expense involved in the cost of transportation for which it makes no separate charge, but which is covered by the transportation rate charged, it is no more required by the statute to publish this in its tariffs than it is to publish any other transportation expense or item in the cost of transportation that it incurs in transporting freight to and from Grand Rapids over its line.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF F. W. CLARK, GENERAL FREIGHT AND PASSENGER AGENT OF THE SEABOARD AIR LINE.

Heard and decided April 23, 1890.

1. Through rates in interstate traffic are the subject of agreement among carriers who transport the freight, and for their existence are dependent upon such agreement; and one of the features of such rates usually is that each carrier receiving the freight pays the charges upon it of the carrier delivering it.

2. Where a line of steamships, for example, plying between New York and Wilmington, N. C., make a through rate from New York via Wilmington and the Carolina Central Railroad to interior points, by adding the steamer rate to the local tariff rate of the railroad to the interior points, there being no agreed through rates for such freight between the steamship and rail lines, the rail carrier, when the freight is tendered to it at Wilmington, is under no obligation to pay the rates earned by the steamer in transporting the freight from New York to Wilmington, but may decline to do so, leaving the steamship and the shipper to settle the matter of the steamship's charges before the carrier takes the freight and transports it to the interior point.

MEMORANDUM.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

BRAGG, Commissioner:

In this proceeding the Commission has received an application from F. W. Clark, General Freight and Passenger Agent of the Seaboard Air Line, as follows:

"Will you kindly advise me if a line doing business from an eastern Atlantic port has a right to publish and operate rates from the said eastern ports, via a southern port, based upon whatever rates the steamer line may choose to make in connection with the local rates of a railroad from the southern port to the interior; and if the railroad line from

the said southern port would, under the Interstate Commerce Law, be compelled to operate said rates, published and quoted without the consent of the railroad leading from the said southern port to the interior?

"Our attorney is of the opinion that we would have a right to decline to pay charges between the eastern and the southern port, unless the through rate is made up upon an equitable and agreed basis, looking to the maintenance of rates agreed upon and established for all of the said railroad's connections.

"To be more explicit, has a steamship line from New York to Wilmington, N. C., a right to make rates from New York to a point on the Carolina Central R. R. without the consent of the said Carolina Central R. R.? And would the said Carolina Central R. R. be forced to pay the charges of the steamer line between New York and Wilmington, in case the said steamer line should make total rates between the points named, without any regard to the wishes of the Carolina Central R. R.? We have regular established rates via Portsmouth and via Richmond, made up in accordance with the Interstate Commerce Law, which we desire to have maintained."

It is indispensably necessary in interstate traffic that the consent of each of several lines over which freight is to be carried should be had in the establishment and operation of what is called "through rates." Such rates are the subject of agreement, and for their existence depend upon agreement. One of the features of such rates is usually that each carrier receiving the freight pays the charges on it to the carrier delivering it.

Assuming the facts to be true as stated in this application, it appears that there is no agreement between the Carolina Central Railroad Company and the steamship line from New York to Wilmington as to any through rate upon freight. This being true, the railroad carrier could only be required to carry the freight from Wilmington to the interior at its local, published, tariff rates, and would be under no obliga

tion whatever to pay the charges of the steamer line between New York and Wilmington.

The subject of the reasonableness of the local tariff rates of the rail carrier is not involved in this proceeding, and is therefore not passed on by the Commission.

At the hearing and decision of this case the Chairman was absent because of illness, and did not in any way participate.

CHARLES ELVEY, CLAIMANT v. THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Complaint filed July 8, 1889. Decided May 9, 1890.

1. Where a carrier by its published general tariffs charges the general public from and to all points upon a large portion of its lines certain rates upon a class of freight and at the same time publishes and puts into force a special tariff by which it charges a class of persons named, from and to the same points on its lines, less than one-half in amount of the rates on the same class of freight that it charges the general public in its general tariffs, such a discrimination is unjust and is violative of the Act to regulate commerce.

2. Such a discrimination can not be sustained upon the ground that the special tariffs is made to aid "emigrants" in moving from one State to another where land is cheap and to develop a sparsely settled country and to build up business along the carrier's lines, and upon the supposition that this constitutes substantially dissimilar circumstances and conditions to what exists when similar services are rendered by the carrier for the general public.

3. A shipper to whom, as an emigrant, is accorded the rate provided by the special tariff, for example, sixty dollars on a car load of freight weighing 20,000 pounds from Chicago, Illinois, to Hammond, Louisiana, a distance of 863 miles, in December, 1888, and in May, 1889, makes return shipment of same freight from Hammond, Louisiana, to Chicago, Tilinois, under the general tariffs of the carrier, there being no other tariffs on north-bound freight between these points, and is charged therefor $122.00 per car, complains of an unjust. charge, Held, that as the carrier in each instance charged only its open published rates and no evidence is offered to show that the rates in either instance are unjust and unreasonable, and as the general tariffs of the company have long been in use and published and open to the public, and the special tariff has been but recently issued and is open to a certain special class only and is unlawful, that the general tariffs afford a better standard of what are reasonable and just rates than the special tariff, and that the shipper in such case has not been injured in paying less than one half the amount charged the general public on the first haul and only what was charged the general public on the second haul.

4. The carrier is ordered and notified to cease and desist from further

operating the special freight tariff.