He held this money belonging to Evans & Co., given him for the special purpose of applying it on the freight, without any effort to do so until it was found in his possession by tracing it up.

The freight charges of $14.30, as at present advised, the Commissioners believe to be the usual rate charged by the companies for similar service, and the parties were not discriminated against. The delay from November 1st to 7th was not the fault of the railroad company. The goods reached Onawa on the 10th; there was no unreasonable time consumed in forwarding them. When Evans & Co. reached there on the 11th, they might have had their goods by paying the charges, which they refused to do, and the perishable articles it is claimed suffered in consequence.

We have no disposition to excuse the agent at McPaul, who kept the money of complainant from the 7th until the 20th, and think this gross negligence on his part should not pass without censure, but do not well see under the circumstances how they can make the company liable, as the owners of the goods did not use due diligence to protect themselves from harm, and were themselves negligent. The Commissioners have no evidence furnished them to locate the damage to the table and washing machine. Whether it was done in the carriage over the K. C., St. Jo & C. B. road, in the transfer, or on the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, does not appear. The last carrier should be responsible for this, unless the goods were received by him in bad order; the "owner's risk released " put on the waybill does not excuse the carrier from exercising care in handling goods entrusted to him. We would advise a claim on the last carrier for breakage, and let them show where the fault was, if not theirs. The spoiling of the kraut, cabbage and apples, and damage suffered in their business could have been avoided had Evans & Co. taken their goods when they arrived. Des Moines, Iowa, December 31, 1885.

November 14, 1885, J. E. Barrett & Son, of Mount Vernon, Iowa, com- · plained that the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company were discriminating against them and charging them excessive rates; first, on car load lots of flour from Cedar Rapids to Mt. Vernon they were charged seven cents per hundred pounds; that the company gave Cedar Rapids jobbers the same rate, seven cents per hundred, on one hundred pound lots to Mt. Vernon, Lisbon and Mechanicsville-points farther away—while they charge

complainants ten cents per hundred; that this is detrimental to their business; that from Waterloo to Cedar Rapids the rate is only eight cents per hundred in car load lots. Second, that this company charges twenty cents per hundred pounds on corn from Vail, Iowa, to Mt. Vernon, and only two or three cents more to Chicago.

The company in reply admit that they charge seven cents per 100 in carload lots from Cedar Rapids to Mt. Vernon and Lisbon, which stations are only one mile apart, and give the same rate for five thousand pounds or upward, to all persons shipping to these points, and that Cedar Rapids jobbers nor no one else get any lower rate; that their rates to Mechanicsville on 5,000 pound lots and upward including car-load lots, are seven and a half cents; in less than 5,000 pound lots eleven cents, and that they are the same to all shippers. The company also admits that its rate on corn from Vail to Mt. Vernon is twenty cents per hundred, which is regarded as reasonable. This rate is the one allowed by the Iowa distance tariff.

The Commissioners examined the latter tariff at the time it went into effect, and on comparison with that formulated by the legislature and the preceding tariffs, concluded that it was reasonable, and they see no impropriety in the company treating Mount Vernon and Lisbon in the matter of shipment from the east and west as one point. The complainants were evidently in error as regards Mechanicsville. Unjust discrimination is charging one party more for the same service than another. This we think in the case complained of they have not done. We are inclined to question whether the rate charged by the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company from Waterloo to Cedar Rapids is eight cents per 100. That company under the distance tariff would be entitled to a higher rate, and their usual method is to take all they are entitled to, and there seems to be no competition in this case that would compel them carry for less. The rate on corn from Vail to Mt. Vernon is twenty cents per 100. The amount shipped between those points is probably small, and so far as appears all parties are charged the same rate. The Chicago rate would hardly figure in making the rate between intermediate points, as it is a well settled principle in the carriage of freight that rates between points at great distances must be lower proportionately than between short distances, if freight is to be moved. The Commissioners do not regard the grievances alleged, to be of such a nature as to call for interference.

Des Moines, Iowa, December 11, 1885.

THE FOWLER Company, WATERLO, Iowa,

vs.

Discrimination.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

Filed December 8, 1885.

On the 8th of December, 1885, there was filed in this office the complaint of the Fowler Company, of Waterloo, Iowa, charging that the Illinois Central Railroad Company was maintaining a rate on cars to Remsen, Iowa, of $31 per car more than to Le Mars, the cars being loaded with apples and shipped from Chicago; the rate charged to Le Mars was 25 cents per hundred weight, to Remsen 37 cents. The distance from Chicago to Remsen is 491 miles, from Chicago to Le Mars 501 miles. The matter of complaint having been communicated to the proper officers of the company, elicited the following reply:

CHICAGO, December 28, 1885.

E. G. MORGAN, ESQ., Secretary Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa:

DEAR SIR-Referring to your letter of the 19th inst., enclosing copy of complaint against this company made by the Fowler Company, of Waterloo, Iowa, for charging more on apples from Chicago to Remsen than from Chicago tọ Le Mars: Our regular rate on apples from Chicago to Remsen, 491 miles, is 37 cents; to Le Mars, 10 miles further, 38 cents. Apples however are shipped from Missouri, Kansas and southern points to Le Mars at very low rates, and it is only by making correspondingly low rates from Chicago that we can expect. to get any of the apple business to Le Mars. We had to take them at the 25 cent rate or not take them at all. Empty cars had to be transported west at the time, and we thought in' view of that we had better haul them loaded at that rate than haul them empty.

I do not see why the Fowler Company should complain, for by our action we enabled them to sell apples at Le Mars that they otherwise could not have sold, on account of the competition and low rates from the southern points named. I do not think it can be said that the 37 cent rate to Remsen, 491 miles, is an unreasonable one. When from this is deducted three cents for bridge tolls, it leaves the rate much lower than that established by the honorable Commissioners on a mileage basis. So far as the Le Mars rate is concerned, we could not control it; we had the option of taking the apples at the rate named or decline them. By taking them, I do not see that anyone was injured more than they would be had we refused them, and by our declining to take them I do not see how anyone could be benefited— certainly not the party making the complaint.

The aggregate revenue received by our road on the shipment was of course much more than it would be were the shipment to come from Sioux City. In one case a railroad operated in Iowa received a haul of 291 miles in Iowa, whereas in the other case the haul in Iowa would not be more than 25 to 75 miles. Of course we should have to decline this business to Le Mars, if by taking it we were obliged to reduce our rates correspondingly at other points. Yours truly,

E. T. JEFFERY, General Manager.

Upon inspection of the foregoing letter, it was evident to the Commissioners that the case presented a very difficult question in rather a novel form, being a case of greater charge for shorter than longer distance, without the intervention, apparently, of either competing rail or water routes, and the shipment being on one line, the intermediate was made to pay a

greater charge than another intermediate, without the occurrence of the ordinary circumstances given as reasons for such a difference. Accordingly they addressed the following letters, one to Mr. Jeffery and the other to Mr. Chas. E. Perkins, President of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, who has given much thought to transportation questions:

JANUARY 19, 1886.

E. T. JEFFERY, ESQ., General Manager Illinois Central Railroad, Chicago, IN.:

DEAR SIR-We have received and given careful attention to your letter of December 28, with reference to the complaint of the Fowler Company, of Waterloo, Iowa, for charging more for apples from Chicago to Remsen than fron Chicago to LeMars. As it seems to be a case presenting some new and difficult questions, we ask your further attention thereto, and consideration of some suggestions we make herewith.

Upon the general subject of charges for long and short hauls, we call your attention to our remarks in reference thereto, found on pages 55 and 56 of the advanced sheets of our report for 1885. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, in its report of February 15, 1870, page 19, says: "The rule that has governed this company is not to charge to any intermediate point a greater rate than is required to one at a longer distance. Under this rule, which we think entire defensible, the average charges for the through and local business per ton per mile passing over our line are nearly equal." The conclusion of the New York Commissioners, as set forth in their second annual report, page 14, is that "railroads should not as a general rule charge more between a terminal and an intermediate point for a like class and quantity of freight than is charged between such terminal and a more distant point, even though at such more distant point there be railroad or water competition, unless railroads can affirmatively establish such circumstances governing such competition, as justify the higher charge for the shorter distance."

As we are advised, the laws of Massachusetts forbid a higher freight charge for a less distance from the same point of departure in the same direction.

Section 11 of the commissioner law of this State prohibits a railroad from charging “more for transporting freight from any point on its line, than a fair and just proportion of the price it charges for the same kind of freight transported from any other point.'

These different endorsements of the principle that a greater charge ordinarily should not be made for a less than a greater distance seem to us to require most careful consideration, and to cast upon any one seeking to justify a departure therefrom the burden of making out a very clear case of peculiar and justifying circumstances.

In an examination of decisions made by this Board, we find two cases in which the question has come up. The Clock & Shute case, report 1880, was the earlier case. It will be found from pages 28 to 38 of that volume. In

that case Ackley, the favored point, was a competing point, having the advantage of another line of railway, and a solution was reached by a readjustment of rates, which was largely in the nature of a compromise of conflicting claims.

The second case was the Lighthall case, report 1882, page 564. In that case Webster City was the favored point as against Alden, and in their decision the Board says (page 566): "To require rates for shorter hauls to be made as low as for longer distances, would seem as a rule just in itself, except where intruding factors like inter-state commerce in this case makes. the exception." The Commissioners did not go farther than to recommend "that the Illinois Central gradually reduce its rates east from Webster City." As in the Clock & Shute case, an expedient was adopted for the emergency.

Your attention is called to the fact in this case that the competition is not between river and rail transportation, nor between competing rail routes, but it seems to be between the products of the earth; that is to say, on account of their location, Missouri and southern apples are able to reach LeMars on a twenty-five cent rate on your line. Now, is this fact one properly modifying the ordinary rule that intermediate points should not pay higher rates than terminal points? The Commissioners would be pleased if you would give the matter careful thought, and reply as early as possible. By order of the Board.

E. G. MORGAN, Secretary.

DES MOINES, January 19, 1886.

C. E. PERKINS, Esq., Pres't C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., Boston, Mass.

DEAR SIR-We send you herewith copy of a letter addressed by this Board to E. T. Jeffery, General Manager Illinois Central Railroad, with reference to a matter of difference between that road and a shipper about the rate on apples from Chicago to Remsen and from Chicago to LeMars, both stations being on the line of the I. C. R. R. in Iowa. Remsen is 491 miles from Chicago; apple rate, 37 cents per 100. LeMars is 501 miles;. apple rate, ordinary, 38 cents. A special rate is given to LeMars of 25 cents per 100 on apples. Mr. Jeffery justifies this by the statement that he makes the 25 cent rate to meet the rate on southern apples at LeMars; that no one is hurt thereby, but rather LeMars is helped, and that if he is not allowed to do this, the only one hurt will be the shipper complaining, who on a 38 cent rate cannot get into LeMars with northern apples, southern apples having reached that point on a 25 cent rate. The Commissioners feel that this is an interesting, and in some respects a unique case, and wou be glad to consider your views, either on the general subject or the peculiar facts of this case.

By order of the Board.

E. G. MORGAN, Secretary.