to draw attention to the fact that its declared purpose, so far as Eau Claire is concerned, has not been accomplished. Its effect upon that town has proved oppressive. Even if we could accept the theory upon which it is based, we should still be convinced that the rate fixed for Eau Claire was excessive, because its operation has prevented that town, as it seems to us, from retaining its "fair proportion" of the lumber business. As no such result was intended, the rate which produced it cannot be upheld by the rule adopted.

We are unable to discover how other localities can reasonably object to a more equitable rate for Eau Claire, and our belief is that apprehensions based on a reduction at that point are not well founded. Relatively lower charges may enable Eau Claire to increase its lumber production, but that this will result in serious injury to competing towns is an unwarranted assumption. Remote places on the lower Mississippi can scarcely be affected by the removal of inequalities between Eau Claire and its neighboring rivals, and the latter cannot justly complain because the former is accorded a rate fairly proportioned to their own. The relative volume of lumber shipments from La Crosse and Winona may be somewhat reduced by lower charges at Eau Claire, but any such effect will be attributable to natural advantages of which that town cannot justly be deprived. In short we see no reason why justice to Eau Claire should work injustice to any other community, much less result in the general disturbance of an established industry.

Nor will any such consequences follow a reduction of the Eau Claire differential as would justify other carriers in lowering their rates at competing points, for the purpose of preserving the co-relation of rates created by the Bogue arbitration. Undoubtedly those roads have it in their power to continue the present disparity, but we do not anticipate, and certainly cannot assume, that they will resort to such inconsiderate and arbitrary action in order to nullify the lawful order of this Commission. Even if we believed otherwise, it would still be our duty to render a decision in accordance with our convictions, and thus place the responsibility upon them, if they should attempt to defeat our ruling.

A further position was taken in this proceeding which is apart from the merits of the principal issue. The roads which were made parties at the request of the original defendant insist that no case has been made against them, and that the Commission has no authority to include them in any order based upon the complaint of Eau Claire. We are disposed to agree with this contention. The sole complaint in this case is discrimination, and Eau Claire is the sole complainant. It is not easy to see how any carrier can "discriminate" against a town which it does not reach, and in whose carrying trade it does not participate. None of the roads so brought into the case run to Eau Claire or engage, even indirectly, in the transportation of lumber from that point. Of what offense against that town can they be legally guilty? It would be quite absurd to charge a railroad with giving preference or advantage to a community which it does not serve, and it is equally illogical to say that it can prejudice or discriminate against such a community. All these terms imply comparison, and the basis of comparison is wanting unless the rates compared are made by the same carrier. These views are so fully concurred in by counsel for the respective parties that further argument is unsuitable. They lead to the conclusion that no order can properly be made in this proceeding against the roads which do not run to Eau Claire. This determination must also include the intervening manufacturers and dealers, who have obviously no standing in the case independent of the lines which extend from their respective localities. It does not follow that these roads will be legally free to reduce their rates at other points to correspond with any lower rate which may be fixed for Eau Claire. They have responded to the demand that they should defend the differential complained of, and they have endeavored to justify it by evidence and argument. They have presented their case and will be formally notified of our decision. While they are not legally connected with the rate claimed to be excessive, and not technically subject to an order for its correction, they will have no better right to render it ineffectual than they would have to openly disregard a direction clearly within the scope of our authority.

to draw att~ Eau Clai

upon th

the the

that t

atio

its

W

BAZZWAY PROBLEMS

The attitude of the Omaha road is

pany did not ask to have it made a

somewhat peculiar. It

defendant. It voluntarily

was not proceeded against originally, and the Milwaukee com-. sought an opportunity to oppose the complainant, and was made tion with considerable vigor, it now earnestly asks to be exa party on its own application. After engaging in the litigaThese circumstances might well justify us in denying this reempted from any order reducing the Eau Claire differential. Measured by the lumber rates which it maintains at other places quest, but we incline to the opinion that it should be granted. against Eau Claire, nor is it charged with enforcing rates at on its line, the Omaha road cannot be said to discriminate different points which are relatively unequal. For this reason much embarrassment might result to that company from an order requiring it to reduce its rate at the place in question, and as such an order is not demanded by the complainant or deemed necessary for the relief which it seeks, we are disposed to leave that carrier the option of accepting the Eau Claire rate prescribed for the Milwaukee company or going out of the Eau Claire business. No order, therefore, will be made against the Omaha road at this time, but the case will be held as against that company for such directions as may hereafter seem to be required.

We hold that the lumber rates in question discriminate against the shippers of Eau Claire, and that such discrimination is unjust and unlawful. The undue prejudice and disadvantage to which Eau Claire is thus subjected consists generally in the lower relative rates accorded to competing towns, especially those granted to La Crosse and Winona, and the complainant is entitled to an order correcting the inequality between these rival places.

The extent to which the Eau Claire differential should be reduced has been the subject of much deliberation. We have not considered it as an abstract proposition, based on mileage and cost of service, but have endeavored to make proper allowance for other existing circumstances and actual conditions. It is our desire to prescribe a rate which will be reasonably just to Eau Claire, and which the Milwaukee road will be fairly satisfied

to accept. No mathematical rule has been followed and no particular theory applied, but that rate has been selected which, on the whole, best satisfies our judgment. To a certain extent our determination is arbitrary, but equally so is the fixing of a rate in the first instance. As the injustice which Eau Claire suffers arises mainly from the lower rates at La Crosse and Winona, the rate from the former should bear a fixed and permanent relation to the rates from the latter, independent of the Chicago rate upon which all the others are based under the Bogue arbitration. Taking everything into account, we think the rate from Eau Claire should not exceed the rate from La Crosse and Winona by more than 2 cents per hundred pounds, when the latter rate is not over 11 cents per hundred; and that such excess over the present rate of 16 cents from La Crosse and Winona should not be greater than 2 cents per hundred. Compared with the 16-cent rate now in force at these competing towns the rate thus fixed for Eau Claire will be higher by $8.75 per car; and the rate per car per mile and per ton per mile to the several Missouri river markets will still be considerably greater from Eau Claire than from La Crosse or Winona. All things considered, however, we believe that an addition of 2 cents to the present rate from those places will not be unjust to Eau Claire, and that a greater reduction in the differential now in force against that town should not at this time be required. If the operation of this rate fails to give equitable results, the complainant will not be debarred from making a further application for relief.

*

*

The order of the Commission is that from and after the tenth day of July, 1892, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company cease and desist from charging, collecting, or receiving for or on account of lumber transported by it, in carload quantities, from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, to the various Missouri river points mentioned in this report, any greater sum or amount than two and one-half cents per hundred pounds more than shall or may from time to time be charged, collected or received by that company for the like transportation from the towns of La Crosse and Winona aforesaid.

IX

RELATIVE RATES

THE SAVANNAH NAVAL STORES CASE1

CLEMENTS, Commissioner:

Facts

1. The complainants are the Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transportation, an association of business men of the city of Savannah, Ga., organized to protect the transportation interests of that city, and certain general merchants, naval-stores manufacturers and cotton shippers, most of whom are located along the line of the Pensacola & Atlantic division of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad. The defendant railroad and steamship companies are severally common carriers and engaged in the interstate transportation of freight articles. The lines of the defendants, the Alabama Midland Railway Company, the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company and the Charleston & Savannah Railway Company, are, with other lines of road, operated by the "Plant System."

2. The Pensacola & Atlantic division of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad System extends from Pensacola, Fla., to River Junction, Fla., a distance of 161 miles. At River Junction it connects with the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway for Savannah (Plant System), and also with the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad (Seaboard Air Line) for Jacksonville and Savannah. The distance from River Junction to Savannah by the former route is 259 miles, and by the latter route it is 347

1 Decided January 8, 1900. Interstate Commerce Reports, Vol. VIII, pp. 376408. Sustained by the United States Circuit Court. 118 Fed. Rep. 613.

The main contention in this case related to rates on naval stores, turpentine and rosin; but inasmuch as the same principles involved are more simply and briefly stated with reference to rates on cotton, that issue is mainly described in this abstract. — ED.