kind of property for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance, it is not sufficient justification therefor that the traffic which is subjected to such greater charge is way or local traffic, and that which is given the more favorable rates is not.

Nor is it sufficient justification for such greater charge that the shorthaul traffic is more expensive to the carrier, unless when the circumstances are such as to make it exceptionally expensive, or the long-haul traffic exceptionally inexpensive, the difference being extraordinary and susceptible of definite proof.

Nor that the lesser charge on the longer haul has for its motive the encouragement of manufactures or some other branch of industry. Nor that it is designed to build up business or trade centers.

Nor 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.

The fact that long-haul traffic will only bear certain rates is no reason for carrying it for less than cost at the expense of other traffic.

APPENDIX B.

Extracts from docket and records of Commission, showing complaints filed under section 13 of the act to regulate commerce, and disposition or present condition of each.

1. W. M. Holbrook, Nelson L. Derby, Grant S. Hager, H. Stong, John Ganssle, Samuel R. Smith, A. L. Bain, and S. L. Haight against Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges refusal to furnish cars, and that defendant makes itself a preferred shipper.

April 18, 1887. Complaint filed.

May 9, 1887. Answer filed.

July 14, 1887. Hearing.

There being no evidence of any violation of the act to regulate commerce since the date when it took effect, and the answer avowing a purpose to comply with the law: Held, That nothing was presented calling for an order by the Commission, and the complaint was dismissed.

2. M. A. Fulton against Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad Company:

86

Complaint alleges unreasonable freight rates.

Apr. 26, 1887. Complaint filed.

May 16, 1887. Answer filed.

June 6, 1887. Reply and exhibits filed.

July 14, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Bragg, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 104.) It appearing that the rates complained of in the petition have been largely reduced since the petition was filed, and no complaint being made against the reduced rates, the petition was dismissed without prejudice.

3. Ralph W. Thacher against Delaware and Hudson Canal Company; Boston, Hoosac Tunnel and Western Railroad Company; Troy and Boston Railroad Company; Fitchburg Railroad Company; Cheshire Railroad Company; Central Vermont Railroad Company; New Haven and Northampton Railroad Company; Connecticut River Railroad Company; Old Colony Railroad Company; Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad Company; Boston and Lowell Railroad Company; Providence and Worcester Railroad Company; Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges unjust and unlawful discrimination by refusing to carry grain from Schenectady to Boston, etc., at the proportion allowed from Schenectady to Boston upon all rail shipments originating in Chicago.

Apr. 23, 1887. Complaint filed.

May 4-18, 1887. Answers filed.
July 21, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Schoonmaker, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts.,
p. 152.)

It appearing that the order sought would bring the rates
charged into conflict with the fourth section of the act, un-
less rates should be reduced at intermediate stations to the
level of the rates made from Schenectady to Boston: Held,
That in the absence of either allegation or proof that the
rates from such intermediate stations are excessive, the Com-
mission could not make the order asked.
Petition dismissed.

4. Nathaniel W. Howell, Hiram A. Pooler, Charles M. Thompson, Cornelius B. Wood, and A. T. Moshier, residents and tax-payers of Orange County, New York, representing the farmers and milk producers of said county, against New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company; New York, Ontario . and Western Railroad Company; New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company; Lehigh and Hudson River Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 of the act, in the transportation of milk from points in southern New York to Jersey City.

Apr. 23, 1887. Complaint filed.

May 17 to June 2, 1887. Answers filed.

July 13, 1887. Hearing commenced and postponed.

Oct. 13, 1887. Hearing. Leave to file briefs granted.

Dec. 1, 1887. Time to file briefs further extended.

5. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company against Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company:

Complaint asks investigation of free-baggage allowance upon registry and indemnity certificates of the Traders and Travelers' Union (co-operative) of New York.

April 28, 1887. Complaint filed.

May 18, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by petitioner.

6. Burton Stock Car Company against Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company; Chicago and Alton Railway Company; Union Pacific Railway Company; Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company; Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Indianapolis Railway Company; Chicago, Burlington and Northern Railway Company; Hannibal and Saint Joseph Railway Company; Missouri Pacific Railway Company; Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company; Burlington and Missouri River Railway Company:

Complaint alleges unjust discrimination and extortion, forbid den by sections 1, 2, and 3 of the act, in refusal to pay car service for the use of complainant's cars, and in charging an unreasonable sum to shippers of cattle transported in complainant's cars.

May 4, 1887. Complaint filed.

May 27-31, 1887. Answers filed.
June 21, 22, 23, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Walker, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 132.) Held, That complainant, which charges and receives from shippers 2 cents per mile for the use of its cars, and which does not receive and use the cars of other carriers, is not in a position to claim that the failure of carriers to pay complainant the agreed sum allowed each other upon exchange of cars in joint traffic is an unjust discrimination or preference under the act to regulate commerce.

The evidence upon the question of reasonable charge not being satisfactorily presented, no order was made; negotiation was suggested, and the case was retained for further consideration. No application to the Commission for further hearing has been made; information has been received that an adjustment is progressing.

7. F. D. Harding against Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges unjust and unreasonable freight charges. May 18, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 8, 1887. Answer filed.

July 14, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Bragg, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 104.)
Same disposition made as of No. 2.

8. Associated Wholesale Grocers of Saint Louis against Missouri Pacific Railway Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1 and 2 of the act in the matter of greater charges upon merchandise shipped in small quantities than upon car-load lots.

May 21, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 11, 1887. Answer filed.

July 21, 1887. Hearing.

By consent of parties decision postponed until other cases presenting the same question should also be heard. (See Nos. 65, 66, 67.)

9. Traders' and Travelers' Union (Co-operative) against Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company; Lehigh Valley Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges cancellation of contracts for additional baggage under registry and indemnity system, and asks construction of the law in relation thereto.

May 21, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 10, 1887. Answer filed.
July 15, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Bragg, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 122.) Held, That the Commission has no jurisdiction to compel railroad companies to make arrangements whereby commercial travelers or others will be allowed, as passengers, to take extra baggage without extra charge, in consideration of some guaranty against liability.

Also, that the power to enforce existing contracts has not been conferred upon the Commission by statute.

Complaint dismissed.

10. Leverett Leonard against Union Pacific Railway Company: Complaint alleges excessive charges in the transportation of live stock in "palace stock cars."

May 21, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 9, 1887. Answer filed.

Oct. 18, 1887. Hearing.

By the Commission. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 185.)

Complaint dismissed without prejudice for want of proof.

11. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company against Pennsylvania Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges refusal to afford complainant equal facilities for receiving through traffic from Chicago to Kansas City; refusal to sell tickets for that point over complainant's road; attempting to coerce the traveling public, and discriminating against complainant to its injury.

May 23, 1887. Complaint filed.

June 2, 1887. Answer filed.

June 16, 1887. Hearing.

Opinion by Schoonmaker, Commissioner, Morrison, Commissioner, dissenting. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 86.)

It appearing that defendant's refusal to sell through tickets over complainant's road was by reason only of complainant's refusal to sign an agreement which had been signed by other roads receiving the facilities in question, to the effect that commissions would not be paid to defendant's employés upon through tickets so to be sold: Held, That the requirement was reasonable, and that complainant by refusing the terms accepted by other companies had voluntarily excluded itself from the right to claim that undue preference was given to the other companies which had entered into said agreement. Complaint dismissed.