nine pounds and not less than five from every load weighed, and that this has existed for many years.

These witnesses testified to some other facts but not affecting the force of their testimony on material points. No other witnesses were produced. No claim was made by counsel on this testimony, and it is examined by the Commission on its own motion, only to enable it to see what the duty is in view. of the information which the testimony affords. And in this view it is proper to note what the evidence fails to show as well as what it does show.

It fails to show that the complainant has suffered any wrong under the alleged custom since this Act was passed; or that he has delivered any wheat whatever, for any purpose, to the respondents, since the fall of 1884; or that the wheat then delivered was for shipment beyond the State where shipped; or that it was to be transported anywhere. The evidence shows that deductions from weight were made by the respondent companies as charged, since this Act was passed, but it is not shown under what circumstances or that it was not pursuant to arrangement or understanding between the parties. So far as shown it would seem to have been a well understood and uncomplained of custom. Not a single farmer who thus sold and delivered wheat since this enactment was produced as a witness to show the fact of a deduction or to complain of it as to him, or as to anybody else, or as a custom. The evidence does show that there is a shrinkage in the weight of wheat while in the elevator.

Taking all the material facts which the evidence of the complainant tends to show, they are as before stated, inconclusive and fall far short of establishing a case of violation of the Act to regulate commerce. But, while we think the respondent companies are entitled to have the complaint dismissed, we think it should be without prejudice, because it does not follow from the fact that no violation of the Act to regulate commerce is shown, that none could be shown under the alleged custom of making deductions from the weight of wheat. The complaint and evidence show a custom of what is claimed to have been a wrongful conversion of wheat by the railroad companies. Although such conversion would be a

in presuming the delivery was for interstate transportation, no violation within the cognizance of the Commission is charged.

We think that under the most liberal construction known to legal proceedings, the complaint is insufficient.

It need not be stated that, whatever wrongs the carrier may have perpetrated of the nature charged as to deliveries of wheat for transportation within the State only, they are not within the jurisdiction of this Commission to correct.

The complaint, even as amended, being clearly insufficient in substance to show violations of the Act to regulate commerce, the respondents are entitled, upon their motion, to have it dismissed; but even if we look beyond the complaint into the evidence, with a view to see whether that makes out a case for a corrective order against the respondents, we find the facts testified to are very inconclusive and unsatisfactory.

One witness in substance testified to his employment for the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company at New Carlisle Station, Indiana, for seven years continuously, previous to and until June, 1889; also to the custom of making deductions in the weight of wheat delivered by farmers at the elevator at that station substantially as charged in the complaint; also as to the amount that he shipped out of the elevator there to the elevator in Toledo in 1883 and in 1888, these amounts being the excess of wheat over the amount given in receipts to the farmers. He also testified as to what he learned was the amount of such excess shipped from Terre Coupee, which was hearsay, and what he discovered was shipped from Rolling Prairie; also to the fact of shrinkage of weight of wheat in an elevator; also about the scales. used and method of weighing, and imperfection in some of the scales. Although not so stated in terms by the witness, we infer and find that the wheat delivered at the elevators at stations in Indiana was shipped by the buyer to points outside the State.

Another witness, a farmer, testified to his sale and delivery of wheat at Dayton, Michigan, in 1882, and to the custom of the Michigan Central Railroad Company to deduct as high as

nine pounds and not less than five from every load weighed, and that this has existed for many years.

These witnesses testified to some other facts but not affecting the force of their testimony on material points. No other witnesses were produced. No claim was made by counsel on this testimony, and it is examined by the Commission on its own motion, only to enable it to see what the duty is in view of the information which the testimony affords. And in this view it is proper to note what the evidence fails to show as well as what it does show.

It fails to show that the complainant has suffered any wrong under the alleged custom since this Act was passed; or that he has delivered any wheat whatever, for any purpose, to the respondents, since the fall of 1884; or that the wheat then delivered was for shipment beyond the State where shipped; or that it was to be transported anywhere. The evidence shows that deductions from weight were made by the respondent companies as charged, since this Act was passed, but it is not shown under what circumstances or that it was not pursuant to arrangement or understanding between the parties. So far as shown it would seem to have been a well understood and uncomplained of custom. Not a single farmer who thus sold and delivered wheat since this enactment was produced as a witness to show the fact of a deduction or to complain of it as to him, or as to anybody else, or as a custom. The evidence does show that there is a shrinkage in the weight of wheat while in the elevator.

Taking all the material facts which the evidence of the complainant tends to show, they are as before stated, inconclusive and fall far short of establishing a case of violation of the Act to regulate commerce. But, while we think the respondent companies are entitled to have the complaint dismissed, we think it should be without prejudice, because it does not follow from the fact that no violation of the Act to regulate commerce is shown, that none could be shown under the alleged custom of making deductions from the weight of wheat. The complaint and evidence show a custom of what is claimed to have been a wrongful conversion of wheat by the railroad companies. Although such conversion would be a

wrong within the jurisdiction of the common law courts to afford a remedy, yet, if it amounted to an unjust and unreasonable charge for the receiving and delivering, storage or handling of the wheat, in connection with interstate transportation, then it would be a violation of section one of this statute. It has not been indicated and is not readily apparent what other provision of the Act would be violated by the practice alleged. But if a case of violation of any provision can be shown there should be no bar to its prosecution; and facts may be developed when it might become the duty of the Commission to proceed on its own motion under that provision of section twelve (as amended) which is as follows: "And the Commission is hereby authorized and required to execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

Petition dismissed without prejudice.

THIRD ANNUAL REPORT

OF THE

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

OFFICE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,

WASHINGTON, D. C., November 30, 1889.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

The Interstate Commerce Commission has the honor to submit its third annual report, as follows:

ORGANIZATION OF FORCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WORK.

Under the original Act to regulate commerce the Commission was required to report to the Secretary of the Interior, and the report was transmitted by him to Congress. By the amendments to the Act approved March 2, 1889, the Commission was required to report directly to Congress.

In submitting its first annual report under this amendment the Commission deems it appropriate to set forth the organization of its force for the systematic and efficient performance of its duties, and the character and distribution of the work.

The Commissioners themselves exercise a general control and direction over all the business of the Commission. They personally examine all complaints received, hear the trial of all controversies, conduct investigations, prepare all reports made, decisions rendered, and orders and circulars issued, allow subpoenas duces tecum, carry on the correspondence relating to the action and duties of carriers and the rights of shippers, and various other things.

The secretary acts as the executive officer and is also the