March 15, 1909. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER:-The New Westminster Southern was incorporated by an Act of the British Columbia Legislature, and has never been declared to be a work "for the general advantage of Canada," and objection was therefore taken that this railway is not under the control of, or within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The road is operated by the Great Northern Railway. It was not shewn that the New Westminster Southern had any rolling stock or equipment, or, so far as its operation was concerned, that it was in any way a separate concern from the Great Northern. The trains of the latter road between Seattle and Vancouver pass over the line of the New Westminster Southern, and it is the connecting link between the line of the Great Northern, in the State of Washington, and Vancouver. The Great Northern Railway, in so far as it operates in Canada, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. The New Westminster Southern connects with the former railway, and so falls within section 8 with respect to through traffic and all matters appertaining thereto. Sub-section 21 of section 2 defines "railway" as meaning any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate. The situation then is that a railway company subject to the jurisdiction of the Board is operating this provincial road, and the applicant asks that certain facilities shall be provided by the railway company at Hazelmere, in the Province of British Columbia. The request is that a platform be established so that passengers may disembark with safety from the Great Northern trains and some small station building be provided as a means of shelter for travellers. These are matters appertaining to through traffic upon this railway, and I am of opinion that to that extent the railway is under the jurisdiction of the Board. I think it also 'only reasonable that proper facilities should be provided at Hazelmere for the safety and convenience of the public using the trains of the Great Northern Railway. The station need not be an expen sive affair, but the Great Northern Railway Company, I think, should provide a suitable platform and a building of moderate expense that may be used by travellers as a shelter, and also for the temporary storage of freight. The Great Northern Railway Company, whose counsel opposed the application, will be added parties. The formal issue of the order may be delayed for 30 days if the Great Northern Railway Company desires to apply for leave to appeal upon the question of jurisdiction. If no appeal is taken one of the Board's engineers may define the size of the platform and location, and size of the shelter as well as the location. NOTE. See the Flag Station Case, 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 151. CANADA.] UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. [BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS. KERR V. CANADIAN PACIFIC RY. Co. (File No. 9796.) Unjust discrimination-Special mileage tariff-Division of through rateLocal consumption-Eastern markets-Competition-Grain growing territories-Through shipments-Local rate-Reasonableness-Crow's Nest Pass Agreement. On a complaint to the Board that the rate on grain, grain products and vegetables for local consumption from Franklin to Winnipeg was unjustly discriminatory as compared with the rate from the same point to Fort William a much farther distance on the same goods for eastern markets. Held, 1. That the complaint should be dismissed. The conditions affecting through shipments at through rates are such that a division of through rates cannot be taken as a measure of the reasonableness of a local rate. 2. The competition of other grain growing territories fixes the rate on through shipments to eastern markets. 3. The rates are also affected by the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement: See British Columbia Pacific Coast Cities. v. Canadian Pacific R.W. Co. (Vancouver Interior Rates Case), 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 125. THE application was heard at Winnipeg on the 10th March, 1909. O. H. Clarke, K.C., for the Canadian Northern Ry. Co. The complainant did not appear but sent his complaint by letter to the Board. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Mr. Commissioner McLean. May 10, 1909. MR. COMMISSIONER MCLEAN:-Franklin is a station on the Canadian Pacific Railway, 126 miles from Winnipeg. The rate from Franklin to Winnipeg, under the company's special mileage tariff on grain, grain products and vegetables, is thirteen cents per hundred pounds; this is also the eighth class rate in the Canadian classification. It is contended that this rate is discriminatory since the rate on grain and grain products from Franklin to Fort William, a distance of 550 miles, for furtherance east is likewise thirteen cents. It cannot be urged that this constitutes a discrimination against the applicant. The rate to Fort William is a division of a through rate concerned with a through shipment to an eastern market. Where grain and grain products move to Fort William for local consumption they move on the company's special mileage tariff and take a rate of 29 cents. The through rate of which the 13 cents form a part is affected not only by the competition of other grain-growing territories; it was also reduced by the provisions of the Crow's Nest agreement. The conditions affecting the through shipments handled on this through rate are such that a division of such a through rate cannot be taken as the measure of the reasonableness of a local rate from Franklin to Winnipeg. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. The Chief Commissioner concurred. UNJUST DISCRIMINATION UNREASONABLE TOLLS. CANADA.] [BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS. CANADIAN PORTLAND CEMENT Co. v. GRAND TRUNK AND BAY OF QUINTE RY. Cos. (File No. 10114.) Unjust discrimination — Unreasonable tolls Competition - Similar factories-Costs of production-"Equality" clause-Similar circumstances and traffic conditions-Mileage distance-Water competition-Differences in traffic conditions-Main and branch line mileage-Heavy and light traffic-Low-grade tonnage — Compelled rate· Traffic-Important in amount-Railway Act, secs. 315, 334. Upon a complaint under secs. 315 and 334 of the Railway Act by the Cement Company that the through toll of $1.50 per ton on bituminous coal from Black Rock, N.Y., to Marlbank, Ont., was unjustly discriminatory and unreasonable, because (1) there should be no difference in the tolls on coal to the applicants competing with similar factories receiving more favourable treatment, (2) on the basis of mileage, (3) as compared with tolls to other points such as Belleville and Kingston. From Black Rock to Napanee, a distance of 237 miles, the coal moved over the Grand Trunk Railway, and thence to Marlbank, a distance of 36 miles, over the Bay of Quinte Railway. Out of the through toll the Grand Trunk received $1.05, or 70 per cent., and the Bay of Quinte the balance. Held, 1. That the "equality" clause of section 315 was not intended to equalize the cost of production between similar competing factories, but applies only when such factories were given more favourable treatment under similar circumstances and conditions of traffic. 2. That a comparison of mileages as if both hauls were on the same railway line was not a proper method of comparison, difference in traffic conditions being in general more important. 3. That the principle recognized in the Almonte Knitting Company case that a higher toll may be charged to points on a branch line than to points on a main line, though at a less distance from the junction point, applies with greater force in favour of a light traffic and low-grade tonnage railway as compared with a heavy traffic and high-grade tonnage railway. 4. That the toll to Marlbank cannot be compared with compelled tolls to other points such as Belleville and Kingston, where there is not effective water competition to Marlbank on traffic important in amount. 6. 5. That, upon the evidence, the toil charged is not unreasonable. The Grand Trunk having stated its willingness to reduce its division of the through rate to $1.00 per ton, the Bay of Quinte to participate. in such through rate, receiving thirty per cent., the Board approved a rate of $1.43 per ton. Almonte Knitting Company v. Canadian Pacific and Michigan Central Ry. Cos., 38 Can. Ry. Cas. 441, followed. THE application was heard at Ottawa, May 19th, 1909. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Mr. Commissioner McLean. W. N. Tilley, for the applicant. W. H. Biggar, K.C., for the Grand Trunk Ry. Co. June 25, 1909. MR. COMMISSIONER MCLEAN:-This is an application by the Canadian Portland Cement Company for a reduced through rate on bituminous coal from Black Rock, New York, to Marlbank, Ontario, where a cement plant of the applicant company is located. From Black Rock to Napanee this coal moves over the Grand Trunk Railway, a distance of 237 miles; thence to destination, a distance of 36 miles, it moves over the Bay of Quinte Railway. The rate at present in force is $1.50 per ton; of this the Grand Trunk Railway receives $1.05. It is alleged that the existing through rate is discriminatory and unreasonable. The application is launched under secs. 315 and 334 of the Railway Act. The central point in the complaint is based on the competition of other cement producers. To quote the words of the complaint: "We submit that the present rate to Marlbank is excessive and unjustly discriminatory, and that there should be no difference in rates on the commodity, particularly as it enters largely into the cost of production of the output of the applicants, who have to compete in open markets with similar factories accorded more favourable treatment." No doubt the coal, of which from 40,000 to 45,000 tons per annum are consumed, does constitute an important factor in the cost. This phase of the application is in reality a plea that sec. 315, the "equality" clause, should be used to bring about an equalization of costs of production. This clause is, however, concerned with traffic conditions. The allegations regarding "similar factories" are of no value unless the "similar factories" are. under similar circumstances and conditions of traffic, accorded |