On this line a tariff was issued November 5, 1889, showing through rates from San Francisco to the points named. The combination rates extend westward from Kansas City to Larned, Mo., 308 miles. West of Larned, to Lamar, Colo., 519 miles from Kansas City and 1,597 miles from San Francisco, the maximum rate is $1.10 per hundred pounds.

A new local tariff from Kansas City was issued January 10, 1889, which makes lower rates to a few of the points named in the above table than those shown in the present sugar tariff. The effect of the new tariff upon the figures shown in the table reduces the rate to Burlingame to 84 cents, to Florence 92 cents, to Newton 96 cents, to Hutchinson $1.01, and to Larned $1.05.

No tariffs are on fiie showing through rates on sugar from San Francisco to local stations on the Missouri Pacific Railway, or on the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway. The tariff issued by the Southern Pacific Company December 21, 1889, shows rates on sugar to Weatherford, Tex., and other points on the Texas & Pacific Railway east of that point, at $1.10 per hundred pounds..

The rates on sugar in car-loads from Atlantic seaboard cities to Missouri river points, in June, 1889, and April, 1890 were as follows:

These rates apply via all the direct lines from the East, and somewhat lower rates are charged by the routes allowed differentials.

Rates via these lines to points east of the Missouri river are not made from the eastern cities by the combination of the rates to the Missouri river plus the locals back, but are made by adding to the rates to the Mississippi river the local rate beyond.

The through rates to the points on the Union Pacific Railway from eastern cities, made up of the rate to Kansas City

with the local rate west from Kansas City to the points that take combination rates from San Francisco, are as follows:

The through rates from the same eastern cities, made up in the same way, to points on the line of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad that take combination rates from San Francisco, are as follows:

The principal question that arises upon the facts is whether the lower rate on sugar from San Francisco to the Missouri river than to Humboldt and other intermediate towns not on the through route, but to which the most direct haul over a connecting route is shorter than to the Missouri river, is unjust discrimination within the purview of the statute, against sneh intermediate points. Another question raised by the

complainants is that through routes and rates extending over the latteral roads should be made by the respective lines from San Francisco to Humboldt, and that such through rates should not exceed the Missouri river rate. This, however, is only incidental to the main question. It involves, nevertheless, another question, and that is the authority of the Commission to require carriers to enter into arrangements for through routes and through rates when not done voluntarily, and the Commission has ruled that this power has not been conferred by the Act. The point need not, therefore, be further discussed. Little Rock & Memphis R. Co., v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia R. Co. et al, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 1; Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., 3 I. C. C. Rep. 592.

The question of unjust discrimination is therefore the one to be determined. This would be of easy solution if distance were the only element involved. The greater charge for the shorter distance, if included in the longer haul, over the same line and in the same direction, and under substantially similar conditions, would be clearly unlawful, not only because it is prohibited by the fourth section of the Act, but because it is in itself unjust discrimination. But the issues involve other considerations, and respondents claim to justify the lower charge for the longer distance, within the principles of the Act, on the general ground of dissimilarity in the circumstances and conditions of the transportation to the Missouri river.

On the part of the complainants the case is put entirely on the ground of distance and consequent cost of service in conveying the sugar to its destination. It is said that it costs no more to haul the sugar to Humboldt, though not on the main line, than to Kansas City, but presumably less on account of shorter distance, and therefore Humboldt should have no higher rate, but, if any difference be made, should have a lower rate. If all the other circumstances and conditions were substantially similar this principle would apply. But the Commission has never understood that milage or cost of service alone, regardless of other conditions, should be the controlling factors in determining the lawfulness of rates, and has repeatedly so declared. In fact, an inflexible

rule of that kind would be disastrous to the transportation business of the country, and the public would be injured more than the railroads. It is because of the widely varying conditions that were known to exist that the statute with great propriety, has allowed carriers to adjust their charges to the forces that are compulsory upon them, within such limitations as shall not work injustice.

The respondents insist that they are strictly within these principles of the statute, and that no injustice is done by the established rates to the complainants and others similarly situated.

The principal question, therefore, is whether, upon the facts in these cases, the carriers may lawfully make a lower charge for the longer distance to the Missouri river than to an intermediate point situated like Humboldt. The burden rests upon the carriers to show that they fall within the exceptions founded upon dissimilarity of conditions, and that the rates challenged are justified by those conditions. The conditions that may be shown in justification have been indicated in former cases. In re Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 1 I. C. C. Rep., 31. They may be water competition, or competition by foreign, or other railroads not subject to the statute, or rare and peculiar cases of competition where a strict enforcement of the statute would be destructive of legitimate competition. Any one of these conditions may sometimes be found sufficient, and all may to some extent co-exist, and together be found sufficient. In these cases there are considerations pertaining to different classes of these conditions.

The circumstances and conditions peculiar to a road determine the amount of revenue required for its maintenance and operation. Circumstances and conditions extraneous to a road may determine independently of its own volition the rates it must accept upon some of its traffic, or to secure business at some points. The dissimilarity mentioned in the statute may be created by such conditions. The statute does. not define the nature of the dissimilarity that may authorize a deviation from the general rule that distance should be a governing element in rates. Evidently it should be of such a nature as practically to fix the rates a carrier may charge

in order to participate in business useful to the public without essential injustice to other public interests. The conditions that may be sufficient for this purpose may differ in different cases, and cannot all be foreseen, nor definitely specified for every case. They depend on facts to be shown by evidence, and the question of their sufficiency is to be determined as occasion may arise.

The first consideration bearing upon this question is the character of the roads over which the traffic moves. This involves the cost of their construction, maintenance and operation, and the right to fair remuneration for their service. The continuous routes made up of the various roads over which through rates are made are of extraordinary length, being respectively 2,434 miles, and 2,116 miles, and 2,156 miles, in the different cases. They cross mountain ranges of great elevation, reaching six and eight thousand feet in some instances, creating necessarily extremely heavy grades. Their construction was exceedingly expensive, both on account of the character of the country for the most part through which they run, and the long transportation of necessary materials. The obstructions to operation by various causes, such as snow blockades and wash-outs of tracks, are often serious. These causes, together with the high cost of fuel on most of the roads and the large number of trackmen required, make the expenses of operating alone exceptionally great, and the necessity for corresponding revenue imperative. The long distances of almost uninhabited territory, where there is no local business, is also a feature of these lines connected with the circumstances and conditions of their business.

These roads are national in their character, and are more important to the country at large than to their immediate owners. The large subsidies granted by the government towards the construction of many of them is evidence of the importance with which they are regarded in a national sense. For all the purposes, governmental, commercial and individual, for which great highways connecting all the portions of an immense country by easy and rapid means of communication, are valuable, these roads are of incalculable importance. They have served to develop with amazing rapidity great