July 1'5. 19ir 



^C TOitiJSTO i^t tfroiTOJi^CMit^^il^^i'^^^ ^ 



i^twjtmiwwiwiwiwar 



Interesting Traffic Developments 



Decision in Second Industrial Railways Case 



In the second imlustiial railways i-asi', in wliieli the trunk lines in 

 official classification territory filed tarifi's canceling joint rates with 

 and allowances to all industrially owned lines, the Interstate Com- 

 merce Commission held that the principles of the industrial railways 

 case, 29 I. C. C, 212, do not apply to certain of the lines with which 

 joint arrangements have been canceled by the tariffs here involved. 



That some of the industrial lines here involved are distinguishable 

 from those in the tap line cases, 234 U. S., 1, only in that the tap 

 lines here are not located within a territory from which rates are 

 made under a large blanket of originating points. 



That some of the industrial lines, while maintaining the form of 

 common carriers, are in effect performing only private transportation. 



That some of the industrial lines, like the tap lines, should have 

 joint rate arrangements with the trunk lines, but that the basis of 

 rates should be revised. 



That some of the industrial lines have taken on the form of com- 

 mon carriage by means of leases of facilities of the trunk lines, and 

 that such an arrangement in certain cases is a device to defeat the 

 law. 



That some of the industrial lines are not common carriers in any 

 sense and fall within the principles laid down in the General Electric 

 case, 14 I. C. C, 237. 



Principles expressed and limitations defined under which arrange- 

 ments may be made between the trunk lines and industrial lines for 

 the interchange of transportation. 



With respect to the lumber roads, Commissioner Meyer made the 

 following statement : 



"In the second group of lines are those extending from lumber 

 mills to junctions of the trunk line carriers. The ownership or con- 

 trol of these lines is vested in the hmiber companies which they 

 serve, and in all respects they fall within the principles laid down 

 by the Supreme Court in the tap line cases, supra, except that in that 

 case the tap lines were all located within the producing territory 

 from which the carriers applied a blanket rate to all important mar- 

 kets; whereas it appears here that no large blanket exists and rates 

 on lumber are graded with some regard to distance. On short-haul 

 traffic to many markets in this territory some recognition is given to 

 the two-line hauls involved from points on the tap lines. These prin- 

 ciples of rate-making should be considered fully by the trunk lines 

 when reestablishing joint rates with the lines here. The principles 

 followed in settling the divisions under our second supplemental re- 

 port in the tap line case, 31 I. C. C, 490, should be considered in 

 fixing the divisions with these lines." 



Commissioner Harlan dissents from the ruling of the other mem- 

 bers of the commission and will issue a statement of his position in 

 the case later. 



Southwestern Rate Lowered 



A considerable volume of lumber traffic moving from Louisiana 

 and Texas to New Mexico is insured a lower rate by the decision in 

 the case of the Bascom-French Company, Las Cruces Lumber Com- 

 pany and the Bradford Lumber Company versus the Atchison, Topeka 

 and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. 



Lake Charles, Louisiana, may be taken as a representative point of 

 origin. From Lake Charles, the 25-cent rate to El Paso yields .5.14 

 mills per ton-mile, the 29-cent rate to Deming 5.47 mills, the 34-cent 

 rate to Las Cruces 6.37 mills. The 28-cent rate asked to Las Cruces 

 would yield 5.51 mills per ton-mile from Lake Charles. Deming, El 

 Paso, and Las Cruces compete, and no justification appears for rates 

 to Las Cruces not related reasonably to the rates to El Paso and 

 Deming. The 25-cent rate to El Paso involves a haul of 973 miles 

 from Lake Charles. 



Upon all of the facts of record it is found that the rate assailed is 

 and for the future will be, unreasonable to the extent that it exceeds 

 28 cents per 100 pounds. 



Date for Lumber Rate Hearings 



Sept. 21 has been set as the date for the hearing- of lumber rates 



from Helena, Ark., and other points to Omaha, Des Moines, and 

 other points. The hearing will be conducted in Omaha by Exam- 

 iner Gutherie. Lumber rates from International Falls, Minn., 

 will be the subject of a hearing at St. Paul, Sept. 23, before the 

 same Examiner. 



Reparations Awarded 



Reparation has been awarded in the following cases affecting the 

 lumber industry : Charles Childs versus the Baltimore and Ohio Rail- 

 way Co. ; McClure Co. versus Pere Marquette Railroad Co. ; Foster 

 Lumber Co. versus St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railroad 

 Co. ; Paepcke-Leieht Lumber Co. versus the Illinois Central Railway 

 Co. ; Hyde Lumber Co. versus Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad 

 Co. ; McCIure Co. versus Pere Marquette Railroad Co. ; Virginia- 

 Carolina Stave and Lumber Co. versus the Southern Railway Co. ; 

 The Cockburn Whaley Co. versus the Kanawha and Michigan Rail- 

 way Co. ; Kingston Lumber Co. versus Mississippi Central Railway 

 Co.; McClure Co. versus Pere Manpiette Railroad Co.; Valentine- 

 Clark Co. versus Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific; Moline Lumber 

 Co. versus Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific ; Fullerton-Powell Hard- 

 wood Lumber Co. versus the Alabama and Vicksburg Railroad Co. ; 

 C. L. Colman Lumber Co. versus the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul 

 Railroad Co. ; Tri-State Lumber Co. versus the Illinois Central ; 

 Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co., Ltd., versus the Illinois Central ; 

 W. H. Eccles Lumber Co. versus the Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.; 

 Bernard Bros, versus Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co. ; Old Dominion 

 Veneer Co. versus the Southern Railway Co. ; Diamond Match Co. 

 versus the Pennsylvania Co. et al. ; Oregon Lumber Co. versus the 

 Oregon Short Line; Kirby Lumber Co. versus the Gulf, Colorado and 

 Santa Fe; Vanderbeek and Sons versus Southern Railway Co. et al.; 

 Duluth Log Co. versus Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co. ; 

 Wilson Bros. Lumber Co. versus Pennsylvania Railway Co. ; The 

 Mowbray and Robinson Co. versus the Queen and Crescent; Singer 

 Manufacturing Co. versus St. Louis Southwestern Railway; Daugh- 

 erty, McKey and Co. versus Apalachicola Northern Railway Co.; New 

 England Box Co. versus Boston and Maine Railroad Co.; Robert R. 

 Sizer and Co. versus Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. ; C. H. Worces- 

 ter Co. versus Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co.; George 

 W. Hartzell versus Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Co.; Aberdeen 

 Lumber Co. versus New Orleans and Northwestern Railway Co. ; The 

 Red River Lumber Co. versus the Illinois Central; W. J. Foye versus 

 the Fernwood and Gulf Railway Co. ; C. A. Lawton Co. versus New 

 York Central Railway Co. ; Keystone Lumber Co. versus Southern 

 Railway Co. ; Pennsylvania Lumber Co. versus Pennsylvania Railroad 

 Co. ; C. W. Pracht and Sons versus Illinois Central Railway Co. ; Las- 

 well Lumber Co. versus St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Co. ; 

 E. S. Taylor and Co. versus Southern Railway Co.; Central Coal and 

 Coke Co. versus Poteau Valley Railway Co.; M. E. Leming Lumber 

 Co. versus St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Co.; Clarksdale 

 Manufacturing Co. versus Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Rail- 

 road Co. ; Tremont Lumber Co. versus Tremont and Gulf Railway Co. ; 

 Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. versus Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Rail- 

 road Co. ; Wells Lumber Co. versus Hlinois Central ; W. T. Ferguson 

 Lumber Co. versus Wabash Railroad Co. ; Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. 

 versus Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railway Co. ; I. Henderlong and 

 Co. versus Vandalia Railroad Co.; Mason-Donaldson Lumber Co. 

 versus Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. ; 

 Racine Lumber and Manufacturing Co. versus the Southern Railway 

 Co. ; Young and Cutsinger versus Southern Railway Co. ; Harrj' R. 

 Browne versus Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway 

 Co. ; Standard Lumber Co. versus Louisville Railway Co, 



After consideration of the complainant's petition the commission 

 has refused to allow a rehearing in the ease of the New Orleans Lum- 

 berman 's Association versus Morgan 's Louisiana and Texas Railroad 

 and Steamship Company. 



Permission has been given for the reopening of t-ie case in the 

 matter of lumber rates from Helena, Ark., to Des Moines and Omaha. 



—31— 



