A tariff fixed by a commission for coal in car-load lots is not proved to be unreasonable, by proof that if such schedules were applied to all freight the road would not pay its operating expenses. It might be that the existing rates on other merchandise, not reduced by the commission, might enable the company to earn substantial profits on its entire state business.- Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 900, affg. s. c. 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60.

A state enactment or regulations made under the authority of a state enactment, establishing rates for transportation that will not admit of the carrier earning such compensation as under all circumstances is just to itself and the public, would deprive such carrier of its property without due process of law.- Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 418, affg. s. c. 64 Fed. 165.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not wish to be understood as laying down an absolute rule that in every case a failure to produce some profit to those who have invested their money in the building of a road is conclusive that a tariff is unjust and unreasonable. There may be circumstances which would justify such a tariff; there may have been extravagance and a needless expenditure of money; there may be waste in the management of the road; enormous salaries, unjust discrimination as between individual shippers, resulting in general loss. The construction may have been at a time when labor and material were at the highest price, so that the actual cost exceeds the present value; the road may have been unwisely built, in localities where there is not sufficient business to sustain a road. Doubtless, too, there are many other matters affecting the rights of the community in which the road is built, as well as the rights of those who have built the road. But a general averment in a bill that a tariff as established is unjust and unreasonable, is supported by the admitted facts. that the road cost far more than the amount of stock and bonds outstanding; that there has been no waste or mismanagement in the construction or operation; that supplies and labor have been purchased at the lowest prices consistent with the successful operation of the road; that the rates voluntarily fixed by the company have for ten years been steadily decreasing until the aggregate decrease has been more than fifty per cent.; that under the rates thus voluntarily established, the stock, which represents two-fifths of the value, has never received anything in the way of dividends; that for the last three years the earnings above operating expenses have been insufficient to pay the interest on the bonded debt; that the proposed tariff, as enforced, will so diminish the earning that they will not be able to pay one-half of the interest on the bonded debt above the operating expenses.- Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1047.

A three cents per mile maximum rate, fixed by state statute, is not shown to be unconstitutional by evidence that under it, existing traffic would yield a net yearly income of less than 1/2 per cent. on the original cost of the road, a little more than 2 per cent. on the bonded debt, in the absence of proof of the cost of the bonded debt, the amount of the capital stock of the reorganized corporation, or the price paid by the corporation for the road, such corporation being reorganized by the purchasers at the sale of the railroad under a decree of foreclosure. Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 8 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1028.

A passenger rate schedule fixed for a railroad by a state commission cannot be enjoined on the ground that to put it in effect will simply result in a reduction in rates by other roads so far permitted to charge higher rates, at competitive points, which will operate as a discrimination between localities.- Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Storey, 149 Fed. 499.

For a state commission to prescribe unreasonably low rates for one carrier, at the same time permitting others similarly situated to go on charging higher rates, denies to the former the equal protection of the laws.- Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Storey, 149 Fed. 499.

Evidence tending to show that rates between certain points are too high as compared with rates from the same initial points to other points is not sufficient to show that the first named rates are of themselves unreasonable under Interst. Com. Act, § 1.— Interst. Com. Commission v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 120 Fed. 934.

When the earnings of a railroad, conducted efficiently, economically and honestly, with operating expenses in no case greater than such management requires, are insufficient to pay one-half the interest on a valid debt contracted in a careful, honest and economical administration of the company's business, a schedule of rates made by a state railroad commission which would materially reduce such earnings, is unjust and unreasonable.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Smith, 110 Fed. 473.

Before a rate fixed by a commission is pronounced unreasonable, the result of fixing the rate must clearly be unreasonable.- Matthews v. Board of Corp. Comrs., 106 Fed. 7.

An act of the Massachusetts legislature required street railway companies to transport scholars of public schools to and from the school houses and their homes at one-half the regular fare charged other passengers.-Held, that upon its face the statute seems open to the objection of unreasonably reducing the rates charged by railroad companies, and to the further objection of discriminating in favor of a particular class in the community, and that there are grave doubts as

to the constitutionality of the act. (Point not decided, however.) - Ahern v. Newton & B. St. R. Co., 105 Fed. 702.

A Vermont statute reducing the rates of fare on railroads below what will permit the railroad company to earn a reasonable return on its investment is a taking of property without due process of law.— Ball v. Rutland R. Co., 93 Fed. 513.

Rates fixed by a state railroad commission are not necessarily reasonable if they allow a dividend, however small, above charges, expenses, etc., nor to show their unreasonableness is it necessary to show them to be confiscatory. The carrier is entitled to receive, besides its charges and expenses, an adequate dividend.- Southern Pac. Co. v. Board of R. R. Comrs., 78 Fed. 236.

A state act prescribing maximum rates on all railroads by reducing local freight rates 2912 per cent. is invalid when the rates thereby fixed are such that there would be no net earnings from the state or interstate transportation of freight if the same rates were applied to all the business of such carriers.- Ames v. U. Pac. R. Co., 64 Fed. 165; affd. 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 418.

That rates fixed by a state legislature are no lower than, nor as low as, those of other states, does not render adequate the return permitted by the law fixing such rates, where it appears that the railroads would have no net earnings from local freight if such rates were enforced.- Ames v. U. Pac. R. Co., 64 Fed. 165; affd. 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 418.

Where the rate fixed by a commission will not pay the cost of necessary skilled service, the cost of the best equipment, the keeping of the same in proper condition, the interest on the bonds, and leave something for dividends, the court will enjoin the putting into effect of the rates.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dey, 35 Fed. 866, 1 L. R. A. 744n. What is reasonable compensation for a carrier.- Wells v. Ore. R. & N. Co., 15 Fed. 561.

If the rate on a given article is reasonable to those who ship the great bulk of that article in the form in which it is commonly prepared for transportation, that rate does not become unreasonable to the shipper of a small quantity of cotton because he chooses to prepare his shipments in a form which gives the carrier a greater profit per 100 pounds. - Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com, R. 382; affd and applied, Planters' Compress Co. v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

Refrigeration charges held reasonable.- Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 590.

Unless a carrier shows justification, an advance in rates which have long been applied to the transportation of a large and increasing traffic will be held unreasonable.- Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548.

Where an entire system of rates is involved, the question is whether the revenue yielded by the rates on all traffic is a fair return on the value of that property which is "employed for the public convenience." -Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505.

A railroad freight depot and a public storage warehouse are buildings whose business and uses are wholly dissimilar, and therefore railroads are justified in imposing greater storage charges than those fixed by warehouse companies.- Blackman v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 352.

A rate for the transportation of horses in less than carload lots, while reasonable as applied to the shipment of one horse, is unreasonable as applied to the shipment of four horses when it makes the charge for such shipment $99, while a full carload of 25 horses may be shipped for $100.- Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 333. Except in unusual cases, no rate is reasonable, which does not yield the carrier a fair return upon the transaction.-Matter of Proposed Advance in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382.

Rates cannot be said to be reasonable which are not reasonably remunerative to the carrier, and rates which do not pay their full proportion of operating expenses, fixed charges and reasonable dividends, are not "in and of themselves" reasonably remunerative.— Board of Trade v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 503.

The rates on melons were complained of. The showing was that such rates were lower than those on cotton and general merchandise, though special speed and facilities were required, that the rates per ton per mile on melons were less than the average receipts of the road per ton per mile on all freight. The evidence did not show the cost of producing melons or the results of sales.-Held, that the rates are not shown to be excessive.- Board of R. R. Comrs. v. Florence R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 1.

A road paying 12 per cent. annually to stockholders cannot maintain that its rates from a market city to a competitive point on that road, agreed to by rival carriers and long enforced, are not sufficient compensation for carrying from the same market to a much less distant point on the same line but that the local rates back from the competitive point should be added to arrive at a proper charge for transportation to the intermediate locality.- Calloway v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 431.

The demand and the receipt of an excessive sum for refrigeration is an unreasonable charge within the meaning of Interst. Com. Act, § 1.— Truck Farmers' Assn. v. Northeastern R. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 295.

Reasonableness of a rate charged in view of the limitation of liability.- Duncan v. A. T. & S. F. P. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 85.

Railway charges need not be so limited as to let the shipper realize the actual cost of production. In re Excessive Rates on Food

Products, 3 Inters. Com. R. 93, 4 I. C. C. R. 48.

An increase of one-sixth in the charge for the same service, through the device of charging for the gross instead of the net weight, is unreasonable, and hence will be enjoined by the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Proctor v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 131, 4 I. C. C. R. 87; distinguished, 9 Inters. Com. R. 440.

The trial judge, before whom was brought an action testing the constitutionality of a legislative regulation of the rates of a public service corporation, found that the act apparently did not impair plaintiff's income to the extent of preventing it from paying its operating expenses, fixed charges, and a fair annual dividend to stockholders. It appeared, however, that immediately after the act went into force, the corporation's earnings fell off 20 per cent., although its dividends had never exceeded 7 per cent., its corporate existence expired in less than 12 years, and its bondholders had to be paid off within that time.Held, that upon such a showing, the court will hold the act unconstitutional, in spite of the trial judge's finding.- Rochester & C. Turnpike Co. v. Joel, 41 App. Div. (N. Y.) 43, 58 N. Y. Supp. 346.

It is not reasonable regulation to compel a public service corporation to make an exception in favor of some particular class in the community, and serve the members of that class at a less sum than it has a right to charge those who are not members thereof.— Rochester & C. Turnpike Co. v. Joel, 41 App. Div. (N. Y.) 43, 58 N. Y. Supp. 346.

Figures were given to show that the total cost of construction, equipment, etc., of a road was about $15,500,000, but nothing to show the depreciation, the present value, nor the earnings and cost of operation within a state.- Held, that this would not enable the court to say that rates allowing from the domestic business 32 per cent. net on the total cost of construction, equipment, etc., is confiscatory.- State v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 48 Fla. 150, 37 So. 658; affd. 203 U. S. 261, 27 Sup. Ct. Ct. R. (U. S.) 109.

On a suit by a state commission to enforce a rate fixed by it, the showing was that the domestic business of the road alone produces a net earning of 3 per cent on the total valuation of the road in the state, no proper showing being made what part of the whole value of the property was engaged in domestic business.- Held, the rate will be enforced. State v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 48 Fla. 146, 37 So. 657.