a proper adjustment of the matter would seem to require us to group Coralville with all other points on complainant's line intermediate to Cedar Rapids, and to establish joint through rates between the group so formed and all interstate points on the defendant's line by adding 10 per cent to the defendant's class and commodity rates between Cedar Rapids and other points on its line. It will be understood, however, that the joint rates so to be established shall in no case exceed the combination of locals on Cedar Rapids. In case no agreement can be reached by the two companies as to the divisions of the joint through rates so established, the Commission upon suggestion by either of them will give the matter further consideration and will direct what the divisions shall be. An order may be entered accordingly. 13 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1156. F. J. GENTRY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY. Submitted January 2, 1908. Decided March 9, 1908. For reasons given in Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., 13 I. C. C. Rep., 214, the complaint in this case is dismissed. West, Scott & Otjen, F. G. Walling, and F. L. Boynton for complainant. E. B. Peirce and M. L. Bell for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. LANE, Commissioner: This complaint was filed on June 28, 1907, by a retail coal dealer, residing at Pond Creek, Okla. The complaint is as to rates on coal from Hartford and Huntington, Ark., and Alderson, Krebs, Dow, McAlester, Fairville, Wilburton, Haileyville, Burr Oak, Baker, Howe, Gowan, Mulberry, and Henryetta, all in the state of Oklahoma (formerly Indian Territory), to Pond Creek and other points in Grant County, Okla. This case is in all respects the same as that of Haines v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company et al., 13 I. C. C., Rep. 214, and for the reasons therein stated this complaint will be dismissed. 13 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1126. WYMAN, PARTRIDGE & COMPANY; NORTH STAR SHOE v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD; NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY; NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY OF CANADA; ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY; DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY; ERIE & WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; CANADA ATLANTIC TRANSIT COMPANY; MUTUAL TRANSIT COMPANY; PORT HURON & DULUTH LINE OF STEAMERS; WESTERN TRANSIT COMPANY; GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY; MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, AND CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. Submitted March 7, 1908. Decided March 16, 1908. 1. Unless a railway forming a part of a lake-and-rail route sees fit to hold itself responsible for losses arising from perils of the sea, it should tender to the public a transportation contract which leaves shippers free to arrange for their own marine insurance. 2. The defendants advanced their through rates from eastern points to Chicago and Minneapolis 3 cents per 100 pounds on first class and 14 cents on Rule 25, etc., and these new rates included the cost of marine insurance. The bill of lading issued did not show definitely the rights of the shippers thereunder; Held, That the advanced rates are unreasonable and should be reduced unless the carriers issue bills of lading making them responsible for loss by perils of the sea. Fred B. Dodge for complainants. H. C. Barlow for Chicago Association of Commerce, Intervener. Clyde Brown, G. S. Patterson, W. S. Jenney, and G. F. Brownell for New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Erie Railroad Company; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company; Erie & Western Transportion Company, Mutual Transit Company, and Western Transit Company. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. PROUTY, Commissioner: Three routes exist for the transportation of merchandise from the east to the west-the all-rail, the ocean-and-rail, and the rail-and-lake. By the first, as its name implies, the transportation is entirely by rail; by the second freight is carried from some Atlantic seaport like New York or Boston to some more southerly port like Norfolk, from which it is taken by rail to destination; by the third traffic moves from the eastern point to some port upon the Great Lakes like Buffalo, is thence transported by water to a western lake port like Chicago or Duluth, and from thence again by rail to destination if that be an interior point. There is a fourth route termed the "canal-and-lake" route, being through the Erie Canal to Buffalo and thence via the Great Lakes and rail, but this route may be omitted from the discussion. When the second and third of the above routes are used a certain amount of water transportation is involved. In accordance with the terms of the Harter Act, so called, water carriers may exempt themselves from responsibility on account of perils of the sea, except in so far as the loss results from their own negligence, and to secure protection against these perils of the sea for which the carrier is not responsible marine insurance is usually taken out. The cost of this insurance has been and is included in the rate which applies via the ocean-and-rail route, but the almost universal rule is for the shipper to himself provide this insurance, and such had always been the practice upon the rail-and-lake route up to the season of 1907. At the opening of navigation in 1907 rail-and-lake rates were advanced and the cost of insurance was included in the rate. These advances were: To Minneapolis 3 cents on first and second class, 13 cents on Rule 25, 1 cent on the third, fourth, and fifth classes and Rule 26, and one-half cent on the sixth class. Rates to Chicago were at first advanced but 2 cents upon the first two classes, but in July another cent was added, thus making the advance to Chicago the same as to Minneapolis except on Rule 25, which was advanced 2 cents to Chicago. During the season a reduction of 1 cent was made in the sixth class, thus producing a final reduction of one-half cent in that class. The lawfulness of these advances and of the advanced rates as they exist was attacked by the complaint as originally filed. The original complainants were merchants located and doing business in the city of Minneapolis who had occasion to ship from various points in the east via this route. After the filing of the complaint the Merchants' Association of Chicago, representing certain shippers in that city, filed an intervening petition which put in issue not only the reasonableness of the advanced rates, but also claimed that these advances by being applied to Chicago and Minneapolis while no corresponding advances were made at St. Louis, worked a discrimination against the former cities. This claim will be first considered. St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis all compete in jobbing goods throughout Missouri River territory and territory west extending as far as the Pacific coast. In order that these localities may be upon a substantial parity in this business, it is necessary that the rates upon which they bring their supplies from eastern points of production should bear a certain relation to one another, and such relation has been for a long time in the past established and maintained. Of the three routes above mentioned the standard is the all-rail, the rates of the other two being somewhat less and made with reference to the all-rail rates. It appears that the ocean-and-rail rates have differed by a fixed arbitrary or differential from the all-rail rates, but this does not seem to have been true of the rail-and-lake rates. Taking New York as the point of origin in the East and the firstclass rate as illustrative of all the classes, the rail rate to Chicago has been 75 cents, to St. Louis 87 cents, while the ocean-and-rail is, in each case, 10 cents lower than the all-rail, being 65 cents to Chicago |