Complainant's case is based primarily upon the allegation of undue prejudice.

Figures were introduced purporting to show that the cost of the spotting service during the period from November 15, 1917, to October 15, 1919, was $1.15 per car. The trunk lines' general basis for computing plant facility allowances was to take the average cost per car and add thereto 10 per cent to make the maximum allowance. On this basis complainant asserts that a reasonable maximum allowance would have been $1.27 per car. Its claim for compensation, however, is limited to $1.13 per car. In view of the conclusion reached herein, it is unnecessary to analyze these cost figures. It was conceded by defendants that in general they appeared to be correct. The evidence indicates that while slightly too high for the past, the figure of $1.13 would not be excessive as a maximum for the future if an allowance should be made.

Complainant has performed the spotting service at its plant for some 10 or 12 years. Prior to that it was for a short time done by the Pennsylvania. The plant tracks are in excellent condition and it is definitely established that the Pennsylvania can perform the spotting service.

It has been the practice for many years for the trunk lines to compensate iron and steel industries in the Youngstown, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh rate districts for services performed by or through industrial roads. The allowance to the American Bridge Company, which has been effective since October 25, 1917, is actual cost, on a monthly basis, with a maximum of $1.13 per car. On June 15, 1919, complainant requested an allowance, but it has made no request that the Pennsylvania perform the spotting service.

In Empire Steel & Iron Co. v. Director General, 56 I. C. C., 158, 189, we said:

It is well settled that the imposed rates for carriage generally include adequate compensation for terminal service, and since there is no indication that the spotting services rendered the Thomas company by the Ironton are so different, complex, or otherwise unusual as to make them exceptions to the rule, the placing of cars at the customary points for loading and unloading at the Thomas company's plant under the line-haul rate is a part of the carriers' duty of common carriage. ·

In its essential features the situation here presented can not be distinguished from that of the Thomas Iron Company in Empire Steel & Iron Co. v. Director General, supra. There it was shown that the Thomas Iron Company performed at Hokendauqua, Pa., with its own power, certain spotting services; that it was the practice of the trunk lines to perform that service, or have it performed, for competitors on the basis of the line-haul rates; and that additional costs for spotting could not be passed on to the Thomas company's customers. We said, at pages 180, 190:

Where, as in this case, an industry has continuously for years performed the terminal or spotting services and apparently has preferred to do so, it can not now be heard in a demand for compensation from the carriers for such past services. Under section 15 of the act the Thomas company for the future may lawfully be reimbursed for moving the outbound shipments to the Lehigh and the Central, unless the Lehigh and Central elect and offer to perform the work. A refusal on the part of the Thomas company to permit them to do so would render any allowances unlawful. * * * Complainant appears to have preferred to do the work itself, and is now asking compensation therefor. The prayer for reparation in connection with this service should be denied.

As a matter of economy and convenience complainant prefers to do its own spotting with an appropriate allowance for the service, and its responses to the offer of the Pennsylvania to perform such service are so qualified that it does not clearly appear whether or not it would permit the carrier to do so. But in the absence of undue prejudice whatever service a carrier can be required to perform it may insist upon performing. Atchison Railway Co. v. United States, 232 U. S., 199, 214.

We find that as to interstate shipments it is, and for the future will be, unduly prejudicial for the Pennsylvania to fail to pay a reasonable compensation to complainant for performing the spotting service while it contemporaneously pays an allowance to the American Bridge Company at Ambridge, Pa.; or for that carrier to fail to perform spotting service for complainant while contemporaneously performing spotting for the bridge company. Owing to the similarity of conditions at the two plants, and the superior convenience afforded an industry by the operation of its own power, the undue prejudice will not be removed by the Pennsylvania performing the service for complainant while continuing an allowance to the American Bridge Company. However, if the spotting should be performed for the latter company, the refusal of complainant to permit the carrier to perform the service for it would absolve the Pennsylvania from the obligation to do so; and interference with the operation of that carrier would have a similar result to an extent determined by the relative effect of the interference at the plants of complainant and the bridge company, respectively. The prayer for reparation is denied. An appropriate order will be entered.

No. 10958. BALL BROTHERS GLASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY

ET AL.

v.
DIRECTOR GENERAL, AS AGENT, ABILENE &

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL.

Submitted April 30, 1920. Decided August 10, 1920.

Rates on glass fruit jars, fruit jar tops, and jelly glasses, in straight or mixed

carloads, from Wichita Falls, Tex., to points in Louisiana found unduly prejudicial to the extent they exceed the rates on similar traffic from Blackwell,

Sand Springs, or Sapulpa, Okla., to the same destinations. Warner & Warner, Arthur W. Brady, and R. B. Coapstick for complainants.

H. G. Herbel and R. W. Fyfe for defendants.

W. C. Allen for Alexander H. Kerr & Company and Kerr Glass Manufacturing Company, interveners.

Russell J. Miedel for Oklahoma Bottle & Glass Company and Hazel Atlas Glass Company, interveners.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS McCHORD, MEYER, AND AITCHISON.

McCHORD, Commissioner:

The issues here presented were made the subject of a proposed report by the examiner and exceptions thereto were filed by defendants.

The complainants, Ball Brothers Glass Manufacturing Company and Ball Brothers Glass Company, are corporations engaged in the manufacture of glass fruit jars, fruit jar tops and jelly glasses, the former at Muncie, Ind., and the latter at Wichita Falls, Tex. The entire output of the plant of the Ball Brothers Glass Company at Wichita Falls is sold to the Ball Brothers Glass Manufacturing Company, by which company it is resold and shipped from Wichita Falls to various points in Louisiana and elsewhere. By complaint filed October 13, 1919, the complainants allege that defendants' rates on glass fruit jars, fruit jar tops, and jelly glasses, in straight or mixed carloads, from Wichita Falls to 47 points in Louisiana, named in the margin,' are unreasonable, unduly prejudicial, and also unduly preferential of manufacturerers located at Blackwell, Sand Springs, and Sapulpa, Okla. The establishment of reasonable and nonprejudicial rates for the future is asked. Rates are stated in cents per 100 pounds. As all the articles above mentioned take the same rates, the discussion will, for convenience, be confined to the rates on fruit jars.

Alexander H. Kerr & Company engaged in the manufacture of glass fruit jars at Sand Springs, Okla., and the Kerr Glass Manufacturing Company which sells, and ships the product of Alexander H. Kerr & Company; and the Oklahoma Bottle & Glass Company engaged in the manufacture of glass fruit jars at Blackwell, Okla., and the Hazel Atlas Glass Company which sells and ships the product of the Oklahoma Bottle & Glass Company, intervened at the hearing.

While unreasonableness is alleged, the complainants, both in the testimony and on brief, confined their case substantially to the allegation of undue prejudice, the real issue being with respect to the proper relationship between the rates from Wichita Falls and the Oklahoma points mentioned.

Wichita Falls is in north central Texas, about 125 miles northwest of Fort Worth, Tex. Sand Springs and Sapulpa are near Tulsa, Okla., and Blackwell is in the north central part of the state. At the Oklahoma points mentioned are located fruit jar manufacturers with whom the complainants come into direct competition in seiling in Louisiana.

The following table shows the present rates applicable to fruit jars, in carloads, from Wichita Falls and the Oklahoma points mentioned to the Louisiana destinations referred to in the complaint:

The short-line distances show by the defendants from Wichita Falls and the Oklahoma points to the nearest and farthest Louisiana destinations and the average short line distances from each point of origin to all the destinations are as follows:

It will be noted from the above rate table that with the few exceptions indicated the three Oklahoma points take the same rates; that class rates apply on fruit jars from Wichita Falls which are lower