signees to wait 30 days after arrival of shipment at destination before refund to stocker rate basis and evidence showed no abuse of present tariff provision, proposed changes are not justified.-Rules and Affidavit Form, 144 I. C. C. 567.

Increased rates on articles which tend to equalize commodity and class rates which are not at present the same are justified.-1915 Western Rate Advance Case, Part II, 37 I. C. C. 114.

When it is not shown that present rates yield less than a fair return for the service rendered, the fact that the average length of haul is slightly in excess of the haul from other points does not prove the reasonableness of proposed increased rates.-Class and Commodity Rates from Stations in Maine, 31 I. C. C. 18.

The commission has no authority to approve rate increases with a view to stimulating business.-Five Per Cent Case, 31 I. C. C. 351; Advances in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243.

If carriers seek to increase the carload minima to a point short of what can be reasonably and generally loaded, the commission is not warranted in denying such an increase.1915 Western Rate Advance Case, 35 I. C. C. 497.

con

An impossible minimum resulting in increased charges will be demned.-Cotton Batting in Western Trunk Line Territory, 91 I. C. C. 535. Evidence of collusion or concert of action among carriers to increase rates is not conclusive of the unreasonableness of the increased rates.Excelsior from St. Paul, Minn., 36 I. C. C. 349; Central Yellow Pine Assn. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 505, order sustained, Illinois Central R. Co. v. United States, 206 U. S. 441, 51 L. ed. 1128, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 700; Tift v. Southern Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 548, order sustained, 138 Fed. 753, affirmed, Southern Ry. Co. v. Tift, 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51

L. ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709; China & Japan Trading Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 236; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 451; Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 463.

While the commission has approved rate increases in some cases because of two or more carriers participating in the haul, this is not to be regarded as a principle generally applicable to 2-line hauls.-Coal to South Dakota, 47 I. C. C. 750.

Dicta of the commission in a case afterward reopened and then pending are no justification for proposed increased rates.-Fertilizers from Texas Ports, 115 I. C. C. 582.

The fact that the increased rates proposed are materially higher than the rates proposed by both shippers and carriers in a contemporaneously pending proceeding is an element justifying the condemnation of the increases.-Cement Rates from Southern Points, 122 I. C. C. 195.

66. Comparisons of car-mile and ton-mile earnings. See sec. 1 (5). this title, note 211, Comparison of earnings; notes 213-214, Car-mile and per car earnings compared; notes 215217, Ton-mile earnings as a factor for consideration.

The carrier's obligation to justify an increased rate is not satisfactorily discharged by the presentation of statements of earnings per ton-mile and proof of increased general operating expenses.-Class and Commodity Rates from Stations in Maine, 31 I. C. C. 18; Kansas-Iowa Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C. 285.

An increase in a long continued rate may be unreasonable though the per ton-mile earnings under the increased rate are low.-Detroit Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 357.

If the proposed advanced rate compares favorably with rates in different parts of the country and the carmile earnings thereunder are not excessive, the advance should be per

mitted. In re Advances in Rates on Furniture, 25 I. C. C. 299.

Mere comparison of ton-mile earnings when the carrier receives the entire haul with those when the haul and the rate are divided with its connections, does not justify an advance in rates.-Coal Rates to Davenport, Iowa, 26 I. C. C. 140.

Although earnings per ton-mile would be regarded as reasonably remunerative in other parts of the country, when the proposed increased rate would yield less than the average cost of operation on all the traffic of respondent lines, the advances are justified.-Rates on Sand to Houston, Tex., 26 I. C. C. 677.

67. Volume of traffic.-See sec. 1 (5), this title, notes 108-111. Volume of traffic as factor in determining reasonableness.

If other factors remain unchanged, an increase in traffic justifies a decrease in rates.-Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 418.

The commission does not accept the theory that rates may be lawfully and reasonably increased by progressive advances as long as the traffic moves freely and until the highest point is reached under which it will so move.Commercial Club of Omaha v. Anderson & S. R. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 532. To increase a rate on a commodity when it is already as high as competitive and commercial conditions will allow means that it will cease to move, and such a rate will necessarily result in a loss of revenue theretofore enjoyed.-Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 463.

That a commodity will be injuriously affected by a proposed advance, should be weighed against whatever justification the carriers may offer.Rates on Knitting-Factory Products, I. C. C. 634.

The fact that the traffic is small or that there is not and has not been any movement for a considerable

period is not sufficient justification for an advance, as the traffic is entitled to move at reasonable rates.-Rates on Plaster and Gypsum Rock, 27 I. C. C. 67; Missouri River Building Stone Rates, 28 I. C. C. 269.

The commission should not be expected in every case to check superseding issues of all the tariffs to determine whether or not, by any possible construction, a rate may be increased over a possible route over which there may not be any movement.-New England and Canadian High Explosives Rates, 29 I. C. C. 697. The mere statement that nothing will move under the proposed increased rate is no justification.-California-Nevada Lumber Rates, 28 I. C. C. 313.

Falling off of tonnage in recent years does not justify proposed increased rates on the commodity.California-Nevada Lumber Rates, 31 I. C. C. 464.

The substantial reduction or elimination of movement of traffic is an element in condemning increased rates.Commodity Rates from Southwestern Points, 93 I. C. C. 394.

That an increase will result in less coal being hauled by them is no basis for restraining carriers from increasing the rate if the increased rate is reasonable.-Coal and Coke Rates in the Southeast, 35 I. C. C. 187.

When the carriers, in justification of the proposed cancellation of joint rates, asserted that they were mere paper rates, but it appeared that they might be used and were of benefit, cancellation was not justified.-Lumber from Louisiana Points, 39 I. C. C. 688.

The desire of dock operators to increase traffic over their docks is not alone sufficient to justify an increase.-Coal from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, 73 I. C. C. 447.

The reasonableness of an increase can not be justified by showing that there is little or no movement, and that the rates are factors in a com

signees to wait 30 days after arrival of shipment at destination before refund to stocker rate basis and evidence showed no abuse of present tariff provision, proposed changes are not justified.-Rules and Affidavit Form, 144 I. C. C. 567.

Increased rates on articles which tend to equalize commodity and class rates which are not at present the same are justified.-1915 Western Rate Advance Case, Part II, 37 I. C. C. 114.

When it is not shown that present rates yield less than a fair return for the service rendered, the fact that the average length of haul is slightly in excess of the haul from other points does not prove the reasonableness of proposed increased rates.-Class and Commodity Rates from Stations in Maine, 31 I. C. C. 18.

The commission has no authority to approve rate increases with a view to stimulating business.-Five Per Cent Case, 31 I. C. C. 351; Advances in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243.

If carriers seek to increase the carload minima to a point short of what can be reasonably and generally loaded, the commission is not warranted in denying such an increase.1915 Western Rate Advance Case, 35 I. C. C. 497.

An impossible minimum resulting in increased charges will be condemned.-Cotton Batting in Western Trunk Line Territory, 91 I. C. C. 535.

Evidence of collusion or concert of action among carriers to increase rates is not conclusive of the unreasonableness of the increased rates.Excelsior from St. Paul, Minn., 36 I. C. C. 349; Central Yellow Pine Assn. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 505, order sustained, Illinois Central R. Co. v. United States, 206 U. S. 441, 51 L. ed. 1128, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 700; Tift v. Southern Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 548, order sustained, 138 Fed. 753, affirmed, Southern Ry. Co. v. Tift, 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51

L. ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709; China & Japan Trading Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 236; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 451; Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 463.

While the commission has approved rate increases in some cases because of two or more carriers participating in the haul, this is not to be regarded as a principle generally applicable to 2-line hauls.-Coal to South Dakota, 47 I. C. C. 750.

Dicta of the commission in a case afterward reopened and then pending are no justification for proposed increased rates.-Fertilizers from Texas Ports, 115 I. C. C. 582.

The fact that the increased rates proposed are materially higher than the rates proposed by both shippers and carriers in a contemporaneously pending proceeding is an element justifying the condemnation of the increases.-Cement Rates from Southern Points, 122 I. C. C. 195.

66. Comparisons of car-mile and ton-mile earnings.-See sec. 1 (5), this title, note 211, Comparison of earnings; notes 213-214, Car-mile and per car earnings compared; notes 215217, Ton-mile earnings as a factor for consideration.

The carrier's obligation to justify an increased rate is not satisfactorily discharged by the presentation of statements of earnings per ton-mile and proof of increased general operating expenses.-Class and Commodity Rates from Stations in Maine, 31 I. C. C. 18; Kansas-Iowa Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C. 285.

An increase in a long continued rate may be unreasonable though the per ton-mile earnings under the increased rate are low.-Detroit Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 357.

If the proposed advanced rate compares favorably with rates in different parts of the country and the carmile earnings thereunder are not excessive, the advance should be per

mitted. In re Advances in Rates on Furniture, 25 I. C. C. 299.

Mere comparison of ton-mile earnings when the carrier receives the entire haul with those when the haul and the rate are divided with its connections, does not justify an advance in rates. Coal Rates to Davenport, Iowa, 26 I. C. C. 140.

Although earnings per ton-mile would be regarded as reasonably remunerative in other parts of the country, when the proposed increased rate would yield less than the average cost of operation on all the traffic of respondent lines, the advances are justified. Rates on Sand to Houston, Tex., 26 I. C. C. 677.

67. Volume of traffic.-See sec. 1 (5), this title, notes 108-111. Volume of traffic as factor in determining reasonableness.

If other factors remain unchanged, an increase in traffic justifies a decrease in rates.-Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 418.

The commission does not accept the theory that rates may be lawfully and reasonably increased by progressive advances as long as the traffic moves freely and until the highest point is reached under which it will so move.Commercial Club of Omaha v. Anderson & S. R. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 532. To increase a rate on a commodity when it is already as high as competitive and commercial conditions will allow means that it will cease to move, and such a rate will necessarily result in a loss of revenue theretofore enjoyed.-Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 463. That a commodity will be injuriusly affected by a proposed advance, should be weighed against whatever justification the carriers may offer.Rates on Knitting-Factory Products, I. C. C. 634.

The fact that the traffic is small or that there is not and has not been any

period is not sufficient justification for an advance, as the traffic is entitled to move at reasonable rates.-Rates on Plaster and Gypsum Rock, 27 I. C. C. 67; Missouri River Building Stone Rates, 28 I. C. C. 269.

The commission should not be expected in every case to check superseding issues of all the tariffs to determine whether or not, by any possible construction, a rate may be increased over a possible route over which there may not be any movement.-New England and Canadian High Explosives Rates, 29 I. C. C. 697.

The mere statement that nothing will move under the proposed increased rate is no justification.-California-Nevada Lumber Rates, 28 I. C. C. 313.

Falling off of tonnage in recent years does not justify proposed increased rates on the commodity.California-Nevada Lumber Rates, 31 I. C. C. 464.

The substantial reduction or elimination of movement of traffic is an element in condemning increased rates.Commodity Rates from Southwestern Points, 93 I. C. C. 394.

That an increase will result in less coal being hauled by them is no basis for restraining carriers from increasing the rate if the increased rate is reasonable.-Coal and Coke Rates in the Southeast, 35 I. C. C. 187.

When the carriers, in justification of the proposed cancellation of joint rates, asserted that they were mere paper rates, but it appeared that they might be used and were of benefit, cancellation was not justified.-Lumber from Louisiana Points, 39 I. C. C. 688.

The desire of dock operators to increase traffic over their docks is not alone sufficient to justify an increase.-Coal from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, 73 I. C. C. 447.

The reasonableness of an increase can not be justified by showing that there is little or no movement, and that the rates are factors in a com

signees to wait 30 days after arrival of shipment at destination before refund to stocker rate basis and evidence showed no abuse of present tariff provision, proposed changes are not justified.-Rules and Affidavit Form, 144 I. C. C. 567.

Increased rates on articles which tend to equalize commodity and class rates which are not at present the same are justified.-1915 Western Rate Advance Case, Part II, 37 I. C. C. 114.

When it is not shown that present rates yield less than a fair return for the service rendered, the fact that the average length of haul is slightly in excess of the haul from other points does not prove the reasonableness of proposed increased rates.-Class and Commodity Rates from Stations in Maine, 31 I. C. C. 18.

The commission has no authority to approve rate increases with a view to stimulating business.-Five Per Cent Case, 31 I. C. C. 351; Advances in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243.

If carriers seek to increase the carload minima to a point short of what can be reasonably and generally loaded, the commission is not warranted in denying such an increase.1915 Western Rate Advance Case, 35 I. C. C. 497.

con

An impossible minimum resulting in increased charges will be demned.-Cotton Batting in Western Trunk Line Territory, 91 I. C. C. 535. Evidence of collusion or concert of action among carriers to increase rates is not conclusive of the unreasonableness of the increased rates.Excelsior from St. Paul, Minn., 36 I. C. C. 349; Central Yellow Pine Assn. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 505, order sustained, Illinois Central R. Co. v. United States, 206 U. S. 441, 51 L. ed. 1128, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 700; Tift v. Southern Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 548, order sustained, 138 Fed. 753, affirmed, Southern Ry. Co. v. Tift, 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51

L. ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709; China & Japan Trading Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 236; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Georgia R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 451; Railroad Comm. of Texas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 463.

While the commission has approved rate increases in some cases because of two or more carriers participating in the haul, this is not to be regarded as a principle generally applicable to 2-line hauls.-Coal to South Dakota, 47 I. C. C. 750.

Dicta of the commission in a case afterward reopened and then pending are no justification for proposed increased rates.-Fertilizers from Texas Ports, 115 I. C. C. 582.

The fact that the increased rates proposed are materially higher than the rates proposed by both shippers and carriers in a contemporaneously pending proceeding is an element justifying the condemnation of the increases.-Cement Rates from Southern Points, 122 I. C. C. 195.

66. Comparisons of car-mile and ton-mile earnings.-See sec. 1 (5), this title, note 211, Comparison of earnings; notes 213-214, Car-mile and per car earnings compared; notes 215217, Ton-mile earnings as a factor for consideration.

of

The carrier's obligation to justify an increased rate is not satisfactorily discharged by the presentation statements of earnings per ton-mile and proof of increased general operating expenses.-Class and Commodity Rates from Stations in Maine, 31 I. C. C. 18; Kansas-Iowa Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C. 285.

An increase in a long continued rate may be unreasonable though the per ton-mile earnings under the increased rate are low.-Detroit Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 357.

If the proposed advanced rate compares favorably with rates in different parts of the country and the carmile earnings thereunder are not excessive, the advance should be per