ively it has been deemed necessary to extend its application also to certain classes of foreign commerce which are intimately intermingled with interstate commerce, such as shipments between the United States and adjacent countries by railroad.

We are asked to find, however, that the holding of the outstanding shares of stock of the Commercial Union, heretofore issued in return for freight paid to that ocean carrier, with the possibility of receiving dividends thereon, is a continuing violation of the act. This we are unable to do. The allotment of such shares was legally made to citizens of Cuba by a company organized under the laws of that country and in consideration of freight carried by such ocean carrier. No rail carrier subject to the act joined in such allotments of stock; nor were such allotments made dependent on such rail carrier's proportion of the freight paid, but only on the proportion received by the ocean carrier. This Commission has no such jurisdiction.

One of the prayers of the complaint is:

That the defendant rail carriers may be ordered to cease and desist from publication of and participation in such tariffs of rates and charges and any tariffs, rates, and charges in connection with said Commercial Union.

The Commission, without passing an order on the subject, calls the attention of all the parties to this case to its report in the case of the Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, cited above, particularly to that portion of the report which says:

The Federal Government has said that this Commission shall exercise jurisdiction over the inland portion of the haul, either to or from the foreign country; and it must logically and necessarily follow that the rate which must be filed with the Commission under section 6 of the act is the rate governing such movement. On foreign commerce the rate to be published with this Commission should be the rate to the port and from the port-an open rate, which any who desire to do so may use with equal advantage. The publication of such rate does not in any manner limit the very valuable privilege of through billing. Such through billing should clearly separate the liability of the rail and the ocean carrier and show the published rate of the inland carrier. The routing of the freight, however, should remain with the shipper, and upon him may be imposed no greater charge to the port when his freight goes by one ocean line than by another, and this rate to the port the tariffs must disclose. The complaint in this case should be dismissed and it is so ordered.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1422

LANING-HARRIS COAL & GRAIN COMPANY

v.

ST. JOSEPH & GRAND ISLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted March 16, 1908. Decided April 6, 1908.

Under Western Trunk Line Committee Joint Through Freight Tariff No. 802, I. C. C. No. 701, the rate on soft coal from Springfield, Ill., to Leona, Kans., is 10.0013 cents per 100 pounds, not 9.0013 cents per 100 pounds.

C. W. Durbin for complainant.

S. E. Stohr for defendant.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

PROUTY, Commissioner:

This case is submitted upon an agreed statement of facts.

In January, 1907, the complainant shipped a carload of coal weighing 50,000 pounds from Springfield, Ill., to Leona, Kans., a station upon the line of the defendant railway company. The defendant assessed upon this shipment a rate of 10.0013 cents per 100 pounds. The complainant insists that the rate should have been 9.0013 cents per 100 pounds, and this is the only question presented.

It is conceded that the rate from Springfield was the same as from Peoria. Western Trunk Line Committee Joint Through Freight Tariff No. 802, I. C. C. No. 701, names rates on soft coal from St. Louis, Peoria, etc., to stations in Missouri, Kansas, etc., and was in effect at the time of this shipment.

On page 43 of this tariff rates are named to various points upon the St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway of 10 cents per 100 pounds, from St. Louis, subject to the following note:

On shipments originating beyond the rates from Mississippi River points will be 1 cent per 100 pounds less than rates named above.

On page 55 of the same tariff is found the following:

BASIS FOR RATES FROM PEORIA, CHICAGO, ILL., ST. PAUL, DULUTH, MINN., AND SUPERIOR, WIS.

To make rates from Peoria, Chicago, Ill., St. Paul, Duluth, Minn., and Superior, Wis., to stations named on pages 17 and 54, inclusive, add the following differentials, in cents per 100 pounds, to rates applying from St. Louis, Mo.:

From Peoria, Ill., to Index Nos. 2960 to 3007, inclusive, soft coal, c. 1., .0013.

Leona, Kans., is index No. 2967, and is therefore included in the above provision. Adding this differential to the rate named on page 43 from St. Louis to Leona there results a through rate of 10.0013 cents per 100 pounds. If, however, the rate from St. Louis is diminished 1 cent before making the addition according to the note on page 43, for the reason that the shipment originates east of the Mississippi River, then the resulting rate would be 9.0013 cents per 100 pounds, as claimed by the complainant.

In our opinion, the charges were correctly assessed. The rate named from Peoria is in the nature of a specific rate. Peoria is itself east of the Mississippi River, and if the intention had been to name a rate of 9.0013 instead of 10.0013 cents the tariff would have so stated in terms.

The provision for a reduction of the rate from the Mississippi River by 1 cent when the traffic originates east of that river fairly applies to those cases in which the freight moves up to the river upon some local rate from the point of origin when the through rate would be formed by combining the rate to the river with a rate 1 cent less than the rates named in the tariff from the river.

The complaint will be dismissed.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1102.

LINCOLN COMMERCIAL CLUB

v.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, AND ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY.

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

Defendants exact higher rates on the commodities named below, to Lincoln, than to Omaha, from the same points of origin in Kansas and territory south and west of the Mississippi River, for substantially the same distances; Held,

1. That the rate upon coal may properly be 15 cents per ton higher to Lincoln, and upon paving brick and cement 11 cents per 100 pounds higher to Lincoln than to Omaha.

2. That with respect to lumber, glass and glassware, salt, rice, egg-case fillers, and sugar, rates from said points of origin to Lincoln should not exceed those to Omaha.

Field, Ricketts & Ricketts for complainant.

E. B. Peirce for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company.

F. C. Dillard for Union Pacific Railroad Company.

J. C. Jeffery, M. L. Clardy, and K. M. Wharry for Missouri Pacific Railway Company.

Hale Holden for Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

PROUTY, Commissioner:

The complainant, a voluntary association of business men located in the city of Lincoln, Nebr., brings this petition for the purpose of securing a readjustment of certain rates which are alleged to discriminate in favor of Omaha against Lincoln.

The traffic in question all originates at points west of the Mississippi River south of St. Louis, or of the Missouri River north of St. Louis. Four of the defendants, the Union Pacific, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and the Missouri Pacific, enter the city of Lincoln. The remaining defendants make joint through rates with the defendants already named from points of origin to Lincoln and Omaha.

The complaint alleges that class rates from Kansas City and similar Missouri River points are the same to both Omaha and Lincoln, and that the commodity rates attacked by the complainant are exceptions to the general rule. In point of fact the class rates are not the same. Upon several of the classes rates are somewhat less to Omaha than to Lincoln, and this was commented upon in the argument as an unlawful discrimination against Lincoln; but, as just observed, no such allegation is made in the petition, no testimony was introduced upon that point, and the matter is not considered in this report.

Ordinarily rates from points east of the Missouri River to points west in Nebraska are formed by adding together the rate from the eastern point up to the river and the rate from the river to the point in Nebraska. Lincoln is situated some 55 miles southwest of Omaha and about 50 miles west of the Missouri River by the nearest crossing. Upon the above method of rate construction, therefore, rates to Lincoln from eastern points would be considerably higher than those to Omaha. Previous to the passage of the act to regulate commerce in 1887 these arbitraries against Lincoln had been 10 cents first class, 9 cents second class, and somewhat less upon the remaining classes and upon various commodities. It was thought that the effect of the act would necessarily be to somewhat reduce these arbitraries, and the various railway lines serving Omaha and Lincoln finally agreed upon a series of differentials by which rates to Lincoln from the east were made higher than those to Omaha by 5 cents upon classes 1 and 2, 4 cents upon classes 3 and 4, and 3 cents upon the remaining classes and upon most commodities.

Soon after these reduced arbitraries took effect, the business interests of Lincoln, conceiving themselves to be prejudiced by this adjustment of freight rates, filed complaint with the Commission attacking these differentials from St. Louis. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 155. It was conceded, apparently, that rates from eastern points might properly be somewhat higher to Lincoln than to Omaha; but it was contended that the Missouri Pacific could handle business at substantially the same expense from St. Louis to both Omaha and Lincoln, and hence that rates from that point to these two cities ought to be the same. The Commission, after full hearing, in a well