The value of aluminum at the time of the hearing in the case referred to was 27 cents per pound.

We find that the ratings and rates applied on shipments made prior to April 30, 1928, were inapplicable and that the applicable ratings and rates were those on bleaching powder, n. o. i. b. n. We further find that the ratings and rates applicable between April 30 and June 30, 1928, were those on chemicals, n. o. i. b. n.; that complainant made shipments as described and paid and bore the charges thereon; that it has been damaged in the amount of the difference between the charges paid and those which accrued at the ratings and rates herein found applicable; and that it is entitled to reparation, with interest. Complainant should comply with Rule V of the Rules of Practice.

We further find that the ratings and rates applicable prior to June 30, 1928, were not and that the present ratings and rates are not unreasonable.

157 I. C. C.

No. 21437

O. A. SMITH AGENCY, INCORPORATED, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL.

Submitted July 13, 1929. Decided September 24, 1929

Carload rate charged on pulpboard from Cedartown, Ga., to Lynchburg, Va., found unreasonable. Reparation awarded.

O. A. Smith for complainant.

L. V. Crane for defendants.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS CAMPBELL, MCMANAMY, AND BRAINERD BY DIVISION 2:

This case was presented under the shortened procedure. Exceptions were filed by defendants to the report proposed by the examiner.

Complainant, a corporation, by complaint filed August 6, 1928, on behalf of La Boiteaux Company, a corporation dealing in paper-mill products, alleges that the rate charged on two carloads of pulpboard shipped on September 21 and November 27, 1925, from Cedartown, Ga., to Lynchburg, Va., was unreasonable. The complaint was filed informally on September 6, 1927, and the file was closed on July 19, 1928. Reparation is sought. Rates will be stated in amounts per 100 pounds.

Cedartown is on the Seaboard Air Line, 60 miles west of Atlanta, Ga. It is also served by the Central of Georgia. The September shipment, weighing 41,845 pounds, moved over the Seaboard Air Line to Atlanta, thence the Southern to destination, 525 miles, and the November shipment, weighing 51,407 pounds, moved over the Seaboard Air Line to Charlotte, N. C., and the Southern beyond, 562 miles. The short-line distance was 504 miles. Charges of $152.27 were collected at the applicable class A rate of 48.5 cents. The class A rate, subject to the general increases and reduction was in effect for at least 20 years. A commodity rate of 34 cents was established on June 1, 1926, after the shipments moved, and complainant seeks reparation based thereon. Complainant had requested the publication of a commodity rate, and the two cars were shipped with the expectation that proper adjustment would be made.

The rate assailed represented 32.7 per cent of the first-class rate of $1.51 and the rate sought 22.5 per cent thereof. Under the recent southern class-rate revision the class A or eighth-class rate was reduced to 48 cents, which would be 30 per cent of the first-class rate of $1.60 and the rate sought 21.3 per cent thereof.

The commodity rate applicable on pulpboard from Gordon, Ga., to Lynchburg was and is 34 cents and the class A rate was 48.5 cents. Gordon is local to the Central of Georgia, 123 miles southeast of Atlanta, and the short-line distance to Lynchburg was about 564 miles. Complainant points out that the same commodity rates on pulpboard applied from both Gordon and Cedartown of 38 cents to Baltimore, Md., and 39.5 cents to New York, N. Y., and Philadelphia, Pa. The rates from Cedartown to these destinations applied through Lynchburg, and it is apparent that fourth-section departures existed at the time of movements. It is settled that where, as here, carriers have charged more for a shorter than for a longer haul over the same route a presumption is raised that the higher rate was unreasonable.

Defendants show that the 48.5-cent rate also applied to a number of other Virginia cities in the same destination group as Lynchburg, which point was one of the nearest in the group from Cedartown. The other points in the group and the short-line distances from Cedartown were Norfolk and Portsmouth, Va., 641 miles, Petersburg, Va., 599 miles, Richmond, Va., 601 miles, Roanoke, Va., 450 miles, or an average distance of 573 miles. Based upon the distance of 573 miles, and the average weight of the shipments the rate charged would yield car-mile and ton-mile revenue of 39.5 cents and 16.9 mills, respectively, and the corresponding revenue under the rate sought for the same distance would be 27.7 cents and 11.9 mills. The volume of movement under the class rate to these various group points is not known. Complainant contends that because of its low value of about $30 a ton very little pulpboard traffic moves on class A rates, and that commodity rates are established when there are prospective movements. Prior to the establishment of the commodity rate from Cedartown to Lynchburg, no shipments other than the two carloads here considered were made, but after its establishment an average per month of 50 tons was shipped in 1926, 150 tons in 1927, and 175 tons in the first six months of 1928.

An exhibit was submitted by defendants to show that the class A rate assailed was no higher, distances considered, than the level of the specific commodity rates on pulpboard from Roanoke Rapids and Canton, N. C., pulpboard shipping points, to Carolina and Southeastern destinations. The exhibit indicates that a 34-cent rate

applied for distances ranging from 145 to 383 miles. But such comparisons unaccompanied by a showing of transportation conditions are of little probative value.

We find that the rate assailed was unreasonable to the extent that it exceeded 34 cents; that the LaBoiteaux Company made the shipments as described and paid and bore the charges thereon; that it was 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 it is entitled to reparation in the amount of $135.22, with interest. An order awarding reparation will be entered.

157 I. C. C.

1

SOUTHWESTERN BRICK CASES

No. 146171

ACME BRICK COMPANY ET AL. v. ALABAMA & MISSIS. SIPPI RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL.

Decided September 30, 1929

Formula for computing distances approved in the report on further hearing, 156 I. C. C. 191, clarified

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

LEWIS, Chairman:

In our original report in these cases, 107 I. C. C. 681, we prescribed a single-line distance scale of maximum reasonable rates for application to the interstate transportation of brick and clay products, in carloads, in the Southwest, and the same scale plus 1 cent per 100 pounds was provided for joint-line hauls of 500 miles or less when the lines embraced in the route are not under common ownership and control. In a supplemental report on reconsideration, 113 I. C. C. 169, we modified the method for computing distances as prescribed in the original report.

On June 10, 1929, we rendered a decision on further hearing in these cases, 156 I. C. C. 191, and there reached, among others, the following conclusion as to the method of computing distances:

We find that the formula for computing distances prescribed in the original report herein as modified by the supplemental report of June 18, 1926, should be, and it is hereby further modified, to read as follows: "In computing distances for application of the scales herein prescribed, the shortest routes over which carload traffic can be moved without transfer of lading shall be used."

An order was entered in accordance with the above finding, which, by reason of a subsequent postponement, is now to become effective November 15, 1929.

Defendants construe the formula as authorizing them to hold the rate between any two points to a basis not lower than that obtained

1 Under the general title Southwestern Brick Cases this report also embraces No. 15467, Acme Brick Company et al. v. Abilene & Southern Railway Company et al.; No. 15628, Kansas Gas Belt Manufacturers' Association v. Abilene & Southern Railway Company et al.; No. 15692, Oklahoma Brick Manufacturers' Association v. Abilene & Southern Railway Company et al.; and No. 15738, Acme Brick Company et al. v. Abilene & Southern Railway Company et al.