points in Western Ontario to Montreal, the maximum rate for local de-
livery was fixed upon the evidence at 16i cents, and for export, including
"terminal," at 18 cents per hundred pounds.
Sutherland Innes Co. et al. v. Pere Marquette, Michigan Central, et
al. Ry. Cos. (Cooperage Stock Rates Case), 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 421.
EXCESSIVE TOLLS WATER COMPETITION SHORTER AND LONGER DISTANCES.
On a complaint to the Board under s. 315 (5) of the Railway Act, 1906,
that the rat? on a shipment of apples from Picton to Smith's Falls was
excessive as compared with the rate from Picton to Ottawa; Smith's
Falls being an intermediate point located on the llideau Canal and the
distance from Picton to Smith's Falls being shorter than the distance from
Picton to Ottawa: Held (1), that the complaint should be dismissed,
the rate to Ottawa being a compelled rate based on water competition.
(2) That a shipper could not demand less than normal rates on account
of water competition which a railway company, in its own interest, did
not choose to meet.
Plain v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 222.
[Followed in Can. Oil Co. v. Grand Trunk, etc.. 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 351;
Xanaimo Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 224, 231.]
SUGAR TOLLS COMPETITION EQUALIZATION.
Application for an order directing respondents to reduce the tolls on
sugar from Vancouver to Winnipeg and other Manitoba points, so as to
equalize them with the tolls charged by the Pere Marquette Ry. Co. on the
same commodity from Wallaceburg, Ontario, to the same points: Held,
that it is entirely within the discretion of one railway company whether
it will meet the competition of the tolls charged by another, and the ap-
plication must be refused. [Montreal Produce Merchants' Assn. v. Grand
Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 232, at p. 240: Lasalle
Paper Co. v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 16 I.C.C. Rep. 149, at p. 150;
TOLLS AND TARIFFS. S05
Lancashire Patent Fuel Co. T. London & North-Western Ry. Co., 12 Ry.
4 C. Tr. Cas. 79, followed. Written arguments were submitted by the
complainant and the railway company.]
British Columbia Sugar Refining Co. T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 10 Can. Ry.
[Followed in Can. Oil Cos. T. Grand Trunk, etc., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 351 ;
Dominion Sugar Co. v. Freight Assn.. 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 188; Graham
Co. T. Canadian Freight Assn.. 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 355.]
TOLLS EXPORT DOMESTIC WATER OOMPETITIOX.
Complaint of noncompliance with order No. 10528 directing the respond-
ents to file tariffs of tolls on lumlier to Montreal for export "which in gen-
eral shall be lower than the tolls on lumber to Montreal." The tolls in
dispute were those from Ottawa district and certain points in the Province
of Quebec. The former Ottawa domestic toll was proportionately lower
than some of the other tolls in the Province of Quebec on account of water
competition. The former export toll from that district was. generally
speaking, one cent lower than the domestic toll. Under the new tariff
these tolls were made the same except in two cases. The respondents ex-
plained that the tolls for export from points in the Province of Quebec
not controlled by water competition were controlled by market conditions
in Montreal which were regulated by shipments from the Ottawa district:
Held ill. that the words "in general" were put in Order No. 10528 in-
tentionally liecause the Board could not in every case require the export
toll to lie lower than the domestic, even if, in certain individual cases, th*
former tolls might, or might not, have been reasonable. (2 1 That the
tolls from the Ottawa district were low in comparison with other tolls and
th- respondents should not be required to make a still lower toll for export
than the domestic toll. (3) That from points in the Province of Quebec
north and east of Montreal not affected by water competition of the Ot-
tawa river the tolls for export should be reduced so that the same differ-
ence should exist between the present as existed between the former do-
mestic and export tolls. [Canadian Lumbermen's Assn. v. Grand Trunk
et al. Ry. Cos.. 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 306, referred to.]
Canadian Lumbermen's Assn. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos.
(Export Tolls on Lumber (No. 2) ), 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 344.
[Referred to in Cox * Co. T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 20.]
CARLOAD RATIXG COMMODITY TOLI.S LIGHT ASD BULKY COMMODITIES
An application for a reduction in the minimum carload weight of toasted
corn flakes from London to points west of Port Arthur and Fort William.
The applicant's shipments to points in Ea>tern Canada were covered by a
special tariff on the basis of a minimum weight of 20.000 pounds per car.
On western shipments the applicant made no complaint as to the class
rating, but contended that the minimum carload weight should be reduce!
from 30,000 to 24,000 Ibs. per standard 36-foot car. The applicant dealt
only in toasted corn flakes, a light and bulky commodity which never goes
above 15.000 Ibs. per car, contended that he was subject to unfair com-
petition with regard to similar dealers in grain products and cereals, who
by mixing other commodities brought the carload weight up to 30.000 Ibs..
but still remained under the same class rating as the applicant. The
respondent submitted that a minimum carload weight was fixed to corres-
pond with the loading capacity of a standard car and provided for a uni-
form rating to all kindred articles: that carload rating and minimum
weight were inseparably connected, and the combination of the two would
806 TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
result in a fair and equitable carload toll. In cases of this kind the re-
spondent established a commodity toll at a higher class or toll with a
minimum approximating to the actual carload weight, thus insuring to the
carrier the same earnings as would be obtained from the carriage of com-
modities of the same class. The applicant stated that his western ship-
ments were nearly all C.L., but the Chief Traffic Officer of the Board re-
ported that in practice there was no C.L. rating, the L.C.L. rating applying
on any quantity shipped to Western Canada: Held, that without changing
the rating the minimum carload weight for a standard car of flaked or
cooked cereals should be reduced so as not to exceed 24,000 Ibs.
Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Co. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 12 Can.
Ry. Cas. 11.
TOLLS ON GAS HOUSE COKE INCREASE COMPETITION.
An application complaining of an advance in the freight tolls on gas
house coke from Black Rock to Hamilton, and other Ontario points. The
respondent increased the tolls on coke on the Canadian end of the haul
from 50 cents per ton to 80. cents and from 80 cents to $1.00 from Black
Rock to Hamilton and Toronto respectively. The Consumers' Gas Co.
claimed that on account of having to pay 53 cents per ton duty and 60
cents freight tolls from the Suspension Bridge to Toronto on bituminous
coal from which coke is manufactured, they were at a disadvantage of
$1.13 per ton in competition with the Buffalo Gas Co. They had therefore
asked that the tolls from Toronto to Hamilton and Brantford be lowered
to meet the tolls of the Buffalo Gas Co. from Buffalo to the same points.
Instead of complying with this request the respondents had increased the
Buffalo-Hamilton coke toll by 30 cents per ton: Held, that nothing was
shewn justifying this increase, and these increases must be cancelled and
the old tolls restored.
Myles v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 289.
TOLLS ON GRAIN DISCRIMINATION SPECIAL JOINT TOLLS COMPETITION.
A complaint that the increase in the tolls in the special and competitive
joint freight tariffs on grain and grain products in C.L. lots to points in
the Maritime Provinces, were unjustly discriminatory. The railways stat-
ed that there were three kinds of tolls in these tariffs which might he
denominated as (a) Special joint tolls or "normal" tolls, (b) Competitive
joint tolls, (c) Competitive joint ''furtherance" tolls. The so-called "nor-
mal" tolls are lower than the other class tariffs and cover the bulk of the
rail points in the Maritime Provinces. The present basis of the ''normal"
tolls develops from the arrangement arrived at between the railways and
the Dominion Millers' Assn. in 1905. The Chief Traffic Officer reported
that the normal tolls were in accordance with this agreement: Held (1),
that the increase in the competitive joint tolls and competitive joint ''fur-
therance" tolls was due to lessened competition, and that it was within
the discretion of the railways to vary these tolls within the limits fixed
by the "normal" tolls provided such increases were not unjustly discrim-
inatory, which had not been shewn in this case. (2) That in shipments
east of Montreal of grain products the same arbitraries should be applied
from Montreal as are applied by the Canadian Pacific in arriving at
through rates from Fort William. (3) That if competition forces the
tolls of a railway below its normal basis, it follows that when the compe-
TOLUS AXD TARIFFS. - 7
is less effective the railway may brim* its talk op more closely to
Damimkm MUlrr, A-sm. r. Grand Trunk amd Cam. Par. Ey. Co*, 12 Cam.
[Followed im Domimkm Sagar Co. T. Cam. Freight As*m_ 14 Cam. Ey.
Cas. 188; Bowlby r. Halifax 4 S. W. By. Co_ 2O Cam. Ey. Ca*. 231;
Begima Board of ~Trade T. Cam. Pa*. By. Ox. 22 Cam. Ey. Cak 315. j
MAGAZINES AX FEKKIMCALS CoMrerrnox DrecxnnxATKXK.
Application directing the respondent to establish a fat toQ of on* cert
per poamd OB magaximrs aad periodicals fium Yaneoaver to oat-of-towm
dealers in cumptlition with the Port Otter Department. The respondent
aad the applicant admitted that at the present time tk*re vmdd
proat to tke carrier im tke expernemtal toll applied
for: Held f 1 . tkat it was- emtirdy im the decretiam of tke respoademt
whether cuprtitio should he Met or aot. (2 That the Board had M
jmrndictiaB to reomuv the respoadu ml to eater iato aay sarh coapetitiom.
(31 Ihat the right to a reasonable profit to the carrier as wrfl as to the
shipper o*t he rrcogaiud. |4i That it i$ the policy of the Baflvay Art
thai, sahjert to the prohibitiom of njnst dkrrnaimatioB there >hovld. im
the pmhlie mtereat, be eiaatkity im toll akimg. *5 That the Board was
ot justified im wdeiimg the fiximg of expernBemtal tolfe ^iaee it has mot
beem establJbhed that the tolls charged are mmreasmalile. [Express Traf-
fie Ant. T. Camadiam Mammnrroers Aa. amd Boards of Trade of Toromto.
Montreal amd Wiamipeg. 13 Cam. By. Ca*. 19: Florida Fndt amd Tegeta-
Me Co. v. Atlaatir Coast Lime By. COL, 17 I.C.C.B. 3fiQ. foUowd.]
British Colonbia Xews Co. T. Express Trafie Assm. 13 Cam. Ey. Cms.
fFoIknmi im Mastiah T. Cam. Pae. By. Co_ IT Cam. By. Cas. 8S; Roberts
T. Cam. Pae- By. Cou IS Cam. By. Cms. 3iO: Westerm Retail LnBbenaem**
Assm. T. Cam. Pae.. Cam. Northern amd Gramd Tntmk Pacifie By. Co&. 29
Cam. By. Cas. 155: Sovthen Alberta Hay Growers T. Cam. Pae. By. COL.
1 Cam. By. Cas. 22*: Namano Board of Trade T. Cam. Pae. By. Ox. 23
Cam. By. Cas. 92: Crm-hed Stome. ete. T. Gramd Tramk By. Col 23 Cam.
Ey. Cas. 132; Waterloo r. Gramd Tramk By. Co_ 24 Cam. By. Cas- 143.]
TOLLS os Linocx CoMnrmoT BEBTCTIOX.
Appfiratiom directing the respondent to charge the ajne tolls am the
applicants* shipments from Fort William to Vamcomner as were charged
their competitor* in British CohnAia shipping in the- opposite direction.
The applicants alleged that $one coaamodities $mch as pine, dear cedar,
sash, doors. etr_ bearing a 55 cemt Vamcomnpr-Fon William toll nmw into
laaaiililiiia with them im the- Fort William market. They claimed that
the Vancooner-Fort William toD of 45 cemts per 100 Us. on* the cheap soft
lamVer ch as fir. hemlock, larch, spmce. amd common cedar shonld be
applied to hardwood tamber and flooring from Fort William to Vamcoorer
which now was charged SO cemts per 100 ponnds. The respondent smKmit-
ted that the normal lumber toD was the dear cedar toll of 55 cemts per 100
pounds: Held 1 1 . that hardwood flooring shoald mot hare the same rat-
ing as cheap soft Inmlui, being a more valuable commodity with the ex-
ception of fir. (2) That this, however, did not justify so great am exist-
ing diffenmce amd a ton of 55 cents per 100 poornds shoald be established
from Fort William to Tamcoarer common points.
Seaman, Kent Co. T. Cam. Par. By. COL, 13 Cam. By. Cas. 420.
808 TOLLS AND TAEIFFS.
REASONABLENESS INCREASE OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING RATES ONUS.
Where special circumstances have operated for a time, e.g., effective
water competition, to induce a carrier to give a low rate, the burden of dis-
proving unreasonableness is not necessarily upon the carrier when the rate
is subsequently increased.
Dominion Sugar Co. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 14 Can. Ry. ('as. 188.
FOREIGN ROAD TOLLS AND RATES REASONABLENESS.
A carrier is not obliged to meet a lower rate made by a competing for-
eign road, and failure to meet it is not necessarily evidence of the unreason-
ableness of the higher rate. [Davy v. Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto
and Michigan Central Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. (51; Dominion Millers'
Assn. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 363;
Canadian Portland Cement Co. v. Grand Trunk & Bay of Quinte Ry. Cos.,
9 Can. Ry. Cas. 209 ; British Columbia Sugar Refining Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co., 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 369, followed.]
Dominion Sugar Co. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 188.
[Followed in Hudson Bay Mining Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 16
Can. Ry. Cas. 254; Hagersville Crushed Stone Co. v. Michigan Central
Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 84.]
ALL RAIL AND LAKE AND RAIL ROUTES COMPETITION DISCRIMINATION
EAST AND WESTBOUND.
The tolls for the lake and rail route being on a competitive basis and
the all-rail route eastbound having the advantage of one cent over the
rail portion of the route westbound to Winnipeg there was no unjust dis-
crimination. The Board is concerned with seeing that tolls arc on a rel-
atively equal basis. It is not its function to equalize costs of production
and upon the evidence a case for reduction in tolls was not made out.
[Canadian Portland Cement Co. v. Grand Trunk and Bay of Quinte Ry.
Cos., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 209, followed.]
Imperial Rice Milling Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 375.
[Followed in Hudson Bay Mining Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 16
Can. Ry. Cas. 254.]
COMPETITION BY WATER.
In the case of a compelled toll based on water competition, it is the priv-
ilege of a carrier, in its own interests, to meet water competition, but it is
not the privilege of the shipper to demand less than normal tolls because
of such competition which railway in its discretion does not choose to meet.
[Plain v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 223; Canadian Oil Cos. v.
Grand Trunk Can. Pac., and Can. Northern Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 350,
Blind River Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk, etc., Cos., 15 Can. Ry. Cas.
[Followed in Dominion Sugar Co. v. Grand Trunk, etc., Ry. Cos., 17 Can.
Ry. Cas. 231; Nanaimo Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry.
Cas. 224; Bowlby v. Halifax & S. W. Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 231; Boards
of Trade of Montreal and Toronto et al. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 21
Can. Ry. Cas. 77; West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. et al. v. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co., 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 153.]
CARRIERS DISCRETION COMPETITION BY WATER UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.
The Board has on many occasions decided that the extent to which car-
riers may meet water competition, as long as there is no unjust discrim-
TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
ination. is within their own discretion. [Canadian Lumbermen"* Assn. T.
Grand Trunk, et aL Ry. Cos.. 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 306. followed.]
Canadian Lumbermen's Assn. and Montreal Board of Trade v. Grand
Trunk, et aL RT. Cos., 17 Can. RT. Cas, 102.
CABKIEKS DISCRETION Rn>rcrioN OF TOLLS COMPETITION BT WAI
Carriers may. in their discretion, meet effective water competition from
one point to other points by reducing their tolls, and it is not unju-t dis-
crimination for them to charge higher tolls from another point having a
limited efficiency in such competition to these points. [Blind River Board
of Trade T. Grand Trunk et al. Cos.. 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 146. followed.]
Dominion Sugar Co. v. Grand Trunk, Can. Pac.. Chatham. Wallaeeburg
Lake Erie and Pere Marquette Ry. Cos., 17 Can. RT. Cas. 231.
[Followed in West Virginia Pulp t Paper Co. et id. T. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co, 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 153.]
TOLLS RnwrcnoN COMPETTTIOX BT WATER UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.
A carrier by rail may be justified in reducing tolls from one point to an-
other to meet effective water competition between those points, notwith-
standing that the lowered toll appears discriminatory as. against a third
point, which is not affected by such competition, and which is therefore
subject to higher tolls, but a continuance of the competitive toll, after the
water competition ceases or is suspended (e.g.. in winter), constitutes un-
just discrimination against such third point. [Dominion Sugar Co. v.
Grand Trunk, et al. Ry. Cos., reheard and reversed; Montreal Board of
Trade v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos^ 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 351 -. Blind
River Board of Trade T. Grand Trunk et aL Cos.. 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 14ti.
Dominion Sugar Co. T. Grand Trunk. Canadian Pacific et al. Ry. Co*.. 17
Can. Ry. Cas. 240.
[Followed in West Virginia Pulp ft Paper Co. et aL T. Can. Pac. Ry.
Co., 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 153.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION COMPETITION BT WATER.
Where the underlying principle of competition by water affects the
whole toll structure, a point unaffected by such competition is not unjust-
ly discriminated against in not receiving as favourable tolls as points that
Cotrichan Ratepayers Assn. T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 395.
THROUGH IMPOST COMPETITION FOREIGN PORTS AND CARRIERS.
Where china clay from Cornwall. England, for Canadian delivery, moves
under through bills of lading at a through toll to the point of destination,
any change advancing the rail carriers* import toll representing part of
the through movement would result in the Canadian carriers not being
able to hold the business in competition with foreign ports and rail car-
riers quoting a lower through toll, and where the point of production of
the Canadian product is from 60 to SO miles further than Montreal from
the majority of the western destinations, and a two line haul has to be
employed as against one, the Board will not make the local joint toll from
the point of Canadian production equal to the Montreal import toll to the
same points of destination.
Canadian China Clay Co. v. Grand Trunk, Canadian Pacific and Can.
Northern Ry. Cos*, 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 347.
[Followed in Roberts T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., IS Can. Ry. Cas. 350.]
810 TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
DISCRETION COMPETITION BY WATER NORMAL TOLLS.
It is in the carrier's discretion whether it will meet water competition,
and it is not the privilege of the shipper to demand less than normal tolls
because of such competition, which the carrier in its own interest does not
choose to meet. [Plain v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 222 ; Blind
River Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk et al. Cos., 35 Can. Ry. Cas. 146,
followed.] Where the carrier is subject to effective water competition in
varying degree, and also to potential water competition it is in its discre-
tion whether it shall meet it and the fact that it has met the competition
jit one point does not place it under any obligation to meet it at another
point nor is the toll as it is put in to meet such competition to one point
a necessary measure of the toll to another. [Dominion Millers' Assn. v.
Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 363, at p.
368; Re Western Tolls (Western Tolls Case), 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 123, at pp.
161, 162, followed.]
Bowlby v. Halifax & South Western Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 231.
DISCRETION ROUTES WATER COMPETITION.
Rail carriers engaged in the business of transportation via a rail and
water route in competition with an all- water route may, in their discre-
tion, meet water competition if they see fit, and may also determine the ex-
tent to which they shall meet it, and the Board cannot interfere with the
tariff of tolls filed. [Blind River Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk et al. Cos.,
15 Can. Ry. Cas. 146, followed.]
Boards of Trade of Montreal and Toronto et al. v. Canadian Freight
Assn., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 77.
WATER COMPETITION EFFECTIVE AND LESS EFFECTIVE.
It is not contrary to the Railway Act that carriers should meet water
competition in a measure when it is effective and afterwards meet it in a
less degree when it is less effective.
Dominion Canners et al. v. Canadian Freight Assn. (Canned Goods Tolls
Case), 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 312.
DISCRETION WATER COMPETITION.
Carriers may in their discretion meet water competition by reducing
tolls; they may also in their discretion restore tolls to a normal basis when
water competition ceases. [Dominion Millers Assn. v. Grand Trunk and
Can. Pac. Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Oas. 363, at p. 368, followed.]
Regina Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 315.
REDUCTION WATER COMPETITION INCREASE TO NORMAL.
Tolls reduced by a railway company to meet water competition may, at
the discretion of rail carrier, be brought up more closely to the normal
level when water competition becomes less effective. [Dominion Millers
Assn. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 363, at p.
368; Re Western Tolls (Western Freight Rates Case), 17 Can. Ry. Cas.
123, at pp. 123, 124, 159, 166, followed; Canadian Oil Cos. v. Grand Trunk
et al. Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 350, at p. 351; Blind River Board of
Trade v. Grand Trunk et al. Cos. 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 146; Boards of Trade
of Montreal and Toronto and Canadian Manufacturers Assn. v. Canadian
Freight Assn., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 77, referred to.]
Boards of Trade of Western Cities and Canadian Manufacturers' Assn.
v. Canadian Freight Assn., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 324.
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS. 811
WATER COMPETTTIOX DISCRETION REASONABLE UXJCST BISCRIMXATHKV
C.L. TEMFORART REDCOTIOX.
A carrier is not obliged to meet water competition, and is free in its dis-
cretion to take out low competitive tolls provided there is no unjust dis-
crimination, and the tolls made effective are reasonable in themselves.
The Board refused to restore a toll on rice in carloads (60.000 Ibs. min-
imum i of 65 cents per 100 Ibs. from Vancouver and Victoria to Toronto
and Montreal points, in place of a toll of 75 cents (30.000 Ibs. minim am-,
temporarily reduced on account of water competition.
Man in 4 Robertson and Imperial Rice Milling Co. v. C*"*di*" Freight
Assn.. 24 Can. Rv. Cas, 141.
See also (B) p. 757: Interchange of Traffic.
DmrKRAGE CHARGES - STANDARD TARIFF REA.M>NAKLC*KBH.
By the tariff of tolls approved by the Governor-in-eouneil under the
Railway Act, 1888. railway companies were authorized to charge higher
tolls than by a special tariff filed under the Railway Act, 1903, which
specifically provided for car service or demurrage charges. The latter
were also recognized by the classification rules authorized by the Board
and in force at the time in question: Held, that the company not having
sought to charge the maximum tolls approved by the Governor-in-eouneil
(of the nature of a standard tariff*, must be understood as having ac-
cepted the goods for carriage at lowest rates conditional upon its right
to make a charge for demurrage. Held, that the rate charged was prima
facie reasonable and that no order should be made against the railway
Duthie T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 4 Can. Ry. Cas. 304.
[Approved in Robin -on v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 19 Man. L.R. 306.]
COMPtTIIIVE AND XOXCOMMnTTTE TRAFFIC - IXTERSWTTCniXG - JOINT TAR-
Upon complaints by shippers and consignees at various points as to
the practice of adding to the tariff rates of the railway company carrying
to a particular place the switching charge of another company to which
the traffic is transferred for carriage and delivery at another point in or
near the same place, and in cases of such tansfer absorbing these extra
charges where the traffic originates at competitive points Cue-, competitive
traffic*, while adding the charges when the point of origin is noncom-
petitive (L e_ noncompetitive traffic : Held (1). that a railway com-
pany's tariffs to and from particular places should, in the absence of indi-