« AnteriorContinuar »
routes to other points on the line of the principal defendant that now exist via the other roads hereinbefore mentioned are either “reasonable" or "satisfactory” when, as the result of actual ex
” perience, they yield to the complainant, in some cases, no part, and, in other cases, only a small part of the trade that it enjoyed during the brief period when the complainant was able to reach such points over the through routes and upon the joint rates which were in effect upon the St. Paul. Assuming, as we do, the good faith of the complainant in the showing made that this result was due to the cancellation of those through routes and joint rates and not to other causes, we regard it as demonstrated on the record that the through routes over the other lines referred to are not reasonable or satisfactory. At Sioux Falls the complainant, during the period while through routes were in effect over the St. Paul, disposed of coal at the rate of 3,000 or 4,000 tons a year. Little, if any, of this business is now left to it. When recently requested to quote a price on 5,000 tons of coal destined to that point it was unable to do so because of the absence of joint rates. During the period in question it disposed of from 10,000 to 12,000 tons annually at La Crosse, Wis., and largely to industries on the terminal tracks of the St. Paul. Since the cancellation of the through routes its trade there has been cut in half. At this point, it is stated that the St. Paul refuses to switch coal cars to its team tracks when they come from other lines. Several other points are mentioned in the record, such as Lansing and Muscatine, Iowa, where similar results have followed the cancellation by the defendant of its through routes. All things considered, it is clear that the complainant should again be accorded through routes, and the same joint rates that are now in effect from the Wilmington mines, to all strictly local points on the line of the defendant, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, and to all points, including those specially mentioned herein, where the principal coal-consuming industries are located on the tracks of that company, and where the coal trade enjoyed by the complainant while the through routes and joint rates were in effect over the St. Paul has been substantially curtailed or altogether lost since the through routes and joint rates formerly in effect were canceled.
We shall not endeavor now to specify these points in detail, but shall leave it to the good sense of counsel to arrive at a proper adjustment of the matter along the lines here indicated, and to advise the Commission promptly of the results of their conferences. It will be observed that the complainant asks for the establishment of through routes and joint rates over the St. Paul in connection both with the Wabash Railroad and the Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railroad. If reasonable and satisfactory through routes existed to the points in question over one of those connecting lines, it would not be competent for the complainant to ask for the establishment of through routes to the same points over the other connecting line; for the law does not authorize the Commission to order a through route when a reasonable or satisfactory through route already exists. Such being the law, we do not regard it as competent, when there are no reasonable or satisfactory through routes already in existence, for a shipper to ask for the establishment of such routes over two connecting lines, unless special circumstances of compelling force are shown in justification of such a demand. No such conditions appear in this proceeding and no order will therefore be entered at this time; but in advising the Commission of the points to which the complainant is entitled to through routes, in accordance with the views here expressed, the Commission shall also desire to be advised over which of the two connecting lines mentioned in the petition the through routes are to be established. In case the parties themselves can arrive at no definite conclusions as to these details, or as to the division of the joint rates, the Commission, upon the application of either party, will further consider the matter and enter such order as may seem appropriate.
CARDIFF COAL COMPANY
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; WA. BASH RAILROAD COMPANY, AND CHICAGO, INDIANA & SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.
This case involves a state of facts substantially similar to that presented in Cardiff Coal Co. v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, and complainant is entitled to an order establishing through routes and joint rates to all strictly local points on the line of the principal defendant to which no through routes now exist from Cardiff.
George C. Mastin, John J. Sherlock, and Frank Crozier for complainant.
Samuel A. Lynde for Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company.
Edward T. Glennon, Robert J. Cary, Bertrand Walker, and Herbert D. Howe for Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railroad Company.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
The purpose of this proceeding is to secure an order requiring the principal defendant, the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, to join with its co-defendant, the Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railroad Company, in establishing through routes from the complainant's mines at Cardiff, Ill., to all points on the line of the defendant, the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Nebraska; and also to require those two companies to establish the same joint through rates for such through routes as are now in effect to the points in question from other mines in Illinois in the immediate vicinity of Cardiff. The case involves a state of facts substantially similar to that presented in Cardiff Coal Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, and was orally argued at the same time on behalf of the complainant, the defendants not being specially represented. A brief was also filed by the complainant. 13 I. C. C. Rep.
As this case differs in no material aspect from the case above mentioned and presents no new questions of law, it will suffice to say that the complainant is entitled to an order herein establishing through routes and joint rates to all strictly local points on the line of the principal defendant to which no through routes now exist from Cardiff. The record does not present sufficient facts to enable us to say that existing through routes and joint rates to competitive points reached by the principal defendant are not satisfactory or reasonable. As to such competitive points no order will be entered at this time. The Commission assumes, however, that the parties to the proceeding will have no difficulty in reaching an agreement that will give effect herein to the general principles announced in the other case. We shall therefore look to counsel to work out proper results and advise the Commission in due time of the action taken. In case of the failure of the parties to agree, the matter will have further consideration by the Commission upon the application of either party, and an appropriate order will then be entered.
13 I. C. C. Rep.
CHANDLER COTTON OIL COMPANY
FORT SMITH & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.
Decided April 18, 1908.
1. In all controversies before the Commission if there is lack of jurisdiction,
either from the absence of essential facts or through want of power in the statute, it is the duty of the Commission, on its own motion, to deny
jurisdiction. 2. The provision of the act to regulate commerce applying to carriers transport
ing property“ from one place in a territory to another place in the same territory,” so far as it related to the territory of Oklahoma, expired by its own force on November 16, 1907, when Oklahoma was admitted as a
state. Complaint dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Flynn & Ames for complainant. W. E. Crane for defendant.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
Complainant corporation operates a cotton-oil mill at Chandler, in the state of Oklahoma, and defendant operates a railroad between Guthrie, Okla., and Fort Smith, Ark.
It appears from the pleadings that between the dates of November 1, 1906, and April 1, 1907, complainant made numerous shipments of cotton seed over defendant's line from Prague, Okla., to Warwick, Okla., at the rate therein stated, which complainant alleges is unjust and unreasonable, and it asks reparation for the excess paid above what may be found to be a just and reasonable rate.
At the time of the filing of the complaint, on October 21, 1907, and at the time the shipments moved, Oklahoma was a territory, and the transportation was between points wholly within that territory, but on November 16, 1907, in conformity with the provision of the enabling act of Congress, Oklahoma was formally admitted into the Union by the proclamation of the President.
This complaint has not been heard, and the jurisdictional question has not been raised by the parties, but the Commission is a statutory