No. 25865

FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. DETROIT, TOLEDO & IRONTON RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

Submitted December 7, 1933. Decided January 17, 1934

Rates on sulphate of ammonia, in carloads, from Detroit (Dearborn), Mich., to destinations in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee found unreasonable in the past. Reparation awarded.

Edgar J. Matz for complainant.

Carl C. Straub for defendants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, LEE, And MILLER BY DIVISION 3:

No exceptions were filed to the report proposed by the examiner and our findings are in accord with his recommendations.

1

Complainant, a corporation, alleges by complaint filed February 17, 1933, as amended, that the rates charged on 39 carloads of sulphate of ammonia shipped between February 17 and April 14, 1931, inclusive, from Detroit (Dearborn), Mich., to various destinations in the States of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee 1 were unreasonable and unduly prejudicial. Reparation only is sought. Rates stated herein are in amounts per 2,000 pounds. The evidence relevant to the issue of undue prejudice is inadequate to support an award of reparation under section 3. Consequently, that issue will not be considered further.

Sulphate of ammonia is a crystalline compound derived from the manufacture of coke and is produced at numerous points throughout central and trunk-line territories. Ordinarily it is used directly as fertilizer or as a fertilizer material in the production of a balanced fertilizer and takes fertilizer rates. The principal points of consumption are located in the South. No joint rates were in effect. The charges collected were based on combination rates ranging from $7.02 to $9.15. Reparation is sought to the basis of rates ranging from $5.15 to $7.15, subsequently established on April 15, 1931 in harmony with findings made in By-Products Coke Corp.

1 Albany, Americus, Athens, Atlanta, Thomaston, Griffin, Bowersville, Bowman, Brunswick, Columbus, Comer, Dawson, Edison, Macon, Monroe, Rome, and Royston, Ga., Anderson, Chester, Fountain Inn, Greenville, Greenwood, and Seneca, S.C., Knoxville, Tenn., and Tuskegee, Ala.

v. Aberdeen & R. R. Co., 169 I.C.C. 126, hereinafter called the By-Products case.

Prior to February 16, 1931, the rates on sulphate of ammonia from Detroit were on a parity with those applicable from producing points within central and trunk-line territories to points in the South. Pursuant to findings in the By-Products case defendants on that date established rates on the considered commodity from Buffalo, N.Y., Canton, Cleveland, and Toledo, and certain other producing points in the above-mentioned territories, with the exception of Detroit, to certain of the destinations here involved, among others, and in further compliance therewith, on March 16, 1931, with some exceptions, established rates on like traffic from the same and additional origins in those territories to all points in southern territory in conformity with the formula suggested as a reasonable basis for rates on fertilizer and fertilizer materials in Fertilizer and Fertilizer Materials, 151 I.C.C. 613. In the latter case a reasonable basis of rates was recommended for application on fertilizer and fertilizer materials, including sulphate of ammonia, between points in Mississippi Valley territory, a few points in southeastern territory, and Gulf ports on the one hand and points north of the Ohio River on the other hand.

Detroit was not specifically named among the origin points from which rates were assailed in the By-Products case and no changes were made contemporaneously by defendants in the rates from that point when complying with the order in that case. However, the rates previously in effect from most of the producing points in central and trunk-line territories to southern territory were at that time under consideration and the defendants made no attempt to justify the maintenance of the prior rate adjustment. Complainant points out that on February 16, 1931, defendants voluntarily established rates on sulphate of ammonia from Aliquippa, Bessemer, and Pittsburgh, Pa., Lorain, Ohio, and Follansbee and Weirton, W.Va., to certain southern destinations, on the basis prescribed from producing points embraced within the By-Products case, and therefore urges that the same bases of rates be retroactively applied on its shipments. In Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 196 I.C.C. 478, we found that rates charged on 23 carloads of sulphate of ammonia shipped between March 9 and April 13, 1931, from Follansbee to Waverly, Ala., Wadesboro, N.C., Fountain Inn, and other points in the South, were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the rates subsequently established following the ByProducts case, and awarded reparation down to that basis. Nothing appears of record why a similar conclusion is not warranted in the instant proceeding.

We find that the rates assailed were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the rates subsequently established on April 15, 1931; that complainant made the shipments as described at the rates herein found unreasonable and paid and bore the charges thereon; that it was damaged thereby in the amount of the difference between the charges collected and those which would have accrued at the rates herein found reasonable; and that it is entitled to reparation, with interest. Complainant should comply with rule V of our Rules of Practice.

198 I.C.C.

No. 25899

EL PASO FREIGHT BUREAU ET AL. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.

Submitted November 6, 1933. Decided January 17, 1934

Rates on bananas, in carloads, from New Orleans, La., and Galveston, Tex., to Roswell, N.Mex., found to have been unreasonable prior to December 15, 1932. Reparation awarded.

H. E. North and E. R. Tanner for complainants.

Thomas F. King, R. S. Outlaw, H. C. Barron, H. H. Larimore, G. H. Muckley, and E. A. Boyd for defendants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, LEE, AND MILLER

BY DIVISION 3:

Exceptions were filed by complainants to the report proposed by the examiner.

By complaint filed on March 30, 1933, the El Paso Freight Bureau on behalf of Crombie & Company, a corporation dealing in fruit and produce at El Paso, Tex., and hereinafter called the complainant, alleges that the rates of $1.535 and $1.37 on bananas, in carloads, from New Orleans, La., and Galveston, Tex., respectively, to Roswell, N.Mex., during the period February 1 to December 14, 1932, inclusive, were unreasonable, unduly prejudicial to complainant, and unduly preferential of its competitors at Amarillo and Pecos, Tex. Rates of $1.26 and $1.12 from New Orleans and Galveston, respectively, to Roswell, were established on December 15, 1932, based on column 45, Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I.C.C. 203, hereinafter referred to as the southwestern revision. However, the rate of $1.12 includes 2 cents in excess of the column 45 rate for terminal charges at Galveston. Reparation to that basis is sought. Rates are stated in amounts per 100 pounds, and do not include the formerly authorized emergency increases.

Roswell is in southeastern New Mexico on the Pecos Valley division of the Santa Fe,1 which connects with the main line at Clovis, N.Mex., 104 miles southwest of Amarillo, and extends southward

For the purpose of this report "Santa Fe" means the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company, and the Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Company.

198 I.C.C.

from Clovis 272 miles to Pecos. The volume of traffic and density of population on the Pecos branch are extremely light. During the period in question six carloads of bananas moved from New Orleans over the line of the Texas & New Orleans Railroad to Beaumont, Tex., thence Santa Fe via Sweetwater, Tex., and Texico, N.Mex., to Roswell, 1,105 miles, and 12 shipments moved from Galveston to Roswell, over the lines of the Santa Fe, also via Sweetwater and Texico, 791 miles. The short-line distances are 1,051 miles from New Orleans and 784 miles from Galveston, of which distances, 206 miles, Lubbock, Tex., to Roswell, is in Texas differential territory. The haul in New Mexico is considered within differential territory as hereinafter more fully explained. The approximate average weight of the 18 shipments was 20,900 pounds.

Bananas are rated third class, minimum 20,000 pounds, in the three major classifications. Their transportation characteristics, service rendered, and the absorptions made by defendants in connection with their transportation are described in the Dawson case, the Gugenheim case, the Southern Produce case, and in Bananas and Coconuts from Gulf Ports, 182 I.C.C. 581.

In the Dawson case, we prescribed specific rates on bananas and coconuts, in straight or mixed carloads, from New Orleans and Gulfport, Miss., to 24 destinations in Oklahoma and to Arkansas City, Kans., and from New Orleans to Dallas, Fort Worth, Wichita Falls, Sherman, Abilene, Stamford, and Quanah, Tex. In the Gugenheim case, a reasonable maximum rate was prescribed on the same commodities from New Orleans to San Antonio, Tex. In the Southern Produce case the rates prescribed from New Orleans to certain destinations in the Dawson case and Gugenheim case were further considered. In the original report in the Southern Produce case it was found that the rates assailed on imported bananas and coconuts, in straight or mixed carloads, minimum 20,000 pounds, from New Orleans and subports and from Galveston to Texas destinations, and from Galveston to Hugo, Okla., were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded or might exceed the corresponding column 45 rates prescribed in the southwestern revision. Reparation was awarded to that basis, and the orders in the Dawson case and Gugenheim case were specifically vacated insofar as they related to the rates to destinations in Texas. However, on further consideration of the Southern Produce case, 185 I.C.C. 485, 191 I.C.C. 243, reparation was denied on shipments in the Dawson case and Gugenheim case, as in

Dawson Produce v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 101 I.C.C. 196, 113 I.C.C. 454.

* Gugenheim-Goldsmith Co. v. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 113 I.C.C. 459, 118 I.C.C. 681. • Southern Produce Co. v. Denison & Pac. S. Ry. Co., 165 I.C.C. 423, 185 I.C.C. 485, 191 I.C.C. 243.