and McAlester, Okla., to Enid, Okla. The rates involved are only those between points within the state of Oklahoma.

The questions in the case for decision are, (a) whether the acts of Congress granting a right of way to the defendant upon the condition that the rates charged shall not be higher than those in adjoining states give jurisdiction to the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce said acts, and (b) whether the complainant is entitled to reparation on account of past shipments.

For the reasons stated in the case of Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, where the same questions are involved, the complaint will be dismissed.

No. 1153.

ENID ICE & FUEL COMPANY

v.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

LANE, Commissioner:

This case was filed June 28, 1907, and is by a corporation engaged in the selling of coal at retail at Enid, Okla. The rates complained of are those on coal in carloads from Dawson, Haileyville, Red Oak, Hughes, and Alderson, Okla., to Enid, Okla. The rates here involved are only those between points within the state of Oklahoma.

The questions in the case for decision are, (a) whether the acts of Congress granting a right of way to the defendant upon the condition that the rates charged shall not be higher than those in adjoining states give jurisdiction to the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce said acts, and (b) whether the complainant is entitled to reparation.

For the reasons stated in the case of Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, where the same questions are involved, the complaint will be dismissed.

No. 1154.

ENID ICE & FUEL COMPANY

v.

FORT SMITH & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY AND DENVER, ENID & GULF RAILWAY COMPANY.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

LANE, Commissioner:

This complaint was filed June 28, 1907, and is by a corporation engaged in selling coal at retail at Enid, Okla. The rates complained of are from McCurtain, Okla., (formerly Indian Territory) to Enid,

Okla. The sole question involved is whether the complainant is entitled to reparation on account of shipments made prior to November 16, 1907, the date when Oklahoma became a state, between points which are now within the boundaries of said state.

For the reasons set forth in the case of Haines v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, the complaint will be dismissed.

No. 1158.

W. B. JOHNSTON

v.

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

LANE, Commissioner:

This complaint was filed June 28, 1907, by a retail coal dealer at Enid, Okla. The rates involved are those on coal between Alderson, Haileyville, Craig, Wilburton, Hughes, Dow, McAlester, Baker, Lehigh, Edwards, and Henryetta, all in the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), and Enid and Hitchcock, Okla. The rates here involved are only those between points within the state of Oklahoma.

The questions in the case for decision are (a) whether the acts of Congress granting a right of way to the defendant upon the condition that the rates charged shall not be higher than those in adjoining states give jurisdiction to the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce said acts, and (b) whether the complainant is entitled to reparation.

For the reasons stated in the case of Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., supra, where the same questions are involved, the complaint will be dismissed.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 889.

MERCHANTS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION

v.

NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY; NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY; BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY; LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY; ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY; CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY; ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY; RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY; MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY.

Submitted June 25, 1907. Decided March 13, 1908.

1. Complaint alleges that the all-rail rate on cotton piece goods from New England points to Denver, Colo., of $1.79 per 100 pounds, in any quantity, is unreasonable, and prays that Denver be accorded a carload rate on such cotton fabrics; Held, upon consideration of the testimony and argument, that the application for a carload rating be denied, but that the $1.79 rate is excessive and should not exceed $1.50. As no order can properly be made upon this record, complaint dismissed.

2. This rate to Denver is not a joint through rate, but is made up of the local rate from New England to St. Louis plus the rate from St. Louis to Denver, or in some cases from St. Louis to Kansas City and from Kansas City to Denver. The Commission might perhaps order a reduction of these several locals to

such an extent as to bring the entire rate within the figure named; but the Commission would be passing upon a through rate from New England to Denver and no such rate is now in existence. The proper method to follow in cases like this, where no joint rate exists, is to cite before the Commission the proper defendants and pray for the establishment of a through route and joint rate. Upon a petition of that sort the Commission has power to do justice both to Denver and between the different carriers participating in the transportation. 3. Upon the hearing complainant offered the findings and order of this Commission in the former case and insisted that this ought to be sufficient to establish its right to an order in the present case; Held, that under the amended act the entire matter must be tried de novo.

W. B. Harrison for complainant.

C. D. Hayt for New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and Erie Railroad Company.

D. W. Tears for New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, and Michigan Central Railroad Company.

C. M. Dawes and Vaile & Waterman for Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company.

J. F. Vaile for Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, and Rio Grande Western Railway Company.

E. B. Peirce and M. A. Low for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company.

H. T. Rogers, Robert Dunlap, J. L. Coleman, and Gardiner Lathrop for Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Compnay.

J. C. Jeffery for Missouri Pacific Railway Company.

C. C. Dorsey, L. E. Payson, J. N. Baldwin, and W. F. Herrin for Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the Southern Pacific Company.

Seth Mann for Pacific Coast Jobbers & Manufacturers' Association, Interveners.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

PROUTY, Commissioner:

In December, 1905, this Commission, in the case of Kindel v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company et al., 11 I. C. C. Rep., 495, held that the all-rail rate on cotton piece goods, any quantity, from New England producing points to Denver ought not to exceed $1.50, and issued an order requiring the defendants in that case to cease and desist from the maintenance of the rate then in effect, which was $2.24 upon some kinds of cotton fabrics and somewhat less upon others. Subsequently to that decision the carriers established a rate of $1.79, and that rate is now in force.

The complainant, an association of merchants doing business in the city of Denver, brings this complaint for the purpose, apparently

of asking the Commission to enforce, under its enlarged powers, the decision which it reached in the former case.

The complaint in this proceeding avers that the rate of $1.79 is excessive. It further avers that the defendants transport the same commodity to Pacific coast terminals in less than carload lots for $1.50, and that, while refusing to establish any carload rate to Denver, they name a rate of $1 to the Pacific coast in carloads on cotton piece goods and of 90 cents upon the coarser grades of cotton weavings like ducks and denims, all of which discriminates against Denver. The prayer is that Denver be accorded a carload rate on cotton fabrics and that the present rate of $1.79 be reduced.

Upon the hearing the complainant offered the findings and order of the Commission in the former case and insisted that this ought to be sufficient to establish its right to an order in the present case. The Commission ruled, however, that under the amended act the entire matter must be tried de novo.

Upon consideration of the testimony and arguments we adhere to the conclusions reached in the former case. The application for a carload rating is denied. As said in that case, As said in that case, the unit upon which cotton piece goods are handled is the bale; and nowhere east of the Rocky Mountains is an interstate coarload rating accorded to that commodity. While there are many reasons why such rating might with propriety be applied to a long-distance haul like that from points of production in the East or the South to Denver, we see no sufficient reason why these carriers should be required to establish such a rate against their will.

We are of the opinion that the rail rate on this commodity, any quantity, from New England producing points ought not to exceed $1.50. As pointed out in the former case, it is practically 2,000 miles from New England to Denver, and 1,400 miles from Denver to San Francisco. While the latter distance is somewhat less than the former in geographical miles, measured by actual cost of transportation, it is probably greater; and measured by rates voluntarily put in effect by the defendants, it is certainly greater. The firstclass rate from New York to Denver is $2.80, and from Denver to San Francisco $3. It has been often found by this Commission and must be recognized in all these cases, that water competition determines the rail rates between the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific coast; but it must also be assumed that the rates voluntarily made by carriers to meet this competition are remunerative; and if $1.50 pays carriers anything for transporting a commodity from New York to San Francisco, we think $1.50 from New York to Denver yields a sufficient profit. Certainly, if carriers can transport a commodity for $1 or even for 90 cents the 3,400 miles from Boston to San Fran