LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & COMPANY v. THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, THE TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, AND H. C. CROSS AND GEORGE A. EDDY, RECEIVERS OF SAID COMPANY. LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & COMPANY v. THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, THE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY.

LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & COMPANY v. THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, LESSEE OF THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD, THE UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, AND H. C. CROSS AND GEORGE A. EDDY, RECEIVERS OF SAID COMPANY.

Complaints filed June 17, 1889. Answers filed July 9 to August 24, 1889. Heard at Kansas City, Mo., September 24 and 25, 1889. Briefs December 6, 1889, to March 19, 1890. Decided May 22, 1890.

A lower charge for a longer distance for transportation of like traffic may be justified by actual water competition of controlling force, relating to traffic important in amount; and among the circumstances and conditions that may be considered in estimating the dissimilarity created by water competition are the character of the roads, the character of the traffic, the preponderance of empty cars moving in a direction in which the traffic must be taken, and the legitimacy of the competition by the rail carrier. The transportation of traffic under circumstances and conditions that force a low rate for its carriage or an abandonment of the business, but which affords some revenue above the cost of its movement, and works no material injustice to other patrons of a carrier, is to be

3. SUGAR.

Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al.,

4. PATENT MEDICINES.

1.

Warner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et al., 32.

5. SOAP.

Andrews Soap Company . Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Company et al., 41.

Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Com-
pany et al., 87.

Beaver & Company . Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway
Company et al., 733.

6. FOOD PRODUCTS.

In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products, 48, 116.

7. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, 131.

Rice v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company et al., 228. 8. BLANKET.

Rice v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company et al., 228. 9. HOGS AND HOG PRODUCT.

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
Company et al., 158.

Squire & Company v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al., 611. 10. PIG IRON.

Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central & Hudson River
Railroad Company et al., 195.

11. SURGICAL CHAIRS.

Harvard Company . Pennsylvania Company et al., 212.

12. COAL.

Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 296. Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. 13. GROUP.

Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. 14. WHEAT AND FLOUR.

Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company et al., 417.

15. IMPORT TRAFFIC.

New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania
Railroad Company et al., 447.

16. CATTLE AND DRESSEd Beef.

Squire & Company v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al., 611. 17. PEACHES.

Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk
Railroad Company et al., 588.

Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England
Railroad Company et al., 664.

18. PERISHABLE FREIGHT.-Ib.

cinnati, New

ission, 351.

H AND LO ATES: UN DVANTAG RAFFIC.

RATES

e is n f comp ecting xpense

petitiv

Southe

manu

Classi ads. arload three he qua medic

ner ma

hey sup
which

asonabl

udson R

ication o

rior to c the ma lassifica burgh.

deemed legitimate competition. When, however, its carriage is at a loss, and imposes a burden on like traffic at other points, and on other traffic, it is to be deemed destructive and illegitimate com. petition.

Rates can not 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.

The general rule contemplated by the statute of equitably graduated charges on like traffic with reasonable reference to the amount of the service, is just in itself, and commonly most beneficial both to the carriers and to the public, and is only to be departed from when justified by exceptional conditions, and in such instances no longer than the conditions require.

Where a reduced rate is made at the terminus of a through route, under the compulsion of competition, a town not located on the line of the through route, but reached over a lateral connecting road, has a disadvantage of situation entailing some additional expense, and a reasonably higher rate to such town than the forced competitive rate to the more distant terminus of the through route, is not unjust discrimination.

Upon complaint by dealers at Humboldt, Kansas, against the respondent lines for unjust discrimination in charging a rate of 65 cents per hundred pounds on sugar transported from San Francisco to Kansas City, and 85 cents per hundred pounds upon the same commodity from San Francisco to Humboldt, more than a hundred miles shorter distance, but not on the through line.

Held, that the reduced rate to Kansas City being forced upon the carriers by competitive conditions beyond their control, and the rate to Humboldt not being unreasonable in itself, but lower than it would be except for the influence of the competitive conditions at Kansas City, and it not appearing that substantial injustice results from higher rate at Humboldt, the lower rate to Kansas C higher rate to Humboldt are not deemed to be

the statute.

E. A. Barber and II. C. Sluss, for con
C. H. Tree and J. C. Martin, for S
Warner, Dean & Ilagerman, for
Kansas & Texas Railway Co.