such an extent as to bring the entire rate within the figure named; but the Commission would be passing upon a through rate from New England to Denver and no such rate is now in existence. The proper method to follow in cases like this, where no joint rate exists, is to cite before the Commission the proper defendants and pray for the establishment of a through route and joint rate. Upon a petition of that sort the Commission has power to do justice both to Denver and between the different carriers participating in the transportation. 3. Upon the hearing complainant offered the findings and order of this Commission in the former case and insisted that this ought to be sufficient to establish its right to an order in the present case; Held, that under the amended act the entire matter must be tried de novo.

W. B. Harrison for complainant.

C. D. Hayt for New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and Erie Railroad Company.

D. W. Tears for New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, and Michigan Central Railroad Company.

C. M. Dawes and Vaile & Waterman for Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company.

J. F. Vaile for Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, and Rio Grande Western Railway Company.

E. B. Peirce and M. A. Low for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company.

H. T. Rogers, Robert Dunlap, J. L. Coleman, and Gardiner Lathrop for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Compnay.

J. C. Jeffery for Missouri Pacific Railway Company.

C. C. Dorsey, L. E. Payson, J. N. Baldwin, and W. F. Herrin for Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the Southern Pacific Company.

Seth Mann for Pacific Coast Jobbers & Manufacturers' Association, Interveners.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

PROUTY, Commissioner:

In December, 1905, this Commission, in the case of Kindel v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company et al., 11 I. C. C. Rep., 495, held that the all-rail rate on cotton piece goods, any quantity, from New England producing points to Denver ought not to exceed $1.50, and issued an order requiring the defendants in that case to cease and desist from the maintenance of the rate then in effect, which was $2.24 upon some kinds of cotton fabrics and somewhat less upon others. Subsequently to that decision the carriers established a rate of $1.79, and that rate is now in force.

The complainant, an association of merchants doing business in the city of Denver, brings this complaint for the purpose, apparently

of asking the Commission to enforce, under its enlarged powers, the decision which it reached in the former case.

The complaint in this proceeding avers that the rate of $1.79 is excessive. It further avers that the defendants transport the same commodity to Pacific coast terminals in less than carload lots for $1.50, and that, while refusing to establish any carload rate to Denver, they name a rate of $1 to the Pacific coast in carloads on cotton piece goods and of 90 cents upon the coarser grades of cotton weavings like ducks and denims, all of which discriminates against Denver. The prayer is that Denver be accorded a carload rate on cotton fabrics and that the present rate of $1.79 be reduced.

Upon the hearing the complainant offered the findings and order of the Commission in the former case and insisted that this ought to be sufficient to establish its right to an order in the present case. The Commission ruled, however, that under the amended act the entire matter must be tried de novo.

Upon consideration of the testimony and arguments we adhere to the conclusions reached in the former case. The application for a carload rating is denied. As said in that case, the unit upon which cotton piece goods are handled is the bale; and nowhere east of the Rocky Mountains is an interstate coarload rating accorded to that commodity. While there are many reasons why such rating might with propriety be applied to a long-distance haul like that from points of production in the East or the South to Denver, we see no sufficient reason why these carriers should be required to establish such a rate against their will.

We are of the opinion that, the rail rate on this commodity, any quantity, from New England producing points ought not to exceed $1.50. As pointed out in the former case, it is practically 2,000 miles from New England to Denver, and 1,400 miles from Denver to San Francisco. While the latter distance is somewhat less than the former in geographical miles, measured by actual cost of transportation, it is probably greater; and measured by rates voluntarily put in effect by the defendants, it is certainly greater. The firstclass rate from New York to Denver is $2.80, and from Denver to San Francisco $3. It has been often found by this Commission and must be recognized in all these cases, that water competition determines the rail rates between the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific coast; but it must also be assumed that the rates voluntarily made by carriers to meet this competition are remunerative; and if $1.50 pays carriers anything for transporting a commodity from New York to San Francisco, we think $1.50 from New York to Denver yields a sufficient profit. Certainly, if carriers can transport a commodity for $1 or even for 90 cents the 3,400 miles from Boston to San Fran

cisco, they ought not ordinarily to charge more than $1.50 for transporting that same commodity to Denver.

Even more expressive are the divisions received by the participating carriers for these services. Of the $1 rate carriers from Chicago to Denver receive 27.3 cents; of the $1.50 rate 39.8 cents; while of the $1.79 rate now in effect their division is $1.277.

These divisions are matters of agreement between the carriers and are of no concern to the public. They can only be referred to as indicating what, in the opinion of the carriers, is remunerative for the transaction of this business. It is evident in this case that the defendants accept these extremely low divisions upon transcontinental business for the purpose of inducing the movement of that traffic, and it must be presumed that they would not do this unless there were some profit to them in the movement.

It is also true that there is but little connection between the actual cost of handling cotton piece goods and the charge which may be properly made for that service; but there ought to be a certain relation between the cost of handling an entire schedule and the different rates applicable, and we do not think that, as a general principle, it can be proper to charge more for the transportation of commodities in general from eastern points of origin to the city of Denver than is charged from the same points of origin to the Pacific coast. There may be exceptions to this rule, and the commodity before us, under our decision, presents a marked exception; for in this case we allow the transportation in carload lots to the Pacific coast at $1 per 100 pounds, and in some instances at 90 cents per 100 pounds, while the rate to Denver is in no case less than $1.50. This arises from the fact that carriers apply a carload rating to their transcontinental business, while refusing that rating to Denver which we permit in view of water competition.

While, however, it is our opinion that this rate should be reduced as above, we do not think that any order to that effect can properly be made upon this record. This rate to Denver is not a joint through rate, but is made up of the local rate from New England to St. Louis plus the rate from St. Louis to Denver, or in some cases from St. Louis to Kansas City and from Kansas City to Denver. We might, perhaps, order a reduction of these several locals to such an extent as to bring the entire rate within the figure named by us; but we are really passing upon a through rate from New England to Denver and no such rate is now in existence. The proper method to follow in cases like this, where no joint rate exists, is to cite before the Commission the proper defendants praying the establishment of a through route and joint rate. Upon a petition of that sort the Commission has power to do justice both to Denver and between the different carriers

participating in the transportation. As was intimated in the original case, it is by no means clear that a through rate of this kind can be properly constructed by adding together several shorter distance local rates.

We might, perhaps, allow an amendment to this petition, but an entirely new issue would be thereby created, which would necessitate a further hearing. Since no costs are recoverable by either party in these proceedings, the better course appears to be to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. If the carriers do not establish the rate indicated the complainant can with equal convenience and without additional expense file a new complaint.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1183.

RAVEN RED ASH COAL COMPANY; RAVEN COLLIERIES COMPANY; DOMESTIC COAL COMPANY; RAVEN FUEL COMPANY; MINER'S MUTUAL COAL COMPANY, AND COAL CREEK COAL COMPANY

v.

NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted February 24, 1908. Decided March 16, 1908.

The rate on coal in carloads from mines on the Clinch Valley division of the Norfolk & Western Railway to the eastern seaboard is 10 cents per ton more than from mines on its Pocahontas division. Complainants ask that the rate on coal from their mines on said Clinch Valley division to the eastern seaboard should be the same as that of their competitors in the Pocahontas fields, the distances being substantially the same; Held, That complainants are entitled to relief prayed for, but no reparation will be granted.

Harman & Pobst and William A. Glasgow, jr., for complainants. John H. Holt, Ed. Baxter, and Lucien N. Cocke for defendant.

LANE, Commissioner.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

Complainants are engaged in the mining of coal in the vicinity of Raven, a station in Virginia on the Clinch Valley division of the Norfolk & Western Railway. The question for decision is whether the rate on coal, in carloads, from these mines to the eastern seaboard bears a proper relation to the rate charged from what are known as the Pocahontas and Tug River coal fields, which lie along the Pocahontas division of defendant's line for about 56 miles west of Graham, W. Va., the junction point of the two divisions. To reach the eastern seaboard, the movement from the mines is interstate, the coal being hauled through the state of West Virginia.

The question is one of grouping. Complainants claim that their mines are as near Graham, the junction point above referred to, and