the product transported; the increased cost of the cars; the increased expense attendant upon the collection and making up of the trains at the different stations; the disarrangement of the other business consequent upon the quickened transit; the expense of ferriage at Jersey City; the expense arising from the use of crowded and costly terminals; the double mileage arising from the fact that the cars are necessarily returned empty; the return and distribution of the baskets free; the fact that the crop is a variable one and of short duration it is considered that the carriers are entitled to greater compensation than they are for other species of traffic where some or all of these qualifying conditions are not present. The foregoing facts show that the rate per basket, or per crate, or per hundred pounds, or per ton, would vary according to the amount loaded in, as well as the capacity of, the car, the rate being the same for a large car as for a small one, on the roads east of Harlem River. One thousand baskets, if carried in one kind of car, would cost the same for transportation over those roads as if but six hundred were carried. On the Pennsylvania Railroad, there was another method of arriving at the rate, which varied according to the length of the car, as above shown. Under these diverse arrangements for this traffic, which was intended to be continuous as to shipment, it is impossible to say just what the cost per crate, or any other unit of shipment of peaches, has been, on the average, because it did not appear just how many crates or tons of the fruit were carried in a car, except in a very few instances. Plainly, the peach trade is of an importance and character to require as much certainty as is practicable, as well for the freight charges as to the time of delivery to the consignees. Transportation arrangements, for the best interests of both. shippers and carriers, should be simple, uniform and definite. The existing practice of having cars of different capacity for this traffic seems to be a good one, but we think there should be a definite price for a car of a given capacity for the whole distance unless loaded beyond the named capacity, and then for the excess a proper increase. It appeared that in the prosecution of this business the companies have apparently withdrawn from their regular service, and fitted up for its accommodation, cars of nine, twelve and fifteen tous capacity, with a tendency during recent years to substitute those of the largest tonnage, and accordingly to prescribe a minimum rate on each kind of cars. There seem to be good reasons, in the case of this special Boston traffic, for making the price per ton less in the larger cars than in the smaller; among which may be mentioned a saving in switching and other terminal expenses, in relative amount of dead weight to tonnage carried, in ferriage, which is the same for the larger as the smaller cars. Where economy results to carriers thereby, they can, as they often do, charge a less amount per ton, where cars of larger capacity are used. If a graduated rate should be prescribed of fourteen dollars per ton for traffic in cars of fifteen tons capacity, of sixteen dollars in cars of twelve tons, and eighteen dollars in cars of nine tons, this would make a carload rate for the fifteen-ton cars of $210, or 3.54 cents per ton per mile, for the twelve-ton cars of $192, or 4.02 cents per ton per mile, and for the cars of nine tons, of $162, or 4.48 cents per ton per mile-an average of 4.01 cents per ton per mile. In making the above computations per ton per mile, the cost of ferriage, of ten dollars per car, is first deducted from the whole rate, and the computation is based on a movement in one direction only. The rate on first class merchandise from Wyoming to Boston is 45 cents per hundred, or 2.389 cents per ton per mile, and the difference between that sum and the average above found, of 1.62 cents per ton per mile, represents the amount of extra compensation allowed to the carriers for the performance of this peculiar special service as compared with first class merchandise in ordinary trains. We think that, taking Wyoming as a shipping point, illustrative of the subject, from which to fix a maximum reasonable rate to govern the traffic of all the defendants, on their business, in carload lots to Boston and Boston points, the carriers engaged in this transportation should adjust their tariffs and charges so that the maximum charge, as to peaches car-, ried in carload lots should be at the rate of fourteen dollars a net ton, in cars of fifteen tons capacity, and at the rate of sixteen dollars a net ton in cars of twelve tons capacity, and at the rate of eighteen dollars a net ton, in cars of nine tons. capacity, and, as to other stations, a greater or less rate, according to their respective distances from Boston, based upon the above maximum charges between Wyoming and that city, this charge to include the cost of ferriage between Jersey City and the Harlem River; and if cars are loaded beyond their specified capacity, a proportionate charge for the excess should be allowed. But for stations beyond Wyoming, the increase shall in no case be greater than the increase specified for those stations in the tariff of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company effective July 15, 1889. HAMILTON & BROWN v. THE CHATTANOOGA, ROME & COLUMBUS RAILROAD COMPANY, THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY. Complaint filed May 22, 1890.-Answers filed June 17, July 5, 1890.-Heard at Chattanooga, Tenn., November 13, 1890.-Briefs filed December 26, 1890-January 16, 1891.-Decided March 19, 1891. 1. The rates on freight from interstate points to Kramer, Georgia, via the Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad, are made by taking the through rate to recognized basing points," and adding thereto that local rate which will give the lowest combination. This method of determining a rate criticised, and, as applied to such traffic to Kramer, operates as an unjust discrimination against that locality. 2. All the carriers participating in the traffic, the rates for which were questioned in this proceeding, were not made parties, and the case, while showing that the through rates were discriminatory and unjust, failed to disclose sufficient facts upon which an accurate decision could be based, and accordingly it was held that the carriers who were parties to the proceeding, be required to adjust their respective tariffs so as to avoid discrimination against Kramer, and that the carriers who were not parties be summoned to appear and show cause why a like order be not issued as to the business in which they participate, unless their tariffs are voluntarily adjusted so as to avoid the discrimination complained of. Adamson & Jackson for complainants. W. M. Brooks for C., R. & C. R. R. Co. REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. VEAZEY, Commissioner: The complaint alleges that the complainants are partners in the mercantile business at Kramer in the state of Georgia; that Kramer is the junction point of the Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad and the Georgia Pacific Railway; that the defendants are common carriers transporting freight between Louisville, Kentucky, and Nashville, Tennessee, respectively, and Kramer, aforesaid, and also some freight which originates at commercial centres of the north destined to that place, and the complainants allege that the rates to Kramer from New York, Boston and Providence, and from Louisville, Evansville and Nashville, are discriminatory and unjust. The answer of the Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad Company substantially admits the allegations of the complaint, except that it denies the charge of discrimination. The answer of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis. Railway Company admits that it has a traffic arrangement with the other defendants, but denies that it discriminates against the complainant, or the village of Kramer, and alleges that it does not participate in business from northern points, but does participate in business from Louisville and Evansville. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company in its answer denies that it discriminates against the complainants or the locality at which they do business, and alleges that it does. not participate in the traffic from the northern points destined to Kramer. The facts established by the evidence are as follows: The defendant the Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad Company, operates a line of railroad from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Carrollton, Georgia; at Chattanooga it has a junction with the railroad of the defendant, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company; this latter railroad connects with the railroad of the defendant the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, at Nashville, Tennessee. The Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad connects at Chattanooga with the railroads of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia system, the Queen and Crescent system, the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company and the Chattanooga & Southern Railroad Company; none of these last-mentioned roads are, however, parties to this proceeding. The railroad of the Chattanooga, Rome and Columbus Rail |