cause of the "Disque Scale" adjustment, which became effective simultaneously with the 15 percent increase of September 20, 1917. For instance, Hill's Exhibit No. 1 shows that since October 25, 1914, the sixth class rate from Akron to Bellaire, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo, Ohio, have been increased, respectively, by the following percentages: 125, 127, 140, 124 and 138 percent. The same exhibit shows that since October 25, 1914, the sewer pipe rates from Akron, Ohio, to eighteen representative interstate destinations have been increased an average of 125 percent. The record shows that sewer pipe from producing points in other states moves upon commodity rates less than the sixth class rate applicable in Ohio, and that complainants' chief competitors are located in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Iowa and Wisconsin. The 5 percent increase of October 26, 1914, and the 15 percent increase of September 20, 1917, affected the Ohio rates but did not affect the rates in southern and western territory. The 25 percent increase of June 25, 1918, which was general, had a tendency to widen the difference between the Ohio rates and those in other territories. On August 26, 1920, the rates in the eastern group (including Ohio) were advanced 40 percent, whereas the rates in the western group were increased but 35 percent and, in the southern group by but 25 percent, with the result that the spread between the intrastate rates in Ohio and the intrastate rates in other states, where these products are produced, has been greatly widened since 1914, and the present rates on sewer pipe in Ohio are on a much higher level than elsewhere.

The evidence shows the existing intrastate rates on sewer pipe in all of the producing states in the Union outside of Ohio, and their percentage relationship to the sixth class rate applicable in Ohio. The percentages range from 52 to 83, the average being 66%.

Considering the fact that approximately thirty percent of all the sewer pipe in the United States is produced in Ohio, together with the favorable transportation conditions existing in this state, it appears very singular indeed that the Ohio rates are 332% percent higher than the average intrastate rates applying in all other producing states.

The record shows that complainants' competitors in Illinois and Indiana enjoy interstate rates into Ohio which are on a lower basis than the Ohio intrastate rates and, in consequence, they are invading the Ohio market and crowding the Ohio product out of the cities

in the western part of the state. The defendants propose a removal of the discriminations by cancelling the commodity rate in Illinois and Indiana so far as they apply to interstate traffic into central freight association territory and the placing of all such rates on the sixth class basis. Considering the heavy general rate advances made in the past few years under extraordinary circumstances and conditions; the recent reductions in cost of labor, coal and other materials used extensively by the railroads; and in view of the fact that all carriers outside the central freight association territory recognize the justice of commodity rates on sewer pipe less than sixth class, we do not find the existence of a situation requiring so heroic a remedy.

"A disparity between two rates can as logically be corrected by lowering the higher rate as by increasing the lower rate. In the absence of proof that the higher rate is reasonable, a carrier which advances the rate to the level of another rate does not sustain the burden of proof imposed by the statute merely by pointing out that the object of the increase was to remove the disparity." (32, I. C. C. 494-496.)

The record shows that the sewer pipe manufacturers are at present operating their plants with little or no margin of profit, only for the purpose of holding their market and keeping their organizations intact. The interstate commerce commission in speaking of a similar situation, said:

"(6 I. C. C., 131):

"Where the market price yields but a scant return for the labor and expense of production, the cost of transportation needs to be as moderate as may be consistent with justice to the carrier."

Eliminating all states except those located in central freight association territory, we have left Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, the only states in central freight association territory producing sewer pipe, consolidating Indiana and Illinois, the evidence shows that the average rate applicable on sewer pipe in that territory is on a basis of approximately seventy-five percent of the sixth class rate prevailing in Ohio. If the sewer pipe rates in Ohio were placed on a basis of seventy-five percent of the sixth class rate, the rates would yield, per car-mile and per ton-mile, earnings as shown in the following table:

(Rates Shown Are in Cents Per 100 Pounds)

Considering the facts, circumstances and conditions appearing of record, the above rates would appear to be adequate, just and reasonable for the transportation of sewer pipe and kindred products in intrastate traffic within the State of Ohio.

After careful consideration of all the facts of record, we find that the rates assailed for both local and joint hauls in Ohio are unjustly discriminatory and unreasonable to the extent that they exceed seventy-five percent of the sixth class rate contemporaneously in effect; that, for the future, just, reasonable and non-discriminatory local and joint carload rates for the transportation of sewer pipe, sewer pipe fittings, chimney tops, chimney top bases, chimney bonnets, chimney flues, chimney pipe, thimbles, flue rings and wall coping, in intrastate traffic upon the lines of the defendant carriers within the State of Ohio are rates not exceeding seventy-five percent of the sixth class rate contemporaneously in effect. An order will enter accordingly.

Order

This matter was submitted upon the pleadings, the evidence and exhibits, and the argument of counsel.

Upon consideration whereof, and being fully advised in the premises, and having this day made and filed in writing its findings of fact herein, the commission further finds:

That the rates and charges now maintained, imposed and collected by the several defendants herein for transportation in intrastate traffic within the State of Ohio, of sewer pipe sewer pipe fittings, chimney tops, chimney top bases, chimney

bonnets, chimney flues, chimney pipe, thimbles, flue rings and wall coping, in carloads, as set forth in the defendants' individual and joint schedules, are unjust, excessive, unduly discriminatory and unlawful insofar as the said rates and charges exceed seventy-five percentum of said defendants' contemporaneously effective sixth class rates applicable to each such movement, and

That just, reasonable, non-discriminatory and lawful rates and charges for the transportation of said commodities in intrastate traffic within the State of Ohio, are and will be rates and charges which shall be seventy-five percentum of the defendants' contemporaneously effective sixth class rates applicable to each such movement.

It is, therefore,

Ordered, That defendants, said The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, Erie Railroad Company, The Hocking Valley Railway Company, The Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, The Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company, The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Walter L. Ross, receiver, Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company, The Cincinnati Northern Railroad Company, and The Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railway Company, and each of them, be, and hereby they are notified, directed and required to cease and desist from imposing, charging, maintaining and collecting for the transportation, in intrastate traffic, between points of origin and destination within the State of Ohio, of sewer pipe, sewer pipe fittings, chimney tops, chimney top bases, chimney bonnets, chimney flues, chimney pipe, thimbles, flue rings and wall coping, in carloads, the rates and charges hereinbefore found and determined to be unjust, excessive, unduly discriminatory and unlawful. It is further

Ordered, That said defendants, and each of them, be, and hereby they, and each of them, are further notified, directed and required to establish, maintain, impose, charge and collect for the transportation, in intrastate traffic between points of origin and destination within the State of Ohio, of said named commodities, in carloads, rates and charges not greater than nor in excess of the rates and charges herein before found and determined to be just, reasonable, non-discriminatory and lawful. It is further

Ordered, That schedules be filed accordingly.

There is no Provision in the Act Providing for the Erection of Local District Pension System for Teachers (7875 to 7896 General Code) for the Reinstatement of a Beneficiary or Pensioner as an Active Teacher in That District.-There is no Provision in the State Teachers' Retirement System Law (7896-1 to 7896-64) for the Reinstatement as an Active Teacher of a Beneficiary or Pensioner by a Board of Education, the Sole Exception Being in the Case of Disability Beneficiaries Who May be Restored to Active Service, as Provided in Section 7896-39 General Code.-A Pensioner of a Local District Pension System Which Has Merged With the State Teachers' Retirement System, Cannot be Reinstated as an Active Teacher, Either With or Without the Continuation of His Pension Payments, While in Active Service.Where a Local District Pension System has Merged With the State Teachers Retirement System, the Pensions Paid to Beneficiaries in the Local District Pension System Shall Thereafter be Paid in the Same Amount by the State Teachers' Retirement System, Since These Pensions Have Been Accepted by the State Teachers' Retirement System as a Liability in an Exact Amount at the Time of Evaluation.-A Pensioner of the State Teachers' Retirement System May not be Reinstated as an Active Teacher by Discontinuing his Pension During Such Period of Active Teaching.

No. 2754-(Opinion Dated December 31, 1921.) Hon. W. E. Kershner, Secretary State Teachers' Retirement System, Columbus, Ohio.

Dear Sir: Acknowledgment is made of the receipt of your request for the opinion of this department upon the following questions:

"(1) May a pensioner of a local city pension system which has merged with the state teachers retirement system be reinstated as an active teacher after September 1, 1920, either with or without the continuance of his pension payments while in active service?

"(2)

If such reinstatement is legal, might a pensioner of a city pension system merged with the state retirement system be restored to active service for a time by discontinuing his pension payments and then be restored to the pension roll when he ceases active service at the same pension as he received originally, or would he then be retired under the state.