the Board could not entertain an application to increase these tolls without all interested parties having an opportunity of being heard. We are still of the opinion, as expressed at the hearing, that the general interswitching order does not cover this case. In 1906, some twelve or fifteen cars per day were handled, as I understand, in one shunt from the bin to Third Avenue. Now, only two or three cars per day move, and it is said that while $3.00 might not have been unfair upon a movement of twelve or fifteen cars, it is upon a movement of only two or three; but upon looking carefully into all the facts that were before the Board in 1906, and further considering the report of the Chief Traffic Officer, upon whose recommendation that order was made, as well as earlier reports upon the same matter, it nowhere appears that the number of cars per day that might or would be shipped entered into the consideration of the Board. I shall not be misunderstood as saying that the volume of traffic is not a material factor in fixing a rate, but am stating only that I cannot find in the material before the Board that the parties had heretofore urged this point in this case. To find now that the toll should be increased would be to find that the toll of $3.50 fixed by the first order was too low, because the further reduction of 50 cents per car was made solely upon the lessened expense of the service. I am not able to conclude from the facts I have been able to gather that the order of February 14th, 1906, should not have been made, and it seems to me that if that were a proper order this application cannot be granted. It was stated by counsel for the respondents that the tariff of the Columbia and Western on this ore to the Trail smelter was 20 cents per ton, in addition to the $3.00 switching charge, so any increase in the switching charge, in the absence of the proprietors of the mine, would have to be absorbed by the Columbia. and Western; on a car of 30 tons, from the bin to the smelter. the charge would be $9.00, of which $6.00 goes to the Columbia and Western and $3.00 to the Red Mountain. There are no facts before us from which it can be said this is an unfair division. We are of opinion the application fails. Mr. Commissioner McLean concurred. NOTE. See Anchor Elevator, etc., Co. v. Canadian Northern R.W. Co. et al., page 175, supra, where it was also held that the provisions of the general interswitching order of 8th July, 1908, only apply to terminal and not to intermediate points. CANADA.] STOP-OVER PRIVILEGES. [BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS. MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE (TRANSPORTATION BUREAU) AND THE (Cartier Stop-over Case, No. 8659.) Stop-over "for orders" privileges—Re-directed—Instructions—Point of destination-Through rate-Demurrage charge-Stop-over chargeTariff disallowed-Reasonable rate. Upon a complaint against a charge of one cent per hundred pounds made by the Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. on grain and grain products in carload lots consigned to Cartier "for orders" and a like charge made by the Grand Trunk Ry. Co. on lumber and forest products in carloads from British Columbia consigned to Sarnia Tunnel "for orders." It appeared that the railway companies had previously made no charge for this stop-over privilege, except a per diem charge of 25 cents a day for the first 48 hours' delay and the usual charge for demurrage of $1.00 per day on cars delayed over 48 hours, and shippers were allowed to ship freight at a through rate to a certain intermediate point and there await further instructions from the consignee as to final point of destination. Held, 1. That the tariff imposing the additional stop-over charge of 1 cent per hundred pounds should be disallowed. 2. That this stop-over privilege was originally taken into consideration as an element in fixing a reasonable per diem rate and that a stop-over charge of 25 cents per diem per car for the first 48 hours, and the car service toll of $1 a car for each additional 24 hours be substituted for the charge complained of. THE application was heard at Montreal on the 23rd day of December, 1908. W. S. Tilston, for the Transportation Bureau of the Montreal Board of Trade. James E. Walsh, for the Fullerton Lumber Company. E. W. Beatty, for the Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. The facts are fully set out in the judgments of the Board. December 26, 1908. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER:-Complaints are made, first, against an additional charge of one cent per 100 lbs. imposed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Cartier, Ont., on Western grain and grain products, in carloads, consigned to Cartier, "for orders," under supplement No. 13, effective September 1st, 1908, to the company's tariff C.R.C., No. E. 678, and still in force by supplement No. 15 to the same. tariff. Second, against a like charge imposed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company at Sarnia Tunnel, Ont., on lumber, shingles, and other products, in carloads, originating in British Columbia, and consigned to Sarnia Tunnel, Ont., "for orders," under the company's tariff C.R.C. No. E. 1394, effective September 8th, 1908. At Cartier and Sarnia Tunnel the traffic is held by the companies for orders for re-consignment to Eastern points. Before September 1st, 1908, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company made an extra charge for holding Western grain and grain products for orders either at North Bay or at Cartier, other than the so-called per diem charge, which, for the purpose in question, was fixed at 25 cents a day, and the customary demurrage on cars delayed over 48 hours; at the tunnel prior to September 8th, 1908, it has not been shewn that the Grand Trunk made any charge whatever. We had the benefit of hearing the views of the Traffic Officer of the Board as well as counsel for both the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk. The grounds for making the charge are said to be that benefit is conferred upon the shipper and some additional expense and trouble imposed upon the carrier. I think it is a clear advantage to the shipper to have the privilege of consigning to these stop-over points for sale, and perhaps the carrier is also put to some small expense by reason of granting the privilege; but the difficulty in my mind of upholding the charge of 1 cent per 100 lbs., is that the service has hitherto been granted without such charge, and so I think it fair to assume that in establishing the rate originally, this service was taken into consideration as one of the elements in fixing a reasonable rate. The carrier is put to no more trouble or expense, and the shipper receives no greater benefit from the stop-over at Cartier than obtained at North Bay, so I am at a loss to understand why a charge should be made for a service that in the past has been considered either not worth charging for, or that had been included in fixing the rate. What has been said of grain stop-over at Cartier applies to the forest products stop-over at Sarnia, and I think both these tariffs should be disallowed and the original 25 cent charge substituted. Had it been shewn affirmatively that in establishing the original rate this convenience to the shipper had not been considered, my views upon the present application would have been different, although I don't agree that 1 cent per 100 lbs. would be a reasonable charge. The Deputy Chief Commissioner concurred. January 2, 1909. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF COMMISSIONER :— The Transportation Bureau of the Montreal Board of Trade complain against the additional charge of one cent per hundred pounds imposed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Cartier, Ontario, on Western grain and grain products, in carloads consigned to Cartier, "for orders," under supplement No. 13, effective September 1st, 1908, to the company's tariff C.R.C. No. E. 678, and still in force by supplement No. 15 to the same tariff. It has been the custom for many years, for the railway company to permit grain shippers sending cars from Fort William east, to have the cars billed to some point on the line of railway, formerly North Bay (now Cartier), "for orders." Upon arriving at the stop-over point the car is then held, subject to further instructions from the consignee as to the point of destination. The privilege is, undoubtedly, of substantial value, as the shipper in this way is enabled to get his grain some 500 miles nearer its destination without having to name it at the time of shipment. As the through rate is charged for transportation to the final destination, the company only makes the stop-over charge to pay itself for the services rendered at Cartier. If the consignee's instructions have not been received at Cartier prior to the arrival of the train containing his car to be re-directed, it is placed on a siding and is held by the railway company until his instructions are received. The railway company must, of course, break its train and perform a special shunt if the car is to be put on the siding for orders. As this is a substantial service, I think the railway company is entitled to a fair remuneration. At present the railway company is charging for this additional service one cent per hundred pounds, so that the charge per car may vary from four to eight dollars. I think the minimum $4.00 is too high a charge for the service rendered. I, therefore, am of opinion that the present tariff should be disallowed, but I would approve of a tariff containing a charge of one dollar per car for each day of twenty-four hours or fraction thereof, for stop-over "for orders" privileges. In fixing this amount, I have taken as a fair basis of value the dollar charge per car per day which has been established as a fair allowance for the use of a car standing on the track in the "Canadian Car Service Rules" as a fair basis of value. I would not differentiate between the case, where the instructions for re-shipment arrive at Cartier before the car, and the |