Winnetka, Ill., from Centerville, Iowa. Plaster, 766.
Winnipauk, Conn., from Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Bituminous coal; divisions of joint rates, 511 (573).
Winona, Minn., from Rice Lake, Wis. Pickles in brine, 449.
Winston-Salem, N. C., from Columbus, Ohio, stopped for partial unloading and reshipped to central and southern territories. Fresh meat and packing-house products, 206 (207)
Wisconsin from and to California, Oregon, and Washington via San Diego, Calif. Round-trip all-year tourist and summer-excursion transcontinental passenger fares, 577.
Wisconsin from Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Little Falls, Minn., originating at various points. Wheat products, 215.
Wisconsin to Jackson, Miss. Paper and paper articles; rail-barge-rail, 233.
Wisconsin from Texas. Root vegetables; weights, 267.
Wisconsin to various points. Cheese; classification, 239.
Wisconsin to West Palm Beach, Fla.
Coal and coke, 409 (411).
Wolfe City, Tex., from Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Woonsocket, R. I., from Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Bituminous coal; divisions of joint rates, 511 (527).
Worcester, Mass., from Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Bituminous
coal; divisions of joint rates, 511 (573).
Wortham, Tex., from Iola, Kans.
Wortham, Tex., to Norphlet, Ark.
Wortham, Tex., to Norphlet, Ark.
Secondhand drilling machinery, 343. Wyandotte, Mich., to Omaha, Nebr. Dry bleach and caustic soda, 182. Wyandotte, Mich., to the South. Soda and soda products, 784 (785). Wyoming to New Mexico. Class rates, 156.
Wyoming from official, southern, and western territories. Linoleum, felt-base floor covering, oilcloth, and carpet lining, 189 (199).
Wyoming to South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Iowa. Petroleum and petroleum products, 363.
Wyoming from Texas. Root vegetables; weights, 267.
Wyona, Okla., to various points. Internal-combustion engines, compressors, and parts, 287 (291).
Yakima, Wash., to various destinations for movement beyond by water. Dried fruit, 707.
Yankton, S. Dak., from Arkansas and Missouri. Strawberries and grapes, 371 (377).
Yankton, S. Dak., from Wyoming. Petroleum and petroleum products, 363 (369). Yarmouth, Iowa, from Quincy, Ill. Sand and gravel, 382 (384).
Youngstown, Ohio, to Braman and Covington, Okla. Oil-storage steel tanks; minimum weight, 109.
Youngstown, Ohio, to official, southern, and western territories and Pacific coast. Linoleum, felt-base floor covering, oilcloth, and carpet lining, 189 (191). Yuma, Ariz., to San Diego and Lakeside, Calif. and related points via Mexico. Baled hay, 673.
[Numbers in parentheses following citations indicate pages on which subjects are considered)
Handling Charges: Strauss & Adler v. New York C. R. Co., 609 (618–619). ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING.
The question of the proper method of accounting in connection with rebuilding certain freight cars, where the bodies and underframes were removed and scrapped and new bodies and underframes placed on the trucks, which were extensively repaired where necessary, found to be properly chargeable under provisions of paragraph 9 of section 2 of general instructions governing the classification of investment in road and equipment, issue of 1914, relating to "additions," and not to operating-expense account 314, "Freight-train cars-Repairs," rebuilt cars being, to all intents and purposes, new cars. Accounting for Rebuilding Cars by Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 9.
See TWENTY-EIGHT-HOUR Law.
ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Mexico: Rates on shipments moving from a point in the United States through Mexico to a point in the United States were found unreasonable, even though carriers published local or combination rates between the points involved, since they were by law required to charge the applicable joint or combination rates assailed and any damage sustained by complainant would therefore result from the maintenance of those rates. Justice Co. v. Holton I.-U. Ry. Co., 673 (675–676). ADJUSTMENTS AND RELATIONSHIPS.
Where rates from various origin territories on the same commodities to common destinations served by the same carrier are fixed by the commission under section 1 of the act, their relationship is necessarily involved. The commission does not wish to be understood as saying that in such a case carriers are estopped from proposing rates with other or different relationships, but simply as holding that the results reached by it in other cases are entitled to consideration, together with the other relevant facts and circumstances of record, in reaching a determination of matters before it. Petroleum and its Products from
Points in Wyoming, 363 (368–369). The commission has expressed the view that when a proper class-rate structure has been adopted the same relationships between localities may well be followed in making rates on many commodities. Yates Grocery Co. v. Seaboard A. L. Ry. Co., 397 (401).
Commodities: Petroleum and products: Proposed revision in rates from Wyoming to North Dakota, South Dakota, etc., not justified. Petroleum and its Products from Points in Wyoming, 363.
ADJUSTMENTS AND RELATIONSHIPS-Continued.
Localities: Virginia, Michigan, New York, and Ohio points: Sixth-class
rates on soda and soda products to the South found unreasonable
son Alkali Works v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 784.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS.
Rules of Practice:
Rule II (d): Even if the evidence warranted a finding of unjust discrimi-
nation or undue prejudice, no effective order to remove such violations
could be entered, because certain carriers forming one of the principal
transcontinental routes and another carrier directly serving the point
alleged to be preferred have not been made defendants. See Rules of
Practice, Rule II (d). Armstrong Cork Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
189 (193).
Rule III (g): Petition for reopening a proceeding found not governed by
the six months' provision of Rule III (g) of Rules of Practice, as that
rule relates entirely to the filing of informal complaints and the subse-
quent filing of formal complaints. Sections 16 (6) and 16a of the act
clearly provide that if sufficient reason appear, any party to a proceed-
ing may at any time make application for rehearing of the same, or any
matter determined therein, and the commission may in its discretion
grant such a rehearing. Pressburg v. Gulf, C. & F. Ry. Co., 605 (606).
Rule V:
The complaint contained no specific prayer for reparation on ship-
ments moving pendente lite, but under the principle announced in
269 U. S. 217, parties should submit Rule V statements covering
shipments moving since the filing of complaint. Noll v. Chicago,
R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 35 (38).
While evidence indicated the receipt of shipments by the complain-
ants, proof as to payment or bearing of charges thereon was lack-
ing, and complainants were ordered to submit statements in
accordance with Rule V of Rules of Practice accompanied with
affidavits to the effect that they paid and/or bore the charges
thereon. Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.
Co., 279 (282).
The record did not show whether charges were paid and borne
jointly or individually. A Rule V statement should clearly show
the shipments on which each complainant paid and bore the
charges. American Glue Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 305 (307).
Reparation awarded on determination of the amount of damages
by Rule V statements, and on a showing that complainants paid
and/or bore the charges on the shipments involved. Original
reports 112 I. C. C. 325, 118 I. C. C. 157. Montgomery Cotton
Exchange v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 402.
Rule 4 (j): Rule 4 (j) of Tariff circular 18-A provides that when a tariff
specifies routing the rates may not be applied over routes not specified.
Great Western Oil Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 641 (642).
Rule 5 (b):
A lower rate than that assessed to Valparaiso, Ind., applied from
origin points to Wanatah, Ind., a point on the same line a short
distance beyond Valparaiso, but this rate did not apply to the lat-
ter point either specifically or by intermediate application, and
while shipments did not move through Wanatah under authority
of rule 5 (b) of Tariff Circular 18-A, the lower rate, plus a factor to
the destination, applied thereto. Refund of overcharges directed.
Chicago Mica Co. v. Chicago & E. I. Ry. Co., 103.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS-Continued.
Tariff Circular 18-A-Continued.
Rule 5 (b)-Continued.
Combination rate on watermelons routed by the shipper from Bell-
ville, Tex., to South Hibbing, Minn., found inapplicable. A lower
combination was in effect via Clinton, Iowa, and although the
shipment did not move over that route, it could have done so
under the routing specified, and the lower rate was therefore ap-
plicable under rule 5 (b) of Tariff Circular 18-A. Reparation
awarded. Stein Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 185.
Rule 5 (b) of Tariff Circular 18-A definitely determines the appli-
cable rate and its incorporation in the tariff is not necessary. Id.
(186).
The prima facie presumption of unreasonableness attaching to
rates on stoves from Rome, Ga., to Alexandria, La., higher than
combination rates based on Natchez, Miss., under rule 5 (b) of
Tariff Circular 18-A, found successfully rebutted on a showing
that rates higher than those assailed were prescribed in the south-
western revision. Brown Roberts H. & S. Co. v. Alabama G.
Glenn's tariff published class P rates and provided that in the
absence of specific commodity rates, commodity rates constructed
in accordance with Speiden's tariff would apply in connection
with the class rates. Commodity rates in Speiden's tariff were
to apply in the absence of specific commodity rates. Distance
commodity rates were also in effect, but published in compliance
with the rule 10 (g) of Tariff Circular 18-A, the tariff providing
that rates therein were to be used only when no specific com-
modity rates were provided. While the distance commodity
rates were specific rates, they were not "specific commodity rates"
under rule 10. As rates published in Speiden's tariff for use in
connection with Glenn's tariff were specific commodity rates,
they took precedence over the distance commodity rates, and
rates assessed on that basis were therefore applicable. Dodge
County Lumber Co. v. Seaboard A. L. Ry. Co., 693.
The phrase "specific commodity rates" in railroad and tariff
terminology has a well-defined and generally accepted meaning
and it is in the latter sense that it is used in rule 10 of Tariff
Circular 18-A, where it is used to differentiate a commodity rate
published to apply between named or specified points from a
distance commodity rate. It is not meant by this statement that
a specific commodity rate must be repeated in a tariff in connec-
tion with every point from and to which it applies, for there are
several other methods of specifying the points from and to which
such rates apply, the most common being the intermediate
clauses. Id. (696).
Kern & Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 407.
Pepin Pickling Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 449 (450.)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS-Continued.
Rule 10: Collection of "service charges" in connection with handling
livestock at stockyards for which there was no tariff authority,
violated section 6 of the act and of Tariff Circular 20 relating to the
construction and filing of tariffs in conformity with the provisions of
that section. Strauss & Adler v. New York C. R. Co., 609 (619)
In case the shipper defaults and the carrier, on its own behalf, procures the
services of a stockyards company to feed and water livestock in transit,
the stockyards are in no sense the agents of the shipper, and can not be
made such by contract without a violation of the intent of the 28-hour law.
Strauss & Adler v. New York C. R. Co., 609 (615).
AGGREGATE OF INTERMEDIATES. See Through and LOCAL.
AGREEMENTS. See CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS.
ALTERNATIVE RATES AND RULES.
Request for the establishment of alternative bases of rates, dependent on
different minimum weights, denied. Armstrong Cork Co. v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 189 (201).
The establishment of two rate levels based on two minima denied, it being
against the policy of the commission and of the carriers ordinarily to make
alternative rates based on different minima. Nordman v. Aberdeen &
R. R. Co., 239 (262-263).
It has not been the commission's policy to prescribe alternative rates based
on different minima. One rare exception to this rule was made in 92
I. C. C. 346, on the ground that the approval of a single c. 1. rating on the
commodity involved would amount to a denial of substantial justice.
Lone Star Gas Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 287 (295).
Alternative bases for rates are generally undesirable, in that they are liable
to deprive carriers of reasonable carload revenue, result in unjust dis-
crimination by affording different rates on the same commodity, entail
wasteful use of equipment, and complicate the rate structure and the pro-
cess of computing freight charges. Mathieson Alkali Works v. Louisville
& N. R. Co., 784 (789).
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.com.pe/books/content?id=T0TGnXKAWn4C&output=html_text&pg=PA870&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:OXFORD555039118&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U080He7Xszb7REBSuWY3Ab7CkNv-Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=98,1026,465,21)
AUTOMATIC TRAIN-CONTROL DEVICES. See SAFETY APPLIANCES.
BACK HAULS. See OUT-OF-LINE AND BACK HAULS.
BARGES AND BARGE LINES.
Under section 2 (e) of the amended Inland Waterways Corporation Act,
a certificate of public convenience and necessity was granted to the Inland
Waterways Corporation, and all connecting common carriers by rail sub-
ject to the interstate commerce act, and their rail connections were
required to establish through routes and joint rates, with reasonable rules,
regulations, and practices, and to fix divisions and reasonable minimum
differentials between all-rail rates and joint rates in connection with the
water carrier. Through Routes and Joint Rates, 129.
The commission's power to require through routes and joint rates in connec-
tion with barge lines is limited to cases where it deems such rates and routes
to be necessary or desirable in the public interest. Id. (133).
Joint barge-and-rail rates were made by deducting from the all-rail rate from
the interior origin to the port of destination 20 per cent of the all-rail rates
from the port at which the barge line received the traffic. Zaring & Co. v.
Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 591 (594).
|