points in the United States to Toronto, and for an order prescribing proper
tolls at fifth-class rates in accordance with the United States Official
Classification Xo. 29, effective January 1, 1907. Prior to that date pe-
troleum and its products had no dassificatioa. bat by this classification
they were given a fifth-class rating. The respondents and their connections
in the. United States had filed supplements to prevent the fifth-class rate
from applying to these commodities and had framed a joint tariff consist-
ing of the sum of the total tolls charged by the several carriers intending
flu either that the Canadian carriers should be protected from the lower
ofl tolls prevailing in the United States, or <2i that the Canadian refiners
should he protected against the importation of crude oil from the United
States: Held. 1 1 that the hitter object was illegal-, while railway com-
panies were entitled to fair and remunerative tolls they had no right to so
adjust them as to protect or assist any one industry or section of the
public saeh as oil refiners, (21 That under & 33C of the Railway Act.
19OS, the traffic should be covered by a joint tariff. (3 That when an
initial carrier had filed a tariff under s. 33C it became a joint tariff even if
composed of the sum of the locals and could not he changed unless super-
seded by another or disallowed by the Board under *. 338. (41 That the
supplements to the various tariffs could not have the effect of a joint tariff
because aay of the tolls could he chiagrd by the participating carriers at
their option. <5 That since the United States Official Classification Xo.
29 was used, without any order or direction of the Board, contrary to the
provisions of subs. 4 of s. 321 of the Railway Act it was binding on the
respondents until superseded or disallowed as above stated (3. (6) That
petroleum and its products should have been given a fifth-class rating at
the time the ihipmtnts in question moved. [British American Oil Co. v.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co, 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 178. and Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v.
British American Oil COL, 43 Can. S.C.R. 311. 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 118, re-
Canadian Oil Co. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos. 12 Can. Ry.
KATE THBOCGH TRAFFIC Famcx cuuammm.
Application directing the respondents to reduce their commodity rate on
oil and its products from 35 cents per hundred pounds to 22 cents from
basing paints in the United States. St. Paul. etc.. to Winnipeg or a propoi-
tionate redaction to points beyond Winnipeg in Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta not to exceed the rates from Fort William to the same point*.
The commodity rate from the basing points in the United States. St. PauL
etc., and from those in Canada. Fort William and Port Arthur to Winni-
peg, is 35 cents per hundred pounds, through competition, bat from the
Canadian basing points to other points in Manitoba. Saskatchewan and
Alberta it is lower than from those in the United States. The applicants
submitted that the commodity rate from St. Paul should be lowered or the
rate from Fort William raised so that a proportionate reduction would
result in their favour to western points beyond Winnipeg as against traffic
via Fort William, presumably in competition with oil refiners in eastern
Canada. The respondents submitted that such a reduction or raising of
raJBi to Winnipeg and point* west thereof would be unjust discrimination
in favour of the applicants and would divert the traffic to foreign com-
peting railways. The respondents further $ubniitted that they were inihkd
708 TOLLS AXD TARIFFS.
to lower these rates because a single-line liaul for substantially similar
distance has advantages over a two or more line haul, its net revenue is a
unit coming to it alone, while in the latter case the net revenue must be
subdivided between the participants in the carriage: Held, that the Board
had no jurisdiction to order a reduction in rates from initial points in the
United States and the application must be dismissed. [Can. Northern Ry.
Co. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos. (Muskoka Rates (No. 2) ), 10
Can. Ry. Cas. 139, at pp. 147, 148, followed.]
Continental, Prairie & Winnipeg Oil Cos. v. Can. Pac., etc., Ry. Cos., 13
Can. Ry. Cas. 156.
[Followed in Shippers by Express v. Can. North., etc., Ry. Cos., 14 Can.
Ry. Cas. 183; Fullerton, etc., Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Can. Ry. Cas.
79; Saint David's Sand Co. v. Grand Trunk and Michigan Central Ry. Cos.,
17 Can. Ry. Cas. 279; West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. et al. v. Can. Pac.
Ry. Co.. 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 153.]
THROUGH TRAFFIC FOREIGN EXPRESS COMPANIES INITIAL CARRIER LOCAL
AND THROUGH TOLLS JOINT THROUGH TARIFFS.
Application for a joint through tariff of tolls from points in the United
States contiguous to Spokane to Rogina, Sask., of $2 per 100 Ibs. on ber-
ries, small fruit, and vegetables: Held (1), that under s. 336 of the Rail-
way Act, 1906, the Board had no jurisdiction to order the initial foreign
carrier to file or concur in joint tariffs at the request of the applicant.
(2) That while the Board could not require the foreign carrier to either
file or concur in filing joint tariffs, it might require the respondent to file
same if the foreign carrier concurred and vice versa if such joint tariffs
were thought by the Board to be fair and reasonable. (3) That since the
foreign carrier had not concurred, and the difference in toll was such that
it would be unfair to reqxiire the Canadian carrier to accept all the shrink-
age necessary to bring the toll down to $2; this application must be re-
fused: [Stockton and Mallinson v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 165,
Stockton et al. v. Dominion Express Co., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 459, 3 D.L.R.
LATITUDE IN REGULATING RATES BOARD EXPRESS TOLLS OVER TWO OR MORE
LINES SUM OF THE LOCALS.
Traffic handled by two or more companies over connecting lines may
well bear a heavier toll than if handled by one only and where two com-
panies charged tolls equal to the sum of the locals over their respective
lines, the Board refused to interfere in the absence of proof that the
charges were excessive, notwithstanding that a lower through rate had
formerly been charged when one express company operated over both lines.
Shippers, etc. v. Can. Northern, etc., Ry. Cos., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 183.
THROUGH TOLLS INCREASE JOINT TARIFFS.
Joint tariffs increasing the through tolls on pulpwood from shipping
points in Eastern Canada to manufacturing points in the Eastern States
of the United States were authorized by the Board. The proposed through
tolls on pulpwood which were not attacked as unreasonable per se through
being held down by water competition, and being lower than the tolls
between the same points on other rough forest products ( in force some
time without complaint) may fairly be considered reasonable. The right
of the carrier to consider the resultant traffic as a reason for the lower
toll on the original commodity where hauled to points of manufacture on
the carrier's line is well established. [Michigan Sugar Co. v. Chatham,
TOLLS AND TARIFFS. 799
WaUacefaurg * Lake Erie Ry. COL, 11 Can. By. Cas. 333, followed.] Whew
the carrier reduced the local tolls on the raw Material even lower than OB
firewood, having the assurance of the second haul of the pulp or paper
products, and under the schedules in force prior to September 2, 1912, the
proportions accruing to the Canadian carriers front thrones shipments
lo the United States are lower than the tolls paid by Canadian manufac-
turers. then is no unjust di-nri imimrtimi against their foreign competitor-.
the tolls for Canadian delivery being based on the resultant traffic. In
the apportionment of the through tolls between two or three and. in some
cases four carriers, it is reasonable that the joint through toll< should he
on a higher basis than for similar distances on the line of a single company.
[Continental Prairie t Winnipeg Oil Cos. r. Can. Pae. et aL Ry. Cos- 13
Can. Ry. Cas. 156. followed.] Xo attention need be paid to the consider-
ation that the toll charged upon the raw material should be such as would
conserve the resources of the country. If the toll is an improper one. with
which the Board is alone concerned, there is no reason why it should be
allowed to stand because the foreign manufacturer absorbs the increase
instead of the Canadian producer.
International Paper Co. T. Grand Trunk, etc- Ry. Cos. <Pnlpwood Case*.
15 Can. Ry. Cas. 111.
[Referred to in Eastern Townships Lumber Co. T. Temiscouata Ry. Co..
16 Can. Ry. Cas. 260; followed in Auger et aL T. Grand Trunk and Can.
Pat Ry. Co*. 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 401: West Virginia Pulp t Paper Coc, et
aL T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 353.]
TAKDT COMMODITT MHJEAOK.
Under &. 338 of the Railway Act, 1906. the Board is not a mere recorder
of supersession, hut has the right to exercise discretion based upon its
judgment of the facts, and thereupon to disallow a superseding tariff, and
declare the former joint tariff to be still in force.
Robertson v. Can. Pae. Ry. Co.. 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 108.
The Board, following the General Interswitcning Order, approved a
joint toll of 50 cents per ton on sand over a distance of 1?? miles (3 miles
over M.C.B. and 9.3 miles over G.TJLl from the sand pit to Merritton.
subject to a minimum weight of 60.000 Ibs. [Doolittle et aL T. Grand
Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos. (Stone Quarry Toll Case), 8 Can. Ry. Cas.
10, at p. 13; Continental. Prairie and Winnipeg Ofl Cos. v. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 156. at p. 159: Canadian Manufacturers' Assn. V.
Canadian Freight Assn. (General Interswitching Order*, 7 Can. Ry. Cas.
Saint David's Sand Co. T. Grand Trunk and Michigan Central Ry. Cos..
17 Can. Ry. Oaa, 279.
IX TOLL.* OB QCAXTmES C-L. AXD L.CL TRAFFIC TkAIX
While it is justifiable to base differences in a toll on quantity as between
C. LL and L.C.L traffic movement, it is not justifiable to make a difference
in a toll based on the distinction between ear-load and train-load move-
Saint David's Sand Co. v. Grand Trunk and Michigan Central Rv. Cas.
17 Can. Rv. Cas. 279.
C^KKIFKS Jorxr, LOCAL AXB XET TOLLS.
The Board refused to reduce the tolls on the respondent power
800 TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
pany's line, on account of its extraordinary operating conditions, hut made
a reduction in the respondent railway company's toll by following the
practice in Eastern Canada, where connecting carriers having no joint
tolls, each takes one cent from its local toll, subject to a minimum net
toll. [Fullerton Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Can. Pac. Ky. Co., 17 Can. Ry.
Cas. 79, distinguished.]
Stoltze Mfg. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. and Western Canada Power Cos., 17
Can. Ry. Cas. 282.
CONNECTING CARRIERS SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES CONSTRUCTION TOLL
THROUGH BILL OF LADING.
When two connecting carriers are separate legal entities, and the former
operates and tariffs the latter as a separate property, the latter is under
no obligation to put a construction toll of the former into effect on its
line, but the shipper is entitled, on a through bill of lading to the benefit
of the through toll to the point of delivery. [See Wylie Milling Co. v.
Can. Pacific and Kingston & Pembroke Ry. Cos., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 5.]
Oliver-Serim Lumber Co. v. Canadian Pacific and Esquimalt & Nanaimo
Ry. Cos., 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 324.
THROUGH LOCAL AND JOINT TOLLS DIVISION UNREASONABLE JURISDIC-
The Board has no jurisdiction over the tolls for the transportation of
commodities by carriers in a foreign country, and a joint toll in excess
of the sum of the locals being prima facie unreasonable, it is within its
jurisdiction to direct that a Canadian carrier should not, as its division
of a through toll, exceed its local. [Re Joint Freight and Passenger
Tariffs, 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 343 ; Continental Prairie and Winnipeg Oil Cas.
v. Can. Pac. et al. Ry. Co., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 156 at p. 161, followed.]
Fullerton Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Can. Ry. Cas.
[Distinguished in Stoltze Mfg. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. and Western Can-
ada Power Cos., 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 282.]
JOINT LOCAL LEGAL.
It is a fundamental principle that when a toll, joint or limited to points
situate on one line of railway, has come into force under the Railway Act,
it is the only legal toll in respect of the traffic and between the points
Montreal Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ottawa & New York and Inter-
colonial Ry. Cos., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 6.
JOINT SUM OF THE LOCALS UNREASONABLE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.
To change a joint toll in excess of the sum of the locals is prima facie
unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, and the onus of disproof should,
in individual complaints be on the carrier or carriers concerned. [Re Joint
Freight and Passenger Tariffs, 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 343. followed.]
Montreal Board of Trade v. Can. Pac., Ottawa & New York, and Inter-
colonial Ry. Cos., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. .]
INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC INITIAL CARRIER LONG HAULS.
The general principle followed by the Board in dealing witli applica-
tions for interchange of traffic is that the initial carrier is entitled to
the long haul on its lines subject to the limitation that the resultant route
is reasonable and practical, and involves no back haul on increased cost to
the public. North Bay is a point at which the respondent should inter-
TOLLS AND TARLFFS. 801
rkuge traffic with the applicant. [Can. Xortheru By. Co. T. Grand Trunk
ami On. Pae. By. Cos. (Uuskoka Kates Case. Xos/1 and ?), 7 Can. By.
Cas. 2, 10 CM. By. Cas. 139, followed: Great Xortheru By. Co. T.
Can. Xorthern By. Co_ U Can. By. Cas. 424. lefeiied to-1
Caa. Northern" By. Co. v. Grand Trunk By. Co. ' Xortk Bay Caae),
Can. By. Cas- M.
Jotvr TOLLS' ST*UE irnc.
A joint toD of 47 teats per ton (3 cents over tine single line haul toll
was established on coal over the Michigan Central and Xiagara. St. Catha-
rines t Toronto By. COB. from the Niagara frontier to St. Catharines and
ad jam* points, in the proportion of 27 cents to the Xiehigu Central and
2O cents to the Niagara, St. Catharines 4 Toronto By. Co.
Niagara. St. Catharines 4 Toronto By. Co. T. Canadian BetaH Coal Assn..
1 Can. Br. Cas. 28.
The scheme of the Act is that traffic moving onr the lines of two or
ore earners shall be considered and carried as through traffic on one bill
of lading: acd not that local talk shall be filed as proportionals and the
traffic moved nder separate hills- The duty is cast upon the carriers to
~*t*K* joint tolls for such traffic. This duty can be enforced under a.
334 of the Bailway Act. 19ML and the Board will not approve special
freight tariffs in contravention of this principle made for the purpose of
rarryinmjamt apcciil arrangements betncm earners and individual shippers.
:Sperial freight tariff* and commodity toil* permitted by the Act are just
as much subject to the provisions relating to equality and to joint toll
movements as are the original standard tariffs. Artificial or unjustly
discriminatory tolls must not be made in order to take away from distri-
butmg points or mannfacturing centres the natural advantages of their
fprny iphii il situation: nor to favour a manufacturer in one locality
against his competitor in another. Traffic must be moved on the tariffs
fifed no moit and no less: and these tariffs must be free of unjust dis-
crimination and comply not only with the eneral sections, but. in ease*
where applicable, with the joint traffic sections of the Act. The Board
disallowed as contrary to ss. 3C(3i. 333 and 337 of the Act a special
flKJaJht tariff filed by a carrier to cover carriage of a specified commodity
over its own lines. Toronto to Begina only, where the toll was made
applicable only to shipments originating at Saraia (on another railway .
and was less than the toll by standard tariff from either Samia or Toronto
to Winnipeg, an intermediate point. The Board win not give effect to an
application to compel a railway company to file a tariff fixing lower rates
than the tariff in force, unless the existing tariff be shewn to be unreason-
able- The principle that larger quantities may be carried at tolk propor-
tionately lower than those for smaller quantities of the same commodity
properly recognixed in the lower tofl approved for C.L as against L.CX.
shipments: hut ft should not he extended, as any further application of it
would handicap the umilln dealer in competition with the larger.
Imperial Oil Co. T. Canadian Freight A$a_ 20 Can. By. Cas^ 17L
JOCVT TOLJ^ - SCIf Or THE LOCALS - I^CmEJL-E -
The railway companies having filed cancellations of a huge number of
joint tariffs, the effect being to increase tolk by substituting the sum of
the local tolls for the joint tolls formerly in force, the Board inlimilid
that the action was objectionable and would not be allowed.
Can. By. L Dig. 51.
802 TOLLS AND TABIFFS.
ly, after a hearing, it directed that the joint tolls and service be maintained
and that the companies should file joint tariffs setting out tolls based
upon the increase authorized by the Board in Re Eastern Tolls, 22 Can.
Ry. Gas. 4.
Can. Freight Assn. v. Montreal Board of Trade, 22 Can. Ry. Gas. 88.
DIVISION OF THROUGH TOLL No TEST OF REASONABLENESS LOCAL TOLL.
The through toll or the division of the through toll between two points
is not necessarily a test of the reasonableness of the local toll to an inter-
Lake Superior Paper Co. v. Algoma Central & Hudson Bay Ry. Co., 22
Can. Ry. Cas. 361.
[Followed in Can. Pac. Ry. Co. and Spanish River, etc., 22 Can. Ry.
I XTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC JOINT THROUGH LOCAL CONTINUOUS ROUTE.
The rule that a joint or through toll between any -two points properly
filed is the only legal toll in respect of the particular traffic between such
points, applies also to international traffic, where a joint tariff of tolls
for a continuous route has been filed for part of the distance, the through
toll for the continuous route plus the local toll to the point beyond the
end of the continuous route is the only toll that can be charged.
General Traffic Service Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 372.
JOINT TOLLS LOCAL MAIL ORDER BUSINESS DISTRIBUTING POINTS.
Lower or joint tolls will not be granted to a retail dealer, in a distant
point (such as Winnipeg), seeking to do a mail order business (L.C.L.
lots) through a well-established distributing point (such as Edmonton,
848 miles from Winnipeg), into territory tribntory thereto (the Peace
River Country), which would give the shipper a toll lower than the local
toll at the distributing point (Edmonton). [Re Western Tolls (Western
Tolls Case), 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 123, at p. 156; Re Edmonton, Dunvegan &
B.C. Ry. Co. (Mountain Scale Tolls Case), 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 1, referred to.]
Newman v. Edmonton, Dunvegan & B. C. Ry. Co. (Winnipeg-Edmonton
Mail Order Case), 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 399.
JOINT TARIFF CONTINUOUS ROUTE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT FOREIGN COUN-
TRY REDUCTION REFUND.
Under s. 336 of the Railway Act, 1006, a joint tarift" of tolls must be
filed covering a continuous route traffic movement from a point in a foreign
country into Canada where a through toll is attacked as being unreason-
able because it is in excess of the sum of the locals the Board has juris-
diction only so far as to direct a reduction for the future, but possesses
no power to direct a refund of a portion of the toll charged.
Security Traffic Bureau v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 414.
INITIAL CARRIER ROUTING LOWEST COMBINATION.
A shipment of household goods, originating at Kingsville, consigned to
Bridgeburg, Ontario, was delivered by the Windsor, etc., Co. to the C.P.R.
Co. at Lake Shore Junction, and by that line delivered to the G.T.R.
Co. at London the initial carrier, without instructions from the owners
having chosen a route at a higher toll than that available via Michigan
Central Ry. from Lake Shore Junction to Bridgeburg, and being under
obligation, in the absence of specific instructions as to the routing of its
TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
on lines, to send the goods forward on the Ipwcrt toD combination avail-
able. should make adjustment accordingly.
Sinclair T. Windsor, Essex 4 Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co., 1ft Can. By.
OB DISALLOWED TUX.
Under s. 338 (1) of the Railway Act, 1906, no joint toD can be dis-
regarded by the carriers until it has been supeiaeded or disallowed by the
Board. If the carriers desire to get relief from concurrence in joint tolls
they must apply to the Board malrfg out a rase justifying the extension
of such relief.
Re Joint Tolls and Concurrence. 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 379.
X - L*TEXATIOSAL JOIST TAJUFFS - M<
As a matter of practke the Board in the past has dealt with interna-
tional joint tariffs baring regard to the outward movement only, and
speaking generally it has not interfered in any way with any tariff prop- .
erry filed under the practice prevailing in the United States directly apply-
ing to a joint movement into Canada.
Anger et aL v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pae. Ry. Cos- 19 Can. Ry. Cas.
[Followed in West Virginia Palp 4 Paper Co. et aL T. Can. Pae. Ry. Co.
23 Can. Ry. Cas. 153.]
COXXBCTIXG CABTEKS SHOBTEST OCTES.
Connecting carriers should route shipments of vegetables and fruit via
the shortest possible mileage routes and file appropriate tariffs of tolls.
Similkameen Farmers Institute T. Can. Pae. and Great Northern Ry.
Cos- 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 125.
QHTXECTTSG CAKUEKS TKBOCCH TOLLS Dmsios RESHmiEyr.
The division of the through toll as between connecting earners on hauls
over two or more lines is a matter of domestic concern, and so long as the
through toD is not unreasonable, it does not matter to the public how it
is divided. [Continental. Prairie * Winnipeg Oil Cos. v. Can. Pae. Ry.
Co. et aL. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.56 at p. 159; Manitoba Dairymen's Assn. V.
Dominion and Can. Northern Express Cos.. 14 Can. Ry. Cas" 142 at p. 14$-.
International Paper Co. v. Grand Trunk. Can. Pae. and Can. Northern Ry.
Cos. (Pulpwood Case*. 15 Can. Ry. Cas. Ill: Blind River Board of Trade
T. Grand Trunk. Can. Par. Ry, Northern Navigation and Dominion Trans-
portation Cos-. 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 146: Re Western Tolls ((Western ToOa
Case). IT Can. Ry. Cas. *123 at p. 203: Dominion Sugar Co. v. Grand
Trunk. Can. Pae. Chatham. Wallarebnrg 4 Lake Erie and Pere Marquerte
Ry. Cos.. 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 231. at p. 239 ((reheard. 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 24O
at p. 244} ; Anger * Son. and D'Autenil Lumber Co. T. Grand Trunk and
Can. Pae. Ry. Cos_ 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 401 ; Re Eastern Tolls (Eastern Tolls
Case), 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 4. followed.] Considering the tolls approved on
analogous forest products on single line hauls, where the two Cimy'm'
carriers have no reshipment advantages and revenues accruing therefrom.
an increase in tolls of 1 cent per 100 Ibs. on pnlpwood from territory west
of Montreal via Ottawa or St. Polycarpe Jet. to Rouse's Point is not
West Virginia Pulp 4 Paper Co. et aL T. Can. Pae. Ry. Co.. 23 Can.
Rv. Cas. 153.
804 TOLLS AXD TAKIFFS.
D. Competitive Tariffs.
See also (B) p. 757.
SPECIAL RATES ON BOTTLES IN CARLOADS FOREIGN COMPETITION REDUC-
Bottles in carloads were formerly carried from Wallaceburg to Toronto,
Hamilton, Berlin and Montreal at special rates less than the regular basis
of fifth-class. Upon the Railway Act, 1903, coming into force on 1st
February, 1904, these special rates were increased. The Sydenham Glass
Company applied for the restoration of the former special rates. It
appeared that at the present rates the Glass Company cannot maintain
its position in the Iiome market against foreign competition: Held, that
the rates should be reduced to the following scale, viz., to London 8 cents,
to Toronto, Hamilton and Berlin 13 cents, to Montreal 23i cents.
The Sydenham Glass Company Case, 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 409.
COOPERAGE STOCK LOCAL DELIVERY AND EXPORT LUMBER MILEAGE TARIFFS
The complainants object to the increase in the rates on cooperage stock
between points in Eastern Canada, and more especially to the increase
from Wallaceburg and other Western Ontario points to Montreal for local
delivery and for export: Held, that rates on cooperage stock should not
exceed rates on common lumber according to the mileage lumber tariffs
of the railways, but such rates when specially reduced on account of water
competition, etc., need not necessarily apply to cooperage stock. From