4 9 Denaby etc. Co. v. Manchester etc. R'y Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 426. 10 Hozier v. Caledonian R'y Co. 17 Ses. Cas. 302; 24 Law T. 339; 1 Nev. & Mac. 27; Jones v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. 3 Com. B. N. S. 718; 1 Nev. & Mac. 45; Ransome v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 117. 11 Denaby etc. Co. v. Manchester etc. R'y Co. Law R. 11 App. Cas. 97; Ransome v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. (No. 2), 4 Com. B. N. S. 135; 1 Nev. & Mac. 109; Budd v. London & N. W. R'y Co. 36 Law T. N. S. 302; 4 R'y & Can. Traf. Cas. 393; Oxlade v. North Eastern R'y Co. (No. 1), 1 Com. B. N. S. 454: 1 Nev. & Mac. 72. 13 Boston & Albany R. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 153. 13 Martin et al. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al. 2 Inter. Com. C. 1. § 1055. Scope of the enactment.-Under this section of the act, a common carrier may charge less for a long haul to or from a particular place, than for a short haul included therein, provided there is competition in the carriage of persons or property to or from that place.1 The Commission, in construing and applying this section, has held, that a higher charge for a shorter than for a longer haul cannot be justified by the fact that the lesser charge on the longer haul has for its motive the encouragement of manufactures or some other branch of industry; nor that it is designed to build up business or trade centers; nor that the lesser charge on the longer haul is merely a continuation of the favorable rates under which trade centers or industrial establishments have been built up. Neither is such greater charge 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. Nor does a difference in the bulk and value of lumber justify a greater charge when the carriers in their published rate-sheets put the lum 2 3 BEACH ON RAILWAYS-116 ber in the same class and at the same rate." The great distance between Denver and Kansas City of itself suggests an impropriety in charges from San Francisco to Denver which exceed those from San Francisco to Kansas City.5 The fact that freight has paid a local rate over the roads of the defendants or of other railroad companies to the longer-distance point, does not justify a greater charge for a shorter distance. Localities must accept their geographical situation and its consequences.7 Where a rail 6 road has two routes or lines between the same places, a greater charge for a shorter than for a longer distance in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance, on either of said routes or lines, is unlawful under this section." Reductions in competitive passenger rates ought not to be made, without at the same time reducing intermediate rates. The fact that long-haul traffic will only bear certain rates is no reason for carrying it for less than cost at the expense of other traffic. 10 Where the railroad commissioners had fixed the rates between points, the fact that a railroad company greatly reduced the rate for the longer distance did not amount to unjust discrimination, if the rate for the shorter distance did not exceed the rate fixed by the commissioners, although it did exceed that charged for the longer distance." 1 Ex parte Koehler, 31 Fed. Rep. 315; Farrar v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R'y Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 480. 2 In re Petition of Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 31; Martin v. Southern Pacific R'y Co. 2 Inter. Com. C. 1. Long and short haul clause discussed: Report of Commission, 1 Inter. Com. C. 278; Report of Commission, 2 Inter. Com. C. 412; In re Tariff & Classification of Atlan tic & W. P. R. R. Co. 3 Inter. Com. C. 19. 3 James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. et al. 3 Inter. Com. C. 225. 4 James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga, R. R. Co. et al. 3 Inter. Com. C. 225 [artin et al. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al. 2 Inter. Com. C. 1. ames & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. 3 Inter. C. 225. incoln Board of Trade v. Missouri Pacific R'y Co. 2 Inter. Com. Logan et al. v. Chicago & N. W. R'y Co. 2 Inter. Com. C. 604. 1056. "Circumstances and conditions.". der this section, there is no prohibition where circumstances and conditions are dissimilar, only where they are similar; and where the cumstance or condition which produces the disilarity cannot be clearly shown, the doubt ould be given in favor of the object of the law, d the circumstances and conditions be construed be substantially similar.' The fact that one ilroad line competing for long-haul traffic is long d circuitous, and in order to share in the traffic obliged, as against competitors having more dict lines, to make concessions in its charges, will ot make out the dissimilar circumstances and conitions which alone can justify the greater charge or the shorter than for the longer haul. Where he real competition for long-haul traffic is by raiload, the fact that there is also water competition will not of itself make out the dissimilar circumstances and conditions which will support greater charges on shorter than on longer hauls 3 The presence of combined rail and water competition at a longer-distance point does not justify a greater charge for a shorter distance, while the carrier maintains the shorter-distance rate where such competition is of greater force than at the longer 5 distance point. The Commission has decided that competition may make out the dissimilar circumstances and conditions entitling the carrier to charge less for the longer than for the shorter haul over the same line in the same direction, when the competition is with carriers by water, or with foreign or other railroads, which are not subject to the provisions of the statute, or between railroads which are subject to the statute, when a strict application of the rule would be destructive of legitimate competition. The fact that a competitor makes charges for the transportation of freight which are below what are reasonable and just to the carrier itself, does not constitute such a case of dissimilar circumstances and conditions as entitles the respondent to make charges for the transportation of freight which are greater than those made for the transportation of through shipments between the same points. The fact that cotton was shipped from longer distances at lower rates, being compressed, and thus greatly reduced in bulk, is not evidence that higher rates for shorter distances, upon uncompressed cotton, are unreasonable. The "circumstances and conditions" attending the transportation of pas sengers and freight to and from the Republic of Mexico were held by the Commission so substantially different from those surrounding transportution to other points, as to justify a railroad company in establishing lower rates on freights transported for export into and received from Mexico, than are charged in the United States. It is not a sufficient justification for a greater charge that the short-haul traffic is more expensive to the carrier, unless the circumstances are such as to 9 make it exceptionally expensive, or the long-haul traffic exceptionally inexpensive. Whenever the service of transportation is the same, the charge should be the same; the uses or destination of the merchandise are entirely immaterial.10 The expense of starting trains is the same for a short as for a long haul.11 1 Missouri Pacific R'y Co. v. Texas & P. R'y Co. 31 Fed. Rep. 862. See, also, In re Petition of Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 31. 2 Boston & Albany R. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. R. Co. et al. 1 Inter. Com. C. 158. 3 Boston & Albany R. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. R. Co. et al. 1 Inter. Com. C. 158; Harwell v. Columbus etc. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 236. 4 James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. R. Co. et al. 3 Inter Com. C. 225. 5 In re Petition of Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 31. 6 In re Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. R. Co. 2 Inter. Com. C. 231. 7 Lotspeich v. Central R. R. Co. 73 Ala. 306; S. C. 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 490. 8 Petition of Receivers of Texas & Pac. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 30. 9 In re Petition of Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 1 Inter. Com. C. 31. 10 Twells v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 3 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 728; Missouri Pac. R'y Co. v. Texas & Pac. R'y Co. 30 Fed. Rep. 2. 11 Ransome v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 117. § 1057. The provision as it affects through and local rates.—In the nature of things, joint or through rates on long hauls usually are, and as a rule should be, lower in proportion to distance than local rates on short hauls of the same commodity.1 At common law a railroad common carrier is not bound to carry beyond its own line, and if it contracts to do so, it may, in the absence of statutory regulations, determine for itself what agencies it will employ, and is not bound to stop its trains and exchange traffic at a junction with another road where it has not established a station. Nor can a railroad corporation be compelled to give a bill of lading for delivery beyond |