Memorandum by the Commission. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 184.) It appearing that the charge in question had been reduced prio to the filing of the complaint, and the petitioner not appearing, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution.

24. B S. Crews, J. E. Schoolfield, and D. S. Overbey, individually and as members of the committee on transportation of the Danville Chamber of Commerce, against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company; Virginia Midland Railroad, controlled and operated by the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company: Complaint alleges excessive freight charges and discrimination against Danville, Va.

June 8, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 18, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 14, 15, 1887. Hearing on depositions, oral testimony, and arguments.

Dec. 1, 1887. Case under advisement.

25. James H. McMullan, E. B. Benson, J. W. Williams, J. D. Matheson, A. F. Brown, J. J. Linder, and A. R. McCurry, as committee of the Board of Trade of Hartwell, Ga., against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges discrimination against Hartwell and undue and unreasonable preference to Elberton, in violation of section 3 of the act.

June 9, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 18, 1887. Answer filed.

Sept. 22, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by the petitioner.

26. W. L. Ray, C. R. Sanders, and Harry T. Rumbough, as citizens of Hot Springs, against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company and its connecting line, the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway, controlled and leased by the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges unjust discrimination in passenger rates against Hot Springs, N. C.

June 9, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 30, 1887. Answer filed.

July 18, 1887. Hearing. An arrangement being made in the presence of the Commission establishing rates satisfactory to the petitioners, no further proceedings were had, but the case was held open for future application if desired by complainants.

27. Boards-of-Trade Union of Farmington, Northfield, Faribault, and Owatonna against Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Rail way Company:

Complaint alleges unjust and unreasonable freight charges, subjecting complainants to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage.

June 11, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 1, 1887. Answer filed.

Sept. 14, 1887. Hearing at Minneapolis.

Opinion by Schoonmaker, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 215.)

Held, That rates must not only be reasonable in themselves, but they should be so relatively reasonable as to protect communities against unjust discrimination. When the same carrier operates parallel lines and for any cause accepts low rates on one of them, it should provide sufficient advantages to the patrons of the other line to preserve the substantial equality contemplated by the statute.

Ordered, That while a rate of 7 cents per hundred from Minneapolis to Chicago is charged on the River Division, the rates from the petitioning towns to Chicago over the Iowa and Minnesota Division must not exceed 10 cents per hundred.

28. James Pyle & Sons against Southern Railway and Steamship Association :

Complaint alleges the subjection of a particular description of traffic to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvan tage, viz, "Pearline."

June 11, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 30, 1887. Answer filed.

See No. 85, substituted for this.

29. W. U. Smith against Northern Pacific Railroad Company :

Complaint alleges undue and unreasonable preference granted to particular persons, to wit, "Land explorers and settlers." June 13, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 27, 1887. Answer filed.

Sept. 14, 1887. Hearing at Minneapolis.
Briefs subsequently submitted.

Opinion by Walker, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 215.)
Held, That discrimination in rates charged passengers who
enjoy the same accommodations is not justified by proof that
the carrier's present or future business will be thereby stim-
ulated, or that the settlement of the country will be pro-
moted, or that those receiving the more favorable rates are
persons of small means who are about to locate permanently
in the Northwest.
Held further, That the rule under which passenger transporta-
tion should be conducted requires absolute equality of pay-
ment from all persons enjoying the same accommodations.
Defendant notified to cease and desist from selling said
special classes of tickets at lower rates than those estab
lished by it for the sale of tickets to the public generally.

30. Milton Evans against Oregon Railway and Navigation Company :

Complaint alleges excessive freight charges upon wheat, to wit, $6 per ton from Walla Walla, Wash., to Portland, Oregon.

June 15, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 11, 1887. Answer filed.

Oct. 12, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Bragg, Commissioner (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. -).
In this case and the case of Reed against the same defendant,
No. 42, post, the only question presented is that of the reason-
ableness of the rate of transporting wheat from Walla Walla
City, in Washington Territory, to Portland, in the State of
Oregon.

Held, In determining what is a just and reasonable rate for a par-
ticular commodity (for example, wheat) the Commission will
take into consideration the earnings and expenses of opera-
tion; the rates charged upon the same commodity by other
roads as nearly similarly situated as may be; the diversities
between the railroad in question and such other railroads; the
relative amount of through and local business; the propor
tion borne by the commodity in question to the remainder of
the local traffic; the market value of the commodity and its
gradual reduction; the reductions made by the carrier upon
other articles which are consumed and necessarily required
by the producers of the article in question; and all other cir-
cumstances affecting the traffic of itself, and as related to
other considerations entering into the charges of the carrier.
Upon the facts shown by the evidence in the present case: Held,
That the rate on wheat from Walla Walla City to Portland
should not exceed 234 cents per 100 pounds when transported
by the defendant railroad for the remainder of the present
grain season, extending to the 30th of June, 1888.

31. Armour and Company against Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 6, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by petitioners.

32. Swift and Company against Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company: Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates in dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 6, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by the petitioners.

83. Armour and Company against Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 9, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Leave to file amended petition granted on com plainants' application.

34. Swift and Company against Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1837. Complaint filed.

July 9, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Leave to file amended petition granted.

35. Armour and Company against Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 6, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Leave to file amended petition granted.

36. Nelson Morris and Company against Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company :

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 6, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Leave to file amended petition granted.

37. Armour and Company against Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburgh Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 9, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by petitioner.

38. Nelson Morris and Company against Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 9, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by petitioner,

39. George H. Hammond and Company against Michigan Central Rail road Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 9, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Leave to file amended petition granted.

40. East Saint Louis Dressed Beef and Canning Company against In dianapolis and St. Louis Railway Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on dressed beef, sheep, and hogs, and meat provisions.

June 16, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 12, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Leave to file amended petition granted.

41. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company against East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company :

Complaint alleges violation of section 3 of the act.

June 17, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 30, 1887. Proceedings suspended by request of petitioner.

42. William H. Reed against Oregon Railway and Navigation Company: Complaint alleges excessive freight charges upon wheat. (See No. 30.)

June 21, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 11, 1887. Answer filed.

Oct. 12, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Bragg, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts.)

Same disposition as of No. 30.

43. I. Friend & Son against Southern Pacific Company; Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company; Burlington and Missouri River Railroad in Nebraska :

Complaint alleges excessive freight charges and violations of sections 3 and 4 of the act.

June 24, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 14 to 19, 1887. Answers filed.

Oct. 13, 1887. Hearing postponed by request of complainant's counsel. (See Nos. 80, 82, 94, 95, 96.)

44. David F. Allen and Edward F. Allen against Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company :

Complaint alleges violation of section 4 of the act.

June 30, 1887. Complaint filed.

July 18, 1887. Answer filed.

Sept. 20, 1887. Hearing at Chicago.