No. 21386 COLUMBUS BRICK COMPANY v. COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Submitted May 31, 1929. Decided September 21, 1929 Carload rates on common brick from Columbus, Miss., to Jackson, Kenton, McNairy, Henderson, and Brownsville, Tenn., found not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. Complaint dismissed. 1. Weber and E. C. Sides for complainant. J. I. Bonner and N. V. Hutchinson for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS MEYER, EASTMAN, AND WOODLOCK BY DIVISION 4: This case was presented under the shortened procedure. Exceptions to the report proposed by the examiner were filed by complainant. Complainant, a copartnership, by complaint filed August 13, 1928, preceded by an informal complaint, alleges that the rates on common brick, in carloads, from Columbus, Miss., to Jackson, Kenton, McNairy, Henderson, and Brownsville, Tenn., are unreasonable in violation of section 1 and unlawful in violation of section 15 of the interstate commerce act. We are asked to prescribe rates for the future and to award reparation on shipments moving subsequent to March, 1925. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds. Columbus is served by several carriers, including the Mobile & Ohio and the Columbus & Greenville, an independent short line. The latter line extends westwardly through West Point, Miss., where it connects with the north-and-south line of the Mobile & Ohio. The distance from Columbus to West Point over the Columbus & Greenville is about 10 miles less than over the Mobile & Ohio. Some of the shipments originated on the Mobile & Ohio, and, except those to Brownsville, moved over that line to destination. The other shipments originated on the Columbus & Greenville and moved over that line in connection with the Illinois Central or the Gulf, Mobile & Northern, the latter also an independent weak line. The rates charged were 9.5 cents to McNairy, 10 cents to Henderson, 10.5 cents to Jackson, and 11.5 cents to Kenton and Brownsville, which rates were based on the distance scale prescribed in Brick and Clay Products in the South, 88 I. C. C. 543, as applied to the distances over the single-line routes of the Mobile & Ohio to the destinations in question except that to Brownsville, which is local to the Louisville & Nashville, the rates were based on the distance. over the Mobile & Ohio to Humboldt, Tenn., and the Louisville & Nashville beyond. Complainant urges that the decision and order in Brick and Clay Products in the South, supra, did not authorize the addition of any differential in connection with independent short or weak lines except where the traffic was destined to points on such short lines. It contends that by that decision and order defendants were and are required to construct rates from Columbus to the Mobile & Ohio destinations in question by applying the basic scale to the distances over the Columbus & Greenville to West Point and thence over the Mobile & Ohio, and that to Brownsville the rate should be constructed by applying the scale to the distance over the following route composed in part of independent short lines: Columbus & Greenville to West Point; Mobile & Ohio to Jackson; Gulf, Mobile & Northern to Bells, Tenn.; and Louisville & Nashville beyond. The application of the basic scale for the distances over these routes would result in lower rates than those assessed. In prescribing rates on the basis of the distance scale mentioned, we did not require the shortest possible routes to be used, but in general authorized the carriers to pursue the plan, followed by them in publishing the suspended schedules, of basing the rates on distances over direct workable routes. The Columbus & Greenville and Gulf, Mobile & Northern are among the independent short or weak lines which we authorized to charge a differential of 3 cents over the scale rates. It was not intended that this differential should be confined to traffic destined to points on such lines. Obviously, the reasons for according to the short or weak lines the right of availing themselves of a differential, if they desired to do so, apply with equal force whether the line is an origi nating, intermediate, or delivering carrier. The rates charged were in accordance with the prescribed basic distance scale applied to the distances over direct workable routes and were lower than the rates which would have resulted from the application of the scale over routes composed in part of a relief short or weak line or lines plus a differential of 3 cents. We find that the assailed rates were not and are not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. The complaint will be dismissed. 157 L. C. C. No. 215381 WHITE CROSS BAKERY ET AL. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY Submitted March 21, 1929. Decided September 21, 1929 Rates on printed waxed wrapping paper, in rolls, in less than carloads, between certain points in official territory, found unreasonable. Reparation awarded. W. H. Hawley for complainants. J. C. McGohan and Charles R. Webber for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS MEYER, EASTMAN, AND WOODLOCK BY DIVISION 4: This case was presented under the shortened procedure. The parties waived service of a proposed report. to Complainants2 are corporations, except as noted below. By complaints Nos. 21538 and 21538 (Sub-No. 1), filed September 28 and October 26, 1928, respectively, they allege that the second-class rates charged on numerous interstate less-than-carload shipments of printed waxed wrapping paper, in rolls, from Milwaukee or Menasha, Wis., Chicago, Ill., Cincinnati, Minerva, Columbus, and South Columbus, Ohio, Clarksburg, W. Va., and Garfield, N. J., Martinsburg, W. Va., Cumberland, Hagerstown, and Frederick, Md., and Washington, D. C., were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the contemporaneous third-class rates. Informal complaints covering certain shipments delivered between August 24, 1922, and April 30, 1925, inclusive, were filed between March 31, 1925, and January 18, 1926, inclusive, and the informal complaints were closed on various dates between May 24 and June 14, 1928, inclusive. A shipment from either Milwaukee or Menasha (exact point of origin not shown by the record), delivered on August 24, 1922, included in an informal complaint filed March 31, 1925, and 1 This report also embraces No. 21538 (Sub-No. 1), Caskey Baking Company et al. v Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company et al. * Complainants in No. 21538 are Peter Dorsch, an individual trading as White Cross Bakery, Washington, D. C., and Garber Baking Company, Frederick, Md. In No. 21538 (Sub-No. 1), complainants are Caskey Baking Company, Hagerstown, Md., and Martinsburg, W. Va., and Community Baking Company, Incorporated, successors in interest of Smith's Model Bakery and John M. Streett Bakery, Cumberland, Md. two shipments from Columbus delivered on October 30, 1922, and August 2, 1923, included in informal complaints filed March 31 and August 6, 1925, respectively, are barred. Reparation only is sought. The formal complaint names Chicago as a point of origin, but there is no evidence of any shipment originating at that point. The shipments from Minerva moved over the Pennsylvania Railroad only, but that carrier is not named as a defendant. The shipments from the other points moved wholly or partly over defendants' lines. Complainants rely on General Baking Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 96 I. C. C. 280, and Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Co. v. C., K. & S. Ry. Co., 128 I. C. C. 675. In the case first mentioned, decided by division 4, the less-than-carload rating of second class in official classification on printed waxed wrapping paper, in crated rolls, was found unreasonable to the extent that it exceeded third class and reparation was awarded. The statutory reparation period in that case extended back to January 24, 1922, or prior to the dates on which the shipments here considered originated. Compliance with the order for the future in that case was effected through the medium of certain classification exceptions establishing third class only between the points and over the routes specified in the complaint. In the Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Co. case, supra, decided by division 2, the second-class rating was again found unreasonable with respect to shipments from Kalamazoo, Mich., and reparation was again awarded. Compliance with the order in that case was effected by reducing the rating in the classification proper from second to third class. We have not heretofore considered the less-than-carload rating in the official classification of waxed wrapping paper in rolls not protected by crating, but all three of the major classifications have for many years provided the same ratings on this commodity whether in crated or uncrated rolls. When the rating in the official classification for crated rolls was ordered reduced to third class pursuant to the findings in the Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment case, defendants voluntarily made the same reductions on shipments in rolls not crated. Also in that case second class was found not unreasonable for less-than-carload shipments of vegetable-parchment paper in boxes or crates, but the same rating was ordered established on vegetable-parchment wrappers in bundles, then rated first class. Following the cases cited and upon this record we find that the second-class rates assailed subject to the official classification were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the contemporaneous third-class rates. We further find that complainants made shipments as described and paid and bore the charges thereon; that they were damaged thereby in the amount of the difference between the charges paid and those which would have accrued at the rates herein found reasonable; and that they are entitled to reparation, with interest, on shipments delivered or tendered for delivery within the statutory 2-year period prior to the filing of the informal complaints. Complainants should comply with Rule V of the Rules of Practice. No. 20513 FREIGHT TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT, CONCORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CONCORD, N. H., v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD ET AL. Submitted October 20, 1928. Decided September 21, 1929 Rate on hammered granite, in carloads, from Concord, N. H., to Hartford, Conn., found unreasonable and in violation of section 4 of the interstate commerce act. Reparation awarded. Claude H. Swain for complainants. H. A. Lindmark and W. A. Cole for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 4, COMMISSIONERS MEYER, EASTMAN, AND WOODLOCK BY DIVISION 4: This case was presented under the shortened procedure. Exceptions were filed by complainants and defendants to the report proposed by the examiner, and the case was orally argued. Our conclusions differ somewhat from those recommended by him. The complaint was filed December 25, 1927, as amended, preceded by an informal complaint, by the Freight Traffic Department, Concord Chamber of Commerce, a voluntary association of manufacturers and merchants of Concord, N. H., on behalf of John Arthur Swenson, by Andrew Swenson, and Omar Stephen Swenson, copartners, hereinafter called complainants, engaged in quarrying and dressing granite at Concord. They allege that the rate charged on hammered granite, in carloads, shipped from Concord to Hartford, Conn., between August 11, 1925, and May 26, 1926, was and is unreasonable and in violation of section 4 of the interstate commerce act. Reparation and reasonable rates for the future are sought. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds. The shipments moved over the Boston & Maine to Springfield, Mass., and the New York, New Haven & Hartford, hereinafter |