Applicant contends that it should not be required to reduce the rate from the intermediate Ohio origin groups, as coal therefrom does not compete at St. Louis with that from the Crescent districts. The latter is special-purpose coal, used at St. Louis principally as smithing coal and in the production of coke, whereas the Ohio coal is used only for steam and domestic purposes. Illinois mines near St. Louis produce coal similar to that produced at the Ohio mines. The record indicates that for a long time the rates from the Ohio groups have been made differentials under those from the Crescent districts. The origin relief prayed has not been justified upon this record. The destination relief sought in connection with the proposed rates from the Crescent districts is warranted and should be granted in order to preserve the intermediate groups and rates thereto.

From the origin groups adjacent to the Crescent districts it is proposed to establish rates made the present differentials over the proposed rates from the Inner Crescent as follows: From groups 4, 5, and 6, in Pennsylvania, 5, 10, and 15 cents respectively. From group 11, called the State Line-Cumberland group, embracing territory in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, it is proposed to establish a rate $1 over that proposed from the Outer Crescent district, or $4.27. Destination relief from these differential groups is justified. Applicant will be authorized to establish and maintain for the transportation of coal as described, to St. Louis, Mo., and related points, named in the application, over the route of the Pennsylvania by way of Pittsburgh, Pa., Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis and Terre Haute, Ind., and its connections, named in the tariffs hereinbefore referred to, rates of $3.12 and $3.27 from the Inner Crescent and Outer Crescent district mines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia served by the Pennsylvania and its connections, and rates from mines in groups 4, 5, 6, and 11, as described in tariff A.A. I.C.C. no. 2035, constructed on the basis of the present differentials over the rates. from the Crescent mines, and to maintain higher rates to intermediate points; provided, that the rates to the higher rated intermediate points shall not be increased except as hereafter authorized by this Commission and shall not exceed the lowest combination of rates subject to the Interstate Commerce Act. All other and further relief prayed will be denied.

An appropriate order will be entered.

TATE, Commissioner, concurring:

I approve the report without the imposition of the equidistant clause, while voting as a member of a division, out of deference to the action of the Commission in prior cases involving grouping.

No. 25070 1

ALABAMA GROCERY COMPANY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALA., ET AL. v. ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

Submitted September 6, 1933. Decided January 30, 1934

Rates on salt, in carloads, from points in Louisiana to Huntsville and Scottsboro, Ala., found not unreasonable. Complainants not shown to have been damaged by reason of any undue prejudice which may have existed in the past. Complaints dismissed.

John R. Meeks and L. B. Rockwell for complainants.

Joseph P. Cook, F. A. Burke, J. R. Bell, G. H. Muckley, and Victor Leovy for defendants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

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

Complainants in no. 25070 filed exceptions to the examiner's proposed report, to which defendants replied. No. 25646 was submitted on the record made in no. 25070.

By complaint filed January 28, 1932, as amended, complainants in no. 25070 allege that the rates charged on salt, in carloads, from Anse La Butte, Avery, Barnett, Lafayette, Salt Mine, Weeks Island, and Jefferson Island, La., and points taking the same rates or rates made with relation thereto, to Huntsville, Ala., were and are unreasonable, unduly prejudicial to complainants, and unduly preferential of their competitors at Decatur, Ala. In no. 25646, by complaint filed September 23, 1932, it is alleged that the rates charged on like traffic from the same points of origin and Baldwin, La., to Scottsboro, Ala., were and are unreasonable, unduly prejudicial to complainant, and unduly preferential of dealers at Decatur and at Chattanooga, Tenn. Reasonable rates for the future and reparation are sought in both cases. The prayers for future relief have been satisfied, as hereinafter explained. Rates are stated in amounts per net ton and do not include the formerly authorized emergency charges.

1 This report also embraces No. 25646, Scottsboro Wholesale Company v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company et al. On January 7, 1933, upon application of complainants, we ordered dismissal of the Southern Pacific Company as a party defendant.

The points of origin are in southern Louisiana, 123.8 to 156 miles west of New Orleans, La. The average distance to Huntsville is 595 miles. Sixteen carloads of package salt moved to Huntsville between March 12, 1930, and February 25, 1932. Charges were collected thereon at a combination rate of $7.225, composed of a proportional rate of $1.825 to New Orleans and a rate of $5.40 beyond. Complainants seek rates of $5.90 to Huntsville and $6.10 to Scottsboro, based on the scale prescribed in Mississippi Railroad Commission v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 102 I.C.C. 540, 120 I.C.C. 569, on salt from Louisiana points to destinations in Mississippi, and extended in Hudson & Thompson v. N. I. & N. R. Co., 136 I.C.C. 435, for application to certain destinations in Alabama and Florida. Scottsboro is approximately 42 miles east of Huntsville. The rates assailed and those sought are approximately 18.5 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the corresponding first-class rates.

Complainants compare the rates assailed with rates from the Louisiana mines to 14 destinations in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Florida, averaging 14.2 percent of first class, and with the rates from those mines to a total of 13 destinations in Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, averaging 12.5 percent of first class. Defendants presented numerous comparisons of rates from Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, and New York to destinations throughout southern territory which yield higher earnings, and are greater percentages of first class, than those assailed.

The cases above cited, among others bringing in issue the reasonableness in the past of rates from Louisiana mines to points in southern territory, were reopened and further considered with Rate Structure Investigation, Part 13, Salt, 197 I.C.C. 115, hereinafter called the general investigation. We there prescribed as the basis for maximum reasonable rates on package salt from southwestern territory to southern territory 20 percent of the first-class rates set forth in Appendix K-2 of the second supplemental report in Southern Class Rate Investigation, 113 I.C.C. 200, plus certain distance arbitraries for the portion of the hauls in southwestern territory. So constructed, the rates for hauls of 595 and 637 miles, more than 100 miles of which is within the Southwest, would be $7.20 and $7.60, respectively. Concerning the cases in which reparation was sought on shipments from Louisiana to southern territory, including the cases relied upon by complainants herein, we said, page 191:

The rates which we have here prescribed for the future from Louisiana will result in numerous increases as well as reductions, not only to the destinations involved in these cases but to southern territory generally, and will, as heretofore pointed out, increase respondents' revenues based on the movement

during the test period. Under similar circumstances we have repeatedly denied reparation. The rates assailed in these cases will be found not unreasonable in the past.

The record does not warrant findings different from those made in the general investigation.

We find that the rates assailed were not unreasonable. Complainants have not proved damage by reason of any undue prejudice which may have existed. The complaints will be dismissed.

198 I.C.C.

INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. 3904

RICE FROM ARKANSAS TO CAIRO, ST. LOUIS, AND EAST ST. LOUIS

Submitted November 13, 1933. Decided January 26, 1934

Proposed revision of joint rail-barge rates on rice, in carloads, from points in Arkansas to St. Louis, Mo., and Cairo and East St. Louis, Ill., found not justified. Suspended schedules ordered canceled and proceeding discontinued.

A. B. Enoch and B. F. Batts for respondents.

L. D. Chaffee, Lawrence Chaffee, Carl Giessow, D. A. Cole, C. C. Dehne, and Phil G. Safford for protestants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

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

By schedules filed to become effective August 20, 1933, respondents proposed to revise the joint rail-barge rates on rice, in carloads, from points in Arkansas to St. Louis, Mo., and Cairo and East St. Louis, Ill. Upon protest of the Inland Waterways Corporation, operating the Federal Barge Lines, and the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce, the schedules were suspended until March 20, 1934. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds.

While the Inland Waterways Corporation, as joint publisher of the suspended schedules, is technically a respondent, its position in this proceeding is that of a protestant and it will hereinafter be referred to as such.

Prior to May 1, 1933, the all-rail rates from Arkansas producing points to the above destinations were 41 cents on clean rice, minimum 30,000 pounds, and 30.5 cents on brewers' rice, minimum 40,000 pounds. Joint rail-barge rates differentially lower than the all-rail rates were also in effect. These latter rates were 30 cents to Cairo and 34 cents to St. Louis and East St. Louis on clean rice, minimum 30,000 pounds, and 25 cents to St. Louis and East St. Louis on brewers' rice, minimum 40,000 pounds. Effective May 1, 1933, reduced all-rail rates applicable on either clean or brewers' rice were established. Effective April 24, 1933, on brewers' rice, and May 1, 1933, on clean rice, reduced joint rail-barge rates reflecting the usual differentials under the all-rail rates were also established between the same points. It is proposed to cancel these rail-barge rates