prior to the amendments to the act of June 29, 1906, amount to holding the stopping of a commodity in transit for treatment or reconsignment to be in the nature of a special privilege which the carriers might concede, though the shipper could not, under the law as it then stood, demand it as a matter of lawful right. Whether the Commission has authority under the amended law to require such privilege to be granted is not involved in this case and is not decided, but allowance of the privilege by a carrier to shippers in one section must be without wrongful prejudice to the rights of shippers in another section served by its line. Diamond Mills v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 9 I. C. C. Rep., 311; Koch v. P. R. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. Rep., 675; St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. M. & O. R. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. Rep., 90.

It inevitably results that by allowance of the milling-in-transit privilege local millers are subjected to competition which would not otherwise exist; but, if the privilege is general, the milier may recoup himself for a partial loss of his local market by availing himself of the transit privilege and seeking new and more distant markets. At the end of railway systems, on the border of a foreign country there are localities to which the railway company can not give the compensating feature of additional markets, and such localities will find their market lessened by invasion, with no opportunity to expand. Does allowance of the milling-in-transit privilege unduly discriminate against shippers in these exceptional locations?

Complainants' contention seems to reduce itself to this, that, on account of difference in location, they can not take advantage of the milling-in-transit privilege, although their competitors at Bangor and Lewiston can do so; and since complainants can not take advantage of the privilege, they are injured by having it accorded to others.

It is evident that the disadvantage under which complainants labor is primarily due to their unfavorable location, and it has been repeatedly held that it is not the province of the Commission to overcome disadvantages of this nature by adjustment of transportation charges. Squire & Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. Rep., 611. The milling-in-transit privilege is so generally allowed, and is of so much advantage to the public that the Commission probably would not be justified in ordering it discontinued where it is allowed to all parties similarly situated who wish to take advantage of it. Of course, if the privilege were denied to complainants and allowed to their competitors, the discrimination so practiced might be unlawful; but no such claim is made in this case. Therefore we are constrained to hold that the regulation here complained of does not constitute a violation of the statute. Moreover, it is difficult to see how the relief asked. would benefit complainants. Certainly it will not be contended that even if the milling-in-transit privilege were denied to Bangor and

Lewiston in respect of Washington County, the Commission could prevent the grain from being milled at the point of production and shipped in its manufactured state to Washington County. If that were done, apparently complainants would have competition quite similar to that from which they now suffer.

Complainants also say that under the milling-in-transit arrangement the transportation of cracked corn and corn meal from the mill to final destination under the through rate on corn constitutes an undue discrimination against corn and shippers thereof; in other words, there should be a higher rate upon the manufactured product than upon the raw material. Broadly speaking, this proposition is true, but it has important exceptions which are made, in the main, for the purpose of allowing factories to be located in various parts of the country, instead of those points to which they would be restricted if the rule in respect of raw material and manufactured products were strictly enforced. We understand that the practice of carrying the milled product to its destination at the balance of the through rate, plus the milling-in-transit charge, is a common feature of the milling-in-transit privilege, and we would not be justified in condemning this feature of the transit privilege upon a mere statement of its existence and in the absence of a showing that it does in fact constitute a violation of the law. It follows that this complaint must be dismissed. An order will be entered accordingly.

As above indicated, this case has been submitted upon an agreed statement of facts and the decision is confined to the case thus presented. While the facts before us are sufficient to enable us to pass upon the direct issue involved, they do not throw as much light as might be desired upon collateral issues. It is observed that the tariff in question provides that the transit privilege will be allowed by special arrangement, not otherwise. The Commission is not informed of the nature or conditions of the special arrangement required, but it is of opinion that this provision is fairly open to criticism. The transit privilege, if allowed, should be open to all shippers similarly situated upon like terms, and those terms should be so clearly and definitely stated that knowledge thereof may be acquired from examination of the carrier's tariff. It is also noted that under the so-called transit privilege on corn it is provided that other grains and their products may be forwarded from the milling point. This provision is also believed to be open to criticism, as it departs entirely from the underlying idea of milling in transit and forwarding the product of the grain brought to and stopped at the milling point. No order will now be entered in this connection, but it is assumed that the carrier will promptly amend its tariff in accordance with the foregoing suggestions.

No. 942.

CEDAR RAPIDS & IOWA CITY RAILWAY & LIGHT COMPANY

v.

CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted October 14, 1907. Decided March 2, 1908.

1. On complaint of failure by defendant to establish through routes and joint rates with complainant between interstate points on their respective roads, it appeared that the shipping communities at points on complainant's line between Coralville, Iowa, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, do not at this time enjoy the benefit of any reasonable or satisfactory through route from and to Chicago and other points reached by defendant; Held, That through routes and joint rates thereover which shall not exceed by more than 10 per cent the class and commodity rates of defendant between Chicago and other points and Cedar Rapids, should be established and maintained for the transportation of interstate traffic from and to Coralville and all other points on complainant's line intermediate to Cedar Rapids to and from Chicago and other points on the line of defendant via junction point of the two roads at Cedar Rapids.

2. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Ry. Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. Rep. 20, cited and affirmed and the distinction made between the transportation requirements of mere loading points serving one or more farms, as described in that case, and the more extensive requirements of small centers where general merchandising is done and the products of the countryside are concentrated for shipment, and coal, lumber, and other commodities are brought in to supply local needs.

F. F. Dawley and John A. Reed for complainant.
Samuel A. Lynde for defendant.

S. E. Lehnen for North Liberty Elevator Company, intervener.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

HARLAN, Commissioner:

The Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway & Light Company, incorporated under the laws of the state of Iowa in 1903, owns a right

of way 100 feet wide from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, southward to Iowa City, in the same state, a distance of about 271⁄2 miles, over which it operates by electricity a single-track railroad of standard gauge. Its roadbed, as is admitted by the defendant, is constructed in a substantial manner and in conformity with the standard that is usual with the smaller steam railroads in that section of the country. The rails, 70 pounds to the yard, are heavier than those customarily used on the branch and lateral lines of the larger carriers in that region. The road crosses 28 well-built bridges and culverts constructed, as the complainant's witnesses state, upon plans that are practically identical with those used by the defendant in similar structures on its lines. In other respects the record satisfactorily shows that the complainant's line is capable of moving freight in trainloads as well as in carloads. But its equipment is limited in character and quantity; besides six passenger coaches and one express car, it has but six freight cars; all its cars however are equipped with standard couplers and automatic air brakes. It has one electric motor of sufficient power, according to the testimony, to haul a train of from six to ten loaded freight cars. Its deficiencies in the matter of equipment for carload traffic have heretofore been supplied by the defendant and by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, with both of which lines the complainant has physical connections at Cedar Rapids.

The complainant is participating in interstate transportation and has filed with the Commission its schedule of local rates and has made them applicable also to interstate movements; and the record shows a growing traffic during the past year in carload and less than carload quantities to and from interstate points. In order to be able to take full advantage of its opportunities and to meet the requirements of the several shipping communities along its line, the complainant has requested the defendant to join with it in establishing through routes and joint rates between interstate points on their respective roads. The defendant, however, refused to enter into such an arrangement on the general ground, as stated by two of its officials who testified in the case, that the complainant is not in fact a " full-fledged " railroad; that it is not the policy of the defendant to make such arrangements with electric lines that can not reciprocate in the matter of the exchange of equipment; that such arrangements with small lines that are unable to furnish their percentage of equipment constitute one of the chief causes of the inability of the larger carriers to meet their demands for cars; and that the usual result of such arrangements is that the larger carriers are compelled to furnish equipment for the entire traffic of such lines; and this the defendant does not consider a good business proposition.

The complainant declines to accept these reasons as satisfactory grounds for the refusal of its request. It has therefore appealed to the Commission for an order under section 15 requiring the defendant to establish such through routes and joint rates. And in this application the North Liberty Elevator Company, which is engaged at North Liberty in buying and shipping grain to interstate points, has joined by filing an intervening petition. The petition of the complainant is based upon its capacity to handle freight in trains as well as in carloads and also upon its contention that large quantities of freight originate in the territory tributary to its line, and to the several stations thereon, for which there are now no reasonable or satisfactory through routes or any joint rates from and to the consuming and producing points on the line of the defendant. The claim of the intervener is that owing to the fact that no through routes and joint rates are available for the shipment of the commodities in which it deals its market is unduly limited.

The general principles controlling the exercise by the Commission of the power vested in it under section 15 to establish through routes and joint rates in cases of this kind have recently been considered in Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Railway Company v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al, 13 I. C. C. Rep., 20. It will not be necessary therefore to discuss again the questions of law involved in such applications. It will suffice to examine the record only so far as may be required to ascertain in what material respects the facts of this case differ from the facts appearing of record in that case.

Cedar Rapids is a commercial center of no small importance. It has a population of 29,000 inhabitants. Passing southward from this northern terminus the complainant's line runs through Swisher, Cou Falls, and thence through two small stations to North Liberty, where the intervener is engaged in business as heretofore indicated. From that point the line proceeds in the same general direction southward through two small stations to Coralville, and thence to its southern. terminus at Iowa City. None of these intermediate points is served by any carrier other than the complainant. But Iowa City, also a place of some commercial activity, with a population of 8.000, is reached by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway. With the lines of that company the complainant, however, has no physical connection there or elsewhere.

The complainant's right of way does not parallel the line of any steam railroad. It serves a section of country of considerable area that lies between the tracks of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, and of the defendant, and is said to be one of the finest agricultural sections in Iowa. The region is well settled, and its principal products