SAME CHARGE FOR LONGER AND SHORTER DISTANCES.-Continued. San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton, Marysville, San José, Los Angeles, and San Diego, in the State of California, is a rate that has its origin in and is based upon actual competition for the carriage of this large traffic, on the one side, by the all-rail line, and on the other side, by the lines part rail and part water, and also, in some instances, all-water lines, and also in other instances, part-pipe lines and partwater lines; and it is a rate of which petitioner has no right to complain as being a violation of the fourth section of the act to regulate commerce, because it does not appear from the evidence that it is a violation of that section. Rice v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company et al. Ordinarily longer distances warrant higher charges, but carriers may lawfully accept the same aggregate, though less profitable, rates for longer distances, provided such carriers do not subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. James & Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and DECLARATION BY CARRIER THAT IT IS A LOCAL CARRIER TO CERTAIN STATIONS ON ITS LINE.-Goods shipped from Cincinnati, Ohio, to points in the State of Georgia are interstate traffic, and all the roads forming a part of the line over which such goods are carried to their destination are engaged in interstate commerce and are subject to the act to regulate commerce. Where two or more roads forming a continuous connecting line between points in different States bill and carry interstate traffic through to certain stations on the last road forming such line, neither the roads together nor any one of them can evade the obligations of the fourth section of said act by declaring that as to such traffic destined to such station on such terminal road it is a local carrier. (Ib.) PERISHABLE FREIGHT.-The complaint was that the defendants' charges for the transportation of specified perishable articles of truck-farming from stations on their lines of railroad to Jersey City and Philadelphia were excessive and unreasonable, and that the charges were higher for the shorter distances from their stations on the Peninsula in Delaware and Maryland than for the longer distance from Norfolk, Va. It was found that the charges on certain articles specified from stations on the Peninsula were excessive and a reduction was ordered. The reduced rates are, however, in many cases still considerably above the rates on the same articles from Norfolk, and, the showing not being sufficient to enable the Commission to determine satisfactorily how far the lower Norfolk rates were justified by the differences in the conditions and circumstances, that subject is left for future consideration. Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad Company et al. RATES LOWER TO BASING POINT THAN TO SHORTER DISTANCE LOCAL POINT.Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome and Columbus Rail road Company et al. LONG AND SHORT HAULS DISCUSSED. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. MANUFACTURER'S DESCRIPTION. MAY BE ACCEPTED BY CARRIERS FOR PURPOSES OF CLASSIFICATION AND RATES. Warner v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com pany et al. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis Beaver & Co. v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. MARKETS. CREATION OR DESTRUCTION OF PROFITABLE MARKETS BY CARRIERS UNLAW FUL. Rice, Robinson & Winthrop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Nor folk Railroad Company et al. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. MERCANTILE SOCIETY. Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. New York and New England See Complainant. MERCHANDISE. FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. See Traffic. MILEAGE RATES. See Rates; Reasonable Rates, Long and Short Haul Clause. MILEAGE TICKETS. ISSUANCE OF.-Authorized by section 22 of the act to regulate commerce. Associated Wholesale Grocers of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific Authorization of, does not relieve carriers from requirements of reasonableness and impartiality as to rates charged, which are prescribed by other sections of the act. (Ib.) ISSUANCE OF.-Continued. Special contract limiting liability of carrier in mileage tickets to commercial travelers will not justify a lower rate than is charged the public, when same terms are not offered to all who will not accept such special contracts. (Ib.) Must be sold impartially. (Ib.) ABUSES IN ISSUING.-Existing methods respecting excursion and mileage tickets considered, and found to lead to various abuses. In re Passenger and Rate Wars. MUST BE IMPARTIALLY OFFERED.— In re Passenger Tariffs. RATES MUST BE PUBLISHED. (Ib.) APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO.—The general requirements of the act to regulate commerce, as amended, are as applicable to mileage, excursion, or commutation tickets as to any others. (Ib.) MILLING IN TRANSIT. NO AUTHORITY TO COMPEL.-Milling in transit having long been permitted by common carriers to millers at some points, and a large quantity of the transits being said to be out which can be and are made use of to give the millers at Minneapolis an advantage in rates over those of St. Louis, the Commission can not correct the wrong by giving or authorizing special rates to the St. Louis millers. In re St. Louis Millers' Association. In re Iowa Barbed Steel Wire Company. A FAVOR IN TRANSPORTATION.—Whether or not the system known as "milling in transit" be objectionable under the act to regulate commerce, it is clear that the Commission has no power to compel the granting of such a favor when the privilege would be in the nature of a concession to a particular locality. Crews v. Richmond and Danville Railroad Company. La Crosse Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company. MILLING IN TRANSIT RATES AS A PART OF A THROUGH RATE DISCUSSED.— Chamber of Commerce of the City of Milwaukee v. Flint and Pere Marquette Railroad Company et al. MISAPPREHENSION. IN THE PURCHASE OF TICKETS. Sanger v. Southern Pacific Company et al. NOTICE. TIME AND PLACE OF TAKING TESTIMONY. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food OPERATING EXPENSES. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products. See Reasonable Rates. ORDER. ENFORCEMENT OF. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food VACATED AFTER REHEARING. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. OF REPARATION.— New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, New Orleans and TO SHOW CAUSE. Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome and Columbus Railroad Company et al. OVERCHARGE. MADE THROUGH MISAPPREHENSION OF PASSENGER. Sanger v. Southern Pacific Company. ON BOOKS. In a case where a claim for overcharge on shipment of books was filed, and it appeared that the agent failed to bill the freight over the route directed by the shipper, it was held that the initial carrier should refund to the shipper the amount of the overcharge occasioned by the oversight of the freight agent. Pankey v. Richmond and Danville Railroad Company et al. PACKING HOUSE PRODUCT. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company et al. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. PARTIES. PERSONAL INTEREST.-One may complain on public grounds of a violation of the act to regulate commerce which amounts to a public grievance, without having any personal interest to be affected by the violation except as one of the public. Vermont State Grange v. Boston and Lowell Railroad et al. VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.—A voluntary State association of persons engaged in an industrial pursuit may be a complainant in proceedings charging a violation of the long and short haul clause of the act. (Ib.) COMPLAINT UNDER FOURTH SECTION.-All the roads constituting the line which makes the through rate complained of should be parties to a complaint which seeks to compel a reduction of such through rates. Allen v. Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company. ALL INTERESTED ENTITLED TO BE HEARD.-Parties affected are entitled to be notified in case a change in rates is asked. No order correcting unjust discrimination made for want of proper parties; amendments allowed, etc. Harwell v. Columbus and Western Railway Company. WHEN INITIAL CARRIER MAY BE MADE SOLE DEFENDANT.-In a proceeding to correct a classification of freight made by the initial carrier, which freight, before reaching its destination, must pass over the roads of several carriers, it is proper to make all such carriers parties; but if the initial carrier alone is made defendant, the proceeding is not for that reason defective. An order requiring that carrier to make the correction will WHEN INITIAL CARRIER MAY BE MADE SOLE DEFENDANT.—Continued. be effectual for the purposes of all subsequent consignments, and there is no difficulty in its being complied with without asking the consent of others. Hurlburt v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company. Hurlburt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. ABSENCE OF PARTY INTERESTED.-Where the relation of any carrier to the matter complained of is such that it is in whole or in part materially responsible for the alleged grievance, and has direct interest in any investigation of the subject-matter involved, that carrier should be a party to the proceeding, and if not a party no relief can be given against it. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad. ABSENCE OF NECESSARY.-Effect on decision. Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome and Columbus Rail- ABSENCE OF NECESSARY PARTY.-When à question of rates as between two carriers is involved, the Commission will express no opinion upon it in a case to which one of the carriers is not a party. Kentucky and Indiana Bridge Company v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. No opinion will be expressed on rates which have been abandoned even though the parties request it. Such a course is particularly advisable and proper when it is apparent that other parties than the one complained of are interested in the question and have not had the opportunity to be heard upon it. Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburg Railroad Company v. Cleve- PERSONS INTERESTED NEED NOT BE MADE FORMAL.-Persons having an interest in a question pending before the Commission will be allowed to appear and be heard when the case is being submitted, without their being made formal parties. (Ib.) WHO ARE NECESSARY.-The reasonableness of rates can not be fairly determined in a proceeding to which some of the parties responsible for such rates are not parties. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and When the reasonableness of through rates agreed upon by several connecting lines is complained of it is necessary to makes all such lines parties defendant. Michigan Congress Water Company v. Chicago and Grand Trunk The rule laid down on this subject in Allen v. Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company (1 I. C. C. Rep., 199), and in Harwell et al. v. Columbus and Western Railway Company et al. (1 I. C. C. Rep., 237), and in Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company (1 I. C. C. Rep., 490), cited and affirmed. (lb.) WHEN NECESSARY PARTIES WILL BE BROUGHT IN.- -When carriers other than the respondents of record are committing the same violations of the act |