TANK AND BARREL SHIPMENTS OF PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS-Continued. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. The Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. BETWEEN CARRIERS BY WATER.-Several rail carriers engaged in interstate commerce each cross or touch a navigable river leaving a large space of territory along and near the river and between their lines that can be served only by steamboats, and in connection with steamboats these rail carriers carry freight to and receive it from this territory at points where they touch or cross the river respectively, but as to it they make through rates with only one line of steamboats and refuse to make such through rates with other steamboats on the river. Held, That under the law the rail carriers may do this and that it is not unjust discrimination nor unlawful preference. Citing Napier v. The Glasgow and Southwestern Railway Company, 1 Railway and Canal Cases, 292. Capehart & Smith v. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad In such a case all that a steamboat has a right to demand, with which the rail carriers have refused to make through rates and to do through billing, is that the rail carriers shall receive from and deliver to such steamboat freight for transportation at their published local tariff rates. (Ib.) WHEAT AND WHEAT FLOUR.-Upon complaint by millers of Missouri, supported by millers of Kansas, against a differential of 5 cents per 100 pounds, and claiming an equal rate on wheat and flour carried from Missouri and Kansas into Texas, the differential of 5 cents was not found to be unlawful, but it was decided that a differential exceeding 5 cents per 100 pounds is unlawful, but the decision was confined to the territory in question and expressly stated that it was not intended to lay down a permanent rule for the future nor to apply elsewhere. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com- See Facilities of Traffic; Rates; Reasonable Rates; Relative Rates; PATENT MEDICINES.-Upon complaint that patent medicines should be classified the same as ale, beer, and mineral water: Held, That in view of the higher market value of the medicines and the smaller volume of traffic they supply, a higher classification than for the other articles named is not unreasonable. Warner v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company et al. SOAPS.-Upon complaint by a manufacturer of soap, advertised and sold as toilet soap, charging unjust discrimination by classifying his product in the second class with other toilet soaps, and not in the fourth class with laundry soaps, as he claims it should be classed for the reason that his toilet soap is not substantially superior to soap put on the market by certain other manufacturers as laundry soap, which, under that description, is transported at lower rate: Held, That the manufacturer's description of his product for commercial purposes as an article of superior grade and value warrants it sclassification accordingly, and carriers are not required to classify and transport it as a laundry soap. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis BETWEEN LOCALITIES LOCATED ON DIFFERENT DIVISIONS OF CONSOLIDATED LINE. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. PIG IRON; LOCALITIES.—Pig iron is one of the lowest classes of freight, and the rates on that article complained of in this proceeding are not found to be unjust and unreasonable either in themselves, or relatively, as charged petitioner compared with rates from Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio. Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson STEAMBOAT LINES; THROUGH BILLING AND THROUGH RATES. Capehart et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. SURGICAL CHAIRS.-The mere fact that one article is of more general use and therefore shipped in greater quantities than another, when each as a rule is shipped in less than car-load quantities, and of no considerable difference in bulk, weight, and value, and of no appreciable difference in expense of handling and of haul, constitutes in itself no reason why the first should receive a lower rate than the last. In such a case mere quantity, not measured by any recognized unit of quantity adapted to carriage, and lessening the expense of handling and carriage, can not be allowed to affect rates in the transportation of property. Harvard & Co. v. Pennsylvania Company et al. CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS.-After rehearing and reduction by defendants of differential by lowering rate on corn products, the former order was vacated. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. ANTHRACITE AND BITUMINOUS COAL.-Proportionately lower rates for longer hauls. Two roads by agreement carried bituminous coal from the Snow Shoe region in Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, N. J., a distance of about 300 miles, at a higher aggregate, but lower proportionate, rate than was charged by one road on anthracite for the distance over its line, the distance over such line being about 150 miles. Held, that this was no undue preference in favor of the bituminous coal traffic, and subjected anthracite traffic to no unreasonable disadvantage, except as the anthracite charges might be excessive. Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. GROUP RATES.—It is often impracticable to establish different rates on the same commodity from practically the same locality to the same market, and the owners of mines in the Lehigh anthracite region are subjected to no unreasonable disadvantage from the present grouping of mines based on more than actual distance when shipping east and less than actual distance when shipping west. (Ib.) COMPETITIVE COMMODITIES; LOCALITIES.-The provision of the third section of the act to regulate commerce prohibiting carriers from making or giving any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, firm, company, corporation or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, not only applies to relative rates on one description of traffic shipped to or from competing localities, but also to relative rates on differently described articles which are competitive in the same markets; and when carriers have established rates on articles of competitive traffic which are relatively COMPETITIVE COMMODITIES; LOCALITIES.-Continued. reasonable and fair, they can not arbitrarily select particular articles of such traffic and materially raise or lower rates so established thereon without violating that provision of the statute. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. BY PAYMENT OF REBATES THROUGH EXCESSIVE CAR MILEAGE AND YARDAGE CHARGES.—A firm of cattle dealers in the city of New York, who procured their cattle on a large scale from Chicago and other western points for domestic consumption as well as for export, make an arrangement with two interstate rail carriers constituting a through line from Chicago to New York that the said firm will, under the name of an express company of their own creation, furnish not less than 200 or more than 400 improved live-stock cars for the transportation of these cattle. For the rental of these improved stock cars the carriers pay this express company three-quarters of a cent per mile, whether loaded or empty. Extraordinary facilities and rights of way are given these cars to enable them to make a large mileage, and they make more than twice the mileage of ordinary stock cars. Besides this, the carriers pay 50 cents for the loading of each of said cars with cattle at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago, for which no charge is made against the express company or the firm represented by it. In addition to this, the carriers pay this firm yardage at the rate of 3 cents per hundred pounds on all their cattle, and upon all other cattle hauled for other firms in the care of this firm, owning the express company, to its yards at pier 45 East River. This yardage charge is thus paid to the said firm by the said carriers for keeping their cattle in the firm's own yards after delivery of them to the firm, and then this yardage charge is deducted from the tariff rate charged by the carrier. The amount of these rebates to this firm in rates on these cattle by these carriers more than pays the entire cost of the improved stock cars within two years after operations are commenced with them, including the expenses of operation, leaving said firm owning the cars and still operating them with all these advantages and rates and facilities. Held, (1) This is an unlawful preference to the firm owning these improved stock cars and a violation of the act to regulate commerce. is an unlawful and unjust prejudice to other cattle firms and dealers in New York who are competitors in the business of said firm owning said improved stock cars. (2) It Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company et al. SAME RATE FOR LONGER AND SHORTER DISTANCES.-The "blanket rate," as it is called, by which the same rate is charged by the all-rail lines from the city of New York, and from all points in the oil-producing regions in the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, and from all the territory in the United States east of the ninety-seventh meridian of longitude, in the carriage of petroleum and products to San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton, Marysville, San José, Los Angeles, and San Diego, in the State of California, is a rate that has its origin in and is based upon actual competition for the carriage of this large traffic, on the one side, by the all-rail lines, and on the other side, by the lines part rail and part water, and also, in some instances, all-water lines, and also in other instances, part pipe lines and part water lines; and it is a rate of which petitioner has no right to complain as being a violation of the fourth section of the act to regulate commerce, because it does not appear from the evidence that it is a violation of that section. SAME RATE FOR LONGER AND SHORTER DISTANCES.-Continued. Rice v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company et al. Ordinarily longer distances warrant higher charges, but carriers may lawfully accept the same aggregate, though less profitable, rates for longer distances, provided such carriers do not "subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage." James & Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRAFFIC. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. FOOD PRODUCTS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food See Reasonable Rates; Relative Rates; Unjust Discrimination; PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad See Preference or Advantage. PRESUMPTION. FILING OF SCHEDULES RAISES NO PRESUMPTION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF RATES. San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa PROCEEDING. REDUCTION OF RATE DURING PENDENCY. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. BEFORE COMMISSION. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food McMillan & Co. v. Western Classification Committee. IN UNITED STATES COURTS. (Ib.) INSTITUTED BY MERCANTILE SOCIETY.— Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. See Complaint; Concession of Relief. PRODUCERS. Warner v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com pany. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and See Reasonable Rates. PROOF. See Evidence; Burden of Proof. PUBLIC INTEREST. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Šouthern Pacific Company et al. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Rail road Company et al. McMillan & Co. v. Western Classification Committee. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com- Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com- New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and RAILROAD COMPANY. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.— ́ In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food ACCOUNTS OF, WHEN ALSO A MINER AND SHIPPER OF COAL.- OWNER OF CAPITAL STOCK OF COAL COMPANY. SOLVENCY. Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and See Carriers; Reasonable Rates. RAILROAD REGULATION. IN THE STATES. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.— Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. See Interstate Commerce; Interstate Commerce Commission. RAILROADS. CONSOLIDATION OF.— Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. (Ib.) |