No. 1384.

WILLIAM LARSEN CANNING COMPANY

v.

CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; PERE MARQUETTE RAILROAD COMPANY, AND JUDSON HARMON, RECEIVER THEREOF; HOCKING VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY, AND CINCINNATI & MUSKINGUM VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY.

Submitted March 20, 1908. Decided April 6, 1908.

1. Complainant directed that its shipments of two carloads of canned vegetables from Green Bay, Wis., to Washington, Ohio, move via a certain route over which there was no joint through rate, and the sum of the locals was applied. The goods might have been shipped by complainant between these points over a route having a joint rate less than the sum of the locals. Held, That the initial carrier was bound to observe the instructions of the consignor in this case. It was also bound to collect the published rate applicable to the designated route and entails no liability under the law for so doing.

2. No evidence was introduced tending to show that the rate charged and collected was unreasonable and unjust per se. Complaint dismissed.

Austin C. Larsen for complainant.

Samuel A. Lynde for Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

LANE, Commissioner:

This is a complaint that the charge by defendants of $161.82, or 26 cents per 100 pounds, for the transportation of two carloads of canned vegetables, aggregating 61,064 pounds, from Green Bay, Wis., to Washington, Ohio, is unreasonable and unjust to the extent of 6 cents per 100 pounds. Reparation is asked.

Complainant in August, 1906, directed that the shipments in question move between the points named via the Chicago & Northwestern, Pere Marquette, and Hocking Valley railroads. At that

time no joint rate was in effect over this route, and the rate collected was the sum of the regularly established locals applicable to such shipments. The law requires carriers in every case to charge the published rate. Under the circumstances the defendants had no option. They had to collect and retain the charges they did.

It appears that at the time the shipments moved there was a joint through rate from Green Bay to Washington of 20 cents per 100 pounds, via the Chicago & Northwestern, Hocking Valley, and Cincinnati & Muskingum Valley railroads. The goods might have been shipped by complainant to their destination at a rate of 20 cents if the above route had been selected. If the complaining company had delivered the traffic to the Chicago & Northwestern at Green Bay without instructions with respect to routing, it would have had to send it over the cheapest route or been liable in damages.

The company was bound to observe the instructions of the consignor in this case; it was also bound to collect the published rate applicable to the designated route and entails no liability under the law for so doing.

No evidence was introduced tending to show that the rate charged and collected was unreasonable and unjust per se, and therefore the complaint will be dismissed. An order will be entered accordingly. 13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1103.

COMMERCIAL CLUB OF DULUTH

V.

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, AND CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted February 12, 1908. Decided April 6, 1908.

1. By their tariffs defendants offer free storage in transit at Duluth, Minn., or Superior, Wis., on both east and west bound lake freight during the closed season of navigation. The practice is for inland shippers to bring their traffic to the warehouses at such ports before the close of navigation, where they are held in free storage by defendants until ordered forward by rail at the balance of the through rate from eastern points of origin. The Duluth merchants, having their business houses at the point where the storage is given, are compelled to pay stor age and also dockage and switching charges. Complainant alleges that this business deprives Duluth of its advantage of location at the head of the lakes and operates to transfer such advantage to inland points. It appears that the privilege is open to all shippers alike and that the practice is not confined to defendants, but is forced by competition of other lines operating through other lake ports. Held, That the record in this case does not at this time justify condemnation of a practice in which so many carriers and shippers not parties to the record are interested.

2. The fact that the privilege of free storage is more valuable to inland merchants than to merchants at lake ports does not necessarily make the privilege unlawful. The position of complainant is that the privilege takes away from the lake ports an advantage of its location; but the better position seems to be that the inland jobbing centers, by reason of their location at points where the competition of several lake ports operates, also have advantage of location, one result of which is seen in the effect of this privilege of free storage.

S. F. Harrison for complainant.

Emerson Hadley for Northern Pacific Railway Company.

J. D. Armstrong for Great Northern Railway Company.

H. M. Pearce for Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

LANE, Commissioner:

The complainant is a voluntary association composed of firms and individuals doing business at Duluth, Minn., and organized for the

purpose of advancing the commercial and jobbing interests of that city. Defendants are carriers subject to the act to regulate com

merce.

The prayer is that defendants be ordered to cease giving free storage to shipments of merchandise moving from Buffalo and other eastern shipping points by boat line to Duluth or Superior, Wis., and thence by rail to destination beyond Duluth. By their tariffs defendants offer storage in transit at Duluth on both east and west bound shipments of merchandise. The tariff of the Great Northern Railway, which is typical of the tariffs of all the defendant carriers, provides: This company is provided with dock warehouse at port of Superior, Wis., in which a limited amount of storage in transit can be given on shipments of east and west bound lake freight. Such freight is to be consigned free to point of destination via this line or connections with which we interchange at points other than Superior. No charge will be made for such storage privilege.

The railway does not assume fire risks on shipments stored under this arrangement. Change of destination at Duluth or Superior is allowed without charge, it being provided that if the merchandise is delivered from the warehouse locally to Duluth or Superior the regular dockage and switching charge of the railway company shall be assessed.

It appears that jobbers of cement, nails, and certain other heavy commodities, doing business at St. Paul, also jobbers doing business at Duluth, have availed themselves of the privilege here offered. The practice is to bring a supply of a given commodity to the warehouse before the close of navigation. Shipments are ordered forward by rail from time to time during the winter, as business requirements may dictate. At the opening of navigation, which is the end of the period of free storage, the remaining portion of the stored commodity is forwarded by rail to the consignee. The consideration moving complainant to ask the Commission to forbid the carriers to give this privilege is as follows:

At the end of the free storage time, merchants doing business at St. Paul or Minneapolis may order goods remaining in the warehouse to be sent forward, and the same are transported by the railroad company at the balance of the through rate from eastern point of origin. Duluth merchants, however, at the end of the free storage time, receive the unsold remnant of their goods at the lake port, and are compelled to pay storage on goods so received for the time they have been in the warehouse, and also dockage and switching charges. That is to say, so far as the Duluth merchant ships goods out of the warehouse to interior customers during the winter he is on the same basis as the St. Paul or Minneapolis merchant; in receiving the unsold remnant of his stored goods,

however, he finds himself not able to use this privilege to as great advantage as his competitors who are at inland points. Complainant therefore takes the position that this privilege, as given, deprives Duluth of its advantage of location at the head of the lakes and operates to transfer such advantage to inland points.

It was urged in the complaint that less than carload shipments had been forwarded by defendants at carload rates. This contention was abandoned at the hearing, however, and no objection of discrimination in the enforcement of the rule remains, the claim being that the rule itself is discriminatory and unfair to merchants doing business at Duluth. It was also shown that the through rate from Buffalo to St. Paul is but 2 cents per 100 pounds higher than the rate from Buffalo to Duluth, and the claim was made that the value of the storage given is greater than the freight money received by the railway for forwarding the goods at the end of the free-storage period. It appears, however, that the boat lines take less than their charge to Duluth as their proportion of the joint rate to St. Paul. How much less was not shown, but no basis exists for holding that the rate to St. Paul is not compensatory to the railroads even on shipments receiving free storage.

The defendants showed that the storage facilities had been used extensively by Duluth jobbers for freight destined beyond Duluth. One of the witnesses placed on the stand on behalf of the complainant testified, for instance, that his firm had on storage at the Northern Pacific warehouse at the close of navigation in the fall of 1907 about 5,000 tons of cement. It further appeared that this cement comprised about one-third of the total tonnage stored in the warehouse of the Northern Pacific Railway Company at that time.

The defense of the defendant carriers is that the privilege here in question is forced by the competition of other lines through other lake ports. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway, for instance, by its tariff, I. C. C. No. 6627, provides that "carload, lake, rail-andlake, or canal-and-lake traffic in transit to points on this line and connections may be held at the dock houses at Milwaukee, Manitowoc, or Green Bay for reconsignment." Similar privileges are given by the Chicago & Northwestern, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, and other lines at Chicago. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway by its tariff, I. C. C. No. A 9779, advertises that it has dock warehouses at the port of Milwaukee, Wis., at which through shipments may be stored free of charge, reconsignment being allowed. This company's tariff provides that if property is delivered locally at Milwaukee regular "dockage and switching charges will be assessed," the rule being almost identical in form and identical in effect with the rules of the defendant carriers at Duluth. The Wisconsin Central Railway, by amendment 16 to I. C. C. No. 1715, offers free storage