rate per pound, approximately, of 11 cents. At this rate the 88 pounds consisting of ice and tub would yield a revenue of $1.10, which, added to the $1.50 charge for the cream and can, makes a total charge of $2.60. It is the opinion of the Commission, upon full hearing and consideration of all the facts, circumstances, and conditions surrounding this transportation, that the rate herein complained of is unreasonable and unjust to the extent that it results in the exaction of charges in excess of $2.75 for the carriage of 10 gallons of cream shipped in a tub of sufficient size to permit of necessary refrigeration and the return of the empty can and tub, and it is our conclusion that the reasonable and just rate to be hereafter charged as a maximum should not exceed that amount as an aggregate charge for the movement of the cream and the return movement of the empty receptacles incident thereto. An order will be entered in accordance with these conclusions. 13 1. C. C. Rep. No. 1372. BENTON TRANSIT COMPANY. V. BENTON HARBOR-ST. JOE RAILWAY & LIGHT COMPANY. Submitted May 6, 1908. Decided May 11, 1908. 1. The withdrawal of lake-and-rail rates for the winter during the period of closed navigation with the intention of restoring them with the opening of navigation in the spring is not sufficient to take from the jurisdiction of the Commission a rail line which, like the defendant, lies wholly within one state, because during that limited time it has no connections by which it can actually engage in interstate traffic. 2. The complaint in this case was filed the day after certain interstate rates had been suspended for the winter; but it appeared, when the complaint came on for hearing, that the rates had been restored. Upon objection made that the Commission was without jurisdiction to proceed except upon a new or amended complaint; Held, That the point was not well taken; and that, having jurisdiction when the complaint came on to be heard the Commission, being an administrative body, ought not to delay the hearing upon a purely technical objection that does not reach the merits of the controversy. 3. Whether a satisfactory through route exists depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While the three steamboats of the Graham & Morton Line, with which the defendant now has through routes and joint rates for the transportation of fruit from certain points in the state of Michigan by rail to Benton Harbor and thence across Lake Michigan to Chicago, can doubtless carry all the fruits produced in the territory in question, its ability satisfactorily to handle the traffic is to be measured by the least adequate of its facilities. And if it can not promptly deliver the traffic over its wharf at Chicago, and thus causes delays that result in financial losses to shippers, the through route by that line can not be said to be satisfactory. H. L. Southworth and John E. W. Wayman for complainant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. HARLAN, Commissioner: In the territory proximate to Benton Harbor and St. Joseph in the state of Michigan there is an extensive cultivation of raspberries, strawberries, melons, cantaloupes, cherries, peaches, and other fruits for which the city of Chicago offers a large market. The shipments from those ports across the lake ordinarily amount to a million and a half or two million packages during each fruit season. A substantial portion of the traffic is carried by the complainant from its wharf at Benton Harbor to its wharf in Chicago. But shippers at inland points who prefer that line now have to pay the local rates in and out of Benton Harbor, while shippers who use the Graham & Morton Line, the only other water line that participates in the traffic, have the benefit of through routes and joint rates. The complainant therefore desires the restoration of the through routes and joint rates which the defendant formerly accorded to it; and to that end it has filed its petition praying for an order requiring the defendant to join with it in reestablishing them. The facts and circumstances shown of record are to some extent unusual and for that reason it is desirable to outline the controversy at some length. Until a few years ago the steamboat companies gathered the fruit from the outlying farms to their wharves at Benton Harbor in large wagons locally known as fruit "schooners." Part of this expense was borne by the farmers and part was absorbed by the boat lines. Later the defendant, the Benton Harbor & St. Joe Railway & Light Company, originally organized for the purpose of furnishing light and a street-car service for the two communities referred to, reached the conclusion that it would be profitable to provide facilities for moving the fruit by rail from the country producing points to the wharves. It accordingly extended its road about 14 miles into the fruitproducing district to a town called Eau Claire. The line was completed in time to enable the defendant to engage in the transportation to Chicago of the fruit grown during the season of 1906. A spur was projected from its street-car tracks on Main street in Benton Harbor through Water street into the covered dock of the Graham & Morton Line. From a near-by point, apparently on the same spur, fruit was also unloaded during that season and carried to the steamboat of the complainant. With both water lines the defendant established through routes and joint rates to Chicago from points where the country highways cross its line between Eau Claire and Benton Harbor. These crossroad points were put in one group and the water rate from port to port was extended so as to include all the inland points on the defendant's line. By agreement among themselves the defendant retained 40 per cent. of the joint through rate and the boat lines 60 per cent. The arrangement seemed to result in economies to all concerned. The boat lines and the farmers were saved a large part of the expense of laboriously concentrating the fruit at the wharves in wagons. The producers were enabled to pick their fruit in the late afternoon and have it taken by the defendant at once to the ports, where it was loaded upon the boats and delivered in the best condition on the wharves at Chicago, usually before daylight the next morning. The group rate enabled the farmer at the extreme eastern limit of the producing district to reach the market practically as quickly and at the same cost for transportation as the producer in the immediate environs of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph. In short, this admirable arrangement under which the traffic was conducted brought the entire fruitproducing commurity very close to the consuming market on terms that were apparently satisfactory. The complainant's wharf at Benton Harbor is at the foot of Seventh street. During the fruit-shipping season of 1906 the fruit cars were first taken to the wharf of the Graham & Morton Line, where the fruit consigned to Chicago over that line was unloaded. The car was then set at a point in Water street about two blocks from the wharf of the complainant, and from that point such fruit packages as were to be taken to Chicago by the complainant were carried to its steamboat. But when lake navigation opened for the season of 1907, the defendant, while continuing the through routes and joint rates with the Graham & Morton Line, refused to renew the arrangement with the complainant. It has declined also to enter into any arrangement with the complainant for the present year. The complainant has accordingly filed this application. The matter was heard quite fully and the record presents for consideration two questions, one of law and one of fact. We shall first consider the question of law. The defendant has no rail connections and its line lies wholly within the state of Michigan. It can therefore participate in interstate commerce and become subject to the provisions of the amended act to regulate commerce only by entering into some arrangement with a water line at Benton Harbor or St. Joseph for the continuous transportation of merchandise or passengers to an interstate point. Although it declined to enter into such an arrangement with the complainant for the season of 1907, it had such an arrangement with the Graham & Morton Line as heretofore stated. It was therefore in every sense an interstate carrier subject to the provisions of the act and to the jurisdiction of the Commission. But according to the custom of lake-and-rail carriers to take out their joint rates during the period of closed navigation these interstate rates were suspended for the winter of 1907 and the steamboats of the Graham & Morton Line were docked for the season. On the following day, namely, December 14, 1907. this complaint was filed. The question of law which arises upon these facts is whether the Commission may entertain jurisdiction of a complaint against a common carrier which, at the time when the complaint was filed, had no connections by which it could actually carry on interstate traffic. While answering to the merits of the complaint, the defendant also denied that it had any joint through arrangements with the Graham & Morton Line when the complaint was filed; and it therefore denied that any circumstances existed to give the Commission jurisdiction. It is to be observed, however, that it was admitted at the hearing that the cancellation in December, 1907, of the through routes and joint rates between the Graham & Morton Line and the defendant was not intended as a rupture of such relations between the two companies, but was simply a suspension of the arrangement during the period of closed navigation. It was also admitted that when the through arrangements and rates were suspended it was with the intention to restore them again the following spring. In fact, as we understand the schedule filed with the Commission in December, 1907, it does not purport to be a cancellation of the through routes and joint rates with the defendant but a mere suspension of them. And the schedule filed in March, 1908, was not the establishment of a new arrangement but merely a restoration of the old. In our judgment the mere withdrawal of lake-and-rail rates during the winter months, in accordance with what has been the custom of carriers engaging in such traffic, with the intention of restoring them with the opening of navigation in the spring is not sufficient to take from our jurisdiction a rail line, which, like the defendant, lies wholly within one state, simply because during that limited period of time it has no connections by which it can actually engage in interstate traffic. In such cases we hold that the jurisdiction of the Commission over the carriers is not interrupted. Moreover, the defendant not only permitted the cause to be set down for hearing, but it permitted it to come on for hearing on April 20, 1908, without moving to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. In the meantime, by a schedule duly filed and published and which became effective on March 10, 1908, the arrangement for through transportation and rates between the defendant and the Graham & Morton Line was restored for the period of open navigation during the year 1908. The defendant was therefore fully subject to the provisions of the act and to the authority of the Commission at the time of the hearing, and all phases of the matter were fully brought out in the testimony. To hold, therefore, as the defendant contends should be done, that the Commission was without authority to proceed except upon a new or an amended complaint, filed after the rates were restored, would be to give recognition to a purely technical objection that does not reach the merits of the controversy at all. With such objections we have ordinarily little sympathy. Nothing is more essential to the general welfare than the prompt adjustment of controversies involving the movement of the commerce of the coun |