further relief as it may be entitled to or as to your Honorable Commission may seem just and lawful. Messrs. Britton & Gray, for petitioner. By the Commission: hitherto in force prior to the 20th day of April, It is a further condition of this order that a '(April 27, 1887.) THE Commission examined at Atlanta a large (April 29, 1887.) Re UNION PACIFIC R. CO. Application having been made to the Interstate Commerce Commission, under section 4 of the Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to Regulate Commerce," by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company, a common carrier, subject to the provisions of said Act, for authority to charge less for a longer than for a shorter distance in certain cases, that is to say for the transportation of property: first, between San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton, Marysville, San José, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego in California; Portland and Astoria in Oregon; Tacoma in Washington Territory; Victoria in British Columbia; and HE El Paso in Texas on the one hand; and New TE following petition of the Union Pacific Railway Company to the Interstate ComYork, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New-merce Commission, asking to be relieved from port News, Richmond and all points commonly the operation of the fourth section of the Interrated with them, or either of them, on the state Law, was filed with the Secretary at Washother hand: second, between the same western ington: points and Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans and points east thereof; third, between the same western points, and Galveston and Houston in Texas, and points on the Mississippi River and east thereof, at lower rates than are charged between the same points respectively, and focal points on the line of said petitioner, or between intermediate points on the same line; And said common carrier having presented as a reason for granting its said application the existence of water competition and other competing agencies not subject to the "Act to Regulate Commerce," claiming that the rates to and from the said points which must be met in order to obtain through business are too low to enable said common carrier to carry on its business if applied to intermediate local points; and further claiming that great disturbance of business will occur if the provisions of the fourth section of said Act are immediately applied according to the construction thereof which shall treat the business above distinguished as substantially similar in its circumstances and conditions; and it appearing to the Commission, after an investigation of said petition and the facts presented in support thereof, to be a proper case for a temporary order until the Commission can make a complete examination of the matters alleged as reasons for relieving said common carrier from the operation of said section of said Act; It is ordered that the said application be, and the same is hereby, granted temporarily, subject to modification or revocation by the Commission at any time, upon hearing or otherwise; and the said Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company is hereby temporarily relieved from the operation of section 4 of said Act, to the extent specified in the recitals of this order, and for a period not greater than seventy-five days from this date; subject, however, to the restriction that while this order remains in force said common carrier shall not charge or receive compensation for the transportation of property between stations on its line where more is charged for a shorter than for a longer haul which shall be greater than the rates To the Honorable the Interstate Commerce Commission: The petition of the Union Pacific Railway Company respectfully represents that it is a railroad company engaged in the transportation of passengers and freight between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, such transportation being conducted through various States and Territories of the United States, as will appear from the map of the lines operated by it hereunto annexed. The through transportation upon such lines is necessarily conducted under circumstances and conditions substantially dis similar from those under which the intermedi. ate local transportation is conducted. In respect of the through transportation, your petitioner is subject to competition with the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company, the Pacif ic Mail Steamship Company and clipper ships, tramp steamers, and other vessels running be tween the Pacific and Atlantic ports, some or all of which are beyond the control of Your Honorable Commission in respect of their rates for transportation and their competition with the lines of your petitioner for traffic. Your petitioner and other companies engaged in the transportation of passengers and freights between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, have caused to be prepared two tariffs for transcontinental business: one upon the assumption that the fourth section of the Act creating the Commission does, and the other upon the assumption that such section does not, apply to cases in which competing agencies enter, which is not answerable to the operation of said law. In case your petitioner shall adhere to the tariff for transcontinental business, prepared on the assumption that such section of said Act does apply to cases in which competing agencies enter which are not answerable to the ope ration of this law, the natural and necessary result therefrom would be that your petitioner would lose the whole or by far the greater part of its through transcontinental business, which would of necessity be diverted to the line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company, the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and the clipper ships, tramp steamers and other vessels between the Atlantic and Pacific ports, and such diversion of such traffic would take place for | Diego and other California points on the other the reason that the establishment of rates which hand. could be reasonably or justly fixed for intermediate traffic would require and necessitate the charging by your petitioner of so high a rate for the through traffic as to be substantially prohibitory. The effect of putting in operation the tariff for transcontinental business prepared on the assumption that the fourth section of said Act did apply to cases in which competing agencies enter which are not answerable to the operations of this law, has been that the through transcontinental business of your petitioner has, since the adoption of such tariff, been reduced by at least 90 per cent, and the amount of such through transcontinental business now being done, by your petitioner is very inconsiderable; on the other hand, if the rates for intermediate local traffic should be reduced to rates not greater than those which are requisite in order to enable your petitioner to do any substantial part of the through business the whole earnings of the roads operated by your petitioner would be wholly inadequate to the payment of their fixed charges. All the points herein before designated are subject to water competition via the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Columbia, Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and the Great Lakes, and are subject to competition by water and railway carriers not restrained by the Interstate Commerce Law. They are also subject to competition with the Canadian Pacific Line which, even if deemed to be affected in anywise by the law, has no considerable intermediate traffic to be affected by competitive rates to the Pacific coast, and hence is practically unrestrained. As a matter of fact the Canadian Pacific has taken canned goods from San Francisco destined to St. Louis and to points as far west as Dodge City, Kansas. The like circumstances and conditions are also applicable in respect of foreign business, that is to say: Between all points in Australia, New Zealand, British India, Japan and the islands of the Pacific and all points in the United States and Canada east of the ninety-seventh meridian of longitude, and between all points in Great Britain and Continental Europe on the one hand, and San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton, San José, Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego, California, and the Washington Territory, Oregon and British Columbia points herein before mentioned on the other. While your petitioner verily believes that the circumstances and conditions of the transportation of passengers and freight for such through business are actually dissimilar from those under which the transportation of passengers and freight in the course of the intermediate traffic has to be conducted, still the penalties which are prescribed under the said Act are so stringent and severe that your petitioner has not heretofore felt authorized without the assent of the Commission to put in force such tariffs for through transportation as are requisite in order to enable your petitioner to perform any substantial or important part thereof, and it therefore respectfully invokes the action of this Honorable Commission on that behalf, and prays that, in the case above referred to, to wit: in respect of through transcontinental business, Your Honorable Commission will authorize your petitioner, and other lines associated with it in interest, to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for transportation of passengers and property, and will relieve your petitioner from the operation of the fourth section of the Act above referred to. Your petitioner further shows that the circumstances and conditions above set forth are applicable not only to the through transcontinental business between points on the Atlantic coast and points on the Pacific coast, but also to business with points in the interior and on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, rates of freight to and from which are governed and controlled by water competition in the same manner in which water competition affects the rates for traffic between ports on the Atlantic seaboard and ports on the Pacific coast; that is to say, between Omaha, Council Bluffs, St. Joseph, Atchison, Kansas City, Leavenworth on the Missouri and intermediate points and points easterly, northwest and southeast thereof on the one hand, and points and places on Puget Sound and other places in Washington Mobile and heard the evidence of those interTerritory, Victoria in British Columbia, Portland, Astoria and other points in Oregon, and ested in the iron business in Birmingham and San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton, Marys- vicinity, and received petitions from firms enville, San José, Oakland, Los Angeles, San gaged in the lumber interest, all of them favor A lower charge for longer than for shorter distances is necessary in respect to such foreign business, to enable the United States carriers to compete with foreign carriers not controlled by the law, and likewise necessary to enable United States producers, manufacturers and merchants to compete with foreign markets. Wherefore, your petitioner prays that in respect of business between points above mentioned, Your Honorable Commission will authorize your petitioner and other lines associated with it in interest, as it has already authorized the Southern Pacific and its leased and associated roads, and the Northern Pacific and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé and competitors of your petitioner to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for transportation of passengers and property, and will relieve your petitioner, as it has already relieved its said rival and competing lines, and as of the same date, from the operation of the fourth section of the Act above referred to, thereby placing this Company upon the same and equal footing with said other companies;jor, if further investigation of the facts alleged in the foregoing petition may seem to be requisite or desirable, that such order may be made for a temporary suspension of said Act in respect of such traffic as may be equitable and proper; and your petitioner will ever pray, etc. Charles F. Adams. (April 30, 1887.) HE Commission commenced its sessions at The ground of the petition is that the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company's lines of railroad connect with the Northern Pacific and with the Union Pacific Railroads, and thus form links in through transcontinental lines to the Pacific coast. As the fourth section has been suspended as to these two roads, including transporation over the lines of the petitioner, the Oregon Company prays that it may be included in any order heretofore made suspending the operation of the section, so far as it applies to traffic passing over either the Union or Northern Pacific to or from the Pacific coast. LEHIGH VALLEY R. R. CO., Petitioner, v. PHILADELPHIA & READING R. R. CO. THE HE Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, by its general passenger agent, E. B. Byington, filed with the Secretary of the Commission a petition against the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, asking for an investigation and decision of the question of free baggage allowance upon the registry and indemnity certificates of the Traders & Travelers Union of New York. The petition sets forth that, On March 30,1887, the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company issued a circular in which its agents are instructed to allow 300 pounds of free baggage to passengers presenting certificates of registration and indemnity covering the same and issued by the Traders & Travelers Union of New York; while passengers who do not present such certificates are to be granted only the ordinary allowance of 150 pounds; that such exceptions in favor of the holders of these registry and indemnity certificates issued by the Traders & Travelers Union arise out of certain contracts which, it is claimed by the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, are a sufficient warrant for the exception made in favor of the holders of these certificates, inasmuch as they secure to the Philadelphia & Reading Company a release from all ordinary liability for loss or injury to baggage covered by such certificates, and enables it to maintain in effect a system which prevents certain irregularities and abuses and increases the efficiency of their baggage service." The petition alleges that the effect of such exemption in favor of the holders of these certificates is to force the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company to grant the same allowance upon the same terms, or in default thereof, to give an undue advantage to its competitor. Chairman Cooley announced that to guard against misapprehensions the Commission deemed it wise to state that its authority is very limited in scope, and the Commissioners do not intend to go beyond it. The investigation ther are making is not for any purpose of questioning the propriety, justice or expediency of the Interstate Commerce Law. The Commission had observed misapprehension in this matter in certain quarters during its inquiries. including L. S.(Sheldon, Receiver of the Texas A large number of witnesses were examined, & Pacific Railroad, J. C. Haskell of the Iberia Salt Works, R. L. Saunders of Jackson, Meridan & Vicksburg Railroad, J. W. Gibson of the Aberdeen Board of Trade, and others. Most of them favored a suspension of the fourth section. In opposition to the appeals of the railroads for a suspension of the fourth section, John J. Gragard, of the New Orleans Chamber of Com. merce, presented a resolution of that body fa voring the enforcement of the law. Mr. Gra gard added that the testimony heretofore given was from railroads and persons whose interests lay in railroads. His observation and experi ence went to show that the sentiment of the people was in favor of an enforcement of the law. E. B. Stahlman, Vice President of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, asked if it would be possible to get the people to testify. Mr. Gragard said the people were not organized, and were consequently not in a position to make a show against railroad attorneys. N. D. Wallace, of the Produce Exchange, presented a memorial of the Produce Exchange, Sugar Exchange, Merchants & Manufacturers Association, and the Mechanics, Dealers & Lumbermen's Exchange, acting jointly, calling for an enforcement of the law. He called to the stand in support of the allegations of the petition as witnesses: W. B. Campbell, E. L. Ranlett, Hugh McCloskey, President of the Produce Exchange, and E. Belknap, representing various mercantile interests, who presented facts and figures to show discriminations in rates. The Commission adjourned to meet in Mem phis. (May 4, 1887.) Re SUSPENSION OF FOURTH SECTION. THE enforcement of the fourth section of Commission heard parties interested in the Act, in Memphis. (May 5, 1887.) Re SUSPENSION OF FOURTH SECTION. HE Commission concluded its labors in Memphis, after hearing evidence from merchants of Memphis, Louisville, Lexington, Little Rock and Newport, Ark., to the effect that the fourth section would be disastrous to the commerce and industries of the points named. The Louisville & Nashville, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis, the Chesapeake & Ohio, and the Southwestern Railroads were granted two weeks' time to file arguments and statistical information in support of their petition for a temporary suspension of the section. Representatives of river interests were in attendance and asked leave to present their case in writing, which was granted. (May 6, 1887.) Re NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER R. R. CO. et al. A PETITION from the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, by Chauncey M. Depew, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, by John Newell, and the Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railway Company, by John Newell, was filed with the Commission, at Washington, asking that an order be made permitting the above named roads, and the New York, Pennsylvania & Ohio Railway Company and the New York, Lake Erie & Western Railway Company, to make such passenger and freight charges and rates from points upon the lines operated by the Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railway Company to the City of New York, the City of Boston, Eastern Pennsylvania, New York and New England points, as will be as low as those charged by the Pennsylvania Railway Company and its connections between said points, and lower than those charged from Youngstown and intermediate points to the Cities of Boston and New York and Eastern Pennsylvania, New York and New England points; and in the particulars named that they be relieved from the fourth section of the Act. (May 7, 1887.) Re GULLETT COTTON GIN CO. THE Gullett Cotton Gin Company, of Amite City, Louisiana, filed with the Commission a petition asking for a permanent suspension of section 4 of the Act, so far as it may apply to the gins, feeders and condensers manufactured by that Company. The petition represents that when the Company put down its plant, valued at $100,000 at the isolated point above named on the Illinois Central Railroad, protection in freights was assured, as against competing companies in more central places, which assurance the Interstate Commerce Act renders impossible of fulfilment, to the great loss of the petitioners. Re Petition of CHICAGO ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA R. R. Co.* To the Honorable, PETITION. The Interstate Commerce Commission: The petition of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin, would respectfully show unto your Honorable Commission: The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company operates, under lease, a line between Minneapolis and St. Paul, in the State of Minnesota; and it owns and operates a line from St. Paul, Minnesota, through Superior, Wisconsin, to Duluth, Minnesota. The distance from St. Paul to Duluth by this line is 176.6 miles, and its business between Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth thus passes out of Minnesota into Wisconsin, and thence returns into Minnesota at Duluth. The Company also owns and operates a line from Superior Junction to Washburn, both in the State of Wisconsin. This line is used in connection with a portion of the line first above mentioned; and the distance from St. Paul to Washburn is 187.6 miles. Duluth, Superior and Washburn are all ports on Lake Superior. All of the through business, to and from eastern points, between aforesaid lake ports and St. Paul and Minneapolis, is competitive with the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company. That company owns and operates a line of railroad from St. Paul and Minneapolis to Duluth, wholly within the State of Minnesota, and consequently is not amenable to the Interstate Law. The distance from St. Paul to Duluth by this line is 154 miles. Duluth rates maintain via the Lakes between Superior and Washburn and all eastern points. It thus appears that while business from Minneapolis and St. Paul via the Lakes to all eastern points is competitive between said railroads to Duluth on the one part, and to Supe rior and to Washburn on the other part, yet that, as Duluth is the terminal point of shipment common to both railroads, Duluth rates necessarily control the rates at Superior and at Washburn; so that to enable your petitioner to handle through business in competition with that going to or beyond Duluth via the St. Paul & Duluth R. R. Co., your petitioner has within the past four years expended for terminal facilities at Washburn, Wisconsin, more than $500,000; at Duluth within the year last past more than $300,000; and it is proposed to expend a large sum at Superior for the same purpose during the present season. The tariffs of your petitioner, both through and local (hereinafter to be submitted), will show that its competitive rates for through business to Superior and Washburn are less in many instances than its local rates for shorter distances over the same line, the shorter being included with the longer distance. That result is inevitable, if competition on through business with Duluth rates is to be maintained. Other *In response to requests for precedents of forms of petitions and method of presentation of applications to the Commission, the following petition and brief are given. The decision thereon will be reported as soon as rendered. wise the St. Paul and Duluth Railroad, 'not be- [ter, with whom I am personally acquainted, The local rates of this company are believed to be just and reasonable. It has from time to time made material reductions in such rates of transportation for both passengers and traffic, so that the rates now received per ton per mile, and per passenger per mile, are as low as will pernait of carriage at a profit. To fix Duluth rates as the maximum for its local rates would compel your petitioner to abandon its local traffe, or to carry it at a ruinous loss. On the other hand, an increase of its through rates to Superior or Washburn beyond the Duluth rates fxed by the St. Paul & Duluth Company would necessarily force it to abandon its competitive traffic. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th Geo. A. Hamilton, BRIEF. Notary Public. Herewith are filed the existing local tariffs of the St. Paul & Duluth R. R., between St. Paul and Duluth, taking effect April 15, 1887 (exhibit C), and the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. R. between St. Paul and Duluth, Superior and Washburn, taking effect April 5, 1887. (Exhibit A). The coincidence of through rates between these roads, and for such competitive points, is shown by the following table (given below), compiled from these tariffs for convenient understanding: Examination of the Omaha Company's existing tariff (ex. A) will disclose: Wherefore, your petitioner prays to be reDeved from the provisions of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act of February 4, 1887, and to be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of property between Minneapolis and St. Paul, 1. That the rates between St. Paul and nonMinnesots, on the one part, and Superior and competitive intermediate stations on the ComWashburn, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota, pany's line are made to conform to the rates on the other part; or for such other relief as prescribed for through transportation between will enable your petitioner to transact business St. Paul and the Company's lake terminals at between aforesaid points upon a basis competi- Duluth, Superior, and Washburn, and in no tive with rates of the St. Paul & Duluth Rail-case exceed the rates thus prescribed to such rood Company between the two first named lake points. companies and Duluth. Britton & Gray, liciters for Petitioner. E. W. Winter, General Manager Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapo- Thus the rates from Minneapolis or St. Paul to Turtle Lake station-seventy-five miles distant from Minneapolis and intermediate points -are less than the rates to the lake, and from this point onward nowhere exceed such local lake rates. The slight increase in rates to stations beyond Turtle Lake, and named as South Chippewa Personally appeared before me, a notary Falls, Chippewa Falls, Eagle Point, O'Neil De, duly commissioned and qualified in and Creek, Bloomer, Cartwright, Chetek, Cameron, or the ounty and state aforesaid, E. W. Win-Hart's Siding. Rice Lake, Bear Creek, and |