for the longer haul from Lorton and Dun-
bar to St. Louis. They were also higher
than rates from Paul and Julian to St.
Louis. The lower rate from Dunbar was
due to the competition of another carrier,
which was subject to the low rates pre-
scribed by the Nebraska legislature. Tal-
mage and Brock were not subject to this
competition. Paul and Julian were the
same distance as Brock and Talmage
from Auburn, on defendant's line, at
which point all shipments to St. Louis
were concentrated. HELD, the lower
rates from Lorton and Dunbar were justi-
fied by competitive conditions, but the
Talmage and Brock rates should be re-
duced, so not to exceed those from Paul
and Julian. Bartling Grain Co. v. M. P.
Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 494, 496.
(j) There is a material difference be-
tween a -reasonable amount to be added
for additional mileage on a straight-away
long haul and a reasonable allowance to
be added for an out-of-line haul which
involves two and probably three terminal
services. Kansas City Transportation
Bureau v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C.
(k) Complainant attacked the rates
on groceries from southern points to An-
thony, Kan., as compared with those to
Wichita, Winfield, Hutchinson and Ar-
kansas City, which points were more dis-
tant from gulf ports than Anthony and
took on rice and sugar a rate of some
6c lower than the rate to Anthony. From
points in the East, Anthony was more
distant than such other competitive
points and the lower rates to them were
established by eastern carriers. Later
the carriers from th ) South became com-
petitors in hauling the goods to these
cities. HELD, these new conditions,
coupled with the fact that Anthony was
entitled to the benefit of its proximity
to gulf ports, required a reduction in
differentials from about 6c to about 3c
on shipments from southern points, the
latter differential to be left in effect in
view of the fact that Anthony was
reached only by branch lines, while most
of the other points were reached by main
lines. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co.
v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 605,
2. Compared with Main Lines.
See Comparative Rates,
(a) A tap line carrier charged 3%c
per 100 Ibs. for a haul of 20 miles. HELD,
the per ton mile earnings of a small car-
rier having only short hauls and light
BRANCH LINES, 2 (b) 3 (c)
business may properly exceed the per ton
mile earnings of stronger lines partici-
pating in heavier traffic which moves for
considerable distances. Burton v. U. V.
R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 75.
(b) The tariffs in effect prior to April
1 and those of April 1, 1910, named the
same rates on vegetables from branch
line points as from Charlestown to Buf-
falo and Pittsburgh, but the subsequent
tariffs named through rates from the
branch line points higher than the rates
from Charlestown. Rates from branch
line points to the Ohio River are higher
than rates from Charlestown to the Ohio
River, but the same relative differences
have not been observed in the construc-
tion of the through -rates to Buffalo and
to Pittsburgh. HELD, in consideration of
the extra service performed and the addi-
tional expense incident to traffic from
branch lines, the Commission does not
here regard it as improper to charge
reasonably more from such points than
from main line points. It sees no reason,
however, for any higher differentials on
shipments to Buffalo and Pittsburgh than
on like shipments to Baltimore. League
of Commission Merchants v. A. C. L. R.
R. Co., 20 I. C. .C. 132, 134.
(c) Rates on a branch line may law-
fully be higher than on main lines serv-
ing the well-developed territory where the
density of traffic is much greater. Com-
mercial Club of Omaha v. C. & N. W.
Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 156.
(d) The Commission does not feel
justified in requiring a newly constructed
line with a comparatively meager traffic
to join in the establishment of rates on
cotton linters as low as those applying
from points located on the rails of car-
riers more firmly established. Du Mee,
Son & Co. v. A. T. & N. R. R. Co., 19
I. C. C. 575, 576.
(e) A new line is not -required to es-
tablish as low a rate as a more firmly
established road. Du Mee, Son & Co. v.
A. T. & N. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 575, 576.
(f) Rates on a branch line, on traffic
coming in over another line, may be
higher than on the main line. Acme
Cement Plaster Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co.,
18 I. C. C. 105, 106.
(g) Higher rates may be made to
points on a branch line, with proper
limitations, than to main-line points.
Idaho Commercial Clubs v. O. S. L. R. R.
Co., 18 I. C. C. 562, 564.
(h) When the co^t of transporting
matter to and from a point on a branch
line increases, rates ought to be some-
what higher for that reason. Maricopa
County Commercial Club v. Wells, Fargo
& Co., 16 I. C. C. 182, 184.
(i) Not all branch lines having switch
connections with a main line are enti-
tled to joint rates. Rahway Valley R.
R. Co. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 14 I.
C. C. 191.
3. As Part of System.
(a) Complainant attacked rates from
Billings, Mont., to points in Wyoming on
branch lines of defendant. HELD, that
these branch lines traverse a new coun-
try, where transportation conditions are
difficult and the volume of business com-
paratively small. These lines, however,
are operated as part of a great and pros-
perous system; they are feeders to the
main line and help to swell the revenue
of that line. A part of any great railroad
system might be selected, and counting
cost of operation and fixed charges such
part be shown to be unprofitable. This,
however, would not truly indicate its
value and profitableness as an integral
part of the whole property. The fact
that these branch lines considered by
themselves fail to show large earnings
does not justify the charging of unrea-
sonable rates. Billings Chamber of
Commerce v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 19
I. C. C. 71, 75.
(b) If the branch lines of a railroad
are judiciously planned and constructed
they should certainly be taken into ac-
count in determining the value of the
railroad, for although they may not earn
a large return upon the cost considered
as an independent proposition, they do
add to the traffic and the earning power
of the entire system; but it must be as-
sumed that the new branches which have
been constructed are good investments,
otherwise they would not have been built,
and that they will add to the earnings of
the property in proportion as they have
added to its cost. No increase in rate
should be called for on this account.
City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C.
C. 162, 171.
(c) On carloads of cement plaster
from Laramie, Wyo., via the U. P. R. R.
to Norfolk, Neb., thence via the Niobrara
branch of the C. & N. W. Ry., the rate
to Norfolk was lOc, minimum 60,000 Ibs.,
and 15c, minimum 30,000 Ibs., on ship-
BRANCH LINES, 3 (d) 4 (b)
ments destined beyond, which rates
yielded 3.8 and 5.G per ton mile respect-
ively. From Norfolk to points on said
Niobrara branch, the rates were from 9c
to 22 1 /c. No joint rates were in effect
from Laramie to said points, but the traffic
moved under through billing. Complain-
ant attacked the rates from Norfolk and
demanded a blanket rate of 7^c. The
construction of the Niobrara branch was
expensive, the grades severe, traffic light,
and cost of operation heavy. Cement
plaster was shipped from points in Iowa
and South Dakota in competition with
Laramie and from one of these points,
Rapid City, the C. & N. W. Ry. had the
entire haul. Although, the rates at-
tacked were established by the Nebraska
Commission, it had never passed upon
the reasonableness of the same. The
rates attacked were higher than those
upon cattle, a trifle lower than those upon
hogs, and higher than lumber and grain
rates. Cement plaster loads readily to
the marked capacity of the car with little
risk of loss or damage in transit. Its
value per ton at the mill is some $2 for
white plaster and $3 for brown plaster.
The minimum published on the Niobrara
branch was 24,000 Ibs. upon grain, 22,000
Ibs. on cattle and hogs, and 30,000 Ibs. on
lumber. HELD, the complainant's con-
tention that in constructing the rates in
question upon said branch it should be
considered as a part of the C. & N. W.
Ry. Co.'s system and such rates applied
as would be reasonable for the average
railroad in that section was untenable,
but that the rates attacked were unrea-
sonable and should be reduced. Repara-
tion denied. (Harlan, commissioner, dis-
senting.) Acme Cement Plaster Com-
pany v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C.
105, 106, 107.
(d) Commission rates are usually the
same for all lines, both main lines and
branches. It is fair that the main line
should in a degree contribute to the sup-
port of the branch line, for the branch-
line business when it reaches the main
line is surplus traffic from which a larger
profit is made. It is in the public inter-
est that rates shall be so adjusted that
population and industries may freely
diffuse themselves. In determining the
reasonableness of rates upon a main line
based upon earnings, reference must be
made to the earnings of branch lines
which contribute to it. Receivers &
Shippers Ass'n of Cincinnati v. C. N.
O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 440, 465.
(e) While carriers are justified within
proper limitations in making somewhat
higher rates to branch-line points than to
main-line points, where the same rate is
applied to all points both on the main and
branch lines, it is to be tested as a whole.
Idaho Commercial Clubs v. O. S. L. R. R.
Co., 18 I. C. C. 562, 564.
(f) The fact that a rate is made ap-
plicable to certain destinations irrespect-
ive of whether most of them are located
on branch lines does not justify an un-
reasonable rate to any of the destinations
involved, but the reasonableness of the
rate is to be tested as a whole. League
of Southern Idaho Commercial Clubs v.
O. S. L. R. R. Co., 18. I. C. C. 562, 564.
(g) The fact that rates on other parts
of the carrier's system are forced down
by competition to a very low point, does
not justify a higher rate to a point lo-
cated on a branch line, since such point
is entitled to the reasonable rate which
its location and other advantages dictate
without taking into account conditions
which bring about lower rates to other
points. Board of Trade of Winston-
Salem v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 12,
(h) What might perhaps have been
proper as between companies operating
separate and distinct short lines may be-
come unreasonable and unjust when both
are absorbed by a large system which
serves an extensive territory. Black
Mountain Coal Land Co. v. Sou. Ry. Co.,
15 I. C. C. 286.
4. In Competition With Ma'n Lines.
(a) It is almost axiomatic that rates
cannot be made so as to give high earn-
ings to a poorly placed, indifferently op-
erated, or an isolated road, without mak-
ing rates extortionate. In Re Advances
in Rates Western Case, 20 I. C. C. 307,
(b) Complainants attacked class rates in
both directions between Chicago, the
Mississippi River and the Missouri River
upon the one hand, and Utah common
points upon the other; westbound com-
modity rates from the above-named east-
ern points of origin to Utah common
points; eastbound rates on certain prod-
ucts of Utah to the Missouri River, Mis-
sissippi River and Chicago; rates on de-
ciduous and citrus fruits from points of
BRANCH LINES, 4 (c) BRIDGE TOLLS, I (a)
production in California to Utah common
points; import rates upon certain com-
modities through Pacific Coast ports to
Salt Lake City; passenger fares in both
directions between Utah common points
upon the one hand and Denver, Omaha,
Los Angeles, San Francisco and Portland
upon the other. The two lines mainly
involved in the case are the U. P. and
D. & R. G. R. R's. The per cent of re-
turn upon the cost of the property of the
U. P. R. R., according to its own state-
ment, from 1899 to 1909 has averaged
between 6 and 7, and for the last four
years from 7.41 to 8.66. In 1909 its ton
mile earnings were 1.004c and its per
cent of operating expenses to gross in-
come, 48.52c. Its earnings exceed those
of any group in the United States except
group No. 2, which it nearly equals. The
financial showing of the D. & R. G. R. R.
is nothing like as favorable as that of the
Union Pacific. It is situated for the most
part among the mountains. Its cost of
construction was high, and the expense
of operation was much greater than that
of the U. P. R. R. It is the claim of this
company that the Commission should de-
termine the reasonableness of these rates
with reference to the cost of handling
the traffic by its line, and with reference
to its financial necessities, and not with
reference to the U. P. R. R. The D. & R.
G. R. R. was built for the purpose of hand-
ling the local business tributary to its
line. No railroad would ever have been built
where this one is for the main purpose
of handling through business like that
under consideration. Its branch lines
aggregate 2y 2 times the mileage of its
main line over which this traffic passes.
The great bulk of its tonnage to-day is
from local business. Its line is longer
than that of the Union Pacific between
all points. HELD, that in determining u
freight -rate which must of necessity be
charged by competing lines, the Com-
mission would not look exclusively to
that line which could handle the busi-
ness the cheapest, or which was the
strongest financially, but would consider
as well the weaker rival. But that on
the other hand it would not permit the
maintenance of unreasonable rates sim-
ply to give revenue to the weakest car-
rier; that from a consideration of all the
facts the class rates are unreasonable
and should be reduced as stated in the
attached schedule; similarly with respect
to the commodity rate. The eastbound
rates upon catsup are reduced to 85c to
the Mississippi River and Chicago, and
the other eastbound rates -reserved for
future consideration; the citrus and de-
ciduous fruit rate reduced to $1 per 100
Ibs.; the proportional import rates at-
tacked are reduced to those contempo-
raneously in force to the Missouri River.
The passenger rates reduced, as stated in
the schedule. A formal order will not be
issued until an actual test has been made.
Commercial Club, Salt Lake City, v. A.
T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 218.
(c) In establishing a reasonable rate
the strongest line should not alone be
considered; the necessities of the weaker
line must also be taken into account.
City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 15
I. C. C. 376, 394.
II. DUTY TO ROUTE.
5. In General.
(a) Small initial lines should be par-
tially relieved of 'responsibility for cor-
rect routing. Duluth & Iron Range R. R.
Co. v. C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. O., 18 I. C. C.
BREAKING OF RATES.
See Facilities and Privileges, 21
(bb); Reasonableness of Rates, 28
See Evidence. 51 (aa); Reasonable-
ness of Rates, 11 (b), 30 (a).
(a) The argument that a bridge a
mile long ought to be regarded as sim-
ply a mile of the carrier's track and
ought not to be the foundation of any
separate or higher charge is not the
generally accepted view. By reason of
the great cost of such structures a bridge
has been regarded more or less gen-
erally as adding a constructive mileage
to the carrier's line, for which an addi-
tional charge may be exacted. More-
over, bridges are ordinarily built and
operated by separate companies, although
not infrequently the bridge companies
are owned by the carrier o-r carriers that
use the bridge. As a rule, the accounts
of the bridge company are kept sepa-
rately, and the rights of the owning car-
rier or carriers to use the bridge and
the compensation therefor are estab-
lished and controlled by formal contract.
The compensation is ordinarily fixed in
the form of a definite toll per passenger,
and sometimes a mare or less definite
BRIDGE TOLLS, I (b) BUSINESS SECRETS, I (a)
charge is assessed on freight. The car-
riers usually lay the burden upon the
traveling and shipping public by adding
the tolls to their regular fares and rates,
and these additional charges have been
recognized as valid by the Commission.
Railroad Commissioners of Iowa v. I. C.
R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 181, 188.
(b) The I. C. R. R., one of the defend-
ants, for all practical purposes owns the
Dubuque bridge over the Mississippi, con-
necting East Dubuque, 111., with Dubuque,
Iowa, a distance of approximately 1.6
miles. The total value of the property as
assessed is $1,864,048. The evidence in-
dicates that approximately this sum has
been spent on the bridge, including re-
placements and betterments, and the
original cost, $589,989.92, but exclusive of
ordinary maintenance and repairs. The
net income of the bridge company from
the carriers which are Us tenants is ap
proximately $181,000 a year. The actual
gross revenue, however, to the I. C.
R. R. is from $70,000 to $80,000 annually,
out of which it pays its proportion with
the other tenants according to wheeJage
of the cost of maintenance, repairs and
taxes. The defendants charge an arbi-
trary of 25c per passenger and mileage,
on all passengers traveling between Il-
linois points west of Chicago and all sta-
tions in Iowa, including Dubuque. The
Commission finds from an investigation
of other bridge tolls that they range up
to 50c, the more usual toll being 25c. To
reduce the Dubuque toll would cause an
extensive disturbance of the passenger
schedule in effect in this region. HELD,
the arbitrary exacted to be reasonable.
Complaint dismissed. Railroad Commis-
sioners of la. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 20 I.
C. C. 181.
(c) The fact that the net revenues of
a carrier from its ownership of a bridge
on which an arbitrary is charged for pas-
sengers and freight carried across the
same may be greater than the returns on
ordinary business enterprises is not suf-
ficient in itself to justify a holding that
the bridge tolls are excessive. Bridges
are and have been regarded as precarious
property. They may be damaged or en-
tirely swept away by floods and erection
of other bridges nearby may draw away
their tenants, and thus seriously affect
their earning capacity. The net revenues
have an undoubted and also an impor-
tant bearing upon the question of the
reasonableness of rates, but the value
of the service to the shipper and the
other elements so often referred to as
entering into the reasonableness of rates
must also be taken into consideration.
A railroad company may be operated
with a less return than it ought to en-
joy or even at a loss, but neither condi-
tion of affairs would justify Jie exaction
by it of rates that are higher than they
reasonably should be for service per-
formed, all things being considered. So
also the fact that the net earnings of a
carrier may be large does not of itself
justify the Commission fixing a rate at
less than is reasonable for the service,
all other things being considered. Rail-
road Commissioners of la. v. I. C. R. R.
Co., 20 I. C. C. 181, 186.
(cc) The reservation by Congress of
the right to fix charges over bridges is
exercised by a delegation of authority
to the Commission. West End Improve-
ment Club v. O. & C. B. R. & B. Co.,
17 I. C. C. 239, 247.
(d) A bridge tariff on local business
between Louisville, Ky., and New Al-
bany, Ind., will not be held unreasonable
where no evidence is introduced 1 > show
its unreasonableness, and where it com-
pares favorably with the rates at other
Ohio River crossings. Railroad Commis-
sion of Ind. v. K. & I. B. & R. R. Co., 14
I. C. C. 563, 564.
See Forwarders, II.
See Courts, 11 (r) ; Facilities and
Privileges, 10 (w) ; Loss and Dam-
age, 4 (i).
BURDEN OF PROOF.
See Advanced Rates, 3, 5 (2) (bb),
6 (3) (a); Blanket Rates, 16;
Crimes, 25; Discrimination, 14;
Evidence, I, 68 (a); Express Com-
panies, 11 (5) (a). 11 (9) (a), 23
(a); Long and Short Hauls, 12
(1); Loss and Damage, 15; Pro-
portional Rates, II (a); Routing and
Misrouting, 8; Through Routes
and Joint Rates, 11 (2) (c), 15,
16 (I); Undercharges, 5.
I. DISCLOSURE FORBIDDEN.
See Reasonableness of Rates, 111 (a);
Tariffs, 14 (c).
(a) A shipper of salt does not have to
deliver his shipments to a boat line con-
trolled by a competitor, and such boat
BUSINESS SECRETS, I (b) CARS AND CAR SUPPLY, 1 (b)
line, although it publishes rates on salt
in cargo lots, cannot be considered a
common carrier, but a private facility of
the salt company by which it is owned.
Colonial Salt Co. v. M. I. & I. Line, 23
I. C. C. 358, 366.
(b) The tariff of a carrier provided
that per-can shippers of milk in case
they wished refrigeration should deliver
their cans to competitors operating
leased cars, who would charge certain
prescribed rates. HELD, the new provi-
sion of the Act clearly indicates an intsnt
upon the part of Congress to secure to
every shipper immunity from a disclosure
of his business at the hands of a common
carrier, and the rule referred to was un-
lawful. Albree v. B. & M. R. R. Co.,
22 I. C. C. 303, 321.
(bb) A tariff is unlawful, under the
15th section of the Act, which compels
a shipper to load his milk into a car
leased by another shipper in such a
way as to disclose the secrets of his
business and which compels him to pay
the transportation rate to such other
shipper. Albree v. B. & M. R. R. Co.,
22 I. C. C. 303, 321.
(c) Arbuckle Bi'os. operate their own
property as the Jay Street terminal of
defendants. Complainant is a compet-
itor of Arbuckle Bros. To meet its
complaint of unjust discrimination de-
fendants offered to receive the sugar of
complainant at the Jay Street terminal.
HELD, to offer the complainant a re
ceiving station on the dock of powerful
competitors where its shipments would
be handled and billed out by its com-
petitors, thus exposing to them the
names of complainants' customers, its
markets and the course of its business,
is a suggestion that overlooks the duty
of impartial service by the defendants to
all their shipping public, and violates
the Act as amended, which makes it un-
lawful for an interstate carrier to "dis
close his 1 usiness transactions to com-
petitors." Federal Sugar Refining Co. v.
B. & O. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 200, 111.
CARS AND CAR SUPPLY.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
A. Jurisdiction of Commission.
1. Over car distribution.
2. Car regulations.
3. Fuel cars.
4. Private cars.
5. Intrastate cars.
6. To award damages.
II. DUTY TO FURNISH CARS.
7. In general.
8. Size ordered by shipper.
9. Form of order.
10. Tank cars.
11. At transit point.
III. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBU-
A. Counting of Cars.
12. In general.
13. Private cars.
14. Foreign cars.
15. Railway fuel cars.
16. Pooling by shipper.
17. Tank cars.
18. Detention of cars.
19. When counted for loading.
20. Car famine.
21. Reward for prompt release.
21^. Shippers on branch lines.
B. Rating of Mines.
22. Coke-oven basis.
23. Commercial plus physical
24. Idle-hour system.
25. Mine capacity plus ship-
26. Physical capacity less rail-
C. Removal of Discrimination.
IV. CONTRACTS FOR CAR SUPPLY.
28. In general.
V. DUTY TO TRANSPORT CARS.
29. In general.
30. Interchange of cars.
31. Private cars.
32. Rates on private cars.
VI. REMEDIES AND DAMAGES.
32j/2- In general.
33. Action at law.
35. Res adjudicata.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
A. Jurisdiction of Commission.
1. Over Car Distribution.
(a) The Commission under section 15
of the Act as amended June 29, 1906, has
authority to prohibit unjust discrimina-
tion in the distribution of cars for n
period of two years. I. C. C. v. 111. Cent.
R. R., 215 U. S., 452, 475, 30 Sup. Ct. 155,
54 L. ed., 280.
(b) The equipment of a railroad com-
pany engaged in interstate commerce, in-
cluded m which are its coal cars, is an
instrument of such commerce and such
CARS AND CAR SUPPLY, 1 (c) 4 (b)
coal cars are embraced within the gov-
ernmental power of regulation which ex-
tends, in time of car shortage, to compel
a just and equal distribution and the pre-
vention of an unjust and discriminatory