RELATIVE RATES. 1. TO COMPETITIVE AND LOCAL POINTS.-Rates cannot be arbitrarily charged in the mere discretion of a carrier. They are to be equitably adjusted with regard to the public interests as well as the carrier's. Reduced rates at points where competitive influences are controlling must not fall below some revenue from the traffic in excess of cost, and higher rates at other points, required for the necessary revenue of a carrier, must be reasonable in themselves, and also relatively reasonable in comparison with the competitive rate. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. The addition of through rate to basing point and that local rate which will give the lowest combination criticised. Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad Company et al., 686. 2. MANUFACTURERS' DESCRIPTION. -The market value of articles and shippers representations to the public as to their character may be taken into account in classification. This is especially applicable to articles in which there is no free competition among producers and shippers. The volume of the traffic is an element that may also be considered in classification. Warner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et al., 32. In a proceeding brought to correct classification of a soap manufactured and sold as toilet soap, but claimed not substantially superior to other soaps sold as laundry soap and carried at lower rates, the manufacturers' description of his product for commercial purposes as being of superior value was held to warrant its classification accordingly. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Rail- Beaver & Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway 3. FOOD PRODUCTS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products, 116. 4. BETWEEN LOCALITIES.-Equality in charges is required under circumstances and conditions substantially similar, and relative equality is necessary in the degree of similarity. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St. Upon complaint by dealers at Mankato, Minn., that rates from Chicago to Mankato should be no higher than to Waterville, Minneapolis and points allowed like rates. Held, that in view of the circumstances and conditions existing, a somewhat higher charge to Mankato is not unlawful, but that a difference of twenty per cent. or more on the respective classes, charged when the complaint was filed, is excessive, and that a difference of ten per cent. on the several classes is reasonable and should not be exceeded.-Ib. 5. PIG IRON FROM DIFFERENT MILLS.-Rates charged petitioner by the defendants on pig iron are in themselves, as well as relatively, the same in substance as rates charged other manufacturers of pig iron at the producing furnaces in the State of New York. Poughkeepsie Iron Company 2. New York Central & Hudson River The cost of the production of pig iron at a furnace situated like that of petitioner on the Hudson River in the State of New York is much greater than at Youngstown, Ohio, or Birmingham, Alabama, or at other points in the west and south; and while the aggregate rate charged petitioner to New England mills is a great deal lower than the aggregate rate charged on these western and southern irons to the same mills, yet it is not sufficiently so to overcome the difference in the cost of production; and the consequence is that petitioner finds itself at a serious disadvantage in competing with these western and southern irons in the markets and mills of the New England States where there is a very great demand for this class of property.-Ib. The Commission has no power and authority in this proceeding to order other carriers not parties to this proceeding to raise their rates on pig iron transported from Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio, to New England points in order to overcome the difference in the cost of production of pig iron now existing against petitioner; nor would the Commission enter upon the consideration of any such subject in a proceeding to which such carriers were not parties and in which such localities sought to be burdened with higher rates, for example, Youngstown and Cleveland, Ohio, had no opportunity to be heard; and the findings of fact in the present proceeding, which show that the rates already charged petitioner by the defendants are in themselves, as well as relatively, just and reasonable rates, demonstrate that the Commission could not order the defendants to lower these rates from Poughkeepsie to all points on the Boston & Albany road one-half, and Holyoke nearly one-half, in order to overcome the difference in the cost of production of pig iron now existing against petitioner.-Ib. 6. COMPETITIVE ARTICLES.-HOGS AND HOG PRODUCT. As articles of commerce the live hog and its product are in direct competition with each other at the points named in this proceeding and in the chief markets of the country, and are entitled to rates not only reasonable and just in themselves, but relatively reasonable and just in their bearing upon these different localities. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad 7. ON COMPETITIVE ARTICLES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED WITH REFERENCE TO COST OF SERVICE. HOGS AND HOG PRODUCT.-The relation of rates ought to rest upon fixed and stable conditions. The fluctuations of markets are so frequent, especially as to competitive articles, and oftentimes unexpected, that commercial considerations alone would not furnish a sufficiently stable and fixed rule for guidance in making a rate that should remain substantially permanent through all fluctuations. The Commission does not, by a fixing of rates, attempt to overcome advantages which one producer or dealer may have in his geographical location, and to produce equality between competitors in all markets. It would be a useless task, even if it had the power, to attempt to accomplish such a result. The proper relation of rates for transportation of strictly competitive articles over the same line should be determined by reference to respective costs of service ascertained with reasonable accuracy. Squire & Company v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al., 611. Violation by one carrier of principles laid down in this case as governing relative rates on competitive articles does not justify similar violations by its competitors.-Ib. The rates involved in this case are those on live hogs, live cattle and the dressed products of each. These are found to be competitive comnodities and therefore entitled to relatively reasonable rates for transportation proportioned to each other according to the respective costs of service.-Ib. 8. CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al., 281. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company et al., 417. 10. COAL AND OTHER Low Grade FreighT. COAL AND GENERAL FREIGHT.A railroad company had in force for a period of more than two years next before the Act to regulate commerce took effect a scale of charges on anthracite coal considerably lower than its present rates, which are higher on coal than on iron ore, pig iron and other low grade freight, and also higher than the charges of said road on general freight, the expense of carrying which is much greater than the expense on coal. Held, that such higher rates on coal are unreasonable. Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. 11. PERISHABLE AND ORDINARY FREIGHT. Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England See REASONABLE RATES; PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE; UNJUST DISCRIMINA- REPARATION. WHEN MADE NO ORDER WILL BE Issued. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, New Orleans & Texas REPORT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 1. WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR, 325. 2. PRACTICAL WORKINGS OF REGULATION, 333. 3. JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS, 337. 4. RATE WARS AND RATE CUTTING, 351. 5. REASONABLE RATES, 358. 6. UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION, 364. 7. LONG AND SHORT HAULS. 371. 8. RAILROAD REGULATION IN THE STATES, 386. 9. RAILROAD REGULATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, 387. 10. GOVERNMENT-AIDED RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINES, 388. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company, et al., 1. RIGHTS OF WAY. TO PRIVATE LIVE STOCK CARS. Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company et See PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE, 15. RISK. See CARRIERS, 8. SALTED HIDES AND PELTS. McMillan & Company v. Western Classification Committee, 276. SCHEDULES. See TARIFFS. SECOND SECTION. See UNJUST DISCRIMINATION; RELATIVE RATES. SEVENTH SECTION. CONSIDERED IN CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST SECTION.-Section seven of the Act Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England SHIPPERS. 1. REPRESENTATIONS OF.—In the classification of articles the shippers repre- Warner. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Rail- 2. RIGHTS OF. Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk See REASONABLE RATES 9, 22. SHIPMENTS. See CARLOADS AND LESS THAN CARLOADS; TRAFFIC. SIXTH SECTION. See TARIFFS. SOAP. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Rail- Proctor & Gamble v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Com- Beaver & Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway SPECIAL RATES. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania SPECIAL TRAIN SERVICE. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England THROUGH AND LOCAL. STATIONS. See THROUGH AND LOCAL RATES; LOCAL RATES; THROUGH RATES. STEAMBOAT LINES. Capehart et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 265. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. See PRACTICE, 10; BOOKS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS; DOCUMENTARY EVI- DENCE. SURGICAL CHAIRS. Harvard Company v. Pennsylvania Company et al., 212. TANK CARS. See CARS, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, 4, 5, 6. TANK STATIONS. Rice v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company et al., 228. TARIFFS. 1. STRAIGHT RATES TO DESTINATION SHOULD BE SHOWN upon. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. 2. RATES TO EVERY POINT ON A LINE SHOULD BE SHOWN ON. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et 3. IN FORCE FOR CONSIDERABLE PERIODS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Pro- Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. |