GEORGE RICE v. THE LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND THE ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE MISSISSIPPI AND TENNESSEE RAILROAD COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY AND THE LOUISVILLE, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY AND THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. THE SAME COMPLAINANT v. THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. Hearing for taking Testimony Nov. 21 to 28, 1887. Hearing for Argument January 16, 17, 18, 1888. Decided February 23, 1888. When for a special traffic, e. g., the transportation of petroleum oils—a carrier provides rolling stock for one method, but does not provide it for another for which it publishes rates, but the shippers are expected to provide the same, the terms on which such rolling stock is to be provided should be uniform and be published with the rate sheets, and cannot lawfully be left to be the subject of bargain and of different terms in the case of different shippers. It is properly the business of a carrier by railroad to supply the rolling stock for the freights he offers or proposes to carry; and if the diversities and peculiarities of traffic are such that this is not always practicable, and consignors are allowed to supply it for themselves, the carrier must not allow its own deficiencies in this particular to be made the means of putting at unreasonable disadvantage those who make use in the same traffic of the facilities it supplies. When two methods for the transportation of an article of merchandise are nominally offered by the carrier, for only one of which it offers rolling stock, and for the other of which the shipper must supply his own rolling stock at considerable expense, it cannot be said that the resort to the latter by the shipper is so far a matter of choice that he has no concern with the charges for transportation in the other mode. The man of small means being compelled to make this choice by reason of the carrier's failure to supply rolling stock for the other mode, has a right to insist that the charges by transportation in the two modes shall be relatively just and equal. When oil is transported in tanks permanently affixed to car bodies, the tank is to be considered as part of the car; and for oil transported therein the change for transportation should be the same by the hundred pounds that the carrier charges for transportation between the same points of barrels filled with like oil and taken in car-load lots. The carrier is guilty of unjust discrimination if the shipper in barrels is charged a higher rate. Neither the fact that the shipper in the one case supplies the rolling stock, nor the alleged fact which is not found sustained-that for the tanks there is a greater probability of return loads, nor the further alleged fact that with barrel shipments there are greater risks to the carrier's property and that which it carries, can justify imposing upon the barrel shipments the greater burden. Under this rule the carrier will be at liberty, and will be expected to make to the owner of tank cars a reasonable allowance for their use. When an important question is raised by the pleadings in a case, the determination of which will affect others quite as much as the parties before the Commission, but the parties give their attention almost exclusively to other questions, and neither by the evidence nor in argument supply the Commission with the information to enable it to be understandingly determined, the Commission will decline to decide it, and leave the parties to bring it forward again as they may be advised. A. D. Follett, W. B. Loomis, J. Randolph Tucker, and Franklin B. Gowen, for complainant. Edward Baxter and L. II. Noble, for defendant L. & N. R. R. Co. John S. Blair, for defendant St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. E. L. Russell, for defendant M. & O. R. R. Co. Edward Colston and Charles M. Cist, for defendants C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., & Ala. G. S. R. R. Co. Holmes Cummins, for defendants N. N. & M. Co. & L. N. O. & T. R'y. Co. H. D. Money, for defendants Miss. & Tenn. R. R. Co. & Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION. COOLEY, Chairman: The questions at issue in these cases are to some extent identical, and where not the same, are so far similar that it was deemed practicable by the parties that they should all be tried together. They have accordingly been so tried, the evidence being, by consent, taken in the case first entitled, but received and applied in each of the others, so far as it was found to be applicable. The principal grievance complained of is that the defendant companies discriminate against the complainant in their charges for the transportation of petroleum oil, but the rates for the transportation of the oil in barrels, which is the method made use of by complainant, are also alleged to be excessive, and in some cases a violation of the fourth section of the Act to Regulate Commerce is complained of. The petition in the case first entitled, after setting out the line of the defendant's road and the cities and other points reached thereby, proceeds to say: "That one of the important duties of said Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company is the transportation of refined illuminating petroleum oil (mostly produced and manufactured in the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio) from Cincinnati, Ohio, and Louisville, Kentucky, to the afore-named cities and other points on the said carrier's said lines of railroad in the said several states and other states into and through which said carrier's railroad lines pass. "That such oil is an article of extensive commerce and of prime necessity to the people reached by said carrier's railroad lines, and that in the transportation of such oil by said carrier two prevailing methods are employed, one by means of box cars, carrying the oil in barrel packages, and the other by iron tank cars, generally holding 100 barrels and upwards, built and used for that express purpose. "And said complainaut further says that he is engaged at Marietta, Ohio, and in that vicinity in the business of producing, manufacturing, and dealing in such petroleum oils, and shipping the same to various markets in the Southern and Western States of this country; that he has large capital invested in this business and extensive facilities therefor, and, but for the acts of said carrier hereinafter complained of, would produce and sell many thousands more barrels of such oil than now; that many of his principal markets for his said manufacture are in the territory reached and traversed by said carrier's system of railways; that it is absolutely essential to the continued existence and success of his said business that he should have rates and facilities both reasonable in themselves and equally as favorable as those accorded to his competitors for the transportation of said products to such markets, many of which can only be reached by said carrier's roads and none of which can be reached as conveniently or cheaply by any other means, if said complainant is accorded reasonable and just rates by said carrier. "Complainant further states that the Standard Oil Company, a corporation organized and existing in and under the laws of the State of Kentucky, is a very extensive dealer in and shipper of such petroleum oils, and is his chief and almost sole competitor for the sale thereof in the aforesaid markets." "And said complainant further states that said carrier has been guilty of violation of the provisions of the Act of Congress of the United States of America entitled 'An Act to Regulate Commerce,' approved February 4, 1887, and which took effect April 5, 1887, in the following particulars, to wit: "First charge. By making charges for services to be rendered by said carrier in the transportation of such as aforesaid from Cincinnati, Ohio, and said Louisville, Kentucky, to points on the said carrier's said railroad lines in the said states other than Ohio and Kentucky, which were in themselves unjust and unreasonably high. "Under this charge the complainant makes the following specifications, each and all of which are rates per 100 pounds charged by said railroad company on May 9, 1887, and as complainant is informed and believes and so alleges, ever since that day for services to be rendered by said company in the transportation in barrel packages in car-load shipments of such oils from said Louisville, Kentucky, to the respective destinations named, each and all of which destinations are points reached by the lines of railroad owned, leased, and operated by said railroad company, and each and all of which rates complainant alleges to be unreasonable and unjust. "1. Mobile, Ala., 30 cents. "2. New Orleans, La., 30 cents. "3. Montgomery, Ala., 45 7-10 cents. "4. Selma, Ala., 45 7-10 cents. "5. Birmingham, Ala., 45 7-10 cents. "8. Clarksville, Tenn., 16 3-10 cents. "9. All other points reached by said lines of railroad located in states other than Kentucky, the rates of which appear in the statement of rates required by said Act of Congress and on file with said Commission, and each and all of which rates complainant alleges to be unreasonable and unjust. Complainant, under said charge, also makes the following specifications, each and all of which are the rates per 100 pounds charged by said railroad company for the transportation of such oils in barrel packages, in car-load shipments from Cincinnati, Ohio, to the respective destinations named, each and all of which are points reached by the lines of the railroad owned, leased, and operated by defendants, and are in states other than the state of Ohio, which rates appear on the tariff sheets of defendant, furnished by it to complainant May 9, 1887, as showing its rates then in force, and which rates complainant is informed and believes and alleges have ever since been in force, each and all of which rates complainant alleges to be unreasonably high and unjust. "10. Nashville, Tenn., 25 cents. "11. Decatur, Ala., 50 cents. |