Separate cars for colored people must be as good in comfort, etc., as those furnished white passengers for the same rate.- Heard v. Ga. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 392, 508. 3 I. C. C. R. 111.

Assigning colored persons separate cars on equal terms does not constitute undue prejudice or unjust preference.-Heard v. Ga. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 314, 493, 719, 1 I. C. C. R. 428; Council v. Western & A. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 292, 355, 638, 1 I. C. C. R. 339.

A colored person sold a first class ticket must be furnished first class accommodations.-Heard v. Ga. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 314, 493, 719, 1 I. C. C. R. 428; Council v. Western & A. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 292, 355, 638, 1 I. C. C. R. 339.

A railroad cannot exclude a colored woman from a ladies' car simply on account of her color.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 185.

[28] Switch connections and delivery on sidetracks.

Delivery at stock yards,- see ante, note [26].

Duty of carrier to furnish switch connections,- see ante, § 27, note [1].

Denial of switch connections as undue prejudice,- see ante, § 27, note [7].

General duty to receive or deliver freight on switches,- see ante, § 27, note [13].

Reasonableness of switching charges,- see ante, § 27, note [14]. Discrimination in length of time allowed for unloading cars,— see post, § 27, note [28].

That the hazard connected with the operation of defendant's road will be increased by giving complainant sidetrack connections similar to those granted other shippers, does not excuse undue prejudice against complainant.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R.

438.

That the expense to the defendant in connection with the transportation of complainant's coal will be greater than the expense connected with the carriage of coal from the mines of those now enjoying side track connections, does not excuse withholding such facilities from complainant, but is a matter to be considered by defendant in establishing the rates for transportation.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R.

438.

That a railroad has not sufficient equipment to supply the requirements of all its patrons, does not excuse an otherwise unlawful discrimination as to switch connections.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 438.

Because a carrier permits consignees of fresh meat at a certain point to unload directly from its yards to their warehouses, does not require

the concession of similar privileges to consignees of fresh fruit.- Miner v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 422.

Complainant's competitors were so situated that they could unload their meat directly from the yards into their storehouses. Complainant's place of business was across a canal and three hundred feet away, but it formerly had enjoyed similar unloading privileges. In good faith, the carrier concluded that the congestion forbade it from continuing the privilege, so far as complainant was concerned, but upon investigation, this did not seem to be the case.- Held, it was undue prejudice to withhold the unloading privileges.- Miner v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 11 Inters. Coin. R. 422.

The refusal of a carrier to switch cars of coal to plaintiff's side track without advance payment of demurrage charges, and the retention of the coal to enforce prepayment as a condition precedent, subjects the plaintiff to an unlawful prejudice and disadvantage.- Macloon v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 452, 711, 5 I. C. C. R. 84.

Railroads must indiscriminately deliver grain to all elevators in the same locality, situated along its lines.- Chicago & N. W. R. R. v. People, 56 Ill. 365.

It is not discrimination for carrier to refuse to accept grain for delivery at a warehouse on a private side track near but beyond such carrier's terminus.- People v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 55 Ill. 95.

A railroad is bound to receive freight from a shipper according to its custom and usage; and if the usage has been to run the cars upon a side track to private warehouses, and there receive the freight in the cars, a tender accordingly, or a notice and readiness so to deliver, would impose an obligation on the company to take and carry the freight.Galena &C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488.

[29] Violations of long and short haul rule as discrimination. See also, ante, § 31, note [63], post, § 36, note [29].

The same evidence which justifies the Interstate Commerce Commission in finding that a railroad can lawfully charge more for a short haul to one point than for a long haul to another point over the same line, will sufficiently answer a charge of discrimination between the two localities in violation of Interst. Com. Act. § 3.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Nashivlle, C. & St. L. R. Co.. 120 Fed. 934.

A departure from the long and short haul rule also constitutes a prejudice to the intermediate locality and shippers and traffic therefrom, which, if found to be without sufficient excuse, is unreasonable and in violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 3,- Violations of Act to Reg. Commerce by St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 290.

[30] What facts show unjust discrimination or preference.

Facts showing discrimination in rates,- see also, ante, § 30, note [66]. Issuance of party-rate tickets not unjust discrimination,- see post, 8 33, note [20].

Underbilling as form of unjust discrimination,- see post, § 34, note [2].

Facts showing unjust discrimination between connecting carriers,- see post, § 35, note [16].

Facts showing unjust discrimination in furnishing cars,- see post, § 37, note [13].

The court will not compel stoppage of a through train from New York to St. Louis at a small Illinois county seat, whose local and through traffic is already adequately looked after. A statute requiring such stoppage is unconstitutional. After meeting local conditions, a railroad has the right to adopt special provisions for through traffic.- Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 20 Sup. Ct. R. (U.S.) 722. A railroad company which is accustomed to receive coal at its wharf, the coal being there transferred from barges to its cars, is not justified in making a rule compelling the shippers to employ in this transfer, only shovellers furnished by the railroad.-31812 Tons of Coal, 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 453.

an

A contract by a railroad company with a person to develop the milk traffic along its lines, giving such person an exclusive privilege" as far as it was permitted to do so by law was not under the circumstances, "undue preference or advantage."-D. L. & W. R. Co. v. Kutter, 147 Fed. 51; certiorari denied, 203 U. S. 588, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 776, A common carrier may refuse to transport a circus train, loaded with wild animals. Wilson v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 129 Fed. 774; affd. 133 Fed. 1022.

A carrier bought coal and sold it under contract to deliver, at a price 23 cents per ton less than the cost of the coal, and the carrier's published freight rates for the transportation of such coal to the point of delivery.Held, that this gave the favored purchaser an undue advantage or preference.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 128 Fed. 59; affd. as to result, 200 U. S. 361, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 272.

Where a steamboat line and a railroad are operated as a continuous line, the refusal of such carrier to allow a rival steamboat company to land at its dock is not an unjust discrimination within the meaning of Interst. Com. Act, § 3, providing for the giving of equal facilities by carriers.- Ilwaco R. & N. Co. v. Oregon R. Co., 57 Fed. 673, revg. s. c. 51 Fed. 611.

A guaranty by an agent of a railroad that a theatrical company, travelling on a party rate ticket, would arrive at its destination within a

certain time is not "giving an unreasonable preference or advantage to a particular person or party within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Act.- Foster v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 56 Fed. 434.

To render a discrimination unlawful, the preference given to one over another must be contemporaneous, and under substantially similar conditions. Stopping to compress cotton at Vicksburg, as a sort of pious fraud on eastern purchasers, is not such a discrimination. Cowan v. Bond, 39 Fed. 54.

Where a company which operates a steamship line employs the trucks owned by one firm to bring in to its pier in New York City its through traffic originating in more distant New York Harbor points, the fact that it gives preference to such trucks in admitting trucks to its pier does not show undue preference where it appears that the inadequate pier facilities are soon to be enlarged and that no one is excluded from the pier, shipments being often received late in the evening, the pier remaining open until all waiting trucks have an opportunity to unload.- New York Team Owners' Assn. v. So. Pac. Co. 12 Inters. Com. R. 235.

Defendant's discontinuance of delivery of oil in tank cars at its Brooklyn terminal made it practically impossible for the complainants to continue to compete with the Standard Oil Company. The discontinuance was due to fear of fire, etc., from such oil.- Held, that the delivery should be resumed. The prosperous business of complainants ought not to be destroyed or made subservient to a monopoly unless its continuance involves the defendant in a disproportionate risk, which is practically unavoidable. The delivery should be resumed, subject to such regulations. as protect defendants from danger of fire, etc., as far as possible.Preston v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 131.

A railroad cannot arbitrarily determine that a particular mill shall compete in a certain market with other localities, and that other mills upon its lines shall not so compete, unless, at least, it can justify that discrimination by some operating condition, which shows that it is for its advantage to transport from the one point and not from the other.Texas C. P. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 78.

The refusal of a carrier to do what it reasonably and conveniently can. to put a particular shipper on equal terms with his competitors in the matter of traffic facilities, may constitute an undue prejudice.- Miner v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 422.

The defendant railway should so conduct all its operations relating to the transportation of passengers to Yellowstone Park as to afford to such passengers full and equal opportunity, whether at the terminus of its branch line or elsewhere, to select the stage line or other agency which they may desire to use for touring the park, as well as the places of their entertainment therein.- Wylie v. No. Pac. R. Co. 11 Inters. Com. R. 145.

A shipper of railroad ties complained that the defendant railroad placed restrictions on the shipment of ties, alleging a shortage of cars, but transported other materials and ties for its own use, seeking to confine the complainant's market in ties to its own line, thus enabling itself to obtain ties at a lower price.- Held, that this was a violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 3, forbidding unjust descrimination.- Paxton Tie Co. v. Detroit S. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 422.

Because carriers have contracted with certain shippers for the leasing of special cars to the carriers, the latter are not bound to contract similarly with all or other shippers.- Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 182.

While carriers ordinarily must not create or give artificial advantages to one community as compared with others similarly situated, it may be justifiable to give a seaport rate to one town 20 miles from the ocean, and not to another, where such an arrangement benefits a whole section by making a low-priced distributing center.- Holdzkom v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 42.

If demurrage charges, when added to transportation rates, result in greater aggregate charges in certain cases than in other cases involving longer hauls, this may constitute an undue preference as between localities.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

A carrier cannot lawfuly establish and maintain an adjustment of rates which in practice prevents shippers on its line from availing themselves of a principal market which they have long been using, and confers a substantial monopoly upon a new market in which, for reasons of its own, it has greater interest.- Savannah Bureau v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 377.

While in mere amount rates made by combining local rates may be entirely reasonable, they may nevertheless operate to unduly oppress the more distant locality.- Gustin v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 277.

A carrier may make a low rate to create traffic.- Grain Shippers' Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 158.

The location of Cincinnati on the north bank of the Ohio river, whose bridges charge high tolls, and the greater distance, justify higher rates from that city than from Louisville, to the common market in the South. -Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 180. A party to an interstate shipment cannot be excluded by the carriers from privileges afforded other patrons in the same locality, because of his refusal to pay excessive freight charges, even though an agreement to subsequently refund the excess should accompany the demand.Phelps v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 36.