Smith to Kansas City approximates the average distance from mills in Oklahoma to Kansas City, while the rate from Fort Smith is 7 cents lower than the rate from points in Oklahoma. Defendants justify this relation on the ground that the Kansas City Southern, being a line of comparatively heavy traffic density, has been in a position to control the situation. In support of this contention there was presented in the brief for defendants a comparison of the gross earnings per mile of the Kansas City Southern with certain of the Oklahoma lines. The tariffs indicate that the Fort Smith rates apply from other points in that immediate vicinity over other lines, and for this reason the same figures for those lines are presented in the following table. As the Oklahoma rates were initiated in 1894, the figures for the years 1894 and 1904 are shown. NOTE.-Figures for 1894 and 1904 from statistical reports of the Commission for those years. This table shows that only in recent years has the traffic density of the Kansas City Southern become greater than that of the other lines in this territory. The class rates, as well as the rates on a number of commodities between Fort Smith and Kansas City, are approximately the same as those between Oklahoma City and Kansas City, while the rates from such points as Tulsa and Muskogee to Kansas City are somewhat lower, thus further indicating that the present relatively heavy density of traffic on the Kansas City Southern has had no influence on the general level of rates in this territory. Defendants direct attention to numerous cases in which the Commission has held that group rates are just and beneficial. While not unmindful of the considerations influencing the decisions in these cases it is clear that the propriety of a group rate in any case must depend upon the conditions upon which it is predicated. When the cottonseed mills were confined to the southern portion of Oklahoma their grouping at a common rate may have been reasonable, but the gradual transition of the center of production and the application to the new mills of the rates from the more remote points has altered the circumstances originally surrounding the establishment of the group rates involved, and resulted in many instances in anomalous adjustments, as evidenced by the rates on cottonseed meal and cake from points within the Oklahoma group to destinations in the southeastern part of Kansas. As a rule rates for short distances are graded and rates for longer distances blanketed. The rates on cottonseed products from points in Oklahoma are blanketed to the near-by points and graded to the more distant points beyond. Generally speaking, where the difference in distances between points in any group is as great a percentage of the average distance from points in the group to destination, as appears in this case, the grouping is prima facie unreasonable. In Ferguson Saw Mill Company v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C., 391, the Commission said, at page 393: It may be generally true that a system of blanket rates from a producing section is fair and just to all parties concerned, although it necessarily involves rates that are somewhat high for the distance from points on the edge of the blanket nearest the points of destination, but in making such an adjustment the burden rests upon the carrier to provide rates that shall not be unreasonable from any point of origin. In discussing the blanket adjustment under consideration in that case, attention was also directed to the difficulty of establishing the lawfulness of a group extending almost up to the doors of an important consuming territory. Complainant requests that the present Oklahoma group be divided into smaller groups, but offers no convincing evidence in support of the reasonableness of the proposed regrouping. Defendants contended at the second hearing in the Anadarko case that, in the event of a reduction of the present rates, the group should be divided, but made no suggestions as to the manner in which this should be done. With the exception of points located west of the main line of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway, most of which appear to be located on branch lines, the only essential differences disclosed by the record as existing between the various points comprised in the Oklahoma group are the distances to the consuming markets, and it would, therefore, be difficult to draw the boundary lines of smaller groups. Upon all the facts of record it is our determination and we find that the present grouping of points in Oklahoma, producing cottonseed oil, cake, meal, and hulls, is unjust and unreasonable, and that the present blanket rates are unreasonable and unduly prejudicial. The state of the record is such that we can not formulate conclusions regarding the details of a readjustment with the desired degree of certainty and confidence. However, from such an understanding of the situation as we have been able to acquire through a consideration of the facts of record we are inclined to the view that the promulgation of a distance tariff applicable from all points in the present blanket may be a solution of the difficulties of which petitioners complain. With the view of facilitating the final disposition of these issues we submit below tentative schedules. Cottonseed oil from Oklahoma producing points to Kansas City, Mo. Rates on cottonseed cake, meal, and hulls from producing points in Oklahoma to points in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and to Colorado common points and points in Colorado east thereof. One cent per 100 pounds may be added to these rates in each of the following instances: On shipments transported over two or more lines not under the same management or control; on shipments originating at points west of the main line of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway, from Blackwell to Terral; and on shipments destined to points in Colorado. This case will be set for further hearing at which all parties interested will be given an opportunity to show cause why the above schedules should not be prescribed. Such hearing will be held at Kansas City, Mo., on October 11, 1915, at 10 a. m. 35 I. C. C. No. 7109.1 CAPE GIRARDEAU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. Submitted April 17, 1915. Decided July 1, 1915. 1. Rates on cement in carloads from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to points in southern Arkansas, which are not at least 3 cents per 100 pounds lower than the rates contemporaneously applicable from St. Louis, Mo., to the same points, found unjustly discriminatory. 2. Rates on cement in carloads from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to points in Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, to points in Mississippi, except points on the Mississippi River, and to points in Kentucky and Tennessee west of the Tennessee River, except Paducah, Ky., and Memphis, Tenn., which are not at least 2 cents per 100 pounds lower than the rates from St. Louis, Mo., to the same points, found unjustly discriminatory. 3. Combination rates on cement in carloads from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to points in southern Illinois found unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory in favor of competing points in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. Reasonable maximum joint rates prescribed for the future. J. R. Walker for complainant. W. H. Hart for Oklahoma Portland Cement Company. R. Walton Moore and M. P. Callaway for Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company and others. William Burger for Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Thomas Bond for St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and its receivers. F. H. Wood for Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company and Louisiana Western Railroad Company. William Gray for Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. E. A. Haid and R. D. Coleman for St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. C. P. Stewart and Walter Nichols for Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. 1 This proceeding also embraces complaints in-No. 7109 (Sub-No. 1), Same v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company et al.; 7109 (Sub-No. 2), Same v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company et al.; and 7109 (Sub-No. 3), Same v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company et al. 35 I. C. C. 109 W. F. Dickenson for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. H. G. Herbel, F. G. Wright, F. H. Wood, and C. C. P. Rausch for Missouri Pacific Railway Company and others. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. MEYER, Commissioner: Complainant manufactures cement at Gulf Junction, Mo., 2 miles south of Cape Girardeau, Mo., which it markets or contends that it should be able to market in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; Kentucky and Tennessee, west of the Tennessee River, and in southern Illinois, in competition with other mills tributary to the same territory. Cape Girardeau is a Mississippi River city, on the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, hereinafter called the Frisco, and the Cape Girardeau & Northern Railway, 131 miles south of St. Louis, and approximately 28 miles northwest of Thebes, Ill., by way of the Thebes bridge. The competing points named are Harrys and Eagle Ford, Tex., near Fort Worth, Tex.; Ada, Okla., south of the KansasOklahoma gas belt; Dewey, Okla., Iola, Kans., and other points in the gas belt; St. Louis and Hannibal, Mo.; La Salle, Ill., north of Decatur; Buffington, Ind., near Chicago, Ill.; Mitchell, Ind., northwest of Louisville, Ky., and east of Lawrenceville, Ill.; Speeds, Ind., just north of Louisville; Kosmosdale, Ky., just south of Louisville; Richard City, Tenn., just east of Chattanooga, Tenn.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Ragland and Leeds, Ala., just east of Birmingham. Dealers in New Orleans also compete, principally with cement received from the east by water. The complaints, filed in July and August, 1914, assail the carload rates on cement from Cape Girardeau to points in southern Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, and southern Illinois, alleging that they are unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory in comparison with the rates maintained from the competing points described. The original complaint assails the rates to southern Arkansas and to points in Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, in comparison with the rates maintained to the same points from all of the competing points named west of the Mississippi River; the complaint in Sub-No. 1, the rates to western Kentucky and Tennessee, in comparison with the rates from St. Louis and Hannibal and all of the competing points named east of the Mississippi River; the complaint in Sub-No. 2, the rates to points in southern Illinois as compared with the rates from St. Louis, Hannibal, La Salle, Buffington, and Mitchell; the complaint in Sub-No. 3, the rates to points in Mississippi and Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, as compared with the rates from St. Louis and Hannibal and all of the |