count against the mines the cars furnished for such fuel supply permits them to make advantageous contracts and to get their coal at a lower price; that if they counted their own fuel cars in the distribution they would not only have to pay a higher price for their coal, but might not be able to contract for it at all. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. 451.

Fuel is necessary and essential to the operation of a railroad, and the right of a carrier to contract for the purchase of its fuel supply with one mine or with a number of mines must be conceded; but if a carrier and a mine owner make a contact for the fuel supply of the carrier which does violence to the act to regulate commerce or to the decisions of the courts or is opposed to public policy they are in no better position than the parties to any other contract which violates the legal principles relating thereto, A carrier can not inject illegalities in such contract and have it upheld on the ground of compelling necessity. Id. Railroads must have fuel, but not justified in beating down price by car distribution or penalizing mines. Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. So. Ry. Co. 440.

FURNITURE.

Rates on. New Albany Furniture Co. v. M. J. & K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.

GILSONITE.

Origin of and rates on. American Asphalt Asso. v. Uintah Ry. Co. 196.

GLASS.

Circumstances must be considered as to imports, etc. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. 87.

GRADED RATES.

From territory east of Missouri River to Pacific Coast terminals. et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

Burgess

"Graded" scale or tabulation showing rate on package of given size by express, when the base rate per 100 pounds is known. Kindel v. Adams Express Co. et al. 475.

No impropriety in graduation of rates in accordance with actual values. In re Released Rates, 550.

GRADES.

Considered. American Asphalt Asso. v. Uintah Ry. Co. 196.
Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 329.

Burgess et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

GRAIN.

Rates exacted by defendants for transporting grain and products thereof from St. Louis, Mo., to Little Rock, Ark., namely, a rate of 18 cents per 100 pounds on wheat and its products and a rate of 15 cents per 100 pounds on other kinds of grain, known as coarse grains, including corn and oats, and the products of such coarse grains, declared unlawful, so far as applied to such transportation after said traffic has been carried to St. Louis by railroad from points outside that city, and defendants required to reduce the former rate to the extent of 5 cents and the latter to the extent of 4 cents. Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. L. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 11.

Differentials from Buffalo to Atlantic ports. Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. 31,

MacMurray et al. v. U. P. R. R. Co. 531.

In re allowances to elevators by U. P. R. R. Co. 498.

Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis, v. Mo, Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 105.

GROUP RATES.

Not disturbed without proof of tangible injury. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A. T.

& S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.

Pocahontas and Tug River coal fields considered as one. Raven Red Ash
Coal Co. et al. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. 230.

Point added to group.

Ry. Co. 250.

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

Rates east from paper-producing points. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. N. Pac.
Ry. Co. et al. 633.

Should not be disturbed on application of some point not in the group unless
point complaining was put to unreasonable disadvantage thereby. Phillips-
Trawick-James Co. et al. v. So. Pac. Co. et al. 644.

GUM LUMBER.

Rates on, compared with oak. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. I. C. R. R.
Co. et al. 657.

HARDWOOD.

Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.
Burgess et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

HARTER ACT.

Exemption of responsibility on account of perils of the sea.
ridge & Co. et al. v. B. & M. R. R. Co. et al. 258.

HAY.

Wyman, Part-

Cars for. Laning Harris Coal & Grain Co. et al. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co.
148.

The defendant carrier for some years had a proportional rate of 15 cents per
100 pounds on hay when carried from Kansas City, Mo., through a part of the
state of Kansas, to Cape Girardeau, Mo. This rate was canceled and a higher
rate became effective for a short time. Thereafter the 15-cent rate was re-
stored. During the time the higher rate was in effect complainant shipped
two carloads of hay over the route named: Held, That the rate in excess of 15
cents per 100 pounds on hay in carloads when shipped from Kansas City, Mo.,
over the route named, to Cape Girardeau, Mo., is unjust and unreasonable,
and that complainant is entitled to an order for reparation. North Bros. v.
St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 152.

Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.

HEMP.

Sources of production. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.
HIGHWAYS.

Most early charters in this country framed on theory that railroads were
highways in the ordinary sense. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. et al. 179.

HOGS.

Complaint alleges that defendants' rate of $170 per car for the transportation
of live hogs in 36-foot single-deck cars from Missouri River, St. Paul, and
points intermediate, to Seattle, is unreasonable; that from branch-line stations
west of the Missouri River the local rate to main-line junction is added to
the $170 rate, making an unreasonable combination through rate; and that
defendants unlawfully fail and refuse to publish rates for the transportation
of live hogs in double-deck cars; and damages are prayed for on account of
the exaction of the alleged excessive rate on numerous shipments; on account

of alleged shrinkage in weight in single-deck cars; and for alleged losses to
complainant's business during two years when alleged prohibitive rates were
in force. Held, That the $170 rate is not shown to be unreasonable; that there
is not sufficient evidence in the record to warrant a finding that the combina-
tion rate applied on shipments from branch-line stations is excessive, but it
seems that the local rate on the branch line ought to be absorbed; that the
record does not justify requiring defendants to furnish double-deck cars and
reestablish double-deck carload rates; and that claim for reparation must be
disallowed, except on certain 10 carloads shipped in 1904 under an excessive
rate of $240 per single-deck car. Frye & Bruhn et al. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al.
501.

HOURS OF SERVICE.

In re Application of Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co. for extension of time within which
to comply with law 134.

In re Extension of Hours of Service Law 140.

ICE.

Cars and rate. Wagner, Zagelmeyer & Co. v. Det. & Mac. Ry. Co. et al. 160,

ICING.

Fish in transit. Bannon v. Southern Express Co. 516.

IMPORT RATES.

To make the total through charge from a foreign point of origin the abso-
lute measure of the rate to be charged on domestic traffic from the port of
entry in this country through which the import shipment moves would be to
establish a hard and fast rule difficult if not impossible for the rail carriers
in this country to conform to in the establishment and publication of their
rates, in view of that uncertain and flexible element involved in the ascertain-
ment of the total through charges, to wit, the rates to the port. Pittsburg
Plate Glass Co. v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. 87.

Detroit Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. Co. et al. 357.

INDUSTRIAL LINES.

Where a railroad has been constructed for a special purpose, and does not
form part of any general industrial development, it does not stand in the same
relation to the public as a railroad chartered and built for general purposes, and
the reasonableness of its rates must be determined by the financial returns
which they produce rather than by comparison with rates in effect elsewhere.
Held, That under the peculiar circumstances of this case a rate of $8 per ton
is a reasonable charge to be imposed by the defendant for the transportation of
gilsonite, a low-grade commodity, a distance of 54 miles. American Asphalt
Asso. v. Uintah Ry. Co. 196.

Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.

La Salle & Bureau County R. R. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 610.

An interstate carrier, in order to build up enterprises of the same character
on its own line and to prevent the trade of its local industries from being dis-
placed by the competition of manufacturers of the same commodities on con-
necting lines, can not deny to industries on the lines of such connections the
benefit of through routes and joint rates; nor is the fact that the revenues of
the carrier may be reduced by establishing such through routes and joint rates
a material consideration. Cardiff Coal Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 460.
New Albany Furniture Co. v. M. J. & K. C. Ry. Co. et al. 594.

No part of business of railroad to define territory into which particular ship-
ping localities may sell. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al.
319.

One industry may not be built up by privileges denied to and which work an
unreasonable disadvantage against another. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. et al.

451.

INLAND CARRIAGE.

This position does not conclude the Commission against an examination into
the relation which exists between the rail carriers of the United States and the
defendant water carriers and condemnation of such arrangement, if the rail
carriers to the seaboard are by any means whatsoever disobeying any provision
of the act or omitting to comply with its every requirement. Cosmopolitan
Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. et al. 266.

Unjust discrimination in rates against domestic shipments of plate glass in
favor of import shipments was alleged, on the ground that rates on the former
are relatively higher than the inland rail proportion of the total charge from
the point of origin in a foreign country. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P., C., C.
& St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 87.

Under the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in
Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162
U. S., 197, the Commission can not consider such disparity in rates alone as
constituting unjust discrimination. Id.

Transportation from a seaport of the United States or an adjacent foreign
country to an interior American destination, in completion of a through move-
ment of freight from a point in a foreign but not adjacent country, whether
upon a joint through rate or upon a separately established or proportional in-
land rate applicable only to imports moving through, is not a "like service" to
the transportation of traffic starting at such domestic port, though bound for the
same destination. Id.

The rate of $2.32 per ton of 2,240 pounds on imported iron pyrites from Balti-
more to Detroit is now and was during the time it was in effect unreasonable and
unjust, and should not exceed $2.21 per ton. Reparation awarded. Detroit
Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. Co. et al. 357.

Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. et al. 266.
Lykes S. S. Line v. Commercial Union et al. 310.

INSURANCE.

Included in rate. Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R. Co. et al. 258.
Seems proper when risk enlarged by increased value, charges may be in-
creased. In re Released Rates 550,

On the facts shown of record: Held, That the complainant is entitled to
recover from defendant $488.61 as reparation on account of the exaction of
unlawful storage and insurance charges at West Fairport, Ohio, on specified
shipments of rye. England & Co. v. B. &. O. R. R. Co. 614.

INTEREST.

Cases in which interest is included in orders for reparation:

Baer Brothers Mercantile Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com-
pany et al. 329.

Frye & Bruhn et al. v. Northern Pacific Railway Company et al. 501.
Hydraulic Press Brick Company v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Company et al. 342.

Koch Secret Service v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 523.

INTEREST-Continued.

Cases in which interest is included in orders for reparation-Cont'd.

Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com-
pany et al. 154.

Minneapolis Threshing Machine Company v. Chicago, Rock Island &
Pacific Railway Company, 128.

Morti v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, 513.
North Brothers v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, 152.
Ocheltree Grain Company v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Com-
pany, 46.

Wellington et al. v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, 534.
INTERMEDIATE RATES.

Complaint that section 4 of the act is violated in that a lesser rate is charged
on bananas from New Orleans to Burlington, Iowa, than to Kansas City, an in-
termediate point, is not sustained, as the joint rate quoted via Kansas City is a
paper rate on which the traffic does not move, the bananas destined for Burling-
ton moving through St. Louis. Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F.
R. R. Co. et al. 620.

Chester, Va., between Petersburg and Richmond. Randolph Lumber Co. v.
S. A. Ry. et al. 601.

Leadville between Salt Lake City and St. Louis. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co.
v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 329.

Tariff affirmative and definite or should be eliminated. White Water Farms
Co. v. P. B. & W. R. R. Co. 526.

INTERURBAN LINE.

Act makes no distinction between between steam and electricity. Chicago &
Milwaukee Electric R. R. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 20.

IN TRANSIT.

Bran the product of wheat, taking wheat rate. Marshal Michel Grain Co. v.
Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. 566.

Clipping, cleaning, grading, weighing, and mixing of grain. Re Allowances
to Elevators by U. P. R. R. Co. 498.

Privileges if allowed should be open to all. Quimby et al. v. Maine Central
R. R. Co. et al. 246.

Stoppage for partial unloading. Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. &
S. F. R. Co. et al. 620.

Storage at Duluth or Superior, Wis. Commercial Club of Duluth v. N. P.
Ry. Co. et al. 288.

IRON ORE.

Rates on, from Chicago and Chicago points to Pacific coast terminals. Win-
ter's Metallic Paint Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 409.-

IRON PYRITES.

Rates on.

Detroit Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. Co. et al. 357.
Detroit Chemical Works v. Erie R. R. Co. et al. 363.

JOBBERS' RATES.

Pecos Mercantile Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 173.
Payne-Gardner & Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 638.