with privilege of reconsignment to carload freight at Waukesha, Neenah, Menasha, Manitowoc, and Stevens Point. Similar privileges are offered by the Canadian Pacific Railway at Port Arthur and Fort William, Ontario; by the Canadian Northern Railway at Port Arthur, Ontario, and by the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway at Gladstone, Mich. The roads reaching Duluth, as to much if not all of the territory served by them from that port, are in direct competition with one or another of the carriers above named on ex-lake business.

Complainant challenges the storage principle as in itself unlawful, and therefore not to be justified by competition. This position the Commission, on the record as made, is not prepared to take. The privilege is not given by the defendant carriers only, nor is it confined to the section of the country in which they operate. No justification exists at this time for condemning a practice in which so many carriers and shippers not parties to the record are interested.

Since the submission of this case the following administrative ruling has been made by the Commission:

Tariffs providing arrangements for storage or transit privileges at ports of transshipment on the Great Lakes in connection with traffic moved under rail-and-water tariffs must be published, posted, and filed by the carrier granting the privilege or performing the service, and must stipulate clearly the extent of such privilege and the charges connected therewith. Such tariffs shall also state whether or not the established joint rates published by the initial carrier, from the point of origin to ultimate destination as of the date of shipment from point of origin, will apply. If such privilege is granted or charge is made in connection with the joint rate under which the shipment moves from point of origin the initial carrier's tariff which contains such rate must also contain the privilege or the charge or give specific reference by I. C. C. number to the tariff of the carrier granting the privilege or performing the service which contains such regulations and charges connected therewith.

The above ruling is intended to secure such publishing and filing of the offer of storage or transit privileges as shall preclude the possibility of secrecy or discrimination. Portions of the rule will call for changes in the tariffs of the carriers operating through Duluth and involved in this controversy. These changes, however, will not be greater than those required at other lake ports. It appears from the record that during the time covered by the testimony herein the offer of storage privileges at Duluth has been open to all shippers alike, and has been fully described in the tariffs of the defendant carriers according to the forms then recognized by the Commission and used by carriers generally.

There can be no doubt that the storage privilege at Duluth is forced upon the carriers defendant here by the competition of railways reaching other lake ports, which railways offer free storage at other ports on precisely the same conditions as those here in controversy. The St. Paul jobber is not confined to Duluth as a lake port nor to the defendant

carriers as transportation agencies. He may ship via other ports than Duluth and secure the same privileges he now gets from defendants. This being so, it is apparent that the purpose of the Commercial Club of Duluth would not be achieved even if the order prayed for in the complaint were made. If the free storage were discontinued at Duluth, no possibility of using such privilege would remain to the Duluth merchant. Such privilege would still, however, be open to the St. Paul merchant at other lake ports.

It is of course obvious that the privilege is more valuable to inland merchants than it is to merchants at lake ports. It does not necessarily follow from this, however, that the privilege is unlawful. The view of complainant is that it takes away from the lake port an advantage of its location. The better view seems to be that the inland jobbing center, by reason of its location at a point where the competition of several lake ports operates, also has an advantage of location, one result of which is seen in the effect of this privilege of free storage.

The complaint will be dismissed.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1337.

'AMERICAN GROCER COMPANY

v.

PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY; CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, AND ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted March 7, 1908. Decided April 6, 1908.

Reparation, in the case of a through shipment upon which the rate charged was made up of a joint rate to the gateway plus the local rate of the delivering carrier, which local rate alone is alleged to be unreasonable, will be awarded where the delivering carrier, within a reasonable time after the shipment moved, put in effect a rate conceded by the complainant to be reasonable and stipulated that an order of reparation be directed against it alone.

Arthur Fils for complainant.

L. J. Hackney, William Hodgdon, J. C. Jeffery, and M. L. Clardy for defendants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

COCKRELL, Commissioner:

The petition was filed November 22, 1907, and charged that on July 6, 1906, complainant shipped from Greenfield, Ind., to Calico Rock, Ark., over the lines of the defendants, one carload of glass fruit jars weighing 32,052 pounds, and was charged 53 cents per 100 pounds, aggregating $171.48; that said rate was made up of 163 cents from Greenfield to Cairo, Ill., and 37 cents from Cairo to Calico Rock, Ark.; that the said rate of 37 cents was in itself, and generally in consideration of the services performed, unjust and unreasonable; that a reasonable and just rate would have been 29 cents, which would have made a total charge of 45 cents per 100 pounds; and asked reparation in the sum of $25.64.

The defendants, the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St.

Louis Railway Company, filed separate answers and alleged that their joint rate of 16 cents extended only from Greenfield to Cairo and was a reasonable rate and that they were not parties to the 37

cent rate.

The St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern filed an answer of general denial, stating that the rates charged were the rates filed with the Commission and in force at the time. The case was set for hearing at Little Rock, Ark., on March 10, 1908. Prior to the hearing, the complainant and the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company filed with the Commission a stipulation admitting the statements herein made and that the only issue was the reasonableness of the rate in effect and charged by that defendant from Cairo to Calico Rock, of 37 cents, and that immediately after the movement of the shipment, on July 25, 1906, that defendant made effective a rate of 29 cents per 100 pounds for all similar shipments, and that, as applied to the shipment in question, the rate of 37 cents was unjust and unreasonable in so far as it exceeded the rate of 29 cents, and that the complainant was entitled to reparation in the sum of $25.64, and this Commission was requested to issue an order on the said defendant to pay the same and to maintain in effect a rate not higher than 29 cents per 100 pounds for one year from the date of such order.

Therefore, the conclusions of the Commission are, that this case should be dismissed as to the defendants, the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, and that an order be issued requiring the other defendant, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, to make reparation to the complainant in the sum of $25.64, and to maintain in force for one year a rate not higher than 29 cents per 100 pounds in carloads, and it is so ordered.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1321.

FOREST CITY FREIGHT BUREAU

v.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; BARRY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY; COLORADO & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; COLORADO MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY; COPPER RANGE RAILROAD COMPANY; DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY; DES MOINES, IOWA FALLS & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; DULUTH & IRON RANGE RAILROAD COMPANY; DULUTH, SOUTH SHORE & ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY; EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; FT. WORTH & DENVER CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; FORT WORTH & RIO GRANDE RAILWAY COMPANY; GOODRICH TRANSIT COMPANY; GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; GREEN BAY & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; ILLINOIS, IOWA & MINNESOTA RAILWAY COMPANY; INTERNATIONAL & GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; IOWA CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY; KANSAS CITY, CLINTON & SPRINGFIELD RAILWAY COMPANY; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY; MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY; MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY; MISSISSIPPI RIVER & BONNE TERRE RAILWAY; MISSOURI & NORTH ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMPANY; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS 13 I. C. C. Rep.