to Lake Charles, 111., on basis of lower
rate established shortly after movement.
Dreyfus Bros. v. L. & N. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 63.

(w) Reparation awarded on shipment
of malt from Davenport, la., to Omaha,
la., and present lower rate subsequently
established ordered to be maintained.
Independent Brewing & Malt Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 65.

(x) Reparation, awarded on shipment
of flour from Fargo, N. Dak., to Miles
City, Mont., and present lower rate or-
dered to be maintained for two years.
Jordan & Sons Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 66.

(y) Reparation awarded on shipment
of watermelons from Cone, la., to New
Prague, Minn., on account of voluntary
reduction. Gamble-Robinson Commis-
sion Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Un-
rep. Op. 70.

(z) Rate on agricultural implements
increased from 17c to 25c subsequently
reduced to 20c and then to 17c; repara-
tion awarded on basis of 17c rate.
Rowell Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 71.

(aaa) Reparation awarded on ship-
ments of rock-crushing machinery from
Harvey, 111., to Groos, Mich., on account
of voluntary reduction in rates. Austin
Mfg. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op.
72.



REPARATION, 16 (bb) (tt)



737



(bb) Following Darling & Co. v. B.
& O. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 79, reparation
awarded on shipments of phosphate rock
from Tennessee mines to Canton, O.
Canton Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. W.
& L. E. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 87.

(cc) Reparation awarded on carload
of flaxseed from Council Bluffs, la., to
Minneapolis, Minn., on account of vol-
untary reduction. Updike Grain Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 91.

(dd) Reparation awarded on 15 car-
loads of cattle from Granby, Colo., to
Chicago. 111., on account of establish-
ment of lower rate. Swift & Co. v. D.
X. W. & P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 92.

(ee) Reparation awarded on ship-
ments of sawmill machinery from Wau-
sau, Wis., to Cravens, La., on account
of establishment of lower rate. Gulf
Lumber Co. v: C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrp. Op. 95.

(ff) Rates on beer advanced and sub-
sequently reduced to former rate, during
interim shipment made; reparation
awarded on basis of former rate. Schlitz
Brewing Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 96; Pabst Brewing Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 97,
98, 99, 100; Schlitz Brewing Co. v. C. M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 104, 105.

(gg) Reparation awarded on two car-
loads of paving brick from Graves
Mines, Ala., to Natchez, Miss., on ac-
count of establishment of lower rate.
Southern Bitulithic Co. v. So. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 106.

(hh) Reparation awarded on ship
ments of mixed carloads of empty beer
barrels and beer bottles, on basis of
lower established rate. Pabst Brewing
Co. v. G. V. G. & N. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
111.

(iijj) Reparation awarded on three
carloads of stock cattle from So. Omaha.
Neb., to Kings, 111., on basis of Kings
being accorded same rate as Chicago
which is an. intermediate point. Ross v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 112.

(kk) Reduction in rate subsequent to
shipment is not conclusive evidence ' ol
unreasonableness of rate charged. Ham-
mond Packing Co. v, A. T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 120.

(11) Rate advanced, subsequently re-
duced; reparation awarded on basis of
reduction; no material changes in cir-



cumstances and conditions. Winkel &
Co. v. Spokane International Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 122.

(mm) Joint through rate canceled,
leaving higher combination rates in ef-
fect; joint through rate restored. Repa-
ration awarded. Swift & Co. v. A. T.
& S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 130.

(nn) No joint through rate in effect,
combination charged which is higher
than subsequently established joint
through rate. Reparation awarded, and
maintenance of reduced rate ordered.
Northwestern Traffic & Credit Bureau
v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
131.

(oo) Rate charged on shipment of
tank blocks from Steubenville, O., to Los
Angeles, Cal., found unreasonable, and
the subsequently established lower rate
prescribed for the future. Reparation
awarded. Quartz Glass & Mfg. Co. v.
P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
140.

(pp) Rate on writing paper from Ap-
pleton, Wis., to Minnesota Transfer,
Minn., found to be unreasonable, and the
subsequently established lower rate pre-
scribed for the future. Reparation
awarded. Riverside Fibre & Paper Co.
v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
141.

(qq) Lower 'Combination now appli-
-able via route shipment moved. Repara-
tion awarded. Port Huron Engine &
Thresher Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 147.

(rr) Rate charged on shipments of
alum from New York City to Basin
Mills, Me., found unreasonable and the
subsequently established lower rate pre-
scribed for the future. General Chem-
ical Co. v. Me. S. S. Co., Unrep. Op. 151.

(ss) Upon a petition asking for re-
paration, reparation awarded on the
basis of rates established by the car-
riers shortly after the shipments moved.
American Tobacco Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 167; Ingersoll-Rand
Co. v, C. R. R. Co. of N. J., Unrep. Op.
210.

(tt) Reparation awarded on basis of
lower rate, subsequently established.
Dakota Cereal Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 178; International
Harvester Co. of America v. C. M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 179; Carr



738



REPARATION, 16 (uu) (ggg)



Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Un-
rep. Op. 180; Moline Plow Co. v. C. M.
& St. P. Ry, Co., Unrep. Op. 186; Alex-
ander & Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 187; Southern Cotton Oil Co.
Co. v. A, C. L. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 119.

(uu) Intermediate clause canceled by
order of Commission, leaving higher rate
in effect; subsequently reduced. Repara-
tion awarded. International Harvester
Co. of America v. C. M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 179; Carr Mfg. Co. v.
C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 180.

(vv) Rate found unreasonable to the
extent of the subsequently establishedl
lower rate. Reparation awarded and
rate ordered maintained. Morris & Co.
vs. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
182.

(ww) Reparation awarded on ship-
ment of beer from Milwaukee, Wis., to
Powersville, Mo., and lower rate sub-
sequently established prescribed for the
future. Val Blatz Brewing Co. v, C. M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 184.

(xx) Rate advanced, then reduced to
former rate. Reparation awarded. Pabst
Brewing Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 195; Emerson Mfg. Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.., Unrep. Op. 212.

(yy) Reparation awarded on ship-
ment of ground limestone from Chicago,
111., to Omaha, Neb., and lower rate sub-
sequently established prescribed for the
future. Murphy v. C. M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 192,

(zz) Following the Darling case, 15
I. C. C. 79, reparation awarded against
initial carrier on shipment of phosphate
rock from points in Tennessee to Niag-
ara Falls, N. Y. Oldbury Electro-Chem-
ical Co. v. C. H. & D. Ry. Co., Unrep.
Op. 204,

(aaaaj Cancellation of intermediate
clause causing higher rate to be charged.
Specific rate now in effect. Reparation
awarded. Midland Linseed Co. v. C. M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 205;
Thomas Produce Co. v. C, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 209.

(bbb) Rate on fuel wood canceled,
leaving higher rate in effect, subsequent-
ly restored. Reparation awarded on.
shipments made during interim. Stange
Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep,
Op. 207.

(ccc) Reparation awarded on basis
of lower rate subsequently established.



Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Electric Co. v.
P. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 214; Steinhardt
& Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
215; Carlisle Commission Co. v. A. T.
& S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 217; Holmes
& Co. v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op.
218; Wisconsin Pulp & Paper Mfrs. v.
D. &. I. R. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 225; Ra-
cme-Sattley Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 234; Browne v. Ameri-
can Express Co., Unrep. Op. 237; Herf
& Frerichs Chemical Co. v. S. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 244; Jackson Grocery Co. v.
S. P. Co., Unrep. Op. 245; Terhune
Lumber Co. v. G. & F. Ry. Co., Unrep.
Op. 247; Pabst Brewing Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 254; Pabst
Brewing Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 255; Menasha Woodenware
Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
258; Rudgear-Merle Co. v. Goodrich
Transit Co., Unrep. Op. 264; Milwaukee
Corrugating Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 273; Robinson Clay Product
Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 275;
Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 286;
Wisconsin Iron & Metal Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., Uurep. Op. 300; Davis
Sewing Machine Co. v. P. C. C. & St. L.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 301; Hall & Co. v.
S. P. Co., Unrep. Op. 306; Cochrane Co.
v. C. M. & St. P, Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
307.

(ddd) Reparation awarded on ship-
ments of fire brick of various shapes,
the lower rate on fire brick and fire-
brick tile having been made applicable
a short time after the movement. West-
ern Gas Construction Co. v. W. R. R.
Co., Unrep. Op. 230.

(eee) Joint rates canceled to prevent
an apparent discrimination, in favor of
intermediate points; no evidence tending
to show combination rate unreasonable.
Reparation denied, Isbell-Brown Co. v.
L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 231.

(fff) Rate advanced, subsequently re-
stored. Does not demonstrate the un-
reasonableness of the advanced charge.
Reparation denied. Pabst Brewing Co.
v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Cp.
259.

(ggg) Rate advanced, subsequently
restored. Reparation awarded. Minne-
qua Coal Co. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 268; Arnold v. M. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 293; Christian & Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 340;



REPARATION, 16 (hhh) (zzz)



739



Abeles & Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op, 326.

(hhh) Following Rule 68, Tariff Cir-
cular 17A, reparation awarded on basis
of lower rate in effect. Germain Co. v.

A. B. & A. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 2<7.

(iii) Reduction due to competitive
conditions. Preclude the finding as a
fact that the rate actually charged was
unreasonable. Reparation denied. Ad-
vance Thresher Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 283.

(jjj) No joint commodity rate in ef-
fect from intermediate point; subsequent-
ly made applicable. Reparation awarded.
Cochrane Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 307.

(kkk) Low commodity rate estab-
lished on brick, during the course of
construction of a number of buildings,
to meet water competition. Subsequent-
ly commodity rate canceled, leaving in>
effect higher class rate. Reparation de-
nied. Hammond v. B. & M. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 313.

(Ill) Commodity rate canceled, leav-
ing higher class rate in effect. Com-
modity rates restored and reparation
awarded. Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. T. &
P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 336.

(mmm) Rate reduced on application
of complainant. Former rate not found
unreasonable and reparation denied.
Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. P. M. R. R.
Co., Unrep. Op. 345.

(nnn) No joint or combination com-
modity rates in effect, on track bolts,
class rates prohibited by tariffs. Lower
rate than charged subsequently estab-
lished. Reparation awarded on basis of
lower rate established. Miller v. T, &

B. V. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 349.

(ooo) Rate voluntarily reduced. For-
mer rate not having been found unrea-
sonable, reparation denied. Port Huron
Engine & Thresher Co. v. G. C. & S. F-
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 352; Ralston Purina
Co. v. M. & O. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 354.

(PPP) Joint class rate higher than
combination of intermediates. Subse-
quently joint commodity rate established
lower than combination. Reparation
awarded on basis of joint commodity
rate and rate ordered maintained.
Swanson v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., Unrep.
Op. 356.



Commodity rate on beer can-
celed, subsequently restored. Reparation
awarded on basis of cancelled rate.
Portner Brewing Co. v. S. Ry. Co., Un-
rep. Op. 361; Hope Cotton Oil Co v.
T. & P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 336.

(rrr) Reduction forced by competi-
tive conditions no ground for reparation.
Western States Portland Cement Co. v.
M. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 363.

(sss) Kates on apples from Fairbury,
Neb., to El Reno, Okla., found unrea-
sonable because of reduction and repara-
tion awarded. Moon v. C. R. I. & P. Ry.
Co., Unrep, Op. 364.

(ttt) Reparation awarded on basis of
lower rate subsequently established.
Murphy Distilling Co. v. E. & T. H. R.
R. Co., Unrep. Op. 366; Empson Packing
Co. v. C. & C. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 431;
Oshhosh Fuel Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 432; Sims v. A. C. L.
R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 434; Oakland
Warehouse Co. v. C. G. W. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 443; Sunderland Bros. Co.
v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 445.

(uuu) Reduction made in connection
with a general readjustment of rates
and building of competitive line. No
ground for reparation. Eddy v. A. T. &
S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 367.

(vvv) Reduction and maintenance of
lower rate by competing line to nearby
points no ground for reparation. Com-
plaint dismissed. Swife & Co. v. G. C.
& S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 372.

(www) Reparation awarded on basis
of lower rate established and conceded
by carriers to be reasonable. Haas &
Sons v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
373.

(xxx) Complainant shipped lumber
via an indirect route with class rate.
This rate subsequently reduced to meet
commodity rate in effect via direct
route. Reparation cannot be predicated
upon reduction of the rate via the in-
direct route to meet the rate via the
short line. Willson Bros. Lumber Co. v.
P. S. & N. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 375.

(yyy) Rate in force prior to reduc-
tion not having been shown to have
been unreasonable, complakit dismissed.
Tremont Lumber Co. v. T. & G. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 383.

(zzz) Rates reduced owing to active
competition amongst carriers, no ground



740



REPARATION, 16 (aaaa) (wwww)



for reparation. Bearman Fruit Co. v.
A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 395.

(aaaa) Rate advanced, subsequently
restored. Reparation denied on ship-
ments moving during interim. Schlitz
Brewing Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 405.

(bbbb) Combination rate exceeded
joint commodity rate subsequently estab
lished. Reparation awarded. Southern
Shuttle & Bobbin Co. v. T. F. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 407.

(cccc) Through combination rate
found unreasonable, reduction ordered
and reparation awarded. Chamber of
Commerce of Houston v. H, E. & W. T.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 408.

(ddddeeee) Decrease in value of com
modity and increase in volume thereof
resulted in action by carrier reducing
rates. No ground for reparation. Cools
Co. v. P. Co., Unrep. Op. 421.

(ffff) Reparation awarded on basis of
joint through rate with transit privileges
restored. Blackwell Milling & Elevator
Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
483.

(gggg) Reparation awarded on basis
of lower rate subsequently established
and admission of defendant that former
rate was unreasonable. Paonia Packing
Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Ujirep. Op.
487.

(hhhh) Rate advanced, subsequently
reduced, due to competitive conditions.
Reparation denied on shipments moving
during interim. Anheuser-Busch Brew-
ing Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 497.

(iiii) Reduction in classification ap-
plicable to jacks. Former rate held un-
reasonable and reparation awarded. Elsi-
nore Cattle Co. v. P. Exp. Co., Unrep.
Op. 500.

(jjjj) It is well settled that the vol-
untary reduction of a rate, unaccom-
panied by proof that the higher rate
was unreasonable, is not sufficient basis
for an award of reparation. Godfrey &
Sons Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 503.

(kkkk) Reduction in rate on malt
and increase- in proportional on barley
to equal local rate on malt do not of
themselves constitute grounds for repa-
ration. Electric Malting Co. v, C. M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 504.



(1111) Class rate on ammoniacal
liquor reduced to lower commodity rate.
Reparation awarded. Michigan Ammonia
Works v. M. & St. L. R. R. Co., Unrep.
Op. 511.

(mmmm) Reparation awarded on
basis of lower rate established to main-
tain relative adjustment. Swift & Co. v.
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 516;
Buffalo Fertilizer Co. v. L. & X. R. R.
Co., Unrep. Op. 573.

(nnr.n) Rates in effect prior to reduc-
tion admitted to be unreasonable by car-
riers. -rior to written admission rate
advanced. No justification being shown,
HELD, unreasonable and reparation
awarded. Swift & Co. v. C. B. & Q. R.
R. Co., Unrep. Op. 516.

(oooopppp) Prior to date of shipment
Df small arms ammunition 59c rate in ef-
fect. On date of shipment 66c rate in
effect, and subsequently reduced to 55c.
Reparation awarded on basis of 59c
rate, Reynolds-Davis & Co. v. St. L. I.
M. & S. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 551.

(QQQQ) Rate increased, subsequently
reduced-. Reparation awarded on ship-
ments moving during interim. Great
Western Portlard Cement Co. v. M. K. &
T. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 559.

(rrrr) Reduction caused by competi-
tive conditions. Reparation denied. Elk-
hart Bristol Board & Paper Co. v. C. C.
C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 561.

(ssss) Reparation awarded on basis
of lower rate established to maintain
relative adjustment. Buffalo Fertilizer
Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 573.

(tttt) Reparation awarded on basis of
lower commodity rate established than
class rate charged. Moore v. S. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 574.

(uuuu) Reparation, awarded on basis
of lower minimum established subse-
quent to movement of traffic. Wiscon-
sin Bridge & Iron Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 582.

(vvvv) Where a long-established rate
is raised for a short time and then vol-
untarily reduced to the former point
the presumption is that the advanced
rate is unreasonable, but this presump-
tion may be overcome by proof to the
contrary. Chaffin Coal Co. v. B. & O.
R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 585.

(wwww) Rate advanced, subsequently
reduced to former basis in order to pre-



REPARATION, 16 (xxxx) 17 (i)



741



serve relative adjustment. Reparation
denied on shipments moving during in-
terim. Peerless Woolen Mills v. C. N O.
& T. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 594.

(xxxx) No through rate in effect at
time of shipment; combination rate ap-
plied; through rate subsequently estab-
lished, which was lower than the com-
bination, rate applied. Reparation award-
ed. Howard & Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry.
Co., Unrep. Op. 50.

(yyyy) Tariffs omitted from Pueblo,
Colo., as a common Colorado point, which
was adjusted subsequent to movement of
shipments. Reparation awarded. Radin-
sky v. Colo. & So. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 88.

(zzzz) Reparation awarded on ship-
ment of compressed cotton linters from
Checotah, Okla., to Los Angeles, Cal.
Reparation awarded. Checotah Cotton
Oil Co. v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.
143.

(aaaaa) Rate advanced on shipment
of beer from Milwaukee, Wis., to McCook,
Neb., then reduced to former rate. Rep-
aration awarded. Pabst Brewing Co. v.
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 195.

(bbbbb) Reparation awarded on ship-
ment of empty mineral-water bottles from
Buffalo, N. Y., to Sheboygan, Wis. Repa-
ration awarded. Sheboygan Mineral
Water Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op.
197.

(ccccc) Joint rates established subse-
quent to movement of shipments. Rep-
aration denied. Wisconsin Pulp & Paper
Mfrs. v. D. & I. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 225.

17. Willingness of Carrier to Pay.

See Equalization of Rates, 4 (2)
(k); Evidence, 3, 47 (e) ; Reason-
ableness of Rates, 48 (b).

(a) Reparation cannot be awarded
merely on the admission of the defend-
ant that the complainant is the party
entitled to such reparation. It must be
affirmatively shown that the complainant
is the proper party entitled to reparation.
Baker Mfg. Co. v. C & N. W. Ry Co., 21
I. C. C. 605, 607.

(b) Willingness of a carrier to pay
reparation does not form a basis upon
which the Commission can make its find-
Ings. Cady Lumber Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co.,
19 I. C. C. 12, 14.

(c) An award of reparation can be
predicated only upon an affirmative find-
ing that a rate exacted was ri fact ex-



cessive, and not merely upon a showing
that the carrier is willing to honor the
claim. Pabst Brewing Co. v. C. M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 359, 360.

(d) On two carloads of soft coal from
Green Bay, Wis., one to Wetonka, and
one to Leola, S. D., rates of $3.85 were
charged to Wetonka, and $3.55 to Leola.
Wetonka was 773 miles from Green Bay
and Leola 784. Subsequent to the ship-
ment, rates to Leola and to Wetonka were
established from Green Bay of $2.85 and
$2.70, respectively. Defendants admitted
the rates charged to be unreasonable.
The rates yielded in one instance 4 mills
and in the other 4.4 mills per ton mile.
HELD, reparation could not be awarded
merely on the consent of the carriers,
and in view of the per-ton-mile revenue
earned, the rates in question were not
shown to be unreasonable. Reparation
denied. Pacific Elevator Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 373.

(e) Where, beyond the agreement be-
tween the parties, no showing is made
that charges exacted were unreasonable,
since a carrier may voluntarily make
lower rates than it could le compelled
to make, the Commission will not award
reparation on the basis of a rate lower
than that which it would prescribe as
reasonable. Pacific Elevator Co. v. C.
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 373, 374.

(f) No basis is afforded for reparation
merely because the carrier would con-
sent. Werner Saw Mill Co. v. I. C. R. R.
Co., 17 I. C. C. 388. 390; Pabst Brewing
Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C.
?59; Pacific Elevator Co. v. C. M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 373.

(g) To sanction as a just basis for
reparation a private understanding prior
to making shipment, the rate remaining
unchanged until the shipments were
made, would be to establish a precedent
for the grossest discrimination and fa-
voritism. Armour Car Lines v. S. P. Co.,
17 I. C. C. 461, 462.

(h) Upon admission of defendants
that a charge of $1.40 per hundred
pounds on a shipment of a carload of
rice from New Orleans, La., to Billings,
Mont., was unreasonable, and that $1.07
was a reasonable rate, complainant is
awarded reparation on the basis of the
latter rate. Stone-Orclean-Wells Co. v.
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 30, 31.

(i) A charge of 40c on cotton seed in
carloads from Kilbourne, La., to Pine



742



REPARATION, 17 (j) 18 (e)



Bluff, Ark., is unreasonable by defend-
ant's admission, and complainant is en-
titled to reparation on the basis of a 12c
rate voluntarily established subsequent
to the shipment. Bluff City Oil Co. v.
St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 296,
297.

(j) Where on an agreed statement of
facts defendant carrier admits the rate
exacted to be unreasonable, it cannot,
even after the Commission has so ruled,
make reparation until the rate found to
be reasonable is published by defendant.
Venus v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 15 I.
C. C. 136, 137.

(k) Where upon shipments of plaster
from Grand Rapids, Mi"h, to Milwaukee,
Wis., defendant admits that its rate of
9c was published by mistake, and is un-
just and unreasonable, and where by a
supplemental tariff it later establishes a
rate of 7 1 /c, plaintiff is entitled to rep-
aration on the basis of that rate, and
defendant will be ordered to maintain it
for a period of two years. Grand Rapids
Plaster Co. v. Pere Marquette R. R. Co.,
14 I. C. C. 571, 572.

IV. LIABILITY FOR REPARATION.
18. Measure of Reparation.

See Procedure Before Commission,
5 (i); Reasonableness of Rates,
23 (g); Routing and Misrouting,
9.

(a) Where a railroad charges plaintiff
shipper a higher rate than it charges
a competing shipper on a portion of the
latter 's shipments plaintiff is entitled to
recover the difference between these
charges on the whole amount shipped by
him during a given period and is not lim-
ited to recovering the difference between
the charge levied on plaintiff and the
average charge levied on his competitor