vailing that the even scale of reduction proposed will not apply with equal justice in these exceptional cases. To avoid possible injustice in this respect no rate is required to be lower than 6 mills per ton per mile for distances of not more than 500 miles, nor lower than 6 mills per ton per mile for any distance. The existing rates are often fractional and the required relations between rates on corn and wheat limiting the difference to 15 per cent. would result in other and more minute fractional rates. The required reductions may therefore be made on the basis of even cents, and wherever the reduced rates would be fractional the fraction may be counted as a cent; and with these modifications an order, to take effect September 1st, 1890, will issue in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the Commission reported June 7th, 1890. RICE, ROBINSON AND WITHEROP v. THE WESTERN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Decided originally November 30, 1888. Opened for further testimony Submitted 1. The acquisition and consolidation by a rail carrier under one system of management of different competing lines of road serving the same territory in the carriage of competitive traffic to the same markets, cannot create a right on the part of the carrier to take advantage of the consolidation of interests to deprive the public of the benefits of fair competition, nor afford warrant for oppressive discrimination with a view to its own interests, such as equalizing profits from its several divisions, by making rates and charges for one division that give profitable markets to a portion of its patrons, and higher rates and charges for another division that are destructive to the pursuits of other patrons who are competitors in the same business; but its duty to the public requires that its service must be alike to all who are situated alike.. 2. A carrier that employs different methods for the transportation of petroleum oil and its products in car-loads-for example, tank cars in which the oil is carried in bulk, and box cars in which the oil is carried in barrels-is not relieved from its duty in respect to equality of rates by the difference it makes between its patrons in the mode of carriage, but its charges for like quantities carried between like points of shipment and destination must be equal upon the commodity itself, irrespective of the mode of carriage or the tank or barrel package in which it is contained. Differences in circumstances and conditions of transportation that are of a carrier's own creation or connivance, or that by reasonable effort on the part of a carrier might be avoided, cannot justify exceptional rates. 3. A tank used in carrying oil is deemed by carriers part of the car, and the rate is charged only upon the contents, while for carriage in box cars the barrels containing the oil are treated as freight, and the rate is charged both for the weight of the barrel and its contents. The prevention of this prejudice to shippers in barrels requires that for purposes of rates, when a carrier uses both tank and box cars for carrying oil in car-loads, the barrels shall be deemed part of the box car; and that, as in the case of transportation in tanks, the rate shall be charged only for the weight or quantity of oil carried, exclusive of the weight of the barrels, and be the same for like weight or quantity carried in tanks. 4. When a carrier engages in transporting oil in tanks, and also in barrels conveyed in box cars, in car-loads, and charges for the weight of the barrel as well as the oil carried by the box-car mode of transportation, but for the weight of the oil only when carried in tanks, it unjustly discriminates between shippers, and subjects the traffic to undue prejudice and disadvantage. 5. The fact that a carrier does not own tank cars, but accepts and uses such cars supplied by some of its patrons for their own traffic, is unimportant so far as rates are concerned. It is a carrier's duty to equip its road with instrumentalities of carriage suitable for the traffic it undertakes to carry, and to furnish them alike to all who have occasion for their use, and its duty to furnish equipment can not be transferred to nor required of shippers. When a carrier accepts and uses cars for transportation owned by shippers or others, in legal contemplation it adopts them as its own for purposes of rates and carriage, and neither the manner of acquiring cars, nor inability to furnish its general patrons the use of cars similar to those furnished by some shippers for their own traffic, can excuse or justify a carrier for discrimination in rates that may give one shipper advantages over another; nor can any device, such as payment of unreasonable rent for use of cars furnished by shippers, be practiced to evade the duty of equal charges for equal service. 6. The allowance by a carrier to a shipper of oil in tanks, of 42 gallons, or any number of gallons, from the actual quantity put in a tank, for alleged leakage or waste in transportation, is, in the absence of a corresponding allowance to shippers in barrels, unjust discrimination and unlawful. 7. The classification of petroleum oil and its products in car-loads adopted and generally applied by carriers is the same, and the rates upon oil and its products should correspond with their classification and be alike. M. J. Heyrang, for petitioners. REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. SCHOONMAKER, Commissioner: Upon the testimony originally given in this case and the facts then presented, a decision was rendered against the complainants on the 30th day of November, 1888, reported in 2 I. C. C. Rep. 389. Several other cases involving the same or similar questions were about that time brought before the Commission by the Independent Refiners of Western Pennsylvania, and, it appearing that a much fuller investigation of the general subject of oil transportation would be made in those cases, the Commission thought these petitioners should have the benefit of any additional facts that might be shown, and accordingly, on application of petitioners, an order was made on the 15th day of April, 1889, opening this case for further hearing, and providing that the testimony taken in the other cases. should apply in this case, so far as it might be relevant. The new cases proceeded to a hearing and a large amount of testimony was taken, both at Titusville and at Washington, and important additional facts were elicited that are pertinent in this case. The general ground of complaint in the first instance was, and still is, that the rate for the transportation of refined oil in car-loads from Titusville to Buffalo on shipments in barrels is unreasonable and excessive. The rate charged is 8 cents per hundred pounds, or 34 cents a barrel, in carloads, upon an estimated average weight of 400 pounds for the barrel and its contents. The case as at first presented rested mainly upon a comparison of the existing rate with a former rate of 25 cents a barrel from Titusville to Buffalo, and with the proportion received by the respondent of a joint through rate from Titusville to the seaboard via Buffalo. This presentation of the case was not considered to furnish satisfactory reasons to order a reduction of the rate. The testimony since taken supplies facts that materially change the aspects of the case and introduce other and more important elements tending to show unjust discrimination between shippers of oil in tanks and in barrels, and in other particulars. The additional facts deemed material and now found in the case are as follows: Prior to April 5th, 1887, the respondent and other rail carriers of oil in the territory in question made their rates upon it by the barrel, which embraced no charge for the weight of the barrel, and for about three years the tariff rate to Buffalo was 25 cents a barrel. These rates applied alike to oil and its products. When the Act to regulate commerce took effect, April 5, 1887, and the new Official Classification became operative, oil was placed in the 5th class, and the rate from Titusville to Buffalo was established at 84 cents per hundred pounds, including the weight of the barrel, which advanced the charge to 34 cents per barrel. This rate for transportation to Buffalo has since been maintained. At that time, and until about September 3, 1888, the rate upon oil from Titusville to the seaboard at Perth Amboy via Buffalo, over the line of the respondent and the Lehigh Valley road, was 52 cents per barrel. This did not include a charge for the weight of the barrel. About September 3, 1888, the respondent and other carriers changed the rate to the seaboard, by advancing it from 52 cents to 66 cents per barrel, which included a charge for the weight of the barrel; and a like charge for the weight of the barrel to all other points of shipment was also established. By these changes the advance in the rate to Buffalo from Titusville was 9 cents a barrel, and to the seaboard 14 cents a barrel. The weight of the barrel added nearly two tons to the weight of the car-load of oil in barrels, and an increased charge of about $3.40 to the car-load. The alleged ground for this advance was an expression in a decision of the Commission in the case of Rice v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 1 I. C. C. Rep. 552. The respondent was the first to discover a reason for advancing rates in that decision. The discovery, however, and the respondent's application of it, were thought to be advantageous to carriers, and the advance was adopted by other carriers operating in the same territory and carrying to interior |