merce Act, unless the carrier affirmatively justifies the rates complained of.-Violation of Act to Reg. Commerce by St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 290.

Where the Interstate Commerce Commission finds that a carrier has been charging rates which violate the long and short haul rule, it may make an order requiring the carrier to desist from such charges and then suspend the order to enable the carrier to apply for relief under the proviso clause of Interst. Com. Act, § 4.- Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 798, 3 Inters. Com. R. 106, 213, 5 I. C. C. R. 546.

Where a violation of the long and short haul is alleged, and the carrier pleads justification, it must in its answer set forth clearly and in detail the facts and circumstances relied on by it as constituting justification.- Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 857, 5 I. C. C. R. 234.

When a carrier is called on to justify rate sheets, which make a greater charge for a lesser than a longer distance, notice of such hearing should be published, so that the public and competing carriers may be heard.—In re Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 55, 137, 2 I. C. C. R. 231.

[20] Inference arising from disparity between rates.

Where the disparity between long and short distance charges is very great, the inference is irresistible that the lesser rate must be unremunerative on any theory, or else the larger rate gives an unwarranted return for the service rendered.― Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 798, 3 Inters. Com. R. 106, 213, 5 I. C. C. R. 546.

[21] Interests to be considered in determining reasonableness of greater charge.

In deciding whether rates and charges made low in order to secure foreign freight which would otherwise move by other competing routes, are not unjust and discriminative, the fair interests of the carriers, as well as the welfare of the community which is to receive and consume the commodities are to be considered.- Interst. Com. Commission v. So. R. Co., 105 Fed. 703.

[22] Standards of comparison.

A joint through rate is not the basis for determining whether a local rate of a carrier is a violation of the long and short haul clause of Interstate Commerce Act.-U. S. v. Mellen, 53 Fed. 229.

Where two carriers establish a through tariff over their connecting lines, the through tariff is not the standard by which the separate tariff

of either company is to be measured in determining whether such separate tariff of either company violates Interst. Com. Act, § 4.Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, revg. s. c. 48 Fed 49; certiorari denied, 146 U. S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 281.

To hold that, after substantial dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions has been shown, the longer distance rate cannot in any case or to any extent be considered by way of comparison in determining whether or not the shorter distance rate is unreasonable or unduly prejudicial, particularly when competition and other compulsory conditions are found not to justify the whole disparity between the shorter and longer distance rates, would be to reject a most appropriate and necessary test of the reasonableness and justice of railway charges.- Marten v. L. & N. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 581.

When water competition permits the establishment of classifications and rates below the rates fixed to non-competitive points, such rates, while possessing value as standards of comparison, are not always conclusive in fixing rates to intermediate points.- Shippers' Union v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 250.

[23] Burden of justifying charge.

Where a greater rate is charged for a shorter than for a longer concurrent haul, the burden of showing the dissimilar circumstances and conditions to justify such charge, is on the carrier.- Behlmer v. L. & N. R. Co., 83 Fed. 898, revg. s. c. 71 Fed. 835; revd. on other grounds, 175 U. S. 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 209.

The carrier must affirmatively and clearly justify its departure from the long and short haul rule.- Phillips Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters.

Com. R. 93.

Where substantial dissimilarity of conditions and circumstances is set up by carriers in justification of departures from the long and short haul clause of the Interstate Commerce Act, the burden is upon them to establish such dissimilarity.- Board of Trade v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 6 Inters.

Com. R. 1.

Where a carrier alleged to have violated the long and short haul rule of the Interstate Commerce Act, pleads justification in answering the complaint, it is bound by its pleading and must affirmatively show that the conditions and circumstances are in fact substantially dissimilar.Railroad Commission of Ga. v. Clyde Ss. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 120, 5

I. C. C. R. 326.

The burden of proof of justifying a greater charge for a lesser than a longer distance is on the carrier.- Spartansburg Bd. of Trade v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 15, 193, 2 I. C. C. R. 304.

[24] Dissimilar circumstances and conditions as justification - In general.

Whether the circumstances and conditions of carriage have been substantially similar or otherwise, are questions of fact depending on the matters proved in each case.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45, affg. s. c. 74 Fed. 715, 69 Fed. 227; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 31 Fed. 862, 4 Inters. Com. R. 434; Phillips Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 93. It cannot be said that under no circumstances and condition would it be lawful for a carrier to charge more for a shorter than a longer distance, but it is for the tribunal appointed to enforce the provisions of the statute to consider whether the existing circumstances and conditions were or were not substantially similar.- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 700.

Substantially dissimilar circumstances and conditions justify a violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 4, relative to rates for long and short hauls.Interst. Com. Commission v. Western & A. R. Co., 88 Fed. 186; affd. 93 Fed. 83; Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 69 Fed. 227; affd. 74 Fed. 715, 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45.

It is for the courts to say what are "substantially similar circumstances and conditions" in any given case.-Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 69 Fed. 227; affd. 74 Fed. 715, 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45.

Where there is doubt in interpreting Interst. Com. Act, § 4, whether the conditions are substantially similar, or where it is difficult to point out clearly the circumstance or condition which produces dissimilarity, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the object of the law.- Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. T. & P. R. Co., 31 Fed. 862.

Facts held to justify violation of the long and short haul clause of the Interstate Commerce Act.- Pratt Lumber Co. v. Ch. I. & L. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 29.

In a case involving shorter distance charges higher than those to or from longer distance points, the carrier cannot rightfully claim justification for greater dissimilarity in rates than may be indicated by ascertained dissimilarity in circumstances and conditions.- Marten v. L. & N. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 581.

A railroad engaged in through transportation cannot call itself merely a local carrier from the intermediate point, and thereby justify a greater charge for the lesser distance.- Violations of Act to Reg. Commerce by St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 290.

Open or secret rebating or rate-cutting do not create dissimilarity of conditions, under long and short haul section. In re Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 61.

The rule expressed by Interst. Com. Act, § 4, is not rendered inoperative by the existence at one point of converging lines subject to the Act, for the law applies to each of those lines, and neither can put in rates to that point which are lower than shorter distance charges on its lines until it has obtained permission from the regulating authorities so to do. The principle applies both to lines between the same points and to lines reaching the same destination from different points of consignment.— Gerke Brew. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 681, 4 Inters. Com. R. 461, 5 I. C. C. R. 596.

That the short haul is of way traffic and the long haul is not, does not justify a greater charge for the lesser distance.- In re Louisville & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 16, 278, 1 I. C. C. R. 31.

A difference in the bulk and value of lumber does not justify a greater charge for a shorter than a longer haul, when the published rate sheet of the carrier puts the lumber in the same class and at the same rate.James v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 436, 490, 609, 3 I. C. C. R. 225.

Differences in the cost of delivery of the freight to the carrier for transportation do not justify departures from the long and short haul rule of the Interstate Commerce Act.- Chicago F. P. Cov. Co. v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 316.

Terminal charges and similar expenses not dependent on the distance freight is carried, sometimes justify a greater proportionate charge for a lesser distance.- Coxe Bros. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 195, 229, 3 Inters. Com. R. 460, 4 I. C. C. R. 535.

That the shorter haul is the more expensive does not justify a greater charge for the lesser distance, unless such difference is extraordinary.In re Louisville & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 16, 278, 1 I. C. C. R. 31.

Under the long and short haul statute of Kentucky, difference in cost of service, was held to alone constitute the difference of circumstances and conditions which will authorize greater aggregate compensation for the shorter than for the longer distance on the same line.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 226, 20 Ky. L. R. 1380, 46 S. W. 707, 47 S. W. 210, 598, 43 L. R. A. 541.

A road which pays 12 per cent. annually to its stockholders is not in a position to maintain that rates from a market city to a competitive point on that road, agreed to by rival carriers and long enforced, are not suffi

cient compensation for carrying from the same market to a much less distant point on the same line.- Calloway v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 431.

That only by departing from the long and short haul rule can a carrier get the traffic and earn a return on its investment, does not justify such departure.- Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 224.

An export rate is not made under similar circumstances and conditions with a domestic rate. Kemble v. Boston & A. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R.

The great length of a carrier's line does not justify it in departing from the long and short haul rule.- Tileston Mill. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 346.

That the smaller charge for the longer haul is of great importance to the longer distance point, in enabling its merchants to build up a great trade that would otherwise be lost, does not justify such discrimination. - Behlmer v. L. & N. R. Co., 83 Fed. 898, revg. s. c. 71 Fed. 835; revd. on other grounds, 175 U. S. 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 209.

A carrier may make a low rate to create traffic.- Grain Shippers' Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 158.

The fact that one city is a larger city with more extensive business interests than another and has been treated by the railroads as a "trade center" or "basing point" in making rates to the latter city and other nearby towns, is no justification for discriminations in rates in favor of the former city.- Board of Trade v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 1.

That the rates to the remoter point cannot be raised without losing the traffic, and that neither the rate to the remoter nor to the nearer point are shown to be unreasonable in themselves, do not justify a disparity in rates amounting to discrimination against the nearer point.— Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 857, 5 I. C. C. R. 234

That the lesser charge on the longer haul is merely a continuation of the favorable rates under which trade centers or industrial establishments have been built up, does not justify such charge.- In re Louisville & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 16, 278, 1 I. C. C. R. 31.

That the lesser charge on the longer haul is designed to build up business or trade centers, does not justify such charge.— In re Louisville & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 16, 278, 1 I. C. C. R. 31.