Johnston case that the Commission would be justified in reaching a different conclusion in the matter of reparation. In this regard the complainant has wholly failed. No evidence was presented other than general statements that rates were different in other sections of the United States from those which obtained between the points complained of; nor was any effort made to distinguish conditions between points named in the complaint and points named in the Johnston case. Hence the Commission can do nothing further than follow the opinion therein expressed and decline to grant reparation on all the shipments between points within the present state of Oklahoma. The only other questions left for consideration are: first, Is the rate on coal from Hartford, Ark., to Kingfisher, Okla., unreasonable and unjust; and if so, what should be the rate for the future? second, Is the complainant entitled to reparation on shipments made in the past? From Hartford to Kingfisher the distance is 257 miles. The rate on lump coal on June 25, 1907, now in effect, was $1.70, and on slack coal $1.50; the rate per ton per mile on the former being 0.67 of a cent and on the latter 0.59. In the Johnston case, above referred to, the Commission fixed the rates for a distance of 239 miles at $1.95 for lump, being 0.72 of a cent per ton per mile, and $1.35 for slack, being 0.61 of a cent per ton per mile, and practically the same rate per ton per mile for the 290-mile haul. These rates were fixed by the Commission after a full and careful consideration of the conditions in that section of the country, and the order of the Commission fixing these rates for two years has been complied with by the defendant carriers. These rates thus prescribed by the Commission, as will be seen, are higher per ton per mile than the rates now in effect between the points here complained of. In the absence of any showing that the circumstances and conditions are dissimilar in the two cases or that the Commission was in error in the Johnston case, we are of opinion that no reduction should be made at this time in the rates between the points complained of. The tariffs on file in the Commission show that rates on lump coal have been decreased 40 per cent during the last five years. All that has been said in this case concerning the ground for the refusal to grant reparation on shipments between points within the present state of Oklahoma is applicable to the interstate shipments from Hartford, and for these reasons reparation is denied. An order will be entered in accordance with the views herein expressed. 13 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1155. F. J. GENTRY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner: The complaint was filed on June 28, 1907, by a retail coal dealer located at Pond Creek, Okla. Complaint is made of the rates on coal from Weir, Wichita, and Midway, Kans., and Dow, Lowe, Gowan, Alderson, Holdenville, Wilburton, and Haileyville, Okla., (formerly Indian Territory) to Goltry, Okla., and reparation is claimed. The questions involved as to the shipments between the points in Oklahoma are the same as those in the case of Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. supra, and as to Oklahoma points reference is made to that opinion for the reasons for disallowing such claims. The only other questions left for decision are, first, is the rate on coal from Weir, Wichita, and Midway, Kans., to Goltry, Okla., unreasonable and unjust; and if so, what should be the rate for the future? Second, is complainant entitled to reparation? No evidence was offered by complainant tending to show that these rates were unreasonable or unjust, other than the reference to the rates in other sections of the United States, with no explanation of the conditions incident to the movement of coal in those sections. An examination of the tariffs on file shows that the average distance of Goltry, Okla., from the group of mines in Kansas, in which are included Midway and Weir (no rates being quoted from Wichita, because no coal is shipped from that point, although complaint is made of it), is 268.9 miles; that the rates in effect from those mines to Goltry, Okla., on April 21, 1904, were, on lump coal, $2.50, and slack $2 per ton, making 0.92 and 0.74 of a cent per ton per mile; that the rates in effect June 28, 1907 (which are the present rates), between the same points are $1.85 on both lump and slack coal, making 0.68 of a cent per ton per mile. While the Commission is of opinion that the rates on lump coal from the points named above to Goltry, Okla., should not be held to be unreasonable at this time, yet it thinks the rate on slack coal should be somewhat lower than that on lump and is therefore of the opinion that the rate on the former between the points in controversy, except from Wichita, should be not higher than $1.50 per ton. Reparation will not be granted on account of past shipments. An order will be entered in accordance with the views herein expressed. No. 1114. KINGFISHER MILL & ELEVATOR COMPANY บ. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner: The complaint was filed on June 25, 1907, and is by a corporation engaged in operating a mill and elevator at Kingfisher, Okla., which ships mill products and grain out of Kingfisher over defendants' lines and coal and slack over said lines into said city. This case involves the question of rates on coal from Hartford and Huntington, Ark., and Dow, Haileyville, Wilburton, Alderson, South McAlester, Prairie Creek, Craig, Howe, Bonanza, Hackett, and Henryetta, Ind. T., (now Oklahoma) to Kingfisher, Okla. It also involves what is termed the milling-in-transit rate into and out of Kingfisher from points along the line of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific and other roads. So far as the shipments of coal are concerned, the same questions are involved as in the case of Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, and for the reasons therein stated are likewise disposed of. So far as the complaint relates to the milling-in-transit of grain, it involves on grain rates from many stations on the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway in Kansas and Oklahoma, intc Kingfisher, and the rate out to points along the lines of the same railway. The complaint itself does not name the stations between which rates complained of are in effect, but it is in the following general language: That during all the times hereinafter mentioned, the respondent, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, has received for carriage from complainant at the various points of origin and carried to the points of destination, upon the dates, the quantities of merchandise either direct or milling-in-transit routing, shown by complainant's schedule hereto attached marked "Exhibit B," and made a part hereof which is true and correct in every particular, and shows the date of such transaction, the car number, and initial, the weight, rate of freight paid, the highest legal rate which might legally have been demanded under said laws (had the same not been unreasonable rates), the overcharge, the points of origin and destination, and such other particulars as fully show the nature of the transaction had, and the amount of overcharge exacted, "Flat" in exhibit meaning "Kingfisher." An examination of that exhibit, which is simply a statement presumably drawn from the waybills and expense bills of particular shipments, shows that out of 360 shipments, 200 originated at Kingfisher, which, of course, can have no relation to a milling-in-transit practice and as the complaint is solely as to that practice, these 200 shipments have no relation to the matter in controversy. Out of the 160 remaining shipments 127 are between points in the State of Oklahoma and 33 are interstate shipments; but of these latter all but 12 are for less than 24,000 pounds, the minimum carload having the privilege of milling-in-transit rates; and of the 127 intrastate shipments only 33 were over the carload minimum. In this case depositions were taken at Kingfisher and a hearing had at Enid, and at neither place was the subject of milling-in-transit on grain referred to, and not a word of testimony was offered thereon. In the elaborate brief filed by the complainant the only reference to the subject is in the following language concerning proposed findings of the Commission: That the rates on mill stuff shipped over the defendant's lines beyond the limits of Oklahoma over the original Choctaw road be placed upon the Arkansas distance tariff rates and reparation as prayed be awarded to the Kingfisher Mill & Elevator Company as exhibited in its second schedule (Exhibit B). We can not but regard the position taken by the complainant as an entire abandonment of its complaint so far as milling-in-transit of grain is concerned, except, perhaps, in so far as these rates are affected by the provisions of the Choctaw franchise as to which reference is made in the Haines case. The complaint will be dismissed. No. 1115. OKLAHOMA MILL COMPANY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner. This complaint was filed on June 25, 1907, and is by a corporation operating a mill and several elevators located at Kingfisher, Okla. The complaint is as to rates on coal from Hartford and Huntington, Ark., and Dow, Haileyville, Wilburton, Alderson, South McAles ter, and Prairie Creek, Okla., (formerly Indian Territory) to Kingfisher, Okla. This case is in all respects the same as that of Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, and for the reasons therein stated the complaint will be dismissed. No. 1116. A. H. SCHOWALTER & COMPANY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner: This complaint was filed June 25, 1907, and is by a firm engaged in the business of selling coal at retail in Kingfisher, Okla. The complaint is as to rates on coal from Weir City, Kans., and Dow, Haileyville, Wilburton, Alderson, South McAlester, Prairie Creek, and Hartshorn, Okla., (formerly Indian Territory) to Dover and Kingfisher, Okla. This case is in all respects the same as that of Gentry v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, except that the points of delivery are different and the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company is not a party defendant here. Weir City, Kans., one of the points involved in this case, is on the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad and not on either of defendants' lines. For this reason no order can be entered as to rates on coal from that point. The other rates involved are those from the Oklahoma (Indian Territory) coal fields to Dover and Kingfisher, in the same State, and the conditions in this case being substantially the same as in the cases of Gentry v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., and Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, the complaint will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in those opinions. No. 1157. v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner: This complaint was filed June 28, 1907, by a retail dealer in coal at Enid, Okla. The rates involved are those from Alderson, Wilburton, Haileyville, Henryetta, Dow, Craig, Gowan, Baker, Krebs, |