WOOLLEY, Commissioner: Except for certain minor corrections, the above report is as proposed by the examiner who heard the evidence in the case. Subsequent to its service upon the parties, but prior to the argument the complaint was amended to include the Director General of Railroads as a defendant. That official requested no further hearing in the case. At the argument it was urged by counsel for the complainants that the inspection which it is proposed to require would not disclose all cases of damage and that shippers should be permitted to inspect, prior to acceptance, at least ten cases out of every shipment. An examination of the record shows that while the necessity for such inspection was claimed at the hearing the evidence offered did not show it. The records of Swift & Company and of the Beatrice Creamery Company for stated periods show that claims for damage in transit were presented in connection with less than one egg shipment in ten, and the testimony of all of the shippers, of whom there were many, leads to the conclusion that the application of the inspection rules proposed in the above report would disclose all but a small percentage of the damage occurring in transit. On the other hand it was shown clearly that inspection of ten cases out of every shipment would result in serious congestion and delay in delivery at the different receiving points in New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston, and possibly at other places. The three cities named are such important markets for eggs that the conditions there existing can not be disregarded. It was contended by counsel for the defendants that the establishment of the rules proposed by the examiner would result in inspection in many instances in which no damage caused by the carriers would be disclosed. Any rules even approximately fair to the shippers would have that effect, owing to the nature of the commodity and of its transportation, and in our opinion the rules proposed as nearly fit the conditions and circumstances of the case as any that can be devised at this time. It is our opinion, and we so find, that the conclusions proposed in the above report are warranted by the record in the case, and we therefore adopt the report as the report of the Commission. Nothing therein contained precludes the carriers, by appropriate tariff rule, from requiring a disclosure by shippers of the condition of the shipments when offered for transportation. Should application of the rules prescribed be found unsatisfactory or should the rules prove in any respect inapplicable to future conditions, the matter may be brought to our attention for such further action as the circumstances warrant. An appropriate order will be entered. No. 9052. LEHIGH VALLEY COAL SALES COMPANY ย. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY. Submitted May 14, 1917. Decided January 7, 1919. Following Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co. v. R. R. Co., 46 I. C. C., 506, 49 I. C. C., 203, claims for reparation on anthracite coal, in carloads, from points on the Lehigh Valley Railroad in the Wyoming, Lehigh, and Schuylkill anthracite coal regions in Pennsylvania, to certain interstate points on the Lehigh Valley Railroad denied. Complaint dismissed. Nicholas W. Hacker for complainant. Stewart C. Pratt and E. H. Boles for defendant. By the COMMISSION: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. The complainant herein seeks reparation for alleged unreasonable rates charged by defendant on anthracite coal, in carloads, shipped between May 1, 1914, and April 1, 1916, from points in the Wyoming, Lehigh, and Schuylkill regions in Pennsylvania to points in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Some of the shipments to points in Pennsylvania moved over intrastate routes, and therefore are not within our jurisdiction. In Rates for Transportation of Anthracite Coal, 35 I. C. C., 220, hereinafter termed the Anthracite Case, we found that the rates then in effect on anthracite coal, in carloads, from points in the Wyoming, Lehigh, and Schuylkill regions in Pennsylvania to many interstate destinations, including tidewater points, were unreasonable, and prescribed reasonable maximum rates for the future. The new rates became effective April 1, 1916. Prior to that date the complainant made numerous shipments of anthracite coal over defendant's lines from points in the Wyoming, Lehigh, and Schuylkill regions to tidewater for transshipment by water, and to interior points, and paid the rates found to be unreasonable in the Anthracite Case. It is contended that the rates charged prior to April 1, 1916, were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the rates found reasonable in the Anthracite Case. The same question as to reparation was before us in Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co. v. R. R. Co., 46 I. C. C., 506; 49 I. C. C., 203, wherein we denied reparation. Following that case, and for the reasons stated therein, reparation is denied here. An order dismissing the complaint will be entered. Submitted November 25, 1918. Decided January 2, 1919. Complaint alleging rates and regulations applied to the transportation of grain from points in central freight association territory and in the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia to Toms Brook, Edinburg, New Market, Broadway, Linville, Harrisonburg, Bowling, and Staunton, Va., for milling and shipment of the products to points in Carolina territory, to be unreasonable and unduly prejudicial, dismissed. J. A. Henderson and W. Jett Lauck for complainants. R. Walton Moore, Merrel P. Callaway, and Charles D. Drayton for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company and others. A. J. Anderson for Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS CLARK, DANIELS, AND WOOLLEY. As shown on the accompanying map, a branch line of the Southern Railway extends from Manassas, Va., through Strasburg Junction, Toms Brook, Edinburg, New Market, Broadway, and Linville, Va., to Harrisonburg, Va., and connects at the latter point with a line of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad which extends in a southwesterly direction from Harrisonburg through Bowling and Staunton, Va., to Lexington, Va. In this proceeding millers of wheat located at Toms Brook, Edinburg, New Market, Broadway, Linville, Harrisonburg, Bowling, and Staunton, hereinafter collectively termed the complaining milling points, bring in issue the rates and regulations on grain shipped from points in central freight association territory and also from points in the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia, hereinafter termed the eastern points, to the complaining milling points, milled there, and the products shipped to destinations in Carolina territory. It is alleged that the present rates and regulations are unreasonable and also unduly prejudicial to complainants in favor of their competitors at Lynch 1. That * * Railway between Strasburg Junction and Harrisonburg, Va., including the when milled at the mills of your petitioners at points on the Southern on grain from points in central freight association territory points. The prayers of the complaint are: burg, Va., and other specified Virginia and North Carolina milling latter point, and at Bowling, Va. when the manufactured product is reshipped to Carolina territory, that the route via Harrisonburg, Staunton, and Charlottesville, Va., and the Southern Railway and connections be established on the basis of the grain rate to Virginia cities plus the grain product rate outbound * * and when moving back through Strasburg Junction, Va., and the Southern Railway that the same basis of rates apply, plus 1 cent per 100 pounds penalty for backhauling to Strasburg Junction, Va. 2. That on grain originating in the east and interior east via Potomac Yards or Strasburg Junction, Va., and milled in transit into grain products and reshipped to Carolina territory that the route through Staunton and Charlottesville, Va., be established and that the rate applicable on grain products be protected from the origin of the grain to the ultimate destination of the grain product * * * moving 3. That when grain moves from the east and interior east to the mills of your petitioners located on the Southern Railway between Strasburg Junction and Harrisonburg, Va., including Harrisonburg, Va., to be converted into grain products and the grain products moved to Carolina territory via Strasburg Junction and the Southern Railway, that the rates on the manufactured products be protected from the origin of the grain to ultimate destination of the product, plus a penalty for backhauling of 1 cent per 100 pounds. 4. That at Staunton, Va., should the grain from the east and interior east move via Potomac Yards, Va., and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway or via Hagerstown, Md., or Martinsburg, W. Va., and Basic, Va., that the rate applicable on the grain products from the origin of the grain to the ultimate destination of the manufactured product be protected, plus 1 cent per 100 pounds to cover the back haul to Charlottesville, Va. 5. That rates on grain products be ordered published by such lines as at present may not have through rates from the east and west via the routes specified in this petition, the rates to be the same as are now operative via other routes. All of the evidence submitted relates to rates on wheat and flour. Rates herein are stated in cents per 100 pounds, and the rates shown as being now in effect are the rates that were applicable at the time of the hearing. The production of wheat in the territory surrounding the complaining mills is relatively light and complainants draw most of their wheat from other territories. The mills on the Harrisonburg branch draw from both central freight association and eastern territories; the mills at Staunton and Bowling principally from central freight association territory. The mills of complainants have a capacity of approximately 2,000 barrels of flour per day; their daily output is approximately 1,500 barrels. Most of this flour is sold in Carolina territory where sharp competition is met from mills in the Virginia cities and the Carolinas. Complainants testified that they can not reach markets in other sections because of unfavorable rate adjustments. It was also testified that the complaining mills are not being operated to their full capacity because of the inability of complainants to find a market for all the flour they can produce. Complainants feel that under the adjustments here asked they could 125348°-19-VOL 52- -5 |