Interesting Traffic Developments 



J' 



_. .") 



. Ilif roiii|i|;uiil 



1h tlll4l tlllTC in 



li' ami churKfd 



•'■ liftrriiiiinii' 



llltl' full- 



loiiit rntc 



'11 of till- 



W 

 nut 

 IV. 



«n^ -■ ; ,... : 



noUiing in the record to show tlint tho nti' 

 ovor tho route of movement rta* iiiirrii- 

 tory, and n finiling of damnirc ran not 

 urt> to maintain what > ' 

 over «omt» o»h<«r nml i 

 opi! 



I' .niucli roali "^ nn.i Jnlnt mtcii from Chnrlo*- 



Ion l» M<-i>ll<- ntiU IViiMixilii <ivpr n clln mIioukIi tlilK desire 1h 



nol rI«Hirlv enunrfnfMl N<w»o««iiry pnrti '>t nlso nre wiintlni;, 



A I.. .1 IM-: Y' ■. Vnlley. lIllDuU 



Cen' »llle rnllr a Orleans. But 



the I • iiiiule 11 p;irM .i','n.;,un. .lolut riiteH are 



wan • less than Ilif |>r<«'nl < innliinnllon rates. A rate of 



12 > __ ^1 on all liarilw<NNl liiinlnr. The sbort route Is l>.v wny 



o( defendant's line-*, tiut a Joint rnti' over tlint route would short haul 

 the A°a<u<> & MIssl.-islppI Valler Itallmnil nn<l might deprive It of Its rights 

 under section 15 of the act. The relief desired can not he ordered In this 

 procevOtng, hut this Qodlog Is without prejudice to further action t>; 

 complainants. 



Tbo specific shipments of gum lumlier on which reparation Is asked 

 moved, as routed by the complainant: Yuzoo k Mississippi Vnlley Rail- 

 road from Charleston to Memphis. l>oulsvllle & Nashville Hiillroiid frfnii 



Mvri" I 1- "'^ '' i:nii,ri. K> to I'ensaeola. n total distance of 80H miles. 



Ch« I at a combination rate of 19 cents based 



on M IS and l.'i cents beyond. Complainant does 



not contend that the rate cliariced was excessive for tbe route traverse<I, 

 but Insists that u lower Joint rate should have been In effect over one of 

 the several more direct routes that were possible. Reparation Is asked 

 on tho basis of such rate as we may find would have been reasonable over 

 any of the shorter routes. The shortest practicable route lay through 

 Jackson and Gulfport. 



' < I lied. 



e, MIcb., r*. Cbl- 

 >iiiil>l;ilii( iillrijiii^ unreasonable rates 



A peculiar case is that of the Tallahatchie Lumber Company of 

 Philipp, Miss., which the commission dccidcil in favor of the de- 

 fendant, the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. The 

 report of the commission in this ease reads as follows: 



Complainant Is a corporation enpageil In the lumber business at Phllipp, 

 Miss. By complaint, filed July 22. ini,%. It allepes that the rate of 25 

 cents per 100 pounds charged by defendants for the transportation of .^O 

 carloads of lumber from rbllipp to .South Bend. Ind.. In March, .\pril. May, 

 and vVugust, 1913, was unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory. In vio- 

 lation of sections 1, 2. and .'! of the act. to the extent that It exceeded 

 2.1 cents per 100 p<tunds. Reparation Is asked. Sonie of the shipments 

 were made more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint. 



Tbe shipments consisted of oak lumber, consigned to the Singer Manu- 

 facturing Company, an Industry served by the New Jersey, Indiana & 

 Illinois Railroad at South Bend, and moved according to the shipper's 

 routing Instructions: Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad and Illinois 

 Central Railroad to Chicago, 111. : Wali.ish Railroad to Pine. Ind. : New 

 Jersey, Indiana fc Illinois Railroad to destination. Charges were col- 

 lected at a combination rate of 2.1 cents per 100 pounds: 11! cents per 

 100 pounds from Phllipp to Cairo, 111., and 12 cents beyond. .\ Joint rate 

 of 23 cents per 100 pounds was contemporaneously In effect over various 

 routes Involving other South Bend terminal lines, and rates from Mem- 

 phis to South Bend were the same whether the New Jersey, Indiana & 

 Illln<its or some other terminal line delivered the shipments. The New 

 Jersey, Indiana & Illinois Joined in the 23-ccnt rate on December 3, 1913. 

 Defendants are willing to make reparation on the basis of tbe 23-cent 

 rate subs^-quentiy established and explain that the failure of the New 

 Jersey, Indiana & Illinois Railroad to participate before was due to an 

 error. 



Wc have held repeatedly that the existence of lower rates over routes 

 otlier than a particular route of movement and the subsequent reduction 

 of the rate over the particular route is not sufficient to establish the un- 

 reasonableness of the previous rate. Able k Roberts v. M. P. Ry. Co., 

 37 I. C. C, 712. 



Convenient routes were available to complainant over which the ship- 

 ments could have moved at the lower rate asked and the damage alleged 

 could have been avoided. 



We find that the rate assailed Is not shown to have been unreasonable, 

 and the complaint will be dismiss. .1. 



Other lumber decisions haii^ . ring the past two weeks 



are: 



No. 8032. Bedna Young Lumber Company, Jackson, Tenn., vs. Illinois 



— 2&— 



' iitrnl. LuiuIht coiui 



.No. 7151. J. W. tV. 

 'Ago, Milwaukee tt Ht. i'uii, 

 dismissed. 



I. ft 8. (UMl. Proposed Incrraicd ralea on boopa from Chaffee; Mo„ 

 were found not to !.■• JuHlined. 



No. 8M2. .Northern Pine Manufacturers' Aiuoclatlon Tl. Cblcaio ft 

 Nortbwt-slern. Increased ruten to Chicago JuHtKletl. 



No. 7S7II. Standard Lumber Company, Illrmlngham. .Mn.. rs. Houth 

 (ii-orgla Itiillroad. Lumber companies complaint of exc uidield. 



No. 80211. Prendergast Company, of Marlon, Ohio, i <ire«t 



Southern. Complaint dlNinissed. 



No. -lOiin. Caddo Itiver Lumlier Company ri, Cnddo ft Choctaw, Kept- 

 ration allowed for uiinasonable rates charged. 



.Vo. 7723. iMiluth Log Company, Duluth, Minn., v«. Minneapolis, St. 

 Paul & Sault Sti'. .Marie. Complaint dismissed. 



No. 7SS3. Oden-Elllott Lumber Company, BIrmlngbaro, Ala., vs. 

 Southern Railway. Complaint dlsmtsseil. 



No. 0710. Bonners Kerry Lumber Company, lionners I'erry, Idaho, vs. 

 Great Northern. Complaint of unjustly dlHirlmlnatory rates suctalne<l. 



No. 7840. William II. Sheets, New Orleans, vs. I^ulsvllle ft Nashville. 

 Complaint of unreasonable rate sustained. 



No. sn.'iO. Smith Lumber Company, Boston, vs. Norfolk Southern. 

 Reparation awarded. 



No, SOT'.t. Hare Lumber Company, Kiixalietb City, N. C, vi, Norfolk 

 Southern. Reparation awarded. 



No. 7709. Bradley Timber anil Railway .Supply Company, Dulutb, vs. 

 Minnesota & International. Complaint dismissed. 



No. 7203. Meeds Lumber Company, Merbllnn. )IIbs., vs. Fernwooil ft 

 Gulf. Complaint dismissed. 



Repar.ition has been granted in the lollnning eases involving lum- 

 ber traffic: 



Wisconsin Lumber Company vs. St. Ia>uI», Iron Mountain ft Southern; 

 Dlbert, .Stark & Brown Cypress Company, Limite<I, vs. .Morgan's Louisi- 

 ana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company; B. II. Pollock Lumber 

 Company vs. New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Company ; Fort Smith 

 Wagon Company vs. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Ctmipan.v ; 

 Foster Paving Block Company vs. Delaware, Lackawanna ft Western 

 Railroad Company; The Buckley ft Douglas Lumber Company \*s. Illinois 

 Central Railroad Company ; Memphis Shingle Company v», Tbe Yazoo ft 

 Mississippi Valley Railroad Company; Pec Dee Lumber Company vs. 

 -Vtlantlc Coast Line Railroad Company. 



Hearings in lumber cases are under assignment by the Interstate 

 Commerce Commission as follows: 



April 11. Memphis. Examiner Fleming. I. ft S. 77.S. Lumber from 

 Mississippi. 



April 12. Duluth. Minn. Kxnmlner Wood. No. .S4.10. Duluth Log 

 Company vs. Northern Pacific. No. S47:t. Duluth Log Company vs. 

 Minneapolis St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie. No. .<<541. Duluth I>ig Com- 

 pany vs. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie. 



April 12. Memphis. Examiner Fleming. No. S53.'. I.,amb-Fi8b Lum- 

 ber Company vs. Yazoo ft Mississippi Valley. 



.\prll 13. Washington for oral argument. No. 8259. Thane Lumber 

 Company vs. St. Louis, Iron Mountain ft Southern. 



April 14. Cairo, III. Examiner Fleming. I. ft S. 770. Forest products 

 from .\rknn.sas points. 



.Vpril 14. Washington for oral argument. No. 8212. Lamb-Fish 

 Lumber Company vs. Y'azoo ft Mississippi Vnlley. 



.\prll 17. Washington. Examiner Purnslde. I. & S. 490. Lumber 

 transit privileges at Buffalo. No. 7.'iOG. Buffalo Lumber Exchange vs. 

 .\labama Central. - 



April 17. Louisville. Examiner Fleming. No. 8428. New Albany 

 Box and Basket Company vs. Illinois Central. 



.\prli 2C. St. Ixiuis. Examiner Settle. No. 0747. Ilimmelbcrgcr- 

 Ilarrlson Lumber Company vs. Frisco Lines. 



April 27. St. Louis. Examiner Settle. ' No. 8016. Brown Stave Com- 

 pany vs. Frisco Lines. No. 8618. Wells Lumber Company vs. Gulf ft 

 Ship Island. 



May 2. Houston, Tex. Examiner McGebee. _No. 8421. West Lumber 

 Company vs. -I'l-lsco Lines. No. 8620. South Texas Lumber Company 

 vs. the Morgan line. No. 8664. Beaumont Timber Company vs. Inter- 

 national & Great Northern. No. 8691. Beaumont Timber Company va. 

 International & Great Northern. 



May 11. Cleveland, Ohio. Examiner Settle. No. Sr,:',r,. .Mexander 

 Bros. Lumber Company vs. Pcre Marquette. 



Agn'ioltural implements call for just about half as much lumber 

 as is used in the vehicle trade, and the two items should total about 

 an even billion feet a year. 



