that instead of being there for that purpose it might be blown up with dynamite, was fairly attributable to their opinion of the unsafe and dangerous condition of the tank car, and to the personal hazard attending the transportation of it over defendant's line, rather than to any malevolent spirit they entertained toward complainant or its business. 'They evidently considered it a dangerous car which they and their comrades were expected to operate, and in lan- " guange more forcible than decorous they took occasion to express their opinion of it.

I. We briefly state our conclusions and opinion in this proceeding. We have repeatedly decided that we can make no order on a question of rates where the necessary parties are not before us. In Allen v. The Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., p. 199, we held that all the roads constituting the line which makes the through rates complained of should be parties to the complaint which seeks to compel a reduction of the through rates. Again in the case of Harwell v. The Columbus & Western Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., p. 237, we held that the parties affected are entitled to be notified in case a change in rates is asked; and that we would not make an order correcting an alleged unjust discrimination, unless the proper parties were before us. And again in the case of Riddle, Dean & Company v. The Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., p. 490, we decided that where the relation of any carrier to the matter complained of is such that it is in whole or in part materially responsible for the alleged grievance, and has a direct interest in any investigation of the subject-matter involved, that carrier should be a party to the proceeding, and if not a party no relief can be given against it. The rule as to proper parties in such a proceeding as this is plain, simple, and elementary. There is no difficulty in observing it, and especially where, as in this proceeding, the defense set up in the answer shows that all the necessary parties had not been made defendants. This put the complainant upon an inquiry which it should at once have made, and amended its complaint to correspond

with the facts unless it was prepared to prove that this averment of the answer was untrue.

II. The theory upon which complainant insists that the defendant was bound to take the tank-car and transport it after it had been loaded by complainant with the knowledge of defendant's depot agent in April, 1888, without regard to its actual condition, is one that cannot be sustained. It is narrow and technical and has no semblance of reason or justice to support it. It overlooks considerations that are vital to the rights of the defendant as well as to the public. The depot agent had not examined the condition of the car. It was not his business to examine its condition. The company had an inspector of cars and a superintendent whose duty it was to examine the condition of this car and determine whether it was in a condition to be safely transported over defendant's line.

The day after its arrival at Lansing in April, 1888, complainant's agent stated to the depot agent of defendant that he was ready to load the car and asked the depot agent to have it moved to the side track where it could be loaded by complainant. To this the depot agent replied "All right," and had the car switched to the side track where complainant's agents loaded it. Within a few days afterwards, the foreman of car inspectors and superintendent of defendant examined the car and found it unsafe to be transported when loaded, but there is no evidence that this was reported immediately to the depot agent. But whether it was reported to him and he failed to mention it to complainant's agent, when the latter went to him for a billing receipt for the loaded car and he refused to give the billing receipt, because, according to his opinion, based on his own ideas, or those of the switchmen, that the caboose and ladder were dangerous and would have to come off, is wholly immaterial. His judgment or his opinion about it amounted to nothing. The defendant had the right to rely for its own protection, that of complainant and of the public, in this matter, upon the judgment of its car inspector and superintendent who were trained and experienced experts in the repairing and building of cars,

and whose eyes and minds were skilled in detecting defects in cars and in determining whether they were in condition to be safely transported, and who, alone, the defendant had selected to perform this duty. In order to be reasonably assured of its safe condition it was the duty of the defendant to have such a car, which had just returned from one long journey, carefully inspected by its inspector before starting out on another, in which the lives and safety of brakemen, trainmen, and engineers, and the property of complainant would be involved. No unauthorized declarations or statements of the depot agent could dispense with such a duty as this, or work a parol estoppel, or verbal admission regarding it. And when the report of this car inspector and superintendent, to say nothing of the State engineer, had established the fact that this car was in an unsafe condition, then the complainant should have had it promptly repaired.

III. The findings of facts we have made fully disposes of the other questions in this proceeding, and it is unnecessary to say more regarding them. All questions as to the reasonableness of rates are left open and undecided, and may, if the complainant sees proper, be made the subject of complaint against the necessary parties as herein indicated.

The order of the Commission is that this petition must be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

T. M. C. LOGAN, F. D. BABCOCK, AND E. M. PARSONS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NORTHWESTERN IOWA GRAIN AND STOCK SHIPPERS' ASSOCIATION v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Petition Filed May 8, 1888.-Answer Filed June 4, 1888.-Case Heard at Dubuque, Iowa, July 26, 1888.-Decided March 22, 1889.

1. The service may be rendered under such dissimilar circumstances as to make it lawful to charge more for the same distance on one line or branch than on another line or branch of the same road.

2. A departure from the rule of equal mileage rates as applied to the several branches of a road is not conclusive that such rates are unlawful, but the burden is on the company making such departure to show its rates to be reasonable when' disputed.

3. A railroad company, while long maintaining a rate without the presence of competition on other than equal terms, is making evidence that such rate is not too low.

4. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company has two routes or lines between Chicago and Sioux City, formed by its main line and different branch lines, and a greater charge for a shorter than for a longer distance in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance, on either of said routes or lines is unlawful under the fourth section of the Act to Regulate Commerce.

5. Two of the south branch lines of said railway company are crossed by the main line of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. From points on these branch lines the Northwestern Company comes in competition with the St. Paul Company, from its main line points. Held, that the charges on these branches do not establish a standard of reasonable rates for like distances from points on a north branch of the same company, where no such competition exists.

6. Said railway company had in force from Nebraska points to Turner. Illinois, a tariff sheet directing corn destined to the sea-board to be billed from such Nebraska points to Turner at different rates when destined to different sea-board points. The corn was carried from Nebraska to Chicago, where the re-billing and transferring was done. No shipments could be made under this tariff from Iowa points. Held, that as billed, the shipment was to Turner; that by billing at different rates to Turner, an illegal preference was given, and that Iowa grain growers were subjected to unreasonable disadvantage in marketing corn.

F. D. Babcock and E. M. Parsons for complainants.

W. C. Goudy for defendant.

Spencer Smith for Board of Railroad Commissioners of Iowa.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

MORRISON, Commissioner:

The complainants are the officers, President, Secretary,

and Treasurer, of the Northwestern Iowa Grain and Stock Shippers' Association. Together they are the Executive Committee of the Association, and in its behalf authorized to institute these proceedings in the interest of its membership.

They allege that the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company is a common carrier of freight and passengers from Council Bluffs and other Missouri River and Western Iowa points, to Chicago and other eastern points over the lines and branch lines of railway operated and owned or controlled by it, and marked in light-red lines on the map of the State of Iowa printed as part of the State Railroad Commission's Report for 1887, and made "Exhibit A" to their complaint.

That said Railway Company has charged and continues to charge the members of said Association for transportation on its branch lines north of its main line and west of Carroll station greater rates than it charges for like service for relatively the same distances on its branches south of the main line and west of Carroll, or on its main line from Council Bluffs and Carroll and intervening stations.

That the rate on grain in car-loads to Chicago from all of said points on main line and branches was 22 cents per one hundred pounds at the time the Act to regulate commerce became operative, and so remained until August 1, 1887, when it was reduced to 18 cents from the points on the main line and on the Audubon and Kirkham branches south of main line, while it remained at 22 cents from the points on the lines or branches north of main line.

That on August 25, 1887, the rates were made 21 cents from points on lines and branches north, and 19 cents by the rate sheets from points on main line and branches south, while the 18-cent rate was the actual rate on south branches and main line points until November 1, 1887, when there was a re-adjustment on the basis of the August 25th rate sheets, and the rates from the main line and south branch points were made 19 cents, and from the north branch points 21 cents. That on February 29, 1888, the defendant company in connection with the Sioux City and Pacific Railroad Company

1