depending on which carrier's tariff grants the better basis for rates. A determination of the transit tariff governing the shipments described has not been made because of the lack of evidence pertaining to the actual services performed by each of the carriers. The rates claimed, however, do not appear to have been applicable under the Missouri Pacific transit tariffs named in these examples.

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO

Examples 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 100.-The governing transit tariffs list the rate tariffs publishing rates that were applicable in connection with transit services authorized and claimed. The rates sought are not published in tariffs listed in the transit tariffs and, therefore, are inapplicable.

Examples 20, 22, and 24.-The through one factor rates sought do not apply for the reason hereinbefore stated in connection with the discussion of rates to Ontario.

Examples 38 and 100.-The corn rates sought on the products other than flour were inapplicable under the mixed-carload rules of the governing tariffs which require application on the entire carload of the highest rate on any commodity in a mixture.

UNION PACIFIC

Example 39.-Wheat originating on July 31, 1924, at Zurich, Kans., on the Union Pacific moved to Kansas City where it was milled into flour and bran. The products were shipped on September 17, 1924, to Batesville, Ind., over the lines of the Burlington in car CB&Q 15843 to St. Louis, and New York Central lines beyond. The charges collected on the products were based on the wheat rate of 19.5 cents to Kansas City, plus 13.5 cents, the proportional flour rate to St. Louis. The charges on the flour and the flour and bran beyond St. Louis are not questioned. Complainant seeks application of the corn rate of 17.5 cents to Kansas City, plus 12 cents therefrom to St. Louis. Union Pacific transit tariff 103-E, I. C. C. No. 3433, item 1600, authorized the corn rate on the bran tonnage in a mixed carload with flour. Union Pacific freight tariff No. 3050-E, I. C. C. No. 3432, which published the flour and bran rates to Kansas City, made the highest rate on any commodity in a mixed carload, applicable on the entire carload. Burlington G. F. D. No. 3200-G, I. C. C. No. 15889, published the rate factor beyond Kansas City to St. Louis and had a similar provision. Where conflicting rules that affect the rates are published in separate tariffs, the rule resulting in the lower rates is the one lawfully applicable. Item 1600 provided for the lower rates

which were 17.5 cents to Kansas City, plus 12 cents to St. Louis, as claimed.

Examples 11 and 40.-The charges on a carload of bran from Beatrice, Nebr., to Galesburg, Ill., described in example 40 should have been based on the corn rate of 15.5 cents to Kansas City, plus 14 cents beyond, as claimed, in accordance with item 1575 of the Union Pacific transit tariff 103-F, I. C. C. No. 3562. Item 1575 of Union Pacific to transit tariff No. 103-E, I. C. C. 3433, applied similarly on a shipment described in example 11.

WABASH

Example 13.-Wheat originating at Manchester, Okla., on July 9, 1924, moved over the Santa Fe to Kansas City where it was milled into flour. The flour was shipped on July 26, 1926, to Watuppa, Mass., in car Wabash 45805. The wheat rate to Kansas City was 19.5 cents. Charges collected on the flour were based on 19.5 cents to Kansas City, plus 50 cents beyond. Complainant seeks 29 cents to Hannibal, Mo., plus 36.5 cents beyond. Authority for the transit service was published in items 10 and 150 of Wabash transit tariff No. F-13433, I. C. C. No. 5848. Item 150 provided for milling in transit at Kansas City on wheat originating at Manchester when destined to Watuppa, only if the Santa Fe authorized a similar transit arrangement. Santa Fe circular No. 2047-O, I. C. C. 10037, in item 60-B provided for an arrangement similar to that of the Wabash. Item 10 authorized a combination of rates of 29 cents to Hannibal, plus 36.5 cents beyond. This combination was applicable on the described shipment.

Example 14.-In this example the wheat from which flour was milled at Kansas City originated at three stations on as many defendant carriers. The flour rates applied on the wheat tonnage originating at Geneva, Nebr., on the North Western are the only ones assailed and the only rates that will be discussed here. The wheat originated on March 4, 1926, and moved over the North Western and Missouri Pacific to Kansas City at a rate of 19 cents. The flour moved in car Wabash 24182 on June 3, 1926, over the Wabash and connections to Binghamton, N. Y. Charges were collected on the flour based on 19 cents to Kansas City, plus 43.5 cents beyond. Complainant seeks an Omaha-Chicago combination of 17.5 cents to Omaha, 17.5 cents to Chicago, and 26 cents beyond. Wabash transit tariff No. F-13433, I. C. C. No. 5848, in items 10 and 150 authorize the transit service at Kansas City. Item 10 describes the rates to be charged and item 150 their territorial application, including the origin and destination

here under consideration. The latter item authorized transit only if the in-bound carrier authorized a similar service which it did in its transit tariff 2-U, I. C. C. No. 6655. The Omaha-Chicago combination of 17.5 cents to Omaha, 17.5 cents to Chicago, and 26 cents beyond was applicable on the shipment described, as claimed.

Example 15.-Wheat from which bran was milled at Atchison, Kans., originated at Downs, Kans., on the Missouri Pacific on July 19, 1927. The wheat moved at a rate of 19 cents to the transit point. The bran moved in car MP 82890 on March 20, 1928 over the Missouri Pacific to Kansas City where it was reconsigned to Buffalo, N. Y., over lines of the Wabash and connections. Charges were collected on the bran based on the wheat rate of 19 cents to Kansas City and the proportional corn rate of 12 cents to Hannibal, Mo. The rate beyond Hannibal is not in question. Complainant seeks the corn rate of 17 cents to Atchison plus 12 cents to Hannibal. Missouri Pacific joint circular No. 2-W, I. C. C. A-6932, items 252 and 735 authorized the transit service at Atchison and the application of the bran rates of 17 cents to Atchison and 12 cents to Hannibal.

Examples 66 and 93.-In example 66, the Burlington was the inbound carrier to Kansas City on wheat originating at St. Francis, Kans. Transit service is claimed under the afore-mentioned Wabash transit tariff, which only authorized such service provided the inbound carrier granted a similar service. The Burlington did not grant such similar service. The rates sought on the products represented by wheat from Hutchinson and Ensign, Kans., were inapplicable under the mixed-carload rule authorizing the highest carload rate on any commodity in the mixed carload to apply to the entire carload. The rates sought in example 93 were also inapplicable for the reason last stated.

General discussion.—A majority of the defendants " have, since the claims arose, been through receivership or reorganization proceedings. Claims were filed with the receivers of the Great Western, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific, and Frisco. Those filed against the Milwaukee were disapproved and ordered dismissed by a special master appointed by the court to adjudicate such matters. The record is not clear as to what disposition the courts made of the claims against the other three carriers. Claims were filed with the receivers of the Milwaukee by Bernhard Stern & Sons, Inc., The Midland Flour Milling Company, Kansas Flour Mills Company, Hoyland Flour Mills Company, The Ismert-Hincke Milling Company, The J. C. Lysle Milling Company, Domestic Milling Company, and Pratt Grain Company; with

"Alton, Frisco, Great Western, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, North Western, Rock Island, Soo Line, and Wabash.

the receivers of the Missouri Pacific and Frisco by the Ismert-Hincke Milling Company and Kansas Flour Mills Company; and with the Great Western at the time of its reorganization by the Midland Flour Milling Company, The Leavenworth Milling Company, Neosho Milling Company, Hoyland Flour Mills Company, Domestic Milling Company, Pratt Grain Company, Kansas Flour Mills Company, The J. C. Lysle Milling Company, and The Ismert-Hincke Milling Company. Defendants contend that the complainants are barred by legal and practical consequences under the court proceedings, from recovering overcharges from this class of carriers. The question whether the liability of the various carriers and their receivers passed to their successor companies under the circumstances of this case is one for determination by the courts. Reparation on Intrastate Traffic, 144 I. C. C. 215. It is not readily apparent from the record whether claims now before us were also before the courts since only typical examples representing many claims are given in the two formal complaints under consideration.

It appears that defendants have paid some overcharge claims but have refused to pay interest on the monies illegally exacted. Payments were accepted under protest. The Commission is asked to award interest on the paid and unpaid claims from date of collection of the illegal charges. The Commission has considered interest as much a part of damages sustained in consequence of violation of the act as the amount of the excess. Interest is part of the full amount for which the right of recovery is expressly given by statute. Unless it is allowed, there is no means of making claimants whole for wrongs sustained in violation of the statute. Armstrong Cork & Insulation Co. v. Mississippi-W. Service, 153 I. C. C. 781. Defendants contend that complainants alone are chargeable with the delay that has occurred in bringing these proceedings to a conclusion and should not profit thereby. Approximately 15 years elapsed from the time of filing the informal complaints until the formal complaints were filed.

The record indicates that the informal complaints were being held in abeyance pending final determination of the first formal proceeding. This method of handling informal complaints is in accordance with our usual practice where it appears that adjudication of the formal proceeding may result in adjustment of the informal complaint. The formal proceeding was decided October 14, 1930. Thereafter, complainants, by letter dated May 8, 1934, to the Commission stated:

Generally speaking, the shipments protected solely by the informal complaints, including No. 117343, are being held in abeyance pending adjustment of the

claims under the formal docket [the Larabee case], but as opportunity permits, standard form claims covering shipments covered by the informal complaint are being presented to the carriers for consideration.

Many informal complaints can be and are susceptible of adjustment through direct handling between the interested parties after a decision has been rendered in a formal complaint involving similar principles, and such procedure is appropriate. The negotiations, however, should be conducted with reasonable diligence. In view of the length of time that elapsed, approximately 12 years, between the date of the decision in the first formal proceeding and the date on which complainants filed their formal complaints, it is apparent that complainants were not reasonably diligent in prosecuting claims covered by the informal complaints. In the circumstances presented it would be an injustice to defendants to require the payment of interest for more than a reasonable period after the disposition of the first formal proceeding.

Conclusion. We find that the shipments in issue were overcharged to the extent hereinbefore indicated; that the applicable rates were not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful; and that complainants made or received the shipments described, upon which charges were collected at the rates found inapplicable. We find that on shipments on which complainants paid or bore the charges at the rates herein found inapplicable, they were damaged thereby in the amount of the difference between the charges collected and those which would have accrued at the rates herein found applicable, and that they are entitled to reparation, with interest from the time the charges were collected to and including June 30, 1936. Complainants should comply with rule 100 of the General Rules of Practice and furnish proof by affidavit that they paid or bore the charges on the shipments overcharged under the tariffs involved in these proceedings. If defendants object to proof of this character, complainants may request a further hearing.

274 I. C. C.