EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK — PART YII 421 



Louis on traffic from the Atlantic seaboard, which I reported to you last 

 year; but put the upper Mississippi river crossings on an equality with St. 

 Louis on traffic from all territory -between the Indiana-Illinois state line 

 and the Atlantic seaboard, wherever the distance is the same and the rate 

 the same, adopting strictly the distance basis — a principle that Iowa has 

 championed in the past, and one that will lead inevitably to the greater 

 industrial development of our state. 



The commission also revised the proportionals west of the Mississippi 

 river into interior Iowa towns, grouping them on the distance basis. 

 These cases are now concluded after a six-year struggle. Last year I 

 stated to you they were concluded with the exception of two phases which 

 I have just outlined to you, and they have finally been decided. Our 

 position has been completely sustained by the Interstate Commerce Com- 

 mission after a long, hard fight. It required at least a dozen hearings 

 before the commission. 



The number 8,436 is the one referring to the general investigation of 

 live stock rates, fules and practic'es thruout the United States. The 

 case was set down for hearing two years ago, but we have not yet had 

 one hearing on it. 



Last year, and several months prior thereto, I told you that it was 

 my judgment that the Cummins amendment relieved you of any necessity 

 of declaring values; that rates based on values were unlawful. I read 

 to you from a conference report of the commission to that effect. I now 

 have in my hand a decision rendered November 28, 1917, a couple of 

 weeks ago. pefore I read the sentence that I am going to, I want to just 

 refresh your memories in regard to this. 



Iowa many years ago passed a law to the effect that you could not 

 by contract limit damages for negligence of a carrier. The law was 

 held valid as applicable to interstate traffic, but in the year 1910 con- 

 gress passed a law undertaking to cover the subject of damages. The 

 railroads' then insisted that they could make a flat rate for ordinary 

 handling of live stock, and increase that 25 per cent or a given amount 

 for any increase in values. In other words, they sought to base freight 

 rates on the value of the article, and to limit their liability. Under that 

 plan, if you did not state the higher valuation of the stock, and it was 

 lost, killed or injured, the railroad was relieving itself from liability for 

 the payment of the full value of the animal. The supreme court of the 

 United States upheld them in the Kroninger case, in 1913. We applied 

 to the Western Classification Committee for a modification; we applied 

 to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and we applied to congress to 

 change that situation. Three courses of action were outlined at the start 

 in the way of appeal. The Western Classification Committee turned us 

 down cold. The Interstate Commerce Commission turned us down. Con- 

 gress passed the Cummins amendment, forbidding a carrier from limiting 

 its liability in that manner. The railroads then sought to interpret it in 

 another manner; the Interstate Commerce Commission again sustained 

 them in their interpretation. The Cummins amendment was again 

 amended so as to make it very clear, and after that last Cummins amend- 

 ment we have consistently taken the position that any such rate is un- 



