because of delay on the part of defendants in agreeing on proper divisions, and in publishing the lower rate.78 If defendants are unable to agree upon the manner of constructing the rates herein ordered, or upon the divisions of such rates, the Commission will enter such supplementary order as may be necessary.79 But, in first instance, how a joint through rate shall be divided is a matter of agreement and bargain between the carriers.80 The doctrine of the Commission is that shippers have no interest in the division of a rate.81 The shipper pays for complete service, and has no concern as to how through charges are divided among carriers.82 § 899. How divisions are determined. The Commission has many times expressed the view that the division received by a carrier as its share of a joint rate is not conclusive evidence of the unreasonableness of the joint rate involved.83 Where divisions are determined by highly competitive conditions, they throw no light on the reasonableness of joint rates.84 If local or individual rates were to be measured by divisions of through rates it would lead to a continuous process of hammering down local rates or withdrawal by carriers from such through routes as yield only a small profit.85 Divisions of through rate furnish no just or fair criterion by which to measure intermediate local rates on the same line of transportation.86 Divisions of joint rates are ordinarily not published and Charges, 28 I. C. C. 390; Oklahoma 78 Williamette Pulp & Paper Co. v. N. P. Ry., 18 I. C. C. 388. 79 Farmers' Co-operative and Educational Union v. G. N. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 406. 80 In re Advances on Barley, 24 I. C. C. 664. 81 In re Advances on Coal, 24 I. C. C. 43; M'frs & Merchants' Ass'n 83 Wichita Board of Trade v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 625. 84 Wichita Board of Trade v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 625. 85 Id., 26 I. C. C. 146. 86 Board of Trade of WinstonSalem v. N. & W. Ry., 16 I. C. C. 12. are subject to change by mutual agreement of carriers.87 A proportional rate is not to be compared with a local rate to show a violation of section 4.88 The divisions of a joint through rate accepted by a carrier cannot be taken as the measure of the reasonableness of its separately established rates.89 The Commission can always require filing of divisions, and a joint rate under agreed divisions definitely fixes lawful earnings of parties to that rate.90 The Commission may look at the several factors in an effort to locate unreasonableness in total charge."1 § 900. Theories of basing divisions. It is generally true that a carrier may reasonably accept less than its local rate as its division of a joint rate.92 In arranging the divisions among the connecting carriers due consideration should be given by the connecting carrier to the surrender by the originating carrier of its right to retain possession of the shipment for the longest possible haul over its own lines, and the division should be agreed upon which will compensate the originating carrier for its sacrifice.93 The fact that the system in question reaches other primary grain markets may fairly be said to give it certain equities in the adjustment of the divisions of any through rates that it may establish under an order of the Commission. The line performing the terminal service is entitled to a greater division than the line relieved of such service.95 Divisions accruing to more distant common or basing points may be accepted as rates to noncompeti 94 87 In re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C. R. 426. 88 In re Lumber Rates, 25 I. C. C. 50. 89 Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 30; Manahan v. N. P. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 95. 90 In re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C. R. 426. 91 People's Fuel & S. Co. v. G. T. W. Ry., 27 I. C. C. 24. 92 Sandstone, Minn.-Missouri River Building Stone Rates, 28 I. C. C. 269. 93 In re Express Rates, 24 I. C. C. 380. 94 Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 460. 95 Waverly Oil Works v. P. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 621. tive points. Divisions in the interior are based on sum of intermediates, but earnings on traffic are not divided east and west of rivers on any such basis, the proportional rate from river crossing to interior point being usually higher than local rate from river to that point.97 The rail carrier's division of joint through rail-and-water rate may well be lower than its just local charges; but if steamships are content to take materially less than at present for their division, that is a substantial reason for reducing the total through charge.98 For example, on railand-water haul from New York via Galveston to Wichita, the rail carrier with a rail mileage of 700 miles was given to two-thirds of the net amount for division, while the water carrier with a water mileage of slightly less than 2,200 miles would be entitled to one-third.99 § 901. Constructive mileage. In the adjustment of interline accounts between carriers an expensive bridge is ordinarily considered as having constructive mileage, and the division of joint rates made upon that basis. In the division of rates between rail and water carriers, one land mile is constructively reckoned as equivalent to two nautical miles north of Cape Hatteras, while to the south of the Cape one land mile is equal to three nautical miles.2 An arbitrary basis of divisions ignores differences in length of haul; mileage prorate basis of divisions divides earnings according to service performed. But certain carriers may be situated so as to command a liberal allowance from its connections in divisions of through rates. Comparisons of divisions re 6 Id., 28 I. C. C. 178. 4 97 Interior Iowa Cities Case, 28 I. C. C. 64. 98 Southwestern Shippers' Traffic Ass'n v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 570. 99 Southwestern Shippers' Traffic Ass'n v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 570. 1 Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R., 22 I. C. C. R. 239. 2 South Atlantic Waste Co. v. S. Ry., 22 I. C. C. R. 293. 3 Stacy & Sons v. O. S. L. R. R., 20 I. C. C. R. 136. 4 Board of Trade of WinstonSalem v. N. & W. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 146. 6 ceived by carriers may be considered in connection with other evidence in determining the reasonableness of a particular rate. But it must be realized that a carrier may deem it good business policy to secure a part of a through haul on a large volume of traffic and to accept a division of the through rate which is much lower than local rates. And also some rates may be under necessity of accepting abnormally low divisions in order to participate in traffic. On the other hand, a carrier may be situated with reference to points of supply and demand, or otherwise, so that it is in a position to command a liberal allowance from its connections in divisions of through rates. 5 Lindsay Bros. v. L. S. & M. Ry., 22 I. C. C. R. 516. 6 New Pittsburg Coal Co. v. H. V. Co., 26 I. C. C. 121. 7 Board of Trade of WinstonSalem v. N. & W. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 146. CHAPTER XIX EQUALITY OF SERVICE § 910. Provisions of the Act. 911. Extension of service facilities. Topic A. Duty to Render Service § 912. General obligation to serve all. 913. Extent of federal supervision. 914. Rulings of the Commission. 915. Different treatment constitutes discrimination. 916 Scope of present jurisdiction. 917. Freight embargo as an excuse. 918. Carrier discriminating against its rivals. 919. Railroad cutting its own rates for itself. Topic B. Provision of Reasonable Facilities § 920. Not required by original Act. 921. Orders concerning freight delivery. 922. Contracts with grain elevators. 923. Arrangements with stockyards. 924. Service at private sidings. 925. Installing switches now under the Act. 926 Basis for ordering switch connection. 927. Any discriminatory treatment forbidden. 328. Establishment of stations. 929. Protection of its terminals. Topic C. Supply of Equipment § 930. Basis of the duty to supply equipment. 936. Carriage through in same car. Topic D. Distribution of Equipment § 938. Discrimination in use of cars. 939. Jurisdiction of the Commission. 940. Order of preference between shippers. |