MANUFACTURERS' DESCRIPTION.-Continued. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Beaver & Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway FOOD PRODUCTS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food PIG IRON FROM DIFFERENT MILLS.-Rates charged petitioner by the defendants on pig iron are in themselves, as well as relatively, the same in substance as rates charged other manufacturers of pig iron at the producing furnaces in the State of New York. Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson The cost of the production of pig iron at a furnace situated like that of petitioner on the Hudson River in the State of New York is much greatet than at Youngstown, Ohio, or Birmingham, Ala., or at other points in the West and South; and while the aggregate rate charged petitioner to New England mills is a great deal lower than the aggregate rate charged on these Western and Southern irons ta the same mills, yet it is not sufficiently so to overcome the difference in the cost of production and the consequence is that petitioner finds itself at a serious disadvantage in competing with these Western and Southern irons in the markets and mills of the New England States where there is a very great demand for this class of property. (Ib.) The Commission has no power and authority in this proceeding to order other carriers not parties to this proceeding to raise their rates on pig iron transported from Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio, to New England points in order to overcome the difference in the cost of production of pig iron now existing against petitioner; nor would the Commission enter upon the consideration of any such subject in a proceeding to which such carriers were not parties and in which such localities sought to be burdened with higher rates; for example, Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio, had no opportunity to be heard; and the findings of fact in the present proceeding, which show that the rates already charged petitioner by the defendants are in themselves, as well as relatively, just and reasonable rates, demonstrate that the Commission could not order the defendants to lower these rates from Poughkeepsie to all points on the Boston and Albany road one-half, and Holyoke nearly one-half, in order to overcome the difference in the cost of production of pig iron now existing against petitianer. (Ib.) COMPETITIVE ARTICLES-HOGS AND HOG PRODUCT.-As articles of commerce the live hog and its product are in direct competition with each other at the points named in this proceeding and in the chief markets of the country, and are entitled to rates not only reasonable and just in themselves, but relatively reasonable and just in their bearing upon these different localities. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago . Chicago and Alton ON COMPETITIVE ARTICLES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED WITH REFERENCE TO COST OF SERVICE-HOGS AND HOG PRODUCT.-The relation of rates ought to rest upon fixed and stable conditions. The fluctuations of markets are so ON COMPETITIVE ARTICLES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED WITH REFERENCE TO COST OF SERVICE-HOGS AND HOG PRODUCT.-Continued. frequent, especially as to competitive articles, and oftentimes unexpected, that commercial considerations alone would not furnish a sufficiently stable and fixed rule for guidance in making a rate that should remain substantially permanent through all fluctuations. The Commission does not, by a fixing of rates, attempt to overcome advantages which one producer or dealer may have in his geographical location, and to produce equality between competitors in all markets. It would be a useless task, even if it had the power, to attempt to accomplish such a result. The proper relation of rates for transportation of strictly competitive articles over the same line should be determined by reference to respective costs of service ascertained with reasonable accuracy. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. Violation by one carrier of principles laid down in this case as governing relative rates on competitive articles does not justify similar violations by its competitors. (Ib.) The rates involved in this case are those on live hogs, live cattle, and the dressed products of each. These are found to be competitive commodities, and therefore entitled to relatively reasonable rates for transportation proportioned to each other according to the respective costs of service. (Ib.) CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. WHEAT AND FLOUR.-LOCALITIES. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company et al. COAL AND OTHER LOW-GRADE FREIGHT.-COAL AND GENERAL FREIGHT.—A railroad company had in force for a period of more than two years next before the act to regulate commerce took effect a scale of charges on anthracite coal considerably lower than its present rates, which are higher on coal than on iron ore, pig iron, and other low-grade freight, and also higher than the charges of said road on general freight, the expense of carrying which is much greater than the expense on coal. Held, That such higher rates on coal are unreasonable. Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. PERISHABLE AND ORDINARY FREIGHT. Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad Company et al. Boston Fruit and Prodoce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company. See Reasonable Rates; Preference or Advantage; Unjust Discrimination; Long and Short Haul Clause; Classification; Carriers REPARATION. AWARDED BY COMMISSION. Railroad Commission of Florida v. Savannah, Florida and Western Railway Company et al. Lehmann, Higginson & Co., v. Texas and Pacific Railway Company et al. REMOVAL OF QUESTION TO THE COURTS.-The question whether rates paid ought to be refunded having been presented to a judicial tribunal where it is now pending, the Commission will not take cognizance of it. Bishop v. Duvai, receiver, etc. Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc. IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.-The amendment of March 2, 1889, expressly provides that it shall have no application to pending proceedings, and as this proceeding was pending at the time no reparation can be awarded, and the remedy of the petitioner is in the courts. Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Company. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THROUGH AND LOCAL RATES.-Where a carrier not subject to the act to regulate commerce, for example, a steamboat plying the Tennessee River between Decatur, Alabama, and Bridgeport, in the same State, has applied to rail carriers engaged in interstate commerce for through rates and through billing of freight and has been refused these, and during a period of several years has paid these rail carriers their local published tariff rates on freight, and now sues to recover the difference between the amount so paid on the local rates and the proportion of the through rate between the same points covered by the local rates: Held, That no recovery can be had in such a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the complain is dismissed without prejudice. Capehart & Smith v. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. WHEN MADE NO ORDER WILL BE ISSUED. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, New Orleans and In re Procedure in Cases at Issue. NOT NECESSARY TO BE FILED. Oregon Short Line v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company. RESHIPMENT OF FREIGHTS. AFTER TRANSPORTATION TO POINT OF SALE. James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company et al. UNDER THROUGH BILLS. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. See Long and Short Haul Clause; Through Shipments; Through and Local Rates; Rates; Reasonable Rates. RETURN LOADS. FOR EMPTY CARS.-Exception to the fourth section is not justified by the fact that the lumber business of the roads of a connecting line or any of them was done in cars which carried machinery to the longer distance point when profitable return loads were not always to be had. James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company. FOR EMPTY CARS.-Continued. Lehmann, Higginson & Company . Southern Pacific Company et al. See Cars: Long and Short Haul Clause. RIGHTS OF WAY. TO PRIVATE LIVE STOCK CARS. Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad See Preference or Advantage. ROUTING OF FREIGHT. RIGHTS OF SHIPPERS AND DUTIES OF CARRIERS IN REGARD TO.— SALTED HIDES AND PELTS. McMillan & Co. v. Western Classification Committee SCHEDULES. See Tariffs. SEVENTH SECTION. CONSIDERED IN CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST SECTION.-Section 7 of the act may properly be considered in construing the general jurisdictional clause of the first section. Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New SHIPPERS. REBATES TO, ON TRAFFIC DESTINED TO ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY.- REBATES BY FREE CARTAGE OF FREIGHTS. Stone & Carten v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway RIGHTS OF, IN THE ROUTING AND WAYBILLING OF FREIGHT.— RIGHTS OF. Delaware State Grange, etc. v. New York, Philadelphia and See Reasonable Rates. REPRESENTATIONS OF.-In the classification of articles the shipper's representations to the public as to their character may properly be taken into account in ascertaining the analogy they bear to other articles and determining the class to which they justly belong. Warner v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com- Andrews Soap Company . Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis CLASSIFICATION. SOAP. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Proctor & Gamble v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Rail- Beaver & Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway SPECIAL RATES. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. SPECIAL TRAIN SERVICE. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New STATE RAILROAD COMMISSIONS. ACTION RESPECTING CATTLE IN CAR LOADS.-The fact that by the action of certain State commissions a car is permitted to be loaded by the shipper at discretion without the car-lot rate being affected thereby is not a reason for adopting the like rule in interstate traffic, if that course is found not to be most just and politic. Leonard & Chappell v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company COMPLAINTS BEFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.— Railroad Commission of Florida r. Savannah, Florida and Western Railway Company et al. See Practice. STATE RAILROADS. Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. WHEN SUBJECT TO THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE.-When a State carrier engages in interstate commerce it becomes a national instrumentality for the purposes of such commerce, and is subject to regulations prescribed by the national authority. It can not limit its obligations in that business but must serve the business offered impartially and without preference or discrimination. Mattingly r. Pennsylvania Company. AS PART OF A THROUGH ROUTE.-While it is the duty of a State carrier which indulges in interstate commerce to forward traffic offered from a connecting line there is no authority under the present act to compel the carrier to forward the traffic over a route not operated or selected by itsself. (Ib.) See Interstate Commerce; Traffic; Facilities of Traffic. |