FORMAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

Nineteen formal proceedings have been instituted before the Commission since the last report to Congress. These cases directly involve some of the rates and practices of 63 carriers and 2 telegraph companies. Following is a short statement of the complaints and the provisions of the law claimed to be violated:

589. Unreasonable rates on machinery from Erie, Pa., to Salton, Cal., as compared with rates to Los Angeles, Cal. Reparation claimed. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.

590. Discriminating rates on fruit and vegetables from points in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky to Chicago, Ill., and failure to furnish proper platform and warehouse facilities. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6.

591. Preferential and unreasonable rates on lumber from points on the Pocahontas, Kenova, and Clinch Valley divisions of the Norfolk and Western Railway to New York City. Sections 1, 3, and 4.

592. Refusal to furnish sleeping-car accommodations to a colored passenger from Atlanta to the Georgia State line. Sections 2 and 3. 593. Wrongful classification of hatters' furs and fur scraps and cuttings. Sections 1, 2, and 3.

594. Discriminating rates on coal from West Virginia mines to Chicago, Ill.

595. Discriminating rates on grain and grain products to and from Buffalo and adjacent localities.

596. Failure to furnish cars for shipment of poultry and other products at Collins and Kipton, Ohio, and unreasonable demurrage charge. Sections 2 and 3.

597. Wrongful classification of dressed poultry in carload and less than carload lots; unlawful charge on shipment from Collins, Ohio, to Springfield, Mass., and damage to shipment. Reparation claimed. Sections 1, 2, and 3.

598. Failure to furnish cars for shipment of produce at Hartland, Clarksfield, and Brighton, Ohio, and unreasonable demurrage charge. Sections 2 and 3.

599. Investigation by the Commission in the matter of the transportation of dressed meats and packing-house products from Kansas City, Mo., Omaha, Nebr., and other Missouri River points to Eastern destinations.

600. Discriminating rates on coal from Clarksburg and Fairmont districts, in West Virginia, and Pittsburg district, in Pennsylvania, to Chicago, Ill. Sections 2 and 6.

602. Discrimination through failure to furnish telegraph facilities to a complaining firm of brokers. Case brought under telegraph act of August 7, 1888.

603. Wrongful classification of hay and straw by carriers using the official classification.

604. Unlawful rates on carload shipments of salt in barrels and sacks from Hutchinson, Kans., to Lincoln, Nebr. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.

605. Discriminating rates and practices in respect of grain shipped from Illinois and Missouri points to Vicksburg, Miss., and other destinations.

606. Discriminating rates and practices in respect of grain shipped from points west of the Mississippi River to Vicksburg, Miss., and other destinations.

607. Excessive passenger rate from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Buffalo, N. Y., caused by failure to sell tickets at station and collection of excess fare on train. Sections 1, 2, and 3.

No applications for relief from the operation of the fourth section (long and short haul clause) were filed during the year.

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS.

Hearings and investigations of alleged violations of the act to regulate commerce have been had at general sessions of the Commission at its office in Washington, D. C., and at special sessions held in Chicago, Ill., New York and Buffalo, N. Y.; Boston, Mass.; Kansas City, Mo.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio; Nashville, Tenn.; Los Angelos, Cal., and Denver, Colo. The formal proceedings so heard and investigated involved the following matters:

Investigation in the matter of rates, facilities, and practices applied in the transportation, handling, and storage of grain and grain products carried from Western points to Atlantic seaboard and other Eastern destinations. Rates on fruit and vegetables from points in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky to Chicago, Ill. Investigation in the matter of discriminating rates on coal from West Virginia mines to Chicago, Ill. Freight rates from New York, Cincinnati, Louisville, Evansville, Nashville, and New Orleans to Tifton, Ga., and discrimination based on comparison with rates from such points to Albany, Cordele, Americus, and other Southern points. Rates on buggies and carriages from Chicago, Ill., and Jackson, Mich., to San Bernardino, Cal. Investigation in the matter of the transportation of dressed meats and packing-house products. Investigation in the matter of underbilling and misrepresentation of freight. Rates on lumber from West Virginia and Virginia points to New York City. Classification of hatters' furs and fur scraps and cuttings. Failure to furnish cars for shipments of poultry at Collins and Kipton, Ohio, and demurrage. charge. Classification of dressed poultry in carload and less than carload lots; overcharge on shipment of poultry and delay in shipment, causing damage. Failure to furnish cars for shipments of produce at

Hartland, Clarksfield, and Brighton, Ohio, and demurrage charge. Rates from Gallatin, Tenn., to New York, N. Y., as compared with rates from Nashville, Tenn., to same destination. Differences between carload and less than carload rates from St. Louis and points east thereof to Pacific coast destinations, and higher charges to intermediate than to Pacific coast points. Charge on carload of machinery from Erie, Pa., to Salton, Cal. Coal rates from West Virginia mines to Cincinnati, Ohio. Classification of common soap. Rates in both directions between Denver, Colo., and the Pacific coast, and between Denver and the East. Classification of hay and straw in official classification territory.

CASES SETTLED AND DISCONTINUED.

The following cases have been settled through concession of relief by the carriers or agreement of the parties:

A case arising at Lincoln, Nebr., involving rates on salt from Hutchinson, Kans., which were higher to Lincoln than to Omaha, was settled by the carrier putting the rate to Omaha in force at Lincoln.

In two proceedings instituted by the Commission upon complaint of a grain dealer at Vicksburg, Miss., violations of the act were alleged against a carrier of grain from Illinois points to Vicksburg and a carrier transporting grain from points in Arkansas and adjoining States to Vicksburg. It was claimed in the first case that reconsignment privileges and rates at Cairo, Ill., resulted in unjust discrimination in favor of a grain firm in that city, and in the other case that discriminating rates had been granted by the carrier to a shipper at Little Rock, Ark. The cases were assigned for hearing at Chicago in November of this year, but on being called the complainant announced that a readjustment was under consideration which would satisfy the complaints, and asked that the hearing be indefinitely postponed. An order to that effect was entered.

A case pending before the Commission for about two years, known as the Cincinnati coal case, was assigned for final hearing in October last, but on the day of hearing counsel appeared and notified the Commission that the matters in dispute had been settled, and a stipulation to that effect was subsequently filed. The complainant sought reparation in large amount for damages alleged to have resulted from the exaction of higher rates upon his shipments of coal from West Virginia mines to Cincinnati than had been charged during a stated period to other large shippers of that commodity between the same points. It appeared that the basis of settlement involved the purchase by the carrier of certain property of the complainant in Cincinnati, and as the case arose merely upon the claim of complainant for reparation, no regulation of interest to the public being involved, an order of discontinuance was entered.

Another proceeding, in which damages were claimed by the complainant on account of discrimination in charges applied upon and terminal facilities furnished for shipments of produce from Southern points to Chicago, has apparently been settled by agreement between the parties. The case had been finally heard and submitted, and the decision of the Commission had been prepared, when complainant's counsel appeared before the Commission during a recent session in Chicago, stated that a satisfactory basis of adjustment had been reached, and asked that the case be regarded as suspended.

A coal case originating upon the complaint of a coal operator in Chicago, which alleged unlawful discriminations in rates against him and in favor of his competitors on coal shipped from West Virginia mines to Chicago, was instituted during the year, but settled to the satisfaction of the complainant without the filing of answer by the defendant carrier. While the case has not been finally discontinued the action of the complainant operates to suspend the case indefinitely.

DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

In addition to matters disposed of by preliminary inquiry and general investigation as mentioned elsewhere in this report, decisions in a number of contested cases have been made as follows:

THE DENVER CASE.

In December last the Commission rendered its decision in the case of George J. Kindel and the Denver Chamber of Commerce against various transcontinental lines (8 I. C. C. Rep., 608), a proceeding involving rates on eastbound and westbound traffic to and from Denver, Colo. The complainant first named, a manufacturer of mattresses and spring beds at Denver, alleged that rates, both upon the raw material to Denver and upon the manufactured article from Denver, were too high in themselves and discriminated against him as a manufacturer and against Denver as a manufacturing locality. But in addition to this the complaint charged that freight rates generally from the Missouri River to Denver were higher than from the Missouri River and points east to San Francisco; that rates from Denver to San Francisco were higher than from the Missouri and points east to San Francisco; that rates from San Francisco to Denver were higher than from San Francisco to the Missouri River and points east; that rates from Denver to the Missouri River and points east were higher than from San Francisco. Denver being an intermediate point between San Francisco and the Missouri River, it was alleged that these rates violated the third and fourth sections and, further, that those in force to and from Denver were unreasonable.

After stating the facts and pointing out the rule that in cases of this description the burden of making out the dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions rests upon the carriers, the Commission said:

Treating New York as representing the Eastern seaboard and San Francisco as a type of Pacific coast terminals, there can be no question that water competition does fix the rate between these points. Neither can it be questioned that the effect of this competition would extend for a certain distance from the seaboard into the interior on both coasts. But it can not for a moment be conceded that this competition fixes the Missouri River rate generally. Two facts clearly show this. First, the water rate must increase as we recede from the seaboard. If the Missouri River rate were fixed by that competition, it would be higher than New York, whereas, in fact, we find at the Missouri River, 1,400 miles inland, a rate in no case higher and in many cases lower than obtains at New York. Second, competition, to be controlling, should carry some portion of the traffic, but no traffic moves from the Missouri River to Pacific coast terminals, or vice versa, by sea.

While, however, it can not be said that water competition alone, or in connection with rail carriers, fixes the Missouri River rate to the Pacific coast, it can be said very likely that such competition is the occasion for that rate. Water competition fixes the rate from New York. The desire of Chicago, taking that as representative of the Middle West, to do business in competition with New York, combined with the desire of the rail carrier to transport the commodity to the Pacific coast, operate together to give Chicago the same rate as New York, and it is this combined competition between markets and between carriers which has given to most territory east of the Missouri River a rate as good or better than the water rate from the Atlantic seaboard.

We express no opinion as to what might be proper if transcontinental rail lines simply met the water rate between New York and San Francisco. In meeting that rate such carriers might, with great propriety, urge that they were not voluntary agents; that they simply met a rate made by carriers not subject to the act to regulate commerce; that the city of New York was merely obtaining the rate which its location upon the seaboard gave it. Such is not the question here. The carriers have, in pursuance of their own interests, of course, recognized the desire of Chicago to transact business on the Pacific coast. For that reason they have given to Chicago the same rate, or a better rate, than obtained at New York. Now, having recognized the desire of Chicago, can they refuse to recognize that of Denver? Having moved this line 1,400 miles west to the Missouri River, can they stop there and refuse to move it farther?

We think not. Denver is a city of nearly 150,000 people. It supports manufacturing industries of many kinds. It is the center of a region of the most varied production. It manifests great mercantile activity. It asks the right to do business with the rest of the world upon the same terms as are accorded Chicago, St. Louis, and Kansas City, and we think its request must be regarded.

The carriers insisted that Denver was not injured oy giving Chicago the New York rate and refusing that rate to Denver, for the reason that San Francisco would buy in New York if it did not buy in Chicago, and that it was immaterial to the people of Denver whether they met their competition from the Atlantic seaboard or the Middle West. This, however, could not be affirmed to the fullest extent. Competition between Chicago and New York in the markets of San Francisco undoubtedly forces down the price at the latter point, and it has in