for which no charge is made against the express company or the firm represented by it. In addition to this the carriers pay this firm yardage at the rate of 3 cents per hundred pounds on all their cattle, and upon all other cattle hauled for other firms in the care of this firm, owning the express company, to its yards at Pier 45, East River. This yardage charge is thus paid to the said firm by the said carriers for keeping their cattle in the firm's own yards after delivery of them to the firm, and then this yardage charge is deducted from the tariff rate charged by the carrier. The amount of these rebates to this firm in rates on these cattle by these carriers more than pays the entire cost of the improved stock cars within two years after operations are commenced with them, including the expenses of operation, leaving said firm owning the cars and still operating them with all these advantages and rates and facilities. Held

1. This is an unlawful preference to the firm owning these improved stock cars and a violation of the act to regulate commerce.

2. It is an unlawful and unjust prejudice to other cattle firms and dealers in New York who are competitors in the business of said firm owning said improved stock cars.

The New York and Northern Railway Company v. The New York and New England Railroad Company, The Housatonic Railroad Company, and The New England Terminal Company.

1. Discrimination between connecting lines.-The respondent, which is a carrier by a railroad running through the State of Connecticut to a point in New York, had had for some time a through billing arrangement and an agreement upon through rates for traffic over its own line destined to New York City, with petitioner's road, which connected therewith at its New York terminus. This arrangement respondent broke up and declined to enter into any new one in its place.

The reason for breaking up the arrangement was that respondent had entered into a new arrangement with another road connecting with it at a point in Connecticut, whereby a New York City line was formed over which it was intended to take the business which formerly passed over respondent's line to petitioner's. It was not complained that petitioner's road was insolvent or not responsible for its contracts, or that the arrangement as before existing was unfair or unequal as between the parties thereto. Such action of the respondent is held to be in violation of the second paragraph of section 3 of the act to regulate commerce, which requires that "every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several lines and those connecting therewith, and shall not discriminate in their rates and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in like business. 2. Interest in the competing line.-One reason assigned for breaking up the arrangement with petitioner was that respondent was joint owner with the road making the new line of a terminal company for delivery of freight in New York. This interest is not an ex

cuse under the statute for discrimination against petitioner's line, and this whether the interest in the terminal company was large or small. Petitioner did not require or ask the services of the terminal company, but only to be allowed to continue as competitor for the business affected by the discrimination, and to offer its services to the public as such. It is found in the case that the public interest was injuriously affected by the discrimination.

3. Terminal delivery by an agent. It is of no importance to the question involved that after freight carried by petitioner's road reached High Bridge, in New York, its delivery from that point to the pier, which constituted the terminus of the carriage, was made by an agent or contractor employed for the purpose. Petitioner, being carrier for the whole distance, was entitled to the privileges given by, the statute accordingly.

Frederick P. Beaver and William D. Chamberlin, doing business under the firm name of Beaver & Company, v. The Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway Company, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Company, The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, The Dayton, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company, The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, The Wabash Railroad Company, The Chicago, St. Paul and Kansas City Railway Company, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company, The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, The Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, The Union Pacific Railway Company, and The Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company. 1. Where two kinds of soap are made use of for the same purposes, and are advertised and held out to the world as suited for like purposes, and are substantially equal in value, they should both for purposes of transportation and rating be placed in the same

classification.

2. The soaps known as the Ivory Soap and the Grand Pa's Wonder Soap fall within this rule. Both are represented as suitable for laundry and also for toilet purposes, and both are used for those purposes. It would therefore be unjust discrimination to place one of them in a classification as toilet soap and the other in a much lower classification as laundry soap.

The James & Mayer Buggy Company . The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company, The Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, and The Georgia Railroad Company.

1. Same rate for longer and shorter distances.-Ordinarily longer distances warrant higher charges, but carriers may lawfully accept the same aggregate, though less profitable, rates for longer distances, provided such carriers do not "subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

2. Greater charge for shorter distances.-The circumstances and conditions which make a greater charge for a shorter distance law

ful relate to the nature and character of the transportation service rendered by the carrier over the same line to the longer and shorter distance points. 3. Same. Water competition to justify the greater charge for the shorter distance must be competition in transportation to the longer-distance point and as to freight which, if not carried over the line on which it is located, would reach such destination by water transportation.

4. Same.-Goods shipped from Cincinnati, Ohio, to points in the State of Georgia are interstate traffic and all the roads forming a part of the line over which such goods are carried to their destination are engaged in interstate commerce and are subject to the act to regulate commerce. Where two or more roads forming a continuous connecting line between points in different States bill and carry interstate traffic through to certain stations on the last road forming such line, neither the roads together nor any one of them can evade the obligations of the fourth section of said act by declaring that as to such traffic destined to such stations on such terminal road it is a local carrier.

The Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. The New York and New England Railroad Company, The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, and The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

At the hearing of this case upon its merits, the Commission prescribed the freight rate upon peaches in carload lots, from New Jersey and the Delaware Peninsula, to Boston, Mass. One of the defendants filed a motion for rehearing, based upon the claim that some of the other defendants construed the decision of the Commission as justifying them in insisting that the freight charge prescribed should be divided among the carriers on a mileage basis merely:

Held, That the former decision of the Commission could not be fairly construed as justifying the claim that the single freight charge between the interstate points should be divided on a mileage basis merely; that many of the considerations which induced the fixing of an increased rate for the special service were peculiar to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and in which the other carriers east of the Harlem River did not participate; that, under the pleadings and evidence in this case, the Commission could only prescribe a single rate for the service as an entirety, to be reasonably and fairly divided among the several carriers by themselves; that the motion for a rehearing be overruled.

Daniel Buchanan v. The Northern Pacific Railroad Company. The rates on wheat and barley, of 50 and 56 cents per hundredweight, respectively, charged by defendant from Ritzville, Wash., to St. Paul, Minn., a distance of 1,576 miles, in view of the circumstance and conditions surrounding the traffic, held not to be unreasonable.

The Railroad Commission of Florida v. The Savannah, Florida and Western Railway Company, The Charleston and Savannah Railway Company, The North Eastern Railroad Company of South Carolina, The Wilmington, Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company, The

Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company, The Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad Company, The Petersburg Railroad Company, The Richmond and Petersburg Railroad Company, The Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company, The Alexandria and Fredericksburg Railway Company, The Alexandria and Washington Railway Company, The Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, The Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, The Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company, The Baltimore Steam Packet Company, The New York and Texas Steamship Company, The Clyde Steamship Company, The Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah.

1. The act to regulate commerce makes it the duty of this Commission "to investigate any complaint forwarded by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory at the request of such commissioner or commission." The complaint in this case was brought by and in the name of the railroad commission of Florida, but the real parties in interest are large classes of growers, buyers, and shippers in the State of Florida. Since the complaint was filed the nominal complainant has ceased to exist. Held, That the repeal of the law creating the railroad commission of Florida could not operate as a withdrawal or dismissal of the complaint, that commission having been only an instrument for the transmission of the complaint to this commission, and having fully performed that function before an end was put to its existence. To abate or dismiss the proceeding on that ground would be to sacrifice substance to form in contravention of the spirit and letter of the act to regulate commerce and of the rules of courts of law in analogous cases. Held further, That under the provision of the act to regulate commerce authorizing this Commission to "institute any inquiry on its own motion in the same manner and to the same effect as though complaint had been made," neither complaint nor complainant is necessary to confer jurisdiction.

2. The defendants, the Clyde Steamship Company, the New York and Texas Steamship Company, and the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company, are common carriers engaged in interstate commerce by arrangement as alleged in the complaint, and as such are subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission in respect thereto.

3. It does not appear that defendants willfully omitted or failed to notify the Commission and the public of the advance in rates complained of, or that anyone has sustained damage or injury by reason of such failure or omission, and therefore there is no case made out for an application by the Commission to a district attorney of the United States for the institution of a prosecution, and no ground for a recommendation of reparation for such injury.

4. While a complainant has no interest in the division the defendants make between themselves, and it does not determine what the charge to the public must be, yet the division is not without significance in determining what are reasonable rates for the whole distance on the lines in question.

5. Carriers making an advance in rates should be able to present a satisfactory justification of such advance, particularly when the old rates have been of many years' standing and the advance is great and the traffic affected is of large and constantly increasing volume and of vital importance to a large section of country.

6. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances in this caseHeld, That the advance of 10 cents per box in rates on oranges from Florida points to New York and other northeastern markets, made by defendants on November 23, 1890, was without justification, and so far as it exceeded 5 cents per box was unreasonable and contrary to law; that defendants be notified and required to make reparation for injuries occasioned by such unreasonable and unlawful rates to the several persons entitled thereto, and, as such persons are not parties to this proceeding and the amounts wrongfully received from them, respectively, can not be ascertained from the evidence already taken, that this proceeding be continued for such further action or inquiry in that behalf as may become necessary.

Lehmann, Higginson and Company v. the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, and George A. Eddy and H. C. Cross, receivers of said Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company.

1. A schedule of rates designated a "joint freight tariff" announcing a rate from New Orleans to Kansas City of 30 cents per hundred pounds of sugar was duly published and filed with the Commission by the New Orleans Traffic Association on behalf of the roads composing said association "and connections." The Texas and Pacific Railway Company, a member of said association, in its own behalf, issued and filed a supplemental sheet announcing said rate of 30 cents effective. The several companies composing said traffic association operate roads extending to and leading out of New Orleans, but none of them extending to Kansas City: Held, That a joint tariff of rates or charges must show on its face what carriers unite in establishing such joint tariff, and that the publication and filing of said schedule and supplemental rate sheet did not establish, as provided by section 6 of the act to regulate commerce, a joint tariff of rates and charges on a continuous line from New Orleans to Kansas City over the roads of said association, or of any one of them, in connection with any other road or roads. Held further, That where freight passes over a continuous line or route operated by more than one company on which no joint tariff of rates or charges has been established, the tariff of rates or charges is the sum of the established local rates or charges of the several companies operating such continuous line.

2. Several railway companies forming a continuous through line carried certain traffic to the terminal point at a 30-cent rate and for the same rate to an intermediate point, and to a point on a branch line more distant than the said intermediate but less distant than said terminal point they maintained a rate of 42 cents on the like traffic: Held, That the roads might lawfully maintain the same rate at the intermediate and terminal points, and that some higher rate might be maintained to the branchline point off the direct through line without unjust discrimination. Held further, That as to the branch-line point the complainant was entitled to a refund of the amount paid in excess of a reasonable rate.