing reciprocal demurrage, and complaint was withdrawn.

No. 830.

OHSMAN & EFFRON

V.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

Submitted March 14, 1907. Decided March 25, 1907.

This case involves rates on scrap iron, carloads, from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Chicago and East St. Louis, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., as compared with rates to the same destinations from St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn. During the pendency of the proceeding, rates from St. Paul and Minneapolis and from Cedar Rapids were changed, with the result that the rates from those points to Chicago were made the same and the rates to St. Louis were made 20 cents less from Cedar Rapids than from St. Paul and Minneapolis, East St. Louis taking St. Louis rates. Upon complainants' request the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Redmond & Stewart for complainants.

Grimm, Trewin & Robbins for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company.

C. S. Jefferson for Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company.

Blewett Lee for Illinois Central Railroad Company.

S. A. Lynde for Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

CLARK, Commissioner:

Complainants are a copartnership engaged at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in the general junk, hide, and scrap-iron business. Complaint alleged that prior to 1903 the rate on scrap iron from St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn., and intermediate points to Chicago and East St. Louis, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., was $2 per ton; that said rate of $2 per ton was reasonable; that during that year the "St. Paul and Minneapolis Terminal Tariff" established rate of $1.40 per gross ton to Chicago and $1.60 per gross ton to East St. Louis, Ill., and St. Louis, Mo., but that the rate of $2 was still applied from intermediate points,