press point, and to require this would be to entirely disregard the back haul and the added expense incident thereto. The movement of cotton is almost entirely southward from all points located on defendants' lines, and cotton originating at points north of Ardmore and Pauls Valley naturally moves through Gainesville when transported by defendants. To require the defendants to haul cotton northwardly through Gainesville for compression at Ardmore and Pauls Valley, and to protect on such shipments rates not higher than those in effect from points of origin to ultimate destination, where such cotton must be ultimately hauled back through Gainesville to southern ports, would not be justified upon the record. Held, under the circumstances and conditions shown to exist in these cases, that the discrimination complained of is not undue. Complaints dismissed. Chickasaw Compress Co. v. G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 187.

COTTON SEED.

Rates on.

Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. et al. 1.

Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock v. Midland Valley R. R. Co. et al. 243.

Chandler Cotton Oil Co. v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. 473.

CREAM.

Rates on.

Reynolds v. Southern Express Co. 536

Merchants' Traffic Asso. v. Pacific Express Co. 131.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.

Practices of certain carriers and certain shippers relative to interstate shipments declared to be illegal, and criminal prosecutions requested to be instituted. In re Rates, Practices, etc., of Carriers subject to Act. 212.

CROSS-TIES.

Reparation asked on account of alleged unreasonable freight rates charged on shipments of cross-ties moving between April 25 and August 12, 1907, from Barnett to McAlester, Ind. T. Subsequent to the movement of these shipments and the filing of the petition herein this territory was admitted as a State into the Union and the points of origin and destination are now located in the State of Oklahoma. By the act of Congress admitting Oklahoma to statehood the intraterritorial jurisdiction of the Commission ceased to apply to territory now embraced in that State. The Commission can make no lawful order in any case of which it has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the act to regulate commerce. Complaint dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hussey v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 366.

Rates on. Holcomb-Hayes Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 16.

CUBA.

Adjacent foreign country means in the sense of possibility of continuity of rails. Lykes S. S. Line v. Commercial Union et al. 310.

DAMAGES.

The money damages alleged by the complainants, the Tennessee Coal Company and the Minersville Coal Company, were not proven with sufficient certainty to warrant the Commission in making any award, even if it had jurisdiction in such cases. Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. Southern Ry, Co. 440.

If complainants had a contract with defendant to locate and maintain its station at Elder, they may perhaps maintain a suit at law for breach of that

contract; but this Commission has no power to award damages for failure to
perform such a contract. Eddleman et al. v. Mid. Val. R. R. Co. 103.

Difficulty of tracing out exact commercial effect of freight rate.
et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

Burgess

Forfeited by laches of complainant. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. I. C.
R. R. Co. et al. 657.

Injuries to business. Frye & Bruhn et al. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 501.
Measure of, the difference between rate to which complainants were entitled
and which they were compelled to pay. Burgess et al. v. Transcontinental
Freight Bureau et al. 668.

No jurisdiction over claims for damage to goods in transit. In re Released
Rates. 550.

On live stock, ratio to earnings. Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. M. K. &
T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

On past shipments only by reduction of rate. Hussey v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
366.

Under section 16, order must direct the sum awarded "to the complainant."
Missouri & Kansas Shippers' Asso. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 411.

Wire brushes and brooms immune in transit. Forest City Freight Bureau v.
Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 109.

DELAY.

Complainant shipped over defendants' lines from Elk City, Okla., seven car-
loads of broom corn to Sioux City, Iowa, via Omaha, paying 60.85 cents per 100
pounds on one car, 80.5 cents per 100 pounds on another car, and on the remain-
ing five cars $1.14 per 100 pounds. The combination of local rates on this com-
modity from Elk City to Sioux City, based on Omaha, is 60.85 cents per 100
pounds, whereas the joint through rate was at the time of the shipments $1.14;
but subsequently defendants voluntarily established a joint through rate of 60.85
cents. Pending protest against paying the $1.14 rate on two of these cars, un-
loading was delayed, causing demurrage charge, which was paid by complainant.
Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 192.

At wharf in handling fruit. Benton Transit Co. v. B. H.-St. J. Ry. & L. Co.
542.

Of lumber cars at New Orleans for export. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v.
I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

DELIVERY.

In one part of Kansas City not a delivery in another. Leonard v. K. C. S.
Ry. Co. et al. 573.

Previous to June, 1894, of live stock at Chicago included in rates. Cattle
Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

Refused in advance of payment of demurrage.
C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. 571.

DEMURRAGE.

MacBride Coal & Coke Co. v.

Private cars owned by shippers and hired to carriers upon a mileage basis are
subject to demurrage when such cars stand upon the tracks of the carrier,
either at point of origin or point of destination, but are not so subject when
upon either the private track of the owner of the car or the private track of
the consignee. The carrier must charge demurrage in all cases where such
demurrage is imposed by tariff provision upon its own equipment, except when
a privately owned car is upon a privately owned siding or track, and the carrier
is paying, or is responsible for, no rental or other charge upon such car. A
privately owned car, in the sense in which that expression is here used, is a

car owned and used by an individual, firm, or corporation for the transportation of the commodities which they produce or in which they deal. In re Demurrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars. 378.

Kansas City on coal. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.

Lumber at New Orleans. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

One dollar per day not found unreasonable. MacBride Coal & Coke Co. v. C., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. 571.

Pending protest, demurrage paid by complainant. Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 192.

DENSITY OF TRAFFIC.

Complaint questions reasonableness of rates between Owensboro and Henderson, Ky., and points in Trunk Line and Central Freight Association territories; it also alleges that such rates result in unjust discrimination against Owensboro and Henderson and give undue preference to Evansville, Ind. The carriers most directly interested in the Evansville rates for the most part serve the territory north of the Ohio River, while those most directly interested in the rates to Owensboro and Henderson serve the territory south of the river. There is greater density of population and of traffic in the territory north of the Ohio River known as Central Freight Association territory, in which Evansville is situated, than in territory south of the river, in which Owensboro and Henderson are situated. The general adjustment of rates throughout Central Freight Association territory due to the conditions therein prevailing naturally has a forceful effect upon the Evansville rates. The larger volume of traffic and greater number of carriers operating in that territory create a greater degree of competition, and the rates generally have been adjusted with a view to meeting the conditions resulting therefrom. Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. L. & N. R. R. Co. et al. 300.

Traffic in western express business. Kindel v. Adams Express Co. et al. 475.

DEVICE.

Rebates by giving large car and assessing charge on small one. Frye & Bruhn et al. v. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 501.

DIFFERENTIALS.

Complainant insisted that the differential of 2 cents per 100 pounds upon grain and grain products to New England points in favor of New York was excessive; Held, Following Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. Rep., 436; Toledo Produce Exchange v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C. Rep., 166, that upon the record the Commission would not disturb this differential. Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. 31.

Rates on grain and grain products for domestic consumption from Buffalo to Philadelphia and Baltimore are one-half cent per 100 pounds lower than to New York, but from Chicago to Philadelphia and Baltimore such rates are 2 cents and 3 cents per 100 pounds, respectively, lower than to New York; Held, Upon application for the same differentials from Buffalo as from Chicago to Philadelphia and Baltimore, that Buffalo is not entitled to these differentials. The failure of Buffalo to obtain these differentials is due to its location-a disadvantage which defendant has never attempted to equalize in the past and which, in the opinion of the Commission, defendant ought not to be required to equalize now. Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co. 40.

The present rate upon knit goods from Atlantic seaboard territory to Wichita via Galveston of $1.644, producing a differential against Wichita of 264 cents, is

not unjust or unreasonable. Johnston & Larimer Dry Goods Co. et al. v. A. T.
& S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 388.

The facts appearing in this case indicate that the differential of 6 cents per
100 pounds in carloads on rice and sugar from points in Texas and Louisiana
against Anthony, Kans., as compared with Wichita, Hutchinson, Winfield, and
Arkansas City, Kans., is not just and should not exceed 3 cents; and that the
rates on other commodities and the class rates should be adjusted on approxi-
mately the same relative basis. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co. v. A., T. &
S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 605.

Between New Albany and North Carolina points on traffic to New England.
New Albany Furniture Co. v. M., J. & K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.

Coal from Clinch Valley above Pocahontas.

v. N. & W. Ry. Co. 230.

Raven Red Ash Coal Co. et al.

Coal to various groups from Illinois mines. Cardiff Coal Co. v. C., M. & St.
P. Ry. Co. et al. 460.

Grain in western territory. Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. L. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co.
et al. 11.

Rhinelander above Fox River rate.

Co. et al. 633.

Rhinelander Paper Co. v. N. Pac. Ry.

St. Louis to Omaha and Lincoln. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C. R. I. & P.
Ry. Co. et al. 319.

DISCRETION.

The Commission has no authority under the act to regulate commerce to
require carriers to establish special fares, based upon less than the normal pas-
senger-mile revenue, for the use of passengers on particular occasions or for
special purposes. On that ground, and also on the ground that the legal right of
carriers to issue party-rate tickets and confine their use to theatrical companies
has been fully considered by the Commission, this complaint for an order re-
quiring the defendants to reestablish such party rates is dismissed on motion of
the Commission. Field v. So. Ry. Co. et al. 298.

Carrier in its own interest to carry via longer line if it desires.
Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342.

Vested in Commission. In re Extension of Hours of Service Law 140.

In general as to through routes.

Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock, Ark., v. Mid. Val. R. R. Co.
et al. 243.

Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. & L. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 250.

DISCRIMINATIONS.

Discriminations of the nature referred to in sections 3 and 4 of the act, in so
far as they result from the bona fide action of a carrier in meeting circum-
stances and conditions not of its own creation, and which are reasonably neces-
sary for that purpose, do not of necessity fall under the condemnation of the
law. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. 87.
Resulting from use of a State rate, not withdrawn from jurisdiction of Com-
mission. Reliance Textile & Dye Works v. So. Ry. Co. et al. 48.

ARTICLES.

Coke as compared with coal, Trinidad, Colo., to Amarillo, Tex. 240.

Plate glass, domestic, as compared with the imported from seaports to inte-
rior. 87.

Wire brooms and brushes, classification of, 109.

FACILITIES.

Cars for coal. 440.

Cars for coal at mines. 451.

Cars for coal in Pocahontas Flat Top District. 69.
Cars for grain at Wood River, Nebr. 531.

Cars for hay. 179.

Cars for ice from Tobico, Mich. 160.

Free storage at Duluth in transit against local. 288.

PERSONS.

Car distribution for coal in Pocahontas Flat Top District. 69.

Car distribution for grain at Wood River, Nebr. 531.

Car distribution for ice from Tobico, Mich. 160.

Dye works at Cincinnati compared with southern dye works in transit rates
from southern mills to Chicago. 48.

Free storage at Duluth against local merchants. 288.

Merchants, etc., at Little Rock, Ark., in favor of others at Fort Smith, Ark.,
and Muskogee, Ind. T., by lack of through routes. 243.

Millers, Washington County, Me., in favor of Bangor and Lewiston, milling-
in-transit, 246.

Party rates, 523.
PLACES.

Anthony compared with other Kansas points on rice and sugar from the
South. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 605.
Chester, Va., compared with Richmond on lumber to Ohio. Randolph Lumber
Co. v. S. A. L. Ry. et al. 601.

Clinch Valley coal compared with Pocahontas to seaboard. Raven Red Ash
Coal Co. et al. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. 230.

Denver, in the matter of express rates. Kindel v. Adams Express Co. et al.

475.

Detroit, in rate from Baltimore on iron pyrites. Detroit Chemical Works v.
Nor. Cent. Ry. Co. et al. 357.

Detroit, in rate from New York on iron pyrites. Detroit Chemical Works v.
Erie R. R. Co. et al. 363.

Fort Smith & Western R. R. cotton seed from points on, to Memphis, Tenn.
Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. et al. 1.

Gallatin compared with Nashville, etc., sugar from New Orleans. Payne-
Gardner Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 638.

Independence, Kans., rope, C. L., to, compared with rates from San Fran-
cisco to Missouri River and Chicago common points. Bovaird Supply Co. v.
A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.

Little Rock, grain to, from St. Louis, compared with rates from Kansas City.
Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 11.

Lincoln, Nebr., in favor of Omaha, from points west of Mississippi, south of
St. Louis, or Missouri, north of St. Louis. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I.
& P. Ry. Co. et al. 319.

Nashville, Tenn., compared with other points in Ohio, Kentucky, and Ten-
nessee; canned goods, etc. Phillips-Trawick-James Co. et al. v. So. Pac. Co.
et al. 644.

New Albany, Miss., in furniture rates. New Albany Furniture Co. v. M. J.
& K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.

New England points in favor of New York on grain and products from Buf-
falo. Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. 31.