lower charges than the carload rate. Complainant states that the basis upon which settlement was made was approximately 50 per cent pipe and 50 per cent scrap iron, but that after accepting the shipments it discovered that about 85 per cent was unusable as pipe, and it became necessary to cut this portion of the pipe into small pieces and dispose of it as scrap iron. Complainant contends that the scrap-iron rate should have been charged on 85 per cent of the weight of each car, and that the wrought-iron or steel pipe rate, or the fourth-class rate of 76 cents, whichever made lower charges, should have been charged on 15 per cent of the weight of each car. A note under the item carrying the 17-cent rate states that it applies only on scraps or pieces of metal having value for remelting purposes only. To come within this description the articles named may not be shipped in their original form but must be reduced to fragments, scraps, or pieces so as to render them useless for any purpose other than remelting. On this record we are unable to determine what portion, if any, of the shipments came within the above description, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the charges were collected on the proper basis. Complainant compares the rate of 36.5 cents charged on the pipe with distance-scale rates of 36.5 cents, minimum 30,000 pounds, on oil well derricks, 16 cents, minimum 44,800 pounds, on new rails, and the rate of 17 cents, minimum 50,000 pounds, on scrap iron or old rails, all applicable from Port Arthur to Shreveport, 226 miles, over the Kansas City Southern direct. The rates charged on complainant's shipments are single-line distance-scale rates for 226 miles between Shreveport and points in Texas. On this record they are not shown to be unreasonable. As the question of rates for the future on wrought-iron pipe in the territory here considered is before us in the portions of the southwestern revision reopened for further hearing and in Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 3130, no finding for the future is warranted here. The allegation of undue prejudice was not substantiated by any evidence in support thereof. We find that the rates assailed were applicable and not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. The complaint will be dismissed. 157 L. C. C. No. 21505 VINITA WHOLESALE GROCERY COMPANY ET AL. v. ARKANSAS VALLEY INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Submitted July 18, 1929. Decided October 14, 1929 Rates on salt, in carloads, from Weeks, La., and Hutchinson and Anthony, Kans., to Vinita, Pawhuska, and Keota, Okla., found unreasonable. Reparation awarded. H. D. Driscoll and F. J. Wright for complainants. L. R. Hall and E. J. Smith for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, TAYLOR, AND PORTER BY DIVISION 3: No exceptions were filed to the report proposed by the examiner. Complainants are Vinita Wholesale Grocery Company, corporation, R. A. Bonham, an individual, and W. A. Delaney and Alice Delaney, individuals doing business at Pawhuska, Okla., under the name of Pawhuska Piggly-Wiggly Company. By complaint filed September 19, 1928, they alleged that the rates charged on four carloads of salt from Weeks, La., and Hutchinson and Anthony, Kans., to Vinita, Pawhuska, and Keota, Okla., shipped between September 16, 1926, and May 7, 1927, and delivered subsequent to September 19, 1926, were unreasonble. Reparation is sought. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds. Two shipments moved from Weeks to Vinita. One of these shipments weighed 46,250 pounds and moved over the Texas & New Orleans, Louisiana & Arkansas, and the St. Louis-San Francisco. The other shipment weighed 45,375 pounds and moved over Morgan's Louisiana & Texas, Louisiana & Arkansas, and the St. Louis-San Francisco. One shipment, weighing 45,429 pounds, moved from Hutchinson to Pawhuska over the Arkansas Valley Interurban and the Midland Valley. One shipment, weighing 47,839 pounds, moved from Anthony to Keota over the Missouri Pacific and the Midland Valley. Charges were collected at the applicable commodity rates of 42 cents from Weeks, 23.5 cents from Hutchinson, and 31.5 cents from Anthony. Complainants seek rates of 30.5 cents from Weeks, 17 cents from Hutchinson, and 23.5 cents from Anthony. Complainants rely principally on Salt Between Western and Southwestern Points, 120 I. C. C. 91, 128 I. C. C. 431, hereinafter called the Salt case, in which we found, among other things, that the rates from Kansas salt-producing points, including Hutchinson and Anthony, to all points in Oklahoma and to numerous other destinations. were unreasonable on and after May 23, 1925, and awarded reparation to the basis of a distance scale therein prescribed which be came effective July 10, 1927. This case has been followed in several subsequent decisions in which reparation was awarded such as Anthony Salt Co. v. Arkansas V. I. Ry. Co., 152 I. C. C. 208. The rates sought by complainants are based on this distance scale, and complainants' shipments moved during the same period as those on which reparation was awarded in the cases above referred to. In the Salt case, a 42-cent rate applying from Weeks and other Louisi ana producing points to Oklahoma City, Okla., was also found unreasonable on and after May 23, 1925, and reparation was awarded on the basis of the distance scale prescribed from the Kansas points of origin. Rates from Louisiana points of origin to other destinations in Oklahoma were not assailed in the Salt case; but the 42-cent rate applying to Oklahoma City, which was found unreasonable as above stated, also applied to Vinita, the destination to which the two Louisiana shipments here considered moved. The distances from Weeks to Oklahoma City and to Vinita are approximately the same. On July 1, 1928, defendants voluntarily established rates from Louisiana producing points to Vinita and other destinations in Oklahoma based on the distance scale prescribed in the Salt case, but state that these reductions were necessary to make it possible, for shippers in Louisiana to compete with shippers in Kansas. The rates assailed were on substantially the same level as those prescribed in the Memphis-Southwestern readjustment. The rates sought are about 15 per cent of the first-class rates prescribed in the southwestern revision, whereas, in this general adjustment, the column 161 rates were prescribed on fertilizer, the column 171⁄2 rates on scrap iron, and the column 221⁄2 rates on junk. However, these facts were considered in the Salt case and other similar cases herein before referred to in which reparation on salt shipments was awarded. Defendants contend that complainants, who were the consignees of these shipments, are not proper parties to seek reparation inasmuch as these shipments were sold f. o. b. destinations and, although complainants paid the freight charges, they deducted similar amounts from the invoice prices. But in Doughty-McDonald Grocery Co. v. 1 Expressions such as "column 16 rates" refer to rates in columns of the distance scale prescribed in the southwestern revision. The numbers of these columns indicate the per centage relationship which the rates in the columns bear to the first-class rates in the scale Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 155 I. C. C. 47, we found that complainants therein, under similar facts, were entitled to reparation. We find that the rates assailed were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded 30.5 cents from Weeks to Vinita, 17 cents from Hutchinson to Pawhuska, and 23.5 cents from Anthony to Keota; that complainants received the shipments described and paid the charges thereon; that they were damaged in the amount of the difference between the charges paid and those which would have accrued at the rates herein found reasonable; and that complainant Vinita Wholesale Grocery Company is entitled to reparation in the sum of $105.38, with interest, complainant R. A. Bonham in the sum of $38.24, with interest, and complainants W. A. Delaney and Alice Delaney in the sum of $29.53, with interest. An order awarding reparation will be entered. 157 I. C. C. No. 215721 UNITED STATES GRAPHITE COMPANY v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. Submitted August 9, 1929. Decided October 14, 1929 1. Rates on foundry facings, ha carloads, from Saginaw, Mich., to certain destinations in official and western classification territories found not unreasonable. Complaint dismissed. 2. Findings in previous report, 147 I. C. C. 646, with respect to rates on crude graphite, in carloads, from Saginaw, Mich., to certain destinations in official classification territory, affirmed. Earl W. Cox for complainant. A. H. Greenly, L. P. Day, and F. V. Slocum for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, TAYLOR, AND PORTER BY DIVISION 3: No exceptions were filed to the report proposed by the examiner. Complainant, a corporation, manufactures foundry facings and graphite products at Saginaw, Mich. In No. 21572 it alleges that the rates on foundry facings, in carloads, from Saginaw to certain destinations in New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, and Utah were and are unreasonable. In No. 20700 it assails as unreasonable and unduly prejudicial the rates on crude graphite, in carloads, from Saginaw to destinations in central and eastern trunk-line territories. Both complaints were filed in due season subsequent to the filing of informal complaints on December 5, 1927, and October 15, 1927, in Nos. 21572 and 20700, respectively. We are asked in each complaint to prescribe reasonable rates for the future and to award reparation. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds. NO. 21572 The foundry facings produced by complainant are made from graphite, soapstone, hard coal, and coke. They are rated, as foundry facings n. o. i. b. n., sixth class in official, eighth class in southern, and class C in western classification, minimum 36,000 pounds. Of the shipments here considered, those to destinations in official terri 1 This report also embraces No. 20700, United States Graphite Company v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company et al. |
