travelers was $20. Upon this evidence alone the Commission cannot find the established price to be unreasonable. The complainants also desire to have mileage tickets sold to their commercial travelers at a lower price than they are sold to the public generally, and insist that such a discrimination would not be unjust, in view of the peculiar character of their business. They claim that the consideration that commercial travelers are continually upon the road, and their labors result in great benefit to the freight traffic of the carriers, entitles them to the lowest rate of fare offered to or enjoyed by any portion of the traveling public, and that a special rate on mileage tickets should be given them. In other words, the Commission is asked to order and direct that a discrimination be made in favor of commercial travelers in the sale of mileage tickets, as was done by defendant prior to the passage of the law. The Commission would hardly be willing to make such an order in any case, however urgent the circumstances might appear to be. But in respect to this matter we are agreed that the entire policy and spirit of the law are against it, and that when mileage tickets, as distinguished from trip tickets, are issued, they should be sold to all impartially and on the same terms-and we have so decided in the cases of Larrison against the Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway Company and of Michigan Central Railroad Company against the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. In this opinion all concur. THE BOSTON AND ALBANY RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE BOSTON AND LOWELL RAILROAD COMPANY et al. TWO CASES. THE VERMONT STATE GRANGE v. THE BOSTON AND LOWELL RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Heard at Rutland, Vt., Sept., 1, 2, 3, 1887-Decided at Chicago, Sept. 20, 1887. When complaint is made that one of several companies forming a line for long haul traffic charge more for short hauls on its own line than is charged for long hauls on the line made by all the companies, it is proper to make them all parties defendant, since the low charges on the long haul traffic of all might perhaps be affected by changes made in the higher charges for short haul traffic of one, and, therefore, all may have an interest in being heard. It is not a grievance of which a railroad company can complain on its own account that its competitor in long haul traffic violates the "long and short haul clause" of the fourth section of the Act to Regulate Commerce, when such company is in no way interested in the high charges made on short haul traffic, and does not aver that there is any connection between such high charges and the low charges made on the competitive traffic. It is not a valid reason for one railroad company instituting proceedings against another for violating the long and short haul clause" of the fourth section of the Act to Regulate Commerce, that the complaining party desires to know whether the other is justified in making the high charges on short haul traffic, in order that it may do the same if such charges are sustained. The case of every road must be determined on its own facts, and a judgment sustaining the charges of one would not determine the rightfulness of similar charges by another. One may complain on public grounds of a violation of the Act to Regulate Commerce which amounts to a public grievance, without having any personal interest whatever to be affected by the violation, except as one of the public. A voluntary State association of persons engaged in an industrial pursuit, and therefore presumably interested in railroad rates in the State, may be complainant in proceedings charging a violation of the “long and short haul clause" of the Act to Regulate Commerce by roads within the State, and praying that such roads be required to cease and desist from such violation. The "same line " intended by the "long and short haul clause" of the act in a physical line and not a mere business arrangement. And one piece of road may be part of several lines, as the road from Boston to White River Junction is part of the line from Boston to St. Albans, and also part of the lines severally to Montreal, Ogdensburgh, Detroit, Port Huron and Chicago. If several roads join in making the tariff which constitutes the lesser charge on the longer haul, while one or more of their number make the greater charge on the shorter haul, the case is within the statute, and those who make such greater charge must justify it. Railroad companies over whose roads a fast freight line operates, and which divide its expenses and receipts, are responsible for its action in making and filing rates, and must at their peril see that its charges upon traffic over their roads are in conformity to law. Where the real competition for long haul traffic is by railroad, the fact that there is also possible water competition will not of itself make out the dissimilar circumstances and conditions which will support greater charges on shorter than on longer hauls under the fourth section of the act. The real, not the possible, competition will be considered when such greater charges are in question. The fact that one railroad line competing for long haul traffic is long and circuitous, and in order to share in the traffic is obliged, as against competitors having more direct lines and able to make more speedy transportation of freights, to make concessions in its charges, will not make out the dissimilar circumstances and conditions intended by the fourth section of the Act to Regulate Commerce, and which alone can justify the greater charge for the shorter than for the longer haul, which is permitted to be made in some cases by that section. Samuel Hoar, for the complainant in the first two cases. George F. Edmunds and Haskins & Stoddard, for the complainant in the third case. B. F. Fifield, for the Central Vermont Railroad Company. A. A. Strout, for other defendants. REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. COOLEY, Chairman. On May 24, 1887, the Boston and Albany Railroad Company presented its petition stating "that the Boston and Lowell Railroad Company, a Massachusetts corporation; the Concord Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Northern Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Central Vermont Railroad Company, a Vermont corporation, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, established by the laws of Canada, have issued schedules of joint rates under the name of the National Despatch Line, and under these schedules the rates from Boston to Detroit, Michigan, are 51-45-35-24-20-18 for the six classes of freight, respectively; and to Montreal, Canada, 45-40-30-23-20-18 for the six classes of freight, respectively; while at the same time the Boston and Lowell, Concord, Northern, and Central Vermont Railroad Companies, a part of the roads included in the National Despatch Line, have made and maintained rates from Boston to St. Albans, Vermont, a station on the Central Vermont Railroad, a less distance from Boston than either Detroit or Montreal, in the same direction over the same line as follows: 60-50-40-27-24-17 for the six classes of freight, respectively. "The National Despatch Line comes into competition with the Boston and Albany Railroad Company and its connections at Detroit and other western points. "The grievance which this company and its connections have is that the National Despatch Line makes rates to Detroit and other points in the West less than the Boston and Albany Railroad Company and its connections make to the same points; while at the same time a certain combination of roads, including a part of the roads in the National Despatch Line, viz., the Boston and Lowell, Concord, Northern, and Central Vermont Railroad Companies, maintain higher rates to St. Albans and other immediate points-that is, higher rates for the short haul than for the long haul on the same line in the same direction on the five upper classes of freight, whereas, if the rates to Detroit and other Western points were made the same-no higher and no lower-than to any intermediate point on the same line in the same direction, your petitioner would have no reason to complain." "On the same day the complainant presented another petition representing that the Boston and Lowell Railroad Company, a Massachusetts corporation; the Concord Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Northern Railroad Company, a New Hampshire corporation; the Central Vermont Railroad Company, a Vermont corporation; and the Ogdensburgh and Lake Champlain Railroad Company, a New York corporation, have made an arrangement by which the Steamship Company operated by the Ogdensburgh and Lake Champlain Railroad Company has issued a tariff from Boston to lake ports in the United States at a less rate than is charged at the same time from Boston to Ogdensburgh and other points on the same line at a shorter distance from Boston in the same direction. The rates are as follows: From Boston to Cleveland, O., 41-36-29-20-17-14 for the six classes of freight, respectively. To Milwaukee, 44-39-31-23-19-16 for the six classes, respecChicago, Stively, and from Boston to Ogdensburgh, 60–50-45–30–25–17 for the six classes of freight, respectively. "This line via Ogdensburgh comes into competition with the Boston and Albany Railroad Company, and its connections at Cleveland, Detroit, Port Huron, Milwaukee, Chicago and other Western points. "The grievance which the Boston and Albany Railroad Company and its connections have is that the line via Ogdensburgh makes rates to the above places less than the Boston and Albany Railroad Company and its connections make to the same points, while at the same time the above named roads, viz., the Boston and Lowell, Concord, Northern, Central Vermont, and Ogdensburgh and Lake Champlain Railroad Companies maintain higher rates to Ogdensburgh and other immediate points-that is, higher rates for the short haul than for the long haul on the same line at the same time in the same direction, whereas if the rates to Cleveland, Detroit, Port Huron, Milwaukee, and Chicago were made the same, no higher and no lower than to intermediate points on the same line in the same direction, your petitioner would have no reason to complain." To these petitions the several defendants made answer, bu. it is deemed unnecessary to do more in this opinion than to give one in each case. The answer of the Boston and Lowell Railroad Company to the petition first above recited, denies that the defendants "have issued joint rates under the name of the National Despatch Company as therein averred, and further denies that the line of railroads, or the railroad which established and maintains any joint rates, or any rates for the carriage of freight between Boston and St. Albans and intermediate points, is the same line or railroad corporation as the line which establishes and maintains the rates of freight between Boston and Detroit and other western points, as alleged in said petition; and further denies that the same carrier or line of railroads or this defendant charge higher rates for a short |