rates from Mazeppa to 12 cents, and from McCracken, distant 18 miles from the main line, to 8 cents per 100 pounds.

The defendant railway company, answering, admits many and contests none of the facts stated above, but asserts that the Mazeppa rates are, and have been since April 5th, 1887, reasonable and just, and avers that the lower rate, 7 cents, on the River Division is "exceedingly low and unprofitable," is not voluntary, but the result of competition, and only indirectly affects the rates at Mazeppa.

This answer of the defendant was supported by the testimony of witnesses tending to show that the Mazeppa rates of 12 cents are reasonable within themselves and without relation to the 74-cent rates on the main line, and that by reason of competition defendant was, and is, compelled to accept the latter rates to get any share of the main line. grain traffic.

This testimony, intelligent in theory, is based in part on comparison of these rates with rates for like distances in the States of Iowa and Illinois under State regulation, with no explanation of surrounding circumstances, and partly on the estimate of the cost of the service dependent upon conditions so numerous and variable as not to be convincing.

Before

The only evidence before us in support of complainant's statement that the Mazeppa rate, now 12 cents, is unreasonable is afforded by comparison of this and other rates on the branch line with the Red Wing, Lake City and other rates on the River Division of the main line. It already appears that the rate complained of, now 12 cents, was 18 cents when the complaint was made. the Act to regulate commerce was passed it had been as high as 30 and never lower than 17 cents. We do not feel authorized to declare 12 cents an unreasonable charge for the service rendered, or that a rate nearly a third lower than it had ever been previous to the Act to regulate commerce, is unjust and unlawful of itself, or within the meaning of the first section of the said Act.

The averment of defendant's answer that 7 cents, the River Division grain rates, were, and are, exceedingly low and unprofitable is qualified by the statement of the defend

ant's general manager that low as they are they yield something more than the cost of moving the grain. So qualified, the averment means only that if all freight was carried over defendant's road at rates no more profitable the earnings might not equal the cost of the service, including a reasonable return on the capital invested. Thus qualified, the averment is not without support in the facts presented.

The surplus products of Northwestern grainfields go largely to Eastern States for consumption or for export. Conceding that it may be true, as claimed by defendant's answer, that to share in the grain traffic from Minneapolis it must accept rates made by its competitors, and assuming that under the fourth section of the Act to regulate commerce the rates for the shorter distance from Lake City and Red Wing cannot be greater than the Minneapolis rate, and it can yet be true that these rates give an undue preference to these places as against Mazeppa in the grain and other “produce" trade.

Rates and charges not unreasonably high of themselves. can be so adjusted in their relations to each other as to give the undue preference and produce the unreasonable disadvantage which the third section of the Act to regulate commerce makes unlawful; and if the defendant railway company in establishing its charges on the different divisions and branches of its road so adjusts them as to divert trade and business to one locality, which naturally, under an equi table adjustment of charges, would go to another, such unreasonable preference for one place and disadvantage to another are not excused or made lawful by the fact that some of such rates are not entirely voluntary, but the result of competition with other carriers.

The complaint does not insist that no advantage .shall be given to competing towns on the main line, but that the advantage shall not be unreasonable, and so the law provides.

It is said in behalf of the defendant that the Wabasha Division being a narrow-gauge road, the volume of traffic small, and requiring transfer to the main line at Wabasha, 5 cents is not an unreasonable charge for the additional service resulting from these conditions. This reasoning loses some of

its force in connection with the fact that the rate from McCracken, on the Wabasha Division, is but 8 cents per 100 pounds, or one-half cent above the main line rate, for the haul to and transfer at Wabasha.

The traffic over the road being small its cost of movement is not believed to be greater than if the road were of the standard gauge.

The difference now complained of in the rates at Mazeppa compared with rates at Red Wing and Lake City is 5 cents per 100 pounds, a difference equal to two thirds of the rate of the last-named two places.

For eight months next before the Act to regulate commerce was in force this difference was but two cents, or less than one-seventh of the then rates from Lake City and Red Wing.

Any difference in the rates named so large as that now existing, 5 cents, cannot fail to so divert a part of the grain trade as to subject Mazeppa to unreasonable disadvantage and give undue preference to Red Wing and Lake City, its rivals in that business. This difference should neither exceed 2 cents on the 100 pounds nor one-third part of the rates made in the adjustment of charges from said competing towns. Such a difference or discrimination in the rate will compensate the defendant railway company for any additional cost of transportation from Mazeppa over the cost from the competing towns.

The complaint asks the Commission to cause to be refunded to shippers from Mazeppa over defendant's road any charges in excess of reasonable charges paid by them since the Act to regulate commerce took effect. The amount claimed to have been so paid, and the names of the persons paying the same, are not stated, nor is there evidence before us to authorize consideration of the subject.

In the argument both parties debated, in connection with, or as part of, this proceeding, the system of transportation known as "milling in transit;" also the fourth section, or long and short-haul clause of the Act to regulate commerce. Under the milling-in-transit system grain billed through is stopped on the way, ground into and forwarded as flour,

and the two shipments treated as one. The fourth section of said Act declares it unlawful to charge more "for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance." The longer distance from Minneapolis to Chicago over the main line is 420 miles. It would seem to require some extension to include the shorter distance from Mazeppa to Chicago, 52 miles of which is on the narrow gauge branch line, and any experiment in running the same cars over all of the alleged same line of said railway company would most likely upset the cars, if not the argument of counsel.

These questions, first raised in the argument, are not presented in the complaint or answer. They are not before us for adjudication and no opinion is expressed as to them.

It is therefore ordered by the Commission that the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company so readjust its rates and charges to Milwaukee & Chicago from Mazeppa on the Wabasha Division and Lake City and Red Wing on the River Division of its road, that the difference in favor of the points named on the River Division shall neither exceed two and a half cents nor one-third part of its own rates, and while the rates and charges on flour, grain and other like products are seven and a half cents on the 100 pounds from Lake City and Red Wing to Milwaukee and Chicago the rates from Mazeppa to Milwaukee and Chicago shall not exceed ten cents on the 100 pounds on the like kind of property.

W. O. HARWELL, H. B. MONTGOMERY, AND J. W. PONDER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION OF THE BOARD OF TRADE OF OPELIKA, ALABAMA, V. THE COLUMBUS AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE WESTERN RAILWAY OF ALBAMA.

Heard October 19.-Decided December 3, 1887.

The mere fact that a point is situated upon a navigable stream, held not sufficient of itself to justify the lesser charge for a longer haul to such a point.

Competition by water, to be sufficient to justify an exception under section

4 of the Act, should be actual, of controlling force, and in respect to traffic important in amount.

Discrimination under section 2, and prejudice and advantage under section 3, when water competition is brought forward as a justification, require the same measure of proof.

Parties affected are entitled to be notified in case a change in rates is asked. No order correcting the unjust discrimination now made, for want of proper parties and distinct allegations. Amendments allowed, and revision of tariffs recommended to defendants.

Through rates and through bills of lading given on other commodities, and to other points similarly situated, should be given to Opelika on cotton, no excuse being shown for refusing same.

WALKER, Commissioner:

Complaint under section 3 of the Act to regulate commerce for alleged unjust discrimination against Opelika in favor of Montgomery, Ala., and Columbus, Ga.

Answers were filed by both defendants. The answer of the Western Railway of Alabama, by Cecil Gabbett, General Manager, is quite full, in substance alleging that rates at Opelika are the result of considerable negotiation and compromise, and although less favorable than at Montgomery and Columbus are more favorable than at Cusseta, Youngsboro', Gold Hill, and other points in the immediate vicinity of Opelika, claiming "that there is more ground for complaint against the railroads for discriminating in favor of Opelika against Auburn, Cusseta, Youngsboro', and Gold Hill than there is for Opelika to complain of discrimination in favor of Montgomery and Columbus. The circumstances and conditions which cause the difference in the rates between Opelika and the cities of Montgomery and Columbus are more potent and forcible than any that could be shown in favor of Opelika as against its neighbouring towns."

The answer of the Columbus and Western Railroad Company, by E. P. Alexander, president, contains the following:

"Montgomery, situated on the Alabama river, and Columbus, situated on the Chattahoochee river, have lower rates than Opelika. The reason is very plain; the railroads. there have water competition, and are compelled to meet . The rates to Opelika are made by adding to the rates at