By actual count of shipments on two typical days for each company in 1915, petitioners have estimated that they handled during that year in interstate movements and in the states in which the interstate scale has been adopted 119,544,043 first-class and 20,191,646 second-class shipments, each less than 100 pounds in weight; the first-class shipments being 61.66 per cent and the second class 10.41 per cent of the total number of shipments. By a similar method they have estimated the average weight per first-class shipment of less than 100 pounds to have been 21.36 pounds and per second-class shipment of less than 100 pounds 52.17 pounds during the same period. Using these average weights for first and second class shipments, the additional revenue per firstclass shipment under the proposed plan will be 3.93 cents, and on second class, 1.79 cents. At the additional revenue of 3.93 cents per first-class shipment of less than 100 pounds, the 119,544,043 shipments handled in the year 1915 would have yielded an estimated additional revenue of $4,700,471.77. At an increase of 1.79 cents per shipment the 20,191,646 second-class shipments of less than 100 pounds would have yielded an estimated additional revenue of $362,162.41, or a total estimated additional revenue from both classes of $5,062,634.18. Petitioners' gross transportation revenue for the year 1915 was $131,173,669.64. The estimated increase of $5,062,634.18 would be approximately 3.86 per cent increase in gross revenue.

No definite objection to petitioners' prayer appears. A letter from the chairman of the committee on express rates and regulations of the National Association of Railway Commissioners was, by consent of petitioners, made a part of the record. This letter suggests the importance and propriety of scrutinizing carefully the figures presented by petitioners. This has been done, and no error or opportunity for criticism worth mentioning has been found. A representative of certain liquor dealers called attention to the fact that the increase proposed would fall upon the smaller shipments. It is suggested that if petitioners need additional revenue, any increase in rates should be fairly distributed over all business and for all weights. It has also been suggested that relief might be afforded by a change in the base rate in zone 1.

While it is true that under the proposed plan the small shipments will bear the greater share of the increase, we do not think that any unjust discrimination will result therefrom, because it was on the small shipments that the greater reduction was made by the rates which we prescribed. The following table shows for different parts of the United States taken as typical, the rates that were in effect prior to our order, the present rates, the amounts and percentages of

Pounds.

reductions, and also the proposed rates. It clearly demonstrates that the rates on the small shipments were decreased to a greater extent than those on the larger shipments, and that the proposed changes will, with few exceptions, result in rates substantially lower than those in effect prior to our order.

New York, N. Y., and Boston, New York, N. Y., and Phila- Philadelphia, Pa., and Chicago,

Mass.

delphia, Pa.

Ill.

5...

JAK339448888888888888

Cts.

30

35

35

35

40

45

45

50

50

55

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

With respect to the suggested change in the base rate in zone 1, which is the territory east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio rivers, where the companies now operating at a loss do the greater portion of their business, it appears that the present 100-pound rates approximate the rates that were in effect prior to February 1, 1914, and can not be increased to the extent of providing the necessary additional revenue without destroying the business. To thus provide for an increase of approximately $5,000,000 it would be necessary to substantially increase the 100-pound rates, many of which would then exceed those in effect prior to the effective date of our order, particularly the short-haul rates.

A western state commission suggests, although not on the record, that the relationship of the rates in the west to those in zones farther east is not what it should be, and that if any change is to be made a revision of the whole scheme of rates should be made. The investigation which resulted in our original order was most exhaustive. The present plan has given very general satisfaction and has provoked but little complaint. Petitioners have cooperated earnestly and fairly in an effort to make the new plan a success and to secure uniformity of rates for state and interstate business. If they are, in face of those efforts, operating at a loss under rates prescribed by us, and it clearly appears that they are, they are entitled to reasonable relief promptly, and without awaiting the result of another general investigation that would consume two or three years.

From all the facts and circumstances of record we are of the opinion, and find, that the plan proposed will not result in rates that are unreasonable, and that our order should be modified so as to allow it to be made effective.

An order will be entered in conformity with the views herein expressed.

35 I. C. C.

No. 6776.

LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

v.

BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COM. PANY ET AL.

Submitted January 19, 1915. Decided June 30, 1915.

Rates on cement in carloads from Mitchell, Ind., to Kentucky junction points found unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory as compared with rates from Superior, Ohio, and Fordwick, Va., and reasonable rates fixed for future, which defendants are required to publish as joint through rates.

F. E. Paulson and L. J. Dauback for complainant.

R. Walton Moore, C. J. Rixey, jr., and W. H. Fowle for Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway and Southern Railway in Kentucky.

William Burger for Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Edward Barton and S. S. Stewart for Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

MCCHORD, Chairman:

Complainant is a Pennsylvania corporation manufacturing portland cement at various places in the United States, with two of its plants located on the line of the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad at Mitchell, Ind., served also under switching arrangements by the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway. Mitchell is in southeastern Indiana, 68 miles northwest of Louisville, Ky., via the line of the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway.

The complaint brings in issue the carload rates on portland cement from Mitchell, Ind., to various junction points in central Kentucky. It is alleged that the rates complained of are unreasonable in and of themselves, and unjustly discriminatory against Mitchell as compared with the rates from Superior, Ohio, and Fordwick, Va. The following table compiled from complainant's exhibits shows the rates and distances herein concerned, together with the respective rates and distances from the two points at which are located cement plants with which complainant is in competition:

The accompanying map shows the location of the respective producing points and the common market points herein involved.

Neither the defendant, Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Company, nor the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company appeared in the case. The carriers which did appear, however, show that the rates in question are made by combination on the Ohio River and that the northern lines' rate to the river is lower than the rate which would be produced by the application of the general basis applied from practically all cement-producing points in central freight association territory, which is 73.33 per cent of the central freight association sixth-class mileage scale to the basing point, and that this rate, as well as the rate of the carriers south of the river, is reasonable in and of itself, and since the complainant has admitted the reasonableness of each of these factors, it is contended that the present rate situation is justified. Further, these defendants contend that they do not control the rate situation to certain of the points where the discrimination against Mitchell is marked, and that therefore they can not remove same. It is urged that with respect to these points the present rates from competing territory should not control, since rates to such points from Mitchell made the same as the rates from competing territory would result in a lowering of the rates to points served by these defendants, which would be unjustifiable, since the rates to the Ohio River are unusually low and those south of the Ohio River are reasonable in and of themselves.

The complainant replies that it is not the factors of the rates against which it is complaining, but rather the combination of these factors which it conceives to be unreasonable and discriminatory. The estab

9479°-VOL 35-15 -3