road also participates in the terminal and ferry charges at Port Huron upon through business.

The Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway terminates in the city of Port Huron at the station known as the Chicago Junction. The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada owns the tracks from that junction to a station known as Fort Gratiot, about a mile and a third from the junction, and located in the northern part of the city. The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada also owns and operates the ferry across the St. Clair river; and the terminal facilities of the company in the city of Port Huron are valuable and convenient.

Upon all freight originating at Port Huron and passing over the Grand Trunk Railway to Buffalo that company pays the Chicago & Grand Trunk $1.50 switching charge at Port Huron, and bears alone the expense of the ferry and of transportation over the Niagara River bridge and of delivery at Buffalo. At times the expense of delivery at Buffalo has been charged to the consignors or the consignees of the freight, but the rule is now understood to be that these expenses are borne by the transportation company.

For a short period since the petition in this case was filed the through rate from Chicago to Buffalo has been 12 cents, and when that took effect the charge on grain was reduced, Port Huron to Buffalo, from 10 cents to 8 cents per hundred pounds. The through rate, for a short period, has also been as high as 17 cents per hundred pounds, but the prevailing rate has been 15 cents per hundred pounds, and that is understood to be the rate in effect at the present time.

The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada has also a line from Detroit to Port Huron upon which the same rates are charged to Buffalo as from Detroit over the Michigan Central line and from Port Huron to Buffalo.

As a rule the through rate on freight traffic from Chicago to the seaboard has prevailed at all points on the line of the Chicago & Grand Trunk as far east as Battle Creek, Michigan; east of Battle Creek to Lansing it was 95 per cent. of the Chicago rate; east of Lansing to the Chicago & Grand Trunk Junction it was 92 per cent. of that rate. At Port Huron proper it was 78 per cent., the same as at Detroit and

Toledo. When the 12 cent rate from Chicago to Buffalo was in effect, it applied as far east as the Chicago & Grand Trunk Junction. The local rate of 8 cents from Port Huron to Buffalo is 53 per cent. of the through rate from Chicago to Buffalo. The Port Huron rate is charged at some more eastern stations on the Grand Trunk Railway in Canada. The foregoing facts are sufficient for the purposes of the case.

The petition claims substantially proportional rates for an intermediate station on a through line between Chicago and Buffalo. It is claimed that the rates on the products in question from Port Huron to Buffalo are unjust and unreasonable as compared with the through rate from Chicago because they are not more nearly upon a mileage basis.

This question of proportional rates is not now for the first time presented. It has been before the Commission at different times and in different cases, and certain general principles have been laid down and discussed that do not seem to demand discussion again upon the facts of this case.

It has been said, and it is obvious on the facts shown, that the through rates eastward from Chicago are not wholly subject to the volition of the carrier. Those rates are fixed under the pressure of competition, both by rail and by water, and are doubtless lower than any one of the lines would be willing to accept if the business could be carried on independently of such competition. The responsibility for the through rate is, therefore, to a very slight extent due to these defendants, but is the result of agencies and forces which they are powerless to control.

For these reasons, as has often been said by the Commission, the through rate, and the divisions of such through rate between the carriers in the line of transportation, furnish no fair or just criterion for the intermediate local rates on the same line of transportation. It by no means follows that rates from intermediate points to the same destination are unreasonable or unjust because they may not be made upon a mileage basis as the divisions of joint rates are usually made. There are other considerations besides mere mileage that may legitimately be taken into account. The general

principle is that all rates must be reasonable, but, as was said in the case of the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Company (2 I. C. C. Rep. 265), “It is not the theory of the Act to regulate commerce that the reasonableness of rates can be separately and independently determined. On the contrary, it is assumed in the Act that persons, corporations and localities are interested, not only in the rates charged to them, but in the rates which are charged to others also, and while the Act does not require all rates to be proportional, it nevertheless makes the element of proportion an important one when the rates for any locality are to be determined. No rates can, therefore, be reasonable in and of themselves, within the contemplation of the Act, which are made regardless of proportion." The importance of recognizing this principle, and of giving it practical application by only a reasonable difference between the sums of locals and through rates have been perceived by some of the railway associations in a spirit of prudent conformity to public sentiment and to the tendency of rulings by commissions and courts, and as appears by their published action, steps have been taken in that direction.

In the present case it can not be claimed that the local rates from Chicago to Port Huron and from Port Huron to Buffalo are at all proportional upon the basis of mileage. The mileage from Port Huron to Buffalo is a little over onehalf of the distance from Chicago to Port Huron, and the rates on grain are nearly equal, being only one cent lower from Port Huron to Buffalo than from Chicago to Port Huron, while on grain products from Port Huron they are one cent higher. If there were no other considerations than mileage these proportions would apparently be inequitable, and could not be sustained; but mileage, though a factor, is by no means the only consideration in making these rates.

The cost of railway transportation is made up of the expense of the two terminals, and the intermediate haul and the terminal expenses are the same whether the haul be long or short. A few miles, or even a considerable number of miles, of additional haul may in some instances of long distance transportation be practically of very little importance,

and the ratio of tonnage cost per mile diminishes with distance.

While the rate made from Chicago to Buffalo of fifteen cents per hundred pounds may be regarded as a low rate, the local charge from Chicago to Port Huron of nine cents per hundred pounds is also a low rate, but is probably all that can be charged in view of the existing competition, and of the general circumstances and conditions of the transportation. Under these tariffs Port Huron has the same rate from Chicago as Detroit and Toledo, although the distance to Port Huron is considerably greater than to the other points.

On grain shipments from Chicago to these cities Port Huron suffers no prejudice on account of its greater distance, but has all the advantages of the same rate for the traffic with fifty miles longer haul than Detroit and ninety-one miles more than Toledo. The proportion of the through rate from Chicago to Buffalo received by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada of about five and a half cents per hundred pounds leaves a margin of two and a half cents per hundred pounds between its proportion of the through rate and its local rate of eight cents per hundred pounds on grain from Port Huron to Buffalo, and four and a half cents margin between it and the ten-cent rate on grain products.

This standing alone, it might be assumed, could scarcely be justified, but the other facts in evidence are confidently claimed by the respondents to justify the local rate. These are, in the first place, the terminal charge of $1.50 per car for car-loads, and of three cents per hundred pounds for less than car-loads, paid by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada to the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company for switching charges upon all business originating at Port Huron and going eastward. The evidence on this point is not very satisfactory, but leaves the matter of this alleged terminal charge in a rather vague and uncertain state. The tracks on which the terminal service is rendered belong to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, the engines used for the service appear to be quite as often those of the Grand Trunk Railway as of the Chicago & Grand Trunk; and the

business reason for the allowance of this charge was not made distinctly to appear. But the other facts are entirely free from doubt. The Grand Trunk Railway of Canada has its valuable and expensive terminals at Port Huron to maintain, and its clerical force and other employees for the conduct of its business; it has the expense of the ferry across the St. Clair river, and the bridge expense across the Niagara river, and the terminal charges for delivery at Buffalo. These are all borne exclusively by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada upon the business originating upon its line at Port Huron and eastward. The evidence does not show with any precision what these several expenses are, either in the aggregate or what would be a fair distribution of them per carload or per hundred pounds of freight. The defendants assume in their brief that the burden of showing these expenses was upon the petitioner; but this assumption is altogether erroneous. It would impose on persons conceiving themselves aggrieved by carriers a difficult and onerous rule of evidence. It would be impossible for the petitioners to show such facts otherwise than by the defendants' agents, and it was clearly the province of the defendant to make them appear. No presumption arises that a rate is reasonable from the mere fact that it has been put in effect; and when it is prima facie disproportionate or relatively unequal, the onus is on the carrier to justify its charges when challenged on those grounds. The knowledge of the justifying circumstances and conditions relied on is peculiarly in possession of the carrier. In the absence of evidence of this character the Commission can not determine with any degree of exactness how much additional charge the Grand Trunk Railway is reasonably entitled to make for these expenses. It is obvious, however, and entirely equitable, that some allowance is proper and necessary for this purpose, and it is not manifest that the rate in effect is excessive. But, though there may be some doubt on the evidence as to the extent of a just allowance for these additional expenses, it seems reasonably clear to the Commission that a charge of ten cents per hundred pounds from Port Huron to Buffalo on grain or grain products, while a fifteen-cent through rate is in effect