crease the average length of the lemon
haul. The principal ground on which the
Commission based its order was the need
in the lemon industry of a high protective
tariff against Sicily, and the order was
entered to compensate for the insuffi-
ciency of the protective tariff in effect.
HELD, the order should be permanently
enjoined. Whatever the rights of carriers
may be to give reduced rates for the pur-
pose of fosteriag a new or an established
industry or for granting to it a higher
measure of protection against foreign
competition than Congress through the
revenue laws has given it, no such power
can lawfully be exercised by the Com-
mission. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co v. I. C. C.
190 Fed. 591, 594, 596.
(b) It is no part of the Commission's
duty or right to equalize the markets,
except as that result may be incident to
the correction of a substantial injustice
in rates, in whatever form published at
the respective competitive points. Sioux
City Terminal Elevator Co. v. C. M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 98, 109.
(bb) The Commission has no juris-
diction to reduce rates for purpose of
increasing profits of shipper or to equal-
ize economic conditions. Bituminous
Coal Operators v. P. R. R. Co., 23 I. C.
C. 385, 391.
(c) The Commission cannot under-
take to establish freight rates which will
insure production at a profit. Florida
Fruit & Vegetable Shippers' Protective
Ass'n v. A. C. L. R. R. Co. 22 I. C. C.
(d) The Commission is not empow-
ered to remedy commercial disadvan-
tages under the law. In so far only as
any undue discrimination in the freight
rate adjustment may have aided to
bring about the condition complained
of has the Commission any regulating
authority. Elk Cement & Lime Co. v.
B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. % 84, 86. %
(e) The principle that where joint
or proportional rates were made by all
carriers leading to certain points of des-
tination, it was within the Commission's
power to end discrimination as between
points of origin by a reduction in the
rate from the point discriminated
against, only has application where the
traffic from both groups of origin is nec-
essarily transported to destination by
the same connecting carrier or carriers,
and where it is possible for the deliver-
ing carriers to put an end to the dis-
crimination b/ the exercise of their
power to refuse to enter into preferential
joint or proportional rates. Ashland Fire
Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 115,
(f) Power has not been lodged with
the Commission to equalize economic ad-
vantages, to place one market in com-
petition with another, or to treat all rail-
roads as a part of one great whole, ap-
portion to each a certain territory, or re-
quire all to meet upon a common basis
at all points. Ashland Fire Brick Co v.
S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 115, 121.
(g) The Commission has no jurisdic-
tion to correct tariff insufficiencies by
the freight rate, nor to protect in that
way American against foreign producers.
Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. .
P. Co., 22 I. C. C. 149, 151.
(h) The Commission cannot equalize
actual commercial disparities or advan-
tages by an adjustment of freight rates.
EQUALIZATION OF RATES, 1 (i) (s)
In Re Investigation of Rates on Meats,
22 I. C. C. 160, 163; Carstens Packing Co.
v. O. & W. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 77, 81.
(i) The additional cost of operation
of a factory situated in one part of the
country over its competitors situated in
another part, in addition to its high' r
cost of construction, and other commercial
conditions, are questions which, under the
statute, the Commission has no authority
to consider. Empson Packing Co. v. C.
M. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 268, 270.
(j) Upon an appl : cation that the Sac-
ramento gateway be reopened to traffic
from eastern states to Oregon, the follow-
ing facts developed: Prior to 1902 the
U. P. R. R. and the O. S. Line were in
competition with the S. P. Co., via Sacra-
mento, the route of the S. P. Co. being
476 miles longer between Ogden and
Portland. The transcontinental rates
via Sacramento were withdrawn by Har-
riman. The O. S. Line traffic follows
a more direct line to Portland than
that via the Willamette Valley. The
line from Ogden via Sacramento to Port-
land was chartered to be operated as a
continuous line, and the Willamette Val-
ley was built up under this understand-
ing. Reasonable rates and prompt serv-
ice are now obtained over the O. S. Line.
HELD, the Commission's power is limited
to establishing reasonable rates and
eliminating discrimination. It does not
have the power to make the rate over a
line 476 miles longer the same as over
the shorter route, nor can it sever the
0. S. Line from the S. P. Co. Complaint
dismissed. Gile & Co. v. S. P. Co., 22
1. C. C. 298.
(k) In adjusting interstate rates on
milk, the Commission has no jurisdiction
to say what shall be done as a matter
of public policy, except in so far as the
public weal must always be considered
in exercising authority under the Act.
The duty of the Commission is only to
ascertain whether rates are in accordance
with the Act. Albree v. B. & M R. R., 22
I. C. C. 303, 319.
(1) Where a carrier extends a low
rate in favor of one locality it may be
required to accord similar treatment to
another locality. Railroad Commission
of Kansas v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co 22 I.
C. C. 407, 411.
(m) While carriers have in the past
often adopted the policy of giving great
consideration to commercial conditions,
and the Commission might under the
same circumstances require those rates
to be maintained when once voluntarily
established, it will not initiate -rates upon
this theory. International Agricultural
Corporation v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 22 I. C.
C. 488, 494.
(n) It is not within the power of the
Commission to equalize economic condi-
tions, or to place one market in a posi-
tion to compete on equal terms with an-
other as against natural advantages. Nor
has it power to require rail-roads, in the
face of varying trade conditions, to ad-
just their rates in such a manner as to
insure to a market the continuance of a
trade it has once enjoyed. Baltimore
Chamber of Commerce v. B & O. R. R.
Co, 22 I. C. C. 596, 603.
(o) It is not the function of the Com
mission to equalize commercial condi-
I tions or to establish zones of trade or
I bring markets into competition with each
| other. In Re Advances on Coal to Lake
Ports, 22 I. C. C. 604, 613.
(p) Congress could itself have under-
taken to make rates, and to establish re-
lationships between conrmunities and
commodities. Railroad Commission of
Nevada v> S. P. Co., 21 I. C. C. 329, 336.
(q) The Commission is not invested
with authority to make the commercial
needs of the shipper the foundation of a
finding that any rate is unreasonable.
Douglas & Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,
21 I. C. C. 541, 543.
(r) The Commission cannot overcome
by an adjustment of freight rates natural
advantages, such as water competition
and climatic conditions, which one com-
peting locality has over another. Truck
Orowers' Ass'n v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 20
I. C. C. 190.
(s) The Commission cannot lawfully
base rates upon the profits derived in a
particular business. It might be that in
a favorable season the truck farmers ot
Ponchatoula would receive large and gen-
erous returns from their labors, but tnis
fact would not justify the carriers tn
charging for transporting the vegetables
for market more than a reasonable rate
for the service performed. In another
season the market prices might be such
that there would be little or no profit in
the business, yet such fact would not
j justify the Commission in requiring car-
j riers to transport the produce at a less
rate than would be reasonable for the
EQUALIZATION OF RATES, 1 (t) (bb)
service performed. The law does npt re-
quire the carriers to regulate the price of
transportation upon the basis of profits
to the shipper, and in authorizing the
Commission to fix reasonable rates the
law presumes that the measure of reason-
ableness will be based upon all the many
elements of the particular traffic involved.
Ponchatoula Farmers' Ass'n v. I. C. R. R.
Co., 19 I. C. C. 513, 515, 516.
(t) It is improper for the Commission
to equalize disadvantages of location and
other conditions. Saginaw Board of
Trade v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C.
(u) The Commission cannot order a
reduction in rates to enable certain fac-
tories to overcome natural advantages en-
joyed by competitive producing points.
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L.
S. W. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 49, 52.
(v) Complainant, manufacturer of
fertilizer at Shreveport, La., attacked
the -rates from there to Arkansas desti-
nations on the line of the St. Louis
Southwestern R. R. as unreasonable per
se and unduly discriminatory in favor
of Memphis. Factories at Memphis, New
Orleans and other cities, located nearer
the Atlantic or Gulf ports than Shreve-
port, had an advantage over it in the
manufacture of fertilizer, on account of
the nearness to the supply of pyrites and
phosphate rock, the cost of manufacture
at Memphis being 87c per ton less than
at Shreveport. In shipments from Mem-
phis to the points in question an arbi-
trary of 30c per ton was paid by defend-
ant for the use of a bridge over the Mis-
sissippi River and 60c pe-r ton was paid
by it to carriers reaching Memphis. For
several years prior to 1906, defendant
had established rates lower than the
rates attacked from Shreveport to the
points in question in order to build up
a demand for fertilizer among the farm-
ers along its line. Defendant's rates per
ton mile were higher than those of other
carriers reaching Arkansas points equal-
ly distant from Shreveport. HELD, the
Commission could not reduce defendant's
rates from Sheveport on the basis of the
rentals paid by ifc on its shipments from
Memphis; nor could it reduce those rates
to enable Shreveport to overcome the
natural advantages enjoyed by competi-
tive producing points; but that defend-
ant's rates were unreasonable and should
be reduced to a point lower than the rates
attacked, but not so low as those in effect
from Shreveport to the points in ques-
tion prior to 1906. Reparation awarded.
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L.
S. W. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 49, 52-54.
(w) The Commission will not take
from a locality advantages which on ac-
count of its location naturally belong to
it. Valley Flour Mills v. A. T. & S. F.
Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 73, 76.
(x) It is one thing for a carrier to
voluntarily reduce rates not excessive,
for the service performed, solely to meet
competitive and commercial conditions,
but it is a different thing for the Com-
mission to compel such reductions re-
gardless of transportation conditions.
Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Tioga
Southeastern Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 323,334.
(y) The Commission cannot permit
itself to be made an agency through
which the rates of competing carriers
are equalized by adjustments made sub-
sequent to the performance of the ser-
vice, simply because the rates of one or
the other were at the time "out of line"
with those of its competitors. The ship-
per should give his shipment to the car-
rier that has at that time the lowest law-
fully published applicable rate, and fail-
ing to do this, he should not expect the
Commission later to authorize refund for
the purpose of equalizing the rate of the
line to which he gave his business with
the lower lawful rate of a competing line
which he might have used. Swift & Co.
v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 426, 429.
(z) It seems plain that the duty of
this Commission is to establish just and
fair transportation charges in so far as
it can be done and allow rival creamery
methods to operate under those charges.
The Commission should not establish a
scale of rates with a view and for the
purpose of fostering or discouraging
either form of this industry. Beatrice
Creamery Co. v. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., 15
I. C. C. 109.
(aa) In determining the reasonable-
ness of rates on chinaware, the Commis-
sion cannot decline to reduce the rates
on imported china on the ground that to
do so would give an advantage to foreign
manufacturers on account of inadequate
tariff duties. Union Pacific Tea Co. v.
Penn. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 545, 548.
(bb) In determining the justification
for a different rate on the same commodi-
EQUALIZATION OF RATES, 1 (cc) 2 (b)
ty to nearby consuming points, the Com-
mission has nothing to do with the prices
paid for said commodity by dealers in
or consumers of it. Bovaird Supply Co.
v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 56, 66.
(cc) Complainant attacked as unjust-
ly discriminatory the rates on domestic
plate glass as compared with those on
plate glass imported from foreign coun-
tries, in that third class rates applied
on domestic shipments, and fourth and
fifth class rates on shipments from Ant-
werp and other foreign producing points
via ocean steamship lines to ports of
entry and thence by rail to ultimate in-
terior points of destination in this
country. Since the hearing defendants
increased the rates on imported glass so
as to materially dimmish the disparity,
still leaving the rate for the entire haul
from foreign points less than those upon
traffic originating in this country. It
appeared that defendants were forced to
compete with one another for the traf-
fic coming to Canadian, Atlantic and
Gulf ports by steamship from foreign
ports and each carrier was compelled by
the steamship lines to name low rates
for the haul from these ports in order to
participate in the traffic. Each railroad
Bought to encourage the bringing of ships
to its piers that there might be facili-
ties for handling the exports of this
country. The ocean carriers demanded
the carriage of a share of the imports
and would land at piers where they could
unload and load the greatest quantity
The railroads were forced to make cheap
carriage of imports to inland distances in
order to sustain the movement of traffic
from abroad and incidentally to main-
tain their own export and import trans-
portation. On account of the lower rates
on imported glass, foreign producers
were able to produce and sell at points
in the United States at a smaller price
than were domestic manufacturers. The
import and domestic traffic did not take
the same routes in the same direction.
The domestic rates were for carriage
from inland distributing points to other
Inland points and to the seaboard, while
the import rate was exclusively from
seaboard to inland points. Rail trans-
portation was preferable to water on ac-
count of better facilities for handling and
stowing away and because of less break-
age. Domestic glass was loaded and un-
loaded by the consignor and consignee,
while the railroads were at the expense
of loading the import glass at the sea-
board. The carriers reaching the gulf
ports were glad to accept foreign traffic
at low rates in order to fill their empty
cars returning from these ports. No
evidence other than the difference in
rates complained of was offered to show
the domestic rates unreasonable per se.
HELD, the rates complained of were not
shown to be unreasonable or discrimina-
tory under sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the
Act. It is the duty of the Commission to
look to the circumstances and conditions
affecting the rates involved, not only in
this country, but in the entire field of
commerce here and abroad. Whatever
would be regarded by common carriers,
apart from the operation of the statute,
as matters which warranted differences
in charges ought to be considered in
forming a judgment whether differences
in import and domestic rates are just
or unjust, and the circumstance of com-
petition by ocean carriers at the differ-
ent ports is a fact meriting consideration
in passing upon the reasonableness of
an inland rate applicable from the sea-
board on domestic traffic when the rea-
sonableness of such rate is called in
question by comparison with a lower rate
applying from the port of entry on traf-
fic shipped from a foreign country. Com-
plaint dismissed without prejudice.
Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P. C. C. &
St. L. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 87, 99-102.
II. CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDI-
2. in General.
See Differentials, 2 (a), 5.
(a) It does not so follow as a matter
of law that rates should be the same
for the same distance over two different
roads. I. C. C. v. U. P. R. R., 222 U. S.
541, 549, 32 Sup. Ct. 108, 56 L. ed. 308.
(aa) It would not be possible to estab-
lish differentials from Indianapolis to
the Mississippi River which would equal-
ize the charges under the differentials
from Chicago unless both lines of differ-
entials were governed by the same classi-
fication. Indianapolis Freight Bureau v.
C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 195,
(b) Complete equalization of rates be-
tween localities cannot be effected except
by a full consideration of the length of
haul and the rates on raw materials and
manufactured products respectively. In-
EQUALIZATION OF RATES, 2 (c) (p)
dianapolis Freight Bureau v. C. C. C. &
St. L. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 195, 205.
(c) It is not the function of the Com-
mission nor that of the carrier to equal-
ize economic conditions. The law does
not permit a reasonable rate to be fixed
solely upon that ground. Bituminous
Coal Operators v. Penn. R. R. Co., 23 I.
C. C. 385, 391.
(d) Neither the carriers nor the Com-
mission can lawfully so adjust rates as
to equalize commercial advantages and
disabilities. Red River Oil Co. v. T. & P.
Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 438, 442.
(dd) It is not enough to show that
in miles the distance is less from a
producing center via one gateway to a
consuming center in order to equalize
the rate between the same points via
another gateway. It must be shown that
the cost of transportation is less, or
rather that the combination of rates is
less as estimated by the general level of
rates in the territory through which' the
transportation is conducted. In Re In-
vestigation of Unreasonable Rates on.
Meats, 23 I. C. C. 656, 669.
(e) Carriers may not haul a particular
class of traffic or traffic for a particular
community at less than the cost of the
service and -recoup themselves from the
charges levied against other charges. In
Re Rates for Single Packages, etc., 22
I. C. C. 328, 335.
(f) Carriers are not required to estab-
lish rates that will guarantee a profit to
shippers. R. R. Com. of Kans. v. A. T.
& S. F. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 407, 410.
(g) Rates should be so adjusted as
to permit widest possible market com-
petition. Andy's Ridge Coal Co. v. So.
Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 405, 410.
(h) The interest of the consumer
must be considered, as well as that of the
producer. Andy's Ridge Coal Co. v. So.
Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 405, 510.
(i) It does not follow that if a joint
through rate is effective via one route
it must necessarily be made effective via
another. Males Co. v. L. & H. R. Ry.
Co., 17 I. C. C. 280, 282.
(j) A rate is not unreasonable simply
because a lower rate is in effect via lines
of other carriers. South Canon Coal Co.
v. C. & S. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 286.
(k) The Commission cannot permit a
refund applicable to a particular ship-
ment for the sole purpose of enabling
carriers to make good a rate not in ef-
fect when the shipment moved, but which
they had agreed to protect. Such a prac-
tice would do away with the published
tariff altogether if generally applied.
Crowell & Spencer Lumber Co. v. T. &
P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 333.
(kk) Before the Commission can con-
clude that a rate on a given commodity
is too high, because it is higher than
some other rate named, it must know
that the rate selected as the standard
for a comparison is a reasonable and a
fair one. Darling & Co. v. B. & O. R. R.
Co., 15 I. C. C. 79, 83.
(1) In determining what is the "pub-
lic interest" the Commission should have
regard to the carrier as well as the ship-
per, and should not permit the whim of
one to offset the substantial advantage
the other. Chamber of Commerce of
Milwaukee v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 15
I. C. C. 460, 467.
(m) It is not possible to have a rate
adjustment which places all towns and
cities upon an exact equality. Kindel v.
N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C.
(n) The opportunity to buy in a wide-
ly extended market is a valuable one to
merchants in that it presents a larger
field for competition and ordinarily offers
the best quality at the lowest price; and
a carrier has no right, by refusing
through routes and reasonable joint
rates, to restrict or circumscribe this
opportunity. It is the duty of common
carriers to haul the traffic that is offered
and to make the necessary arrangements
and furnish facilities and establish rea-
sonable rates therefor; and a carrier is
not justified in refusing traffic from
points on other lines on the ground that
such traffic would displace in the mar-
kets traffic from points on its own lines
and thus adversely affect its revenues.
Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A. T. & S. F.
Ry. Co., 14 I, C. C. 364, 367.
(o) Higher rate in effect to Powers-
ville, Mo., than to other points taking
Missouri River rate; tariff corrected.
Reparation awarded. Val Blatz Brewing
Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep.
(p) The rate on apples from Belling-
ham, Wash., to Denver, Colo., was dis-
EQUALIZATION OF RATES, 2 (q) 3 (bb)
criminatory in favor of Missouri River
points. Reparation awarded. Lawrence-
Hensley Fruit Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 189.
(q) Discriminatory rates were charged
to Brokaw and Tomahawk, Wis., against
Merrill, Wis. Reparation awarded. Lin-
dauer Pulp & Mfg. Co. v. D. R. L. & W.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 251.
(r) The rate to Rock Island, 111.,
should not exceed that in effect to Daven-
port, la., from Hartford, Mich. Repara-
tion awarded. Lagomarcini-Grupe Co. v.
C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 269.
(s) Rates on lubricating oil from Fay-
ette, Ky., to Superior, Wis., should not
exceed those in effect to Duluth, Minn.
Reparation awarded. Buffalo Oil Co. v.
C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 289.
(t) Allegation that the rating of live
and dressed poultry alike results in pref-
erence in favor of live poultry dealers,
not sustained by the facts. Rosebrough
v. P. Exp. Co., Unrep. Op. 438.
(u) No reason why the ra,te to Minne-
apolis should have been higher from
Arkansas points than from points in
Texas from which the distance is greater.
Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. St.
L. & S. F. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 506.
(v) South Hammond, Ind., is not en-
titled to the same rate as Hammond,
Ind. Anguish v. C. I. & L. Ry. Co., Un-
rep. Op. 580.
(w) The rate on corn from Fairview,
Mo., to Terrell, Tex., was unreasonable
to the extent that it exceeded the con-
temporaneous rate from from Pittsburg,
Kan. Reinhardt Grain Co. v. M. & N.
A. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 591.
3. Commercial Advantages and Dis-
See Absorption of Charges, 2 (f ) ;
Act to Regulate Commerce, II (a);
Blanket Rates, 7; Differentials, 5
(h), 6, 7; Discrimination, 9 (e),
(f), (j); Evidence, 2, 14 (5) (v);
Express Companies, 19.
(a) The Interstate Commerce Act as
amended does not attempt to equalize
fortune, opportunities or abilities. On
the contrary, it in turn contemplates
that if a carrier receives services from
an owner of property transported or
uses instrumentalities furnished by the
latter, he shall pay for them, the only
restriction being that he shall pay no
more than is reasonable, and the only
permissive element being that the Com-
mission determine the maximum in case
there is complaint or upon its own mo-
tion. I. C. C. v. Diffenbaugh, 222 U. S.
42, 46, 32 Sup. Ct. 22, 56 L. ed. 83.
(aa) In Western Oregon L. M. A. v.
S. P. Co., 14 I. C. C. 61, the Commission
ordered a reduction of the rate of $5 per
ton upon rough green fir lumber and
laths from points in the Willamette Val-
ley to San Francisco to $3.40. The opin-
ion of the Commission indicates that
the carriers formerly maintained a lower
rate; that the lumber industry had been
built up upon those rates, and that it
was inequitable to the shippers for car-
riers, in view of these facts, to raise the
rate to $5. It did not find, however, that