« AnteriorContinuar »
Page Ullman v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. (112 Wis., 150).
556, 560 Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. U. S. (99 U. S., 402).
432 United States v. Belt Ry. Co. of Chicago (not yet reported).. 585 United States v. Boisdoré's Heirs (8 How., 121).
368 United States v. Colorado & Northwestern R. R. Co. (157 Fed. Rep., 321, 329)....
277, 584 United States v. Dawson (15 How., 467).
375 United States v. Great Northern Ry. (145 Fed. Rep., 438).. 585 United States v. Northern Pacific Terminal Co. of Oreg. (144 Fed. Rep., 861).
585 United States v. P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (143 Fed. Rep., 350).
585 United States v. Wood (145 Fed. Rep., 405).
271 United States ex rel. Coffman v. N. & W. Ry. Co. (109 Fed. Rep., 831)...
81 United States ex rel. Kingwood Coal Co. v. W. Va. Northern R. Co. et al. (125 Fed. Rep., 252)-
82 United States ex rel. Pitcairn Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. et al. (154 Fed. Rep., 108)....
446 Wabash, etc., R. R. Co. v. Illinois (118 U. S., 557)
581 W. Va. Northern R. Co. et al. v. U. S. ex rel. Kingwood Coal
Co. (134 Fed. Rep., 198).
556, 560 White & Co. v. B. & O. S.-W. R R. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C., 306)..
404 Wight v. U. S. (167 U. S., 512).
100 Wylie v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. (11 I. C. C., 145)..
Yeaton v. U. S. (5 Cranch, 281).
368 York Manufacturing Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. (3 Wall., 107)... 552
13 I. C. C. Rep.
MARTIN A. KNAPP, OF NEW YORK, Chairman.
EDGAR E. CLARK, OF Iowa.
EDWARD A. MOSELEY, Secretary.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
MEMPHIS FREIGHT BUREAU
FORT SMITH & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; ST. LOU IS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, AND ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY. TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA, INTERVENER.
Submitted November 5, 1907. Decided December 9, 1907.
1. Complaint alleges unreasonable through rates on cotton seed from points on Fort
Smith & Western Railroad to Memphis, Tenn. Class A rates then in force were admitted to be unreasonable, and defendant, by leave, amended its answer by stating that it had established through rates equal to the sums of the local rates of the several carriers, based on Fort Smith. Later, and before the case had been submitted, defendant Fort Smith and Western Railroad increased its local rates, and still later, and before decision had been rendered, filed a tariff
of through rates carrying corresponding increases in rates. 2. Defendant Fort Smith & Western Railroad is a comparatively new road which runs
through a comparatively undeveloped territory. It has been operated at a loss each year, and has not sufficient equipment to warrant it in permitting its cars
off its line with through shipments. It declares that it is and has been willing to establish through route and joint rates to Memphis if it could have divisions of such rates equal to its local rates and could secure cars for such shipments from connecting carriers. It has secured concurrence from two connect
ing carriers in joint tariff which provides for loading in connecting carriers' cars. 3. A carrier's first and paramount duty to the shipping public is to make its
entire equipment do its utmost in serving the shippers along its own line; a carrier serving and dependent upon a new and undeveloped territory, and unable to earn any profit for its owners, may charge higher rates than would be reasonable under different conditions, and if carrier that forms part of a through route proposes to require the transfer of freight from one car to another at any junction point it must specify in the tariff the point at which transfer
will be made and the charge therefor. 4. The increases in the through rates made since defendant's amended answer
to this complaint was filed are unreasonable and unjust. Through route and joint rates not in excess of the sums of the local rates which were in effect when
such amended answer was made are ordered.
T. K. Riddick for complainant.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
The complainant, a corporation composed of merchants and shippers of Memphis, Tenn., asks, in behalf of said merchants and shippers in the city of Memphis, relief against all the defendants as to alleged unjust and unreasonable rates on cotton seed from points of origin on the Fort Smith & Western Railroad to Memphis, and for relief against all defendants as to unjust, discriminatory, and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage alleged to be suffered by complainant, its members, and the city of Memphis by reason of the exactions of the rates claimed to be unjust and unreasonable.
The relief asked is that the Commission establish as just and reasonable through rates on cotton seed in carloads from points on the Fort Smith & Western Railroad to Memphis, the througb rates now published and in force on corn in carloads from the same points to Memphis.
All the defendants deny the existence of unjust and unreasonable rates on cotton seed or that any unjust, discriminatory or undue prejudice or disadvantage results to complainant, its members, or the city of Memphis by reason of the existing rates complained of.
The Territory of Oklahoma intervened through its attorney-general, by leave of the Commission, and joined in the complaint. No testimony was offered in behalf of said Territory, or of the defendants the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company and St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, and the complainant, in its brief, says that the controversy is really one between the complainant and the Fort Smith & Western Railroad Company.
It appears that the complaint was filed at the instance of the Phoenix Oil Company, of Memphis, a corporation operating cotton mills at Memphis and surrounding towns.
No producer, shipper, or manufacturer, or other person from any point on the line of the Fort Smith & Western Railroad, or from any point in Oklahoma or Indian Territories, or the State of Arkansas, made complaint as to the rates in question or appeared to give evidence in support of the complaint, either in behalf of the complainant or intervener.
The rates complained of on cotton seed per 100 pounds, in car. loads, from points on the Fort Smith & Western Railroad to Memphis and the rates on corn from same points to Memphis in force at the time of the filing of complaint were as follows: