682 ANNUAL EEPOETS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



stock in the hands of commission men and from the feeding of 

 livestock in the yards. The traders complained that the new charge 

 was unfairly discriminatory and excessive. Its consideration in- 

 volved the consideration of other charges of the stockyard companies 

 in case it was found that any readjustment of charges should be 

 made in order to satisf}^ the complaints. The stockyard companies 

 insisted upon the propriety of the new charges and the justice of 

 their contentions, and accordingly it was necessai-y to issue formal 

 complaints. 



The hearing upon the complaint in Docket No. 5 was begun in 

 Peoria on July 6, 1922, and was continued on September 25, 1922, 

 at which time the stockyard company presented an appraisal of its 

 property. A special hearing was held in Chicago on October 9 

 for the purpose of cross-examining the engineers who had prepared 

 this inventory and appraisal. Owing to the illness of the president 

 of the stockyard company it was impossible to complete the hearing. 

 The hearing Avas again resumed on February 6, 1923, at which time 

 it developed that the stockyard company had purchased the land 

 which it had formerly held under a lease. In order to develop 

 further evidence regarding the value of this land the hearing will 

 be resumed on July 13, 1923. 



The hearing in Docket No. 6 was held at Omaha on September 

 18, 1922. On June 22, 1923, the Secretary of Agriculture made his 

 findings and conclusions, in which he states that the rate or charge 

 complained of is discriminatory and, therefore, contrary to and in 

 violation of Title III of the packers and stockyards act, 1921. An 

 order was issued on that date commanding that the respondent and 

 its officers, directors, agents, and employees cease and desist from 

 continuing the violation of said Title III. This order was made 

 effective Juty 10, but the time was later extended to August 1, 1923. 



Similar findings and order were issued in Docket No. 7. 



Docket No. 8. The Secretary of Agriculture v. Eidson-Hopkins Co. and others, 

 Baltimore, Md. 



The complaint in this proceeding was issued as a result of the 

 receipt of complaints from shippers who protested against a pro- 

 posed schedule of charges of the Baltimore Live Stock Exchange, 

 whereby there would be exacted, in addition to the regular commis- 

 sion charge, 50 cents for each additional account sales after the 

 first two on cooperative shipments handled by exchange members. 

 This charge on its face appeared to be excessive compared with the 

 value of the service rendered, and the tariff was suspended. 



A hearing was held on August 17, 1922, and during the hearing 

 the representatives for the shippers proposed a charge which they 

 considered reasonable for prorating plural ownership shipments 

 of livestock. They proposed the following charge : 



On carlots of stock belonging to more than one owner, which, by reason of 

 such plural ownership, require additional services, such as sorting, selling, 

 weighing, or accounting on account of brands, marks, or other identifica- 

 tion, or at the request of the shipper, there shall be charged, in addition tc 

 the regular rate of commission, the following : 



For more than 1 and not more than 5 owners $1.00 



For more than 5 and not more than 10 owners 1.50 



For more than 10 and not more than 20 owners 2. 00 



For more than 20 owners 3.00 



