204 COOPERATIVE MARKETING 



the commission's order was declared ultra vires, and there- 

 fore null and void. But the court also said that it was 

 without prejudice to a reopening and reconsideration of 

 the entire question by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 

 Accordingly this was done, and again thousands of pages 

 of testimony were taken, and again the commission de- 

 clared, in December, 191 1, that the rate of $1.15 for lemons 

 was unreasonable and that the rate should not exceed $1. 

 Once more the carriers applied to the Commerce Court for 

 relief, but after a fourth hearing the Commission's order 

 was sustained by the court in February, 19 13. The rail- 

 roads then appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, which rendered a decision favorable to the 

 growers in November, 1913.' 



This lemon rate case is probably the most striking ex- 

 ample on record of the power that can be wielded by an or- 

 ganized agricultural industry, against outside encroachments. 

 For it should be noted that the citrus growers entered their 

 complaint against practically all of the railroads of the 

 United States, and especially against the Southern Pacific, 

 Santa Fe and Salt Lake systems, roads well able to protect 

 their own interests. Each party backed its contentions by 

 enormous amounts of evidence. No individual growers or 

 even small organizations could have borne the financial 

 pressure of the litigation, or secured the evidence which 

 finally resulted in success. For an organized industry, rep- 

 resenting almost $200,000,000 worth of property, such con- 

 tests become practicable. Moreover, adverse interests are 



' The citations for the legal stages in connection with the Lemon 

 Rate Case, in the order in which they are mentioned in the text, are: 

 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. Southern Pacific Co., 175 Fed. 

 141 ; Arlington Heights v. Southern Pacific, 19 I. C. C. 148 ; Atchison, 

 Topeka & Santa Fe v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 182 Fed. 189 ; 

 A. T. & S. F. V. I. C. C, 190 Fed. 591, l Com. Ct. 83; Arlington 

 Heights V. Southern Pacific, 22 I. C. C. 149; A. T. & S. F. v. U. S., 

 203 Fed. 56; A. T. & S. F. v. U. S., 231 U. S. 736. 



