the 50-series tariffs. This is especially true when consideration is given to the size of the origin cities and the large tonnage of packinghouse products, hides, and fresh meats moving therefrom. It is well known that it is not the carrier's practice to provide rates by intermediate rules from or to large cities or on traffic moving in considerable volume. As previously stated it is clear that in so far as the items publishing group rates were concerned there was no intention to provide rates from Kansas City and St. Joseph and it is apparent that considering the tariffs in their entirety it was not the intention of the 50-series tariffs to provide in any manner for the application of rates from those origins; that the intermediate rule in the 50-series tariffs provided rates from intermediate points from which rates were not otherwise provided in these tariffs and which were situated within the territory from which the 50-series tariffs were commonly recognized as publishing rates. This brings us to a consideration of the situation with respect to Roxana. According to maps of record, Roxana is situated at the eastern terminus of a spur approximately 2 miles long and running at right angles to the Chicago-St. Louis line of the Alton. The junction of this spur with the main line of the Alton is at a point between South Wood River and Mitchell, Ill. There are no station, team-track, or other public facilities for the receipt or delivery of freight at Roxana. Only carload business is handled and the only industry served is the Roxana Petroleum Company. The station accounts are handled by the agent at Wood River, but Roxana is shown on the billing as the origin or destination station as the case may be. As stated, the 50-series tariffs published a rate of 23 cents on the commodities considered from Group 22 to Group F. In the territorial directory, South Wood River and Mitchell, were shown as points taking Group F rates. No rate basis was shown for Roxana in the territorial directory except that reference was made to a note which provided only a basis for rates on petroleum and its products outbound. In the Alton's tariff publishing distances between stations on its line, Roxana was shown in the geographical list between South Wood River and Mitchell. That tariff showed the distance from South Wood River to Roxana as 2.1 miles and that from Roxana to Mitchell as 3.6 miles, a total of 5.7 miles which was also the distance shown between South Wood River and Mitchell. Based on these facts, complainants contend that Roxana is intermediate and next adjacent to South Wood River and Mitchell; that under the provisions of the second paragraph of the intermediate rule as published in the 50-series tariffs the 23-cent rate published from Group 22 was applicable to Roxana and that on the theory that Kansas City on the Alton is intermediate and next adjacent to two points in Group 22, the 23-cent rate was applicable from Kansas City to Roxana. Generally speaking, distance tariffs are published for application in connection with distance rates which refer thereto for table of distances. The Alton's distance tariff had no bearing on the application of the Group F rate in the 50-series tariffs. The fact that in computing distance rates the Alton chooses to disregard the haul over the spur to the junction with the main line does not make Roxana a main-line point, intermediate to South Wood River and Mitchell. In the absence of a specific tariff provision to the effect that Roxana is to be regarded as intermediate to South Wood River and Mitchell, the geographical situation must govern. Over the Alton, Roxana is not geographically intermediate to South Wood River and Mitchell and we so find. In view of our conclusions, it will not be necessary to consider other contentions regarding the applicability of the factor sought. The record shows that the 1-series and the 50-series tariffs had been contemporaneously in effect for approximately 15 years before this controversy arose and that during that time the 1-series tariffs were interpreted by shippers and carriers as publishing the rates from the Missouri River cities to the various Mississippi River basing points here considered, while the 50-series tariffs were interpreted as publishing the rate from interior Iowa and Missouri origins to the same points. In proceedings before us concerning the reasonableness of the rates from the Missouri River cities to eastern destinations, traffic witnesses have testified on behalf of certain of the complainants herein that the applicable rates on fresh meat and packing-house products from certain of the Missouri River cities were composed of a commodity factor of 28 cents to the Mississippi River crossings. It is clear, therefore, that no shipper has been misled as to the application of these tariffs, it having been the custom for years to apply them in the manner contended for by defendants. We think that, under a reasonable and fair construction of the tariffs, it has not been shown that the rates charged were inapplicable and we so find. The complaint will be dismissed. WOODLOCK, Commissioner, concurring: I concur in this case, and consider the lengthy discussion in the report, made necessary by the contentions, a work of supererogation and one which should not have been imposed upon this commission. The tariff question presented resolves itself into one of reason and common sense and the undisputed facts in the light of both clearly warrant dismissal of the case. EASTMAN, Commissioner, dissenting: This is a case where complainants are seeking to take advantage of the careless construction of certain tariffs by defendants. On broad equitable grounds there seems to be no good reason for an award of reparation. In law, however, it is the duty of the carriers to say what they mean, and if they are careless in this respect it is what they say that governs and not what they mean. Shippers are within their rights in seeking to hold them to this legal duty. Considering dispassionately the issues here presented, it seems to me that complainants have, in general, the better of the argument. While I do not agree with all of their contentions, for the most part their interpretation of the tariffs is, in my judgment, less strained and unnatural than that which the majority report adopts. 157 I. C. C. No. 17453 FISHER SUPPLY COMPANY v. ALABAMA & VICKSBURG RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. No. 19490 WOLFF MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Decided August 17, 1929 On further consideration rates on mixed carloads of lead and certain lead articles from Joplin, Mo., to Dallas, Tex., found not unreasonable, but rates on enameled-iron bathtubs, in straight carloads or in mixed carloads with other enameled-iron plumbers' goods, from Monaca, Pa., and Chicago, Ill., to points in Texas found unreasonable. Prior decisions in 128 I. C. C. 215, 142 I. C. C. 177, and 146 I. C. C. 377 modified. rates prescribed and reparation awarded. Appearances are as shown in original reports. Reasonable REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY DIVISION 3: In the original report in No. 17453, hereinafter termed the Fisher case, 128 I. C. C. 215, division 3 found that rates of $1.77,1 minimum 30,000 pounds, and $1.805, minimum 24,000 pounds, applied on certain carloads of bathtubs, and $1.805, minimum 30,000 pounds, applied on certain mixed carloads of bathtubs and enameled-iron lavatories from Monaca, Pa., to Dallas, Tex., were unreasonable to the extent they exceeded $1.61, minimum 30,000 pounds; also that the rate of 81 cents applied on certain mixed carloads of lead and lead articles from Joplin, Mo., to Dallas was unreasonable to the extent it exceeded 58 cents. It was further found that complainant was entitled to reparation to these bases. The rate of $1.61 found reasonable on plumbers' goods from Monaca to Dallas was the fourth-class rate prescribed pursuant to the Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 123 I. C. C. 203, and the 58-cent rate found reasonable on lead and lead articles from Joplin to Dallas was the fifth-class rate prescribed under that decision from Joplin to Dallas. On fur 1 All rates in this report are stated in amounts per 100 pounds. ther consideration of the Consolidated Southwestern Cases, 139 I. C. C. 535, fifth-class rates were authorized to be established on a slightly higher basis than under the original decision, 61 cents being prescribed as the fifth-class rate from Joplin to Dallas. The Consolidated Southwestern Cases will hereinafter be referred to as the southwestern revision. Thereafter the decision in the Fisher case was modified, 142 I. C. C. 177, fixing 61 cents instead of 58 cents as the basis for reparation on the shipments of lead goods moving from Joplin to Dallas. In the original report in No. 19490, 146 I. C. C. 377, hereinafter termed the Wolff case, division 3 found that a rate of $1.61 applied on enameled-iron bathtubs, either in straight carloads or in mixed carloads with certain other enameled-iron plumbers' goods, from Chicago, Ill., to certain points in Texas, was unreasonable to the extent it exceeded the fourth-class rates from Chicago to those destinations prescribed under the southwestern revision. The minimum weight under the rate assailed was 30,000 pounds on bathtubs in mixed carloads with other plumbers' goods and 24,000 pounds on straight carloads of bathtubs, but it was found that for the purpose of determining the reparation due and for the future a minimum of 24,000 pour ds, subject to rule 34 of the classification, should be observed for both the straight and mixed carload shipments. Classi fication rule 34 restricts the basic or stated minimum to cars not exceeding 36 feet 6 inches in length and provides proportionately higher minima for longer cars. In neither case was an order issued requiring the establishment of the rates and minimum weights found reasonable. It was stated in the Fisher case that defendants would be expected to establish the rates as a part of the southwestern revision, and in the Wolff case that defendants were required to establish the rates found reasonable by orders theretofore entered under the southwestern revision. The latter statement was true of the rates, but there was no order outstanding requiring the establishment of the reduced minimum weight found reasonable for mixed carloads of bathtubs and other plumbers' goods, and that minimum has not in fact since been established. Neither have defendants in the Fisher case established the 61-cent rate therein found reasonable for lead and lead goods from Joplin to Dallas. On the contrary the 81-cent rate condemned as unreasonable has since been increased to 84 cents, that being the present fourthclass rate. On our own motion the two cases were reopened for further consideration of the records. |