cisco, they ought not ordinarily to charge more than $1.50 for transporting that same commodity to Denver.

Even more expressive are the divisions received by the participating carriers for these services. Of the $1 rate carriers from Chicago to Denver receive 27.3 cents; of the $1.50 rate 39.8 cents; while of the $1.79 rate now in effect their division is $1.277.

These divisions are matters of agreement between the carriers and are of no concern to the public. They can only be referred to as indicating what, in the opinion of the carriers, is remunerative for the transaction of this business. It is evident in this case that the defendants accept these extremely low divisions upon transcontinental business for the purpose of inducing the movement of that traffic, and it must be presumed that they would not do this unless there were some profit to them in the movement.

It is also true that there is but little connection between the actual cost of handling cotton piece goods and the charge which may be properly made for that service; but there ought to be a certain relation between the cost of handling an entire schedule and the different rates applicable, and we do not think that, as a general principle, it can be proper to charge more for the transportation of commodities in general from eastern points of origin to the city of Denver than is charged from the same points of origin to the Pacific coast. There may be exceptions to this rule, and the commodity before us, under our decision, presents a marked exception; for in this case we allow the transportation in carload lots to the Pacific coast at $1 per 100 pounds, and in some instances at 90 cents per 100 pounds, while the rate to Denver is in no case less than $1.50. This arises from the fact that carriers apply a carload rating to their transcontinental business, while refusing that rating to Denver which we permit in view of water competition.

While, however, it is our opinion that this rate should be reduced as above, we do not think that any order to that effect can properly be made upon this record. 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. We might, perhaps, order a reduction of these several locals to such an extent as to bring the entire rate within the figure named by us; but we are really 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 praying 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. As was intimated in the original case, it is by no means clear that a through rate of this kind can be properly constructed by adding together several shorter distance local rates.

We might, perhaps, allow an amendment to this petition, but an entirely new issue would be thereby created, which would necessitate a further hearing. Since no costs are recoverable by either party in these proceedings, the better course appears to be to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. If the carriers do not establish the rate indicated the complainant can with equal convenience and without additional expense file a new complaint.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

No. 1183.

RAVEN RED ASH COAL COMPANY; RAVEN COLLIERIES COMPANY; DOMESTIC COAL COMPANY; RAVEN FUEL COMPANY; MINER'S MUTUAL COAL COMPANY, AND COAL CREEK COAL COMPANY

V.

NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Submitted February 24, 1908. Decided March 16, 1908.

The rate on coal in carloads from mines on the Clinch Valley division of the Norfolk & Western Railway to the eastern seaboard is 10 cents per ton more than from mines on its Pocahontas division. Complainants ask that the rate on coal from their mines on said Clinch Valley division to the eastern seaboard should be the same as that of their competitors in the Pocahontas fields, the distances being substantially the same; Held, That complainants are entitled to relief prayed for, but no reparation will be granted.

Harman & Pobst and William A. Glasgow, jr., for complainants. John H. Holt, Ed. Baxter, and Lucien N. Cocke for defendant.

LANE, Commissioner.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

Complainants are engaged in the mining of coal in the vicinity of Raven, a station in Virginia on the Clinch Valley division of the Norfolk & Western Railway. The question for decision is whether the rate on coal, in carloads, from these mines to the eastern seaboard bears a proper relation to the rate charged from what are known as the Pocahontas and Tug River coal fields, which lie along the Pocahontas division of defendant's line for about 56 miles west of Graham, W. Va., the junction point of the two divisions. To reach the eastern seaboard, the movement from the mines is interstate, the coal being hauled through the state of West Virginia.

The question is one of grouping. Complainants claim that their mines are as near Graham, the junction point above referred to, and

therefore to the eastern markets, as are the mines of the Pocahontas and Tug River fields, while they are charged 10 cents more per ton for transportation to that market. It is the contention of complainants that the rate from their mines should be the same as that of their competitors in the Pocahontas-Tug River fields, the distances being substantially the same. In this view the Commission concurs.

The following statement shows the rates in effect on coal in carloads, minimum weight 30,000 pounds, from various districts on the Norfolk & Western Railway to Norfolk, Va., per ton of 2,000 pounds:

The proportional rates to Lamberts Point (Norfolk) for "points outside the capes" are 10 cents per ton less than figures named above, except that these reduced rates apply per ton of 2,240 pounds.

The eastern terminus of the Norfolk & Western Railway is Norfolk, and its lines extend westerly through Petersburg, Lynchburg, Roanoke, and Radford, Va., into Bluefield, W. Va., and on to Graham, W. Va., at which point the road forks. One line continues northwesterly through what is known as the Pocahontas, Tug River, Thacker, and Kenova coal fields, and beyond, to Columbus, Ohio. Another line (known as the Clinch Valley division) branches off at Graham and extends southwesterly to Norton, Va., where it connects with the Louisville & Nashville Railroad.

For rate-making purposes, what is known as the Pocahontas and Tug River fields are treated as one. They constitute what may be called the Pocahontas group. From Graham on the east to Iaeger, the most westerly point of this group, is 54 miles. From Iaeger to Williamson, the most westerly point in the next, or Thacker field, is 48 miles. This is 102 miles.

Turning now to the other or more southerly fork, the Clinch Valley division, we find that from Graham to Norton is 100 miles, all of the mines in which constitute a single-rate group. The mines of complainants are in what is designated as the Upper Clinch Valley field, the more easterly field, the nearest mine located at Cedar Bluff being 35 miles west of Graham and the farthest at Raven, 43 miles. This 8-mile field, complainants contend, should be grouped separately from the Lower (or westerly) Clinch Valley field, which at the nearest point is 36 miles west of the westernmost mine of the Upper Clinch Valley group, and this lower, or westerly, group extends 21 miles. The above are main-line distances. Some of the mines are on short branch roads, which increase the distance slightly.

13 I. C. C. Rep.

The defendant makes a rate 10 cents higher eastbound from the Thacker field than from the Pocahontas-Tug River fields, making two groups out of that 102 miles. It has, however, made but one. group of the 100 miles along the Clinch Valley division, applying to it the rate eastbound from the Thacker field, or 10 cents higher than the Pocahontas-Tug River fields.

In its answer the defendant claims that the rate from the Clinch Valley division was justified because of the greater cost of operation. At the hearing the defendants also claimed that all the Clinch Valley coal was similar in character to the Thacker coal and that therefore it should have the same rate eastbound, the claim being that the difference in the character of the coal justified the single grouping of the 100 miles and the higher rate. If the inference from this is that the Pocahontas coal is entitled to a lower rate than the Thacker coal because it is different in character, this theory is not followed by the road itself, for in making the rate west the Thacker field enjoys a 10-cent lower rate than the Pocahontas field; nor may the higher rate be justified because of greater value, as the Pocahontas coal is worth about 20 cents more per ton in the eastern markets.

Further than this, the evidence of the complainants is that the difference in quality between the coal mined in the upper end of the Clinch Valley, where complainants' mines are located, and that produced in the lower end is just as great as that between the Pocahontas coal and the Thacker coal. Moreover, the vice-president and general manager of the defendant further stated that "from a transportation standpoint we justified it (the 10 cent difference) on the cost of handling." Hence, it can not be held that the differential of 10 cents is justified by the difference in the coal, as the difference between the coals mined on the two divisions is substantially the

same.

The other justification set up by defendant is a difference in cost of operation.

Admitting that it costs more to transport coal over the Clinch Valley division, 100 miles in length, than over the other, 105 miles in length, it does not appeal to the reason as a justification for dividing one into two fields for rate-making purposes and denying it to the other. In this particular case, in the absence of any other reason, and having found as a fact that the coal in the upper and lower ends of the Clinch Valley field is of as different character as that between the Pocahontas and Thacker fields, there is every reason in equity to divide this 100 miles into two fields, similar to those on the Pocahontas division. One of the reasons for this is that the Clinch Valley mines are peculiarly grouped in that the nearest mine to Graham in the Upper Clinch Valley is at Cedar Bluff, 35 miles west,