If the former specific of 12 cents were restored, and the Norfolk & Western proportions reduced 1 cents, the amount of the advances above mentioned, there would be an aggregate reduction of 2 cents in the rate to New York, and it was our judgment that a reduction to that extent should be made.

It is the total charge, however, with which the members of the complaining association are concerned. If that charge is reasonable and relatively just, it must be immaterial to them what shares are received by the several carriers, or upon what principle the apportionment is effected; and if the through rate should be reduced as recommended, we believed that no substantial ground of complaint would remain.

We said, in conclusion, that it was well known that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company now owns or controls all three of its codefendants in this proceeding, and whatever difficulties might be involved in readjusting the rates in question, if these lines remained independent and competitive, had apparently been removed by this unified and single control.

UNREASONABLE RATES ON COAL.

A case of some importance, entitled McGrew v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company (8 I. C. C. Rep., 630), was decided in February last. The complainant, who owned and operated a coal mine at Myrick, Mo., contended that the defendant carrier charged unreasonable rates upon his product and discriminated against his mine in favor of mines owned by the carrier. He asked reparation for damage already sustained and an order directing the carrier to cease and desist from such illegal practices in the future.

The defendant's mines were located at Rich Hill, Mo. The rates in question were those from complainant's mine to points in Kansas and Nebraska. The contention of the complainant that the carrier's rates on coal from Myrick to Kansas City, Atchison and points north and west were inherently unreasonable was not sustained, as the record contained no evidence upon which the question could be intelligently considered.

Myrick and Rich Hill, Mo., are located on different branches of the defendant carrier's system, and Myrick is 43 miles nearer than Rich Hill to all points on the carrier's lines in Kansas and Nebraska, terminating at Hoxie, Lenora, and Smith Center, Kans., and Prosser, Crete, Lincoln, and Omaha, Nebr. The defendant's rates on coal from Myrick were 15 cents per ton lower than from Rich Hill to Kansas City and Atchison, but beyond Atchison to numerous points on the carrier's Kansas and Nebraska lines this differential disappeared, and in many cases lower rates were in force from Rich Hill than from Myrick. The Commission held that complainant's demand for a differential north and west of Atchison, as well as to Atchison and points

south thereof, should be sustained to the extent of a differential of 10 cents in favor of Myrick as far north as Nebraska City Junction and as far west as Greenleaf, Kans., and of 5 cents beyond such points to the termini of defendant's lines.

The carrier contended that as coal from its mines at Rich Hill has less value for domestic purposes than Myrick coal it might equalize such difference in value by making a lower rate on Rich Hill coal. The complainant's cost of mining at Myrick was nearly 50 cents a ton more than it cost defendant to mine at Rich Hill. We held that there was in fact no such difference in value as to justify the carrier's rate adjustment in favor of Rich Hill; that if difference in quality is to be equalized in favor of the carrier the question arises why should not difference in cost of mining be equalized in favor of the complainant; that if any such process of equalization was permissible the carrier might absolutely dictate the comparative value of every mine and industry upon its road; and that such rates should be examined with closest scrutiny when resorted to by the carrier in its own favor.

The defendant carrier classified its Rich Hill coal as soft or lump coal and "mine run, nut, mill, and slack," the former being used for domestic consumption and the latter for steam purposes. The two kinds of coal are entirely distinct in their use, and the latter does not compete with the product of complainant's mine, which is all lump coal. The Commission held that the carrier might properly make this distinction in classification and apply a lower rate to steam coal, and that the complainant was not damaged by failure of the defendant to publish a rate upon mine run, nut, mill, and slack from Myrick, since the Myrick mine produced nothing which could be shipped under that

name.

The carrier, owning most of the mines upon its system, was engaged both in mining and transporting coal to market, and it was a matter of entire indifference to it whether a profit accrued from the mining or from the transportation; it might so adjust its rates that the mining of its coal would be conducted at a loss, the profit being derived from the carriage, and in that event every coal operator upon its line paying such rates must do business at a loss. The Commission said that the only remedy available in such case to the independent operator is to secure to him a reasonable rate.

While it is true that the remedy by way of damages for unlawful rates is utterly inadequate and inconsistent, it is apparently the remedy prescribed by the act to regulate commerce and the only remedy which the shipper has against the exaction of an unreasonable interstate rate.

In this case the carrier was required to readjust its rates upon the basis indicated in the decision and to pay the complainant, by way of reparation, the sum of $999.10, with interest from the date when the complaint was filed.

THE BROOKLYN HAY CASE.

In the case of Palmer's Dock, Hay and Produce Board of Trade, of Brooklyn, N. Y., against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company (9 I. C. C. Rep., 61) the charge of unlawful conduct was based upon the refusal of the defendant carrier to continue the delivery of hay in carload shipments at its freight station in Brooklyn after making such delivery at that station for a period of years.

Transportation between defendant's terminal in Brooklyn and its rail terminus in Jersey City is effected by water carriage across New York Harbor. The action of the carrier in discontinuing “track delivery" for hay in carloads at its station in Brooklyn, though it continued to make such delivery for other carload traffic, was taken to relieve a state of chronic congestion at that station, resulting largely from consignments of hay thereto. It appeared that it still continued delivering carload hay alongside wharves in Brooklyn, as it did at other points within the lighterage district of New York. The facilities for hay delivery were shown to be the same as they were before the Brooklyn station was opened, and there was no evidence of material injury to hay dealers because the carriage of hay to the Brooklyn station had been discontinued. The Commission said a carrier is not in every case under legal compulsion to furnish the same terminal facilities for all descriptions of traffic; that it is sufficient if reasonable provision is made in this regard, and what is reasonable in a given instance depends. largely upon the conditions and surroundings of the particular locality. In such circumstances as were disclosed in this case the needs of the general public must be considered and the carrier's action adapted to the best practicable discharge of its public obligations. The rule of the greatest good to the greatest number fairly applies. If all could not be provided with desired facilities, the plan or method adopted should be the one affording the largest public accommodation with the smallest amount of individual hardship. This, we thought, had been done in this case. The carrier was entitled to exercise an honest discretion, and we saw no reason for disapproving the course it had pursued. The resulting discrimination against the article of carload hay was not, in our opinion, "unjust" within the meaning of the act, and as no violation of the regulating statute had been shown the complaint was dismissed.

DISCRIMINATION IN RATES FOR HAULING PRIVATE CARS.

The case of Carr v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, decided during the year (9 I. C. C. Rep., 1), presented a novel question of discrimination. The complainant, a commercial salesman, traveled with his assistant over the defendant transcontinental line in a private car stocked with samples of men's clothing and furnishings. For the

first trip the car was transported from point to point, as complainant required, for 15 round-trip fares between St. Paul, Minn., and Portland, Oreg., but defendant's charge for subsequent trips was 15 local fares from point to point where stoppages were made by the complainant for business purposes. The complainant alleged this higher charge to be unreasonable and also wrongfully discriminating as compared with the lower rate of 15 round-trip fares usually granted to pleasure, theatrical and other parties in private cars. While there was no substantial difference in cost to the carrier in transporting complainant's car and cars used by theatrical or other parties, the dissimilarity in the nature and value of the two services was marked and the benefit accruing to the complainant exceptional. He used in all cases the property of the carrier, its side tracks and station yards, for transacting his business, and his occupation was such that he derived advantages peculiar to himself which were not available to other owners of private cars. The defendant carrier claimed not to be a common carrier of private cars, and that it might transport some cars and refuse to transport others as and when it saw fit.

The Commission said that the regulating statute is opposed to every species of favoritism and seeks to secure like treatment for all persons in like relations to the carrier. The defendant might lawfully decline to haul private cars at all, or it might haul private cars of one class and refuse to haul others of a wholly different class; but if it should transport private cars of any class, it must in like manner and upon like terms transport all private cars occupied for the same or similar purposes.

Where the differences in cost or character of service are substantial, either in the work performed by the carrier or in its utility and value to the person served, a fair relation of rates, it was held, meets the carrier's obligation.

It was further ruled that, in comparison with the private-car service more or less frequently performed by the carrier for pleasure seekers and theatrical companies, the service demanded by the complainant was dissimilar and unusual to such a degree that to require from him. greater compensation, or to refuse his car altogether, would not subject him to unlawful discrimination or disadvantage.

In determining whether it would in any case transport complainant's car or others of that class we said that the defendant might properly take into account the effect of the practice upon the interests and localities it serves, but that the right of the complainant to have his car hauled did not depend upon the wishes of his business rivals, nor could the compensation to be paid by him be justly conditioned upon the routing of his freight traffic.

Rates may be fair and reasonable for the service rendered, and, from the carrier's standpoint, justly related to other charges; and yet

if a low rate is granted upon conditions with which only a few can comply (e. g., a charge below the ordinary carload rates for shipments of a hundred or a thousand carloads), that rate is presumably unfair and wrongfully prejudicial to all other shippers of like traffic, because they are practically unable to meet the terms upon which it is offered. This principle, the Commission said, may properly be considered with reference to the class of cars employed by the complainant, which only a limited number of dealers can afford to use for reaching their customers and exhibiting their wares. In the competitive struggle to supply consuming markets neither contestant should be favored through the facilities furnished or the rates enforced by public carriers. This, we said, is at once the aim of the law and the requirement of relative justice.

It appeared that the carrier had neglected to publish and file its rates and regulations for the movement of private cars, certain kinds of which were more or less frequently handled over its line. This was held to be a neglect of legal duty on the part of the defendant carrier.

UNJUST CLASSIFICATION OF FURS.

In Myer v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company and others, decided in November (9 I. C. C. Rep., 78), the complainant, a manufacturer of hats, alleged that hatters' furs and fur scraps and cuttings were wrongfully classified by the defendants as freights taking double first-class rates. He insisted that hatters' furs should be classified as first class and fur scraps and cuttings as second class.

It appeared from the facts that hatters' furs and fur scraps and cuttings are offered for transportation in packages not bulky, but of convenient size; that their value is not great; that they are not liable to be lost or damaged in transit and that the first class of the official classification enforced by the defendant carriers contains hardly any article so desirable for traffic as they are; yet they classified these commodities as double first class. For manufacturing purposes these raw materials are competitive with hats, the finished product. The complainant, located at Wabash, Ind., appeared to be the only manufacturer of hats west of Atlantic seaboard territory, most of his competitors being located in the vicinity of New York, from whence supplies of hatters' furs and fur scraps and cuttings are almost entirely drawn. The difference in freight rates operated to damage the complainant in his competition in Western territory with the Eastern manufacturers to the extent of about $1,000 a year. The Commission held that manifestly in determining what freight rate shall be borne by different commodities an attempt should be made to maintain a fair relation between those commodities, and that a classification which