BLANKET RATE.

Coal for Nebraska points from Rock Springs and Hanna. Nebraska State Railway Commission v. U. P. R. R. Co. 349.

General over territory between Missouri River and Chicago common points. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.

Transcontinental lines.

et al. 644.

Phillips-Trawick-James Co. et al. v. So. Pac. Co.

Burgess v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

BOTH DIRECTIONS.

Rates not necessarily the same. Burgess et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

BRICK.

Enameled brick and press brick, description and rates. Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342.

Paving brick, rates on, from Galesburg, Ill., and Kansas points. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 319.

BRIDGE TOLL.

At Memphis on lumber and staves. Thompson Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

BROOM CORN.

Rates on.

BROOMS.

Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 192.

Classification of. Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et

al. 109.

BRUSHES.

The inclusion of wire brushes and brooms, not toilet, in cases in less than carloads, in the first class is unreasonable. Defendants ordered to classify such brushes and brooms in the third class. Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 109.

CABBAGE.

Rates on. Chicago & Milwaukee Elec. R. R. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 20. CABLE.

Rates on rope cable. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56. CAMERAS.

While defendants' rate on camera and camera stands from St. Louis to Denver is high, it is not so excessive as to warrant interference. Merchants' Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 283.

CANAL AND LAKE.

Route, through rate, Erie Canal to Buffalo and thence via Great Lakes and rail. Wyman, Partridge & Co. et al. v. B. & M. R. R. et al. 258.

CANAL COMPETITION.

On shipments of pyrites, New York to Buffalo. Detroit Chemical Works. v. Nor. Cent. Ry. Co. et al. 357.

CANNED GOODS.

Rates on.

Phillips-Trawick-James Co. et al. v. So. Pac. Co. et al. 644.

CANNEL COAL.

In this case to take same rate as bituminous. Goff-Kirby Coal Co. et al. v.
B. & L. E. R. R. Co. 383.

CAPITALIZATION.

This is equally true of the capitalization of the defendants in this proceeding,
which bears no relation whatever to the actual investment necessary to the con-
duct of the business. Kindel v. Adams Express Co. et al. 475.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K.
& T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

CAR DELAY.

Increase in rate not justified on account of delay an outgrowth of general
congestion throughout the country. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. I. C. R. R.
Co. et al. 657.

CAR DISTRIBUTION.

Complaint alleges that the method of car distribution known as the "coke-
oven basis," enforced by defendant railway company in the Pocahontas Flat
Top coal district in West Virginia, unduly discriminates against complainant,
and asks that the so-called "capacity basis" of car distribution be adopted;
Held, upon all the facts and circumstances in the case, that the coke-oven basis
does not fairly measure the relative rights of the various operators in said coal
district, but unduly discriminates against complainant and operates to the un-
reasonable preference of other mining companies in the same field. Powhatan
Coal & Coke Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. et al. 69.

Complaint alleges that since July 13, 1906, the Detroit & Mackinac Railway
Company has discriminated against complainants in furnishing cars for inter-
state shipments of ice from Tobico, Mich., and that rates charged by defendants
on ice from Tobico to points in Ohio are unreasonable; Held, under the circum-
stances disclosed by the record, that complainants were not unduly prejudiced
in their car supply, and that the joint rates on ice from Tobico to points in
Ohio are not shown to be unreasonable per se or relatively. Complaint dis-
missed. Wagner, Zagelmeyer & Co. v. Det. & Mac. Ry. Co. et al. 160.

The plan of car distribution practiced by the defendant was unduly preferen-
tial of the fuel-contract mines, and resulted in an unreasonable disadvantage to
the purely commercial lines. Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. So. Ry. Co. 440.

In the matter of car distribution, where there is an inadequate supply of
coal cars, the only regulation or practice in respect to the transportation of
coal from the mines that is just, fair, and reasonable to be hereafter followed is
to allow to each mine its fair and just proportion of the coal cars, estimated
upon its justly ascertained capacity, and without regard to whether the mine
furnishes partly fuel coal and partly commercial coal, or commercial coal
only. Id.

In establishing systems of car distribution, defendants have given the mines
located on their respective lines daily tonnage ratings, which ratings are not
at issue in this controversy. Under the systems established each mine is
entitled daily to such percentage of cars as its tonnage rating bears to the
total number of cars available for distribution for commercial purposes. De-
fendants' fuel cars, foreign railway fuel cars, and private cars are not charged
against the distributive share of the mines to which they are assigned. Com-
plainant contends that this plan of distribution gives to some mines more cars
than they are entitled to under their several ratings, and unjustly discriminates
against it and other mines and mine owners. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. 451.

Reparation on account of alleged unjust discrimination of defendant in not
furnishing complainant with his proper share of cars for shipment of grain
at Wood River, Nebr., in November and December, 1906, while during that
time complainant's competitors at that station were favored with grain cars,
denied, as the testimony discloses that the time mentioned was during the
car-shortage season, and that the business of complainant and his competitors
suffered in common during that time, and no undue discrimination in furnish-
ing cars by defendant was satisfactorily shown. MacMurray v. U. P. R. R. Co.

531.

Use by some dealers of the so-called "private" hay cars. Ruttle et al. v.

P. M. R. R. Co. 179.

CAR FITTING.

Certain shippers applied for cars to ship hay, which the carrier, by reason
of car shortage, could not furnish at the time and place desired; the carrier
informed the shippers that it had certain cattle cars which it could furnish if
the shippers would clean and suitably prepare them for the shipments of their
hay at their own cost and expense; the shippers accepted these cars upon
these terms, cleaned and prepared them, and shipped their hay therein, and
then claimed reparation for the cost and expense incurred by them; Held,
upon the foregoing statement of facts, that the shippers' claim for reparation
based on cost of preparing said cattle cars, be denied and their complaint be
dismissed. Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. et al. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co.
et al. 148.

Because of defendant's insufficient equipment a number of worn-out cars
no longer serviceable for interstate movements we acquired and fitted up by
certain shippers for the transportation of their hay from local points on the
Port Austin division of defendant's line to junction points with other lines,
where the hay was transferred to empty system cars and moved forward to
eastern markets; Held, that defendant's course in stopping its own cars as
well as the cars in its control of connecting carriers, at such junction points,
there to be loaded with hay from the "private" cars, instead of sending them
up the line to the loading points where all the shippers might share in their
distribution, was to the detriment and at the expense of the complainants and
other independent dealers, and amounted to a denial to the complainants of the
equal enjoyment of the facilities of defendant and was therefore an unlawful
discrimination. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.

False floors for bananas. Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F.
R. R. Co. et al. 620.

CARLOAD MINIMUM.

Average on nitrate of soda. Ft. Smith Traffic Bureau r. St. L. & S. F.
R. R. Co. et al. 651.

Shipments should be billed at actual weight. Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v.
C., I. & L. Ry. Co. 569.

CAR MILEAGE.

Allowance equal to three-fourths of 1 cent for each mile traveled. In re De-
murrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars, 378.

CAR RENTAL.

Carriers pay each other 50 cents per day. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v.
Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

CAR REVENUE.

Often recognized as one of the safest criterions as to earnings. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

CAR SERVICE RULES.

Distribution of cars. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.

Observed by carriers and shippers. Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 192.

Relative privileges of storage at St. Paul or Minneapolis and Duluth. Commercial Club of Duluth v. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 288.

CAR SHORTAGE.

The occupation, the user, and the consequent reduction of the available equipment of the carrier are the vital matters in all plans of car distribution in times of shortage. Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. So. Ry. Co. 440. Deficiency of equipment of defendant for four or five years.

P. M. R. R. Co. et al. 179.

Ruttle et al. r.

Distribution of importance only during periods of shortage. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. et al. 451.

Of September, 1906.

England & Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. 614.
MacMurray et al. v. U. P. R. R. Co. 531.

Wagner, Zagelmeyer & Co. v. Det. & Mac. Ry. Co. et al. 160.

CARS OFF LINE.

By concurrence, carriers obligate themselves to furnish cars for through shipments. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. et al. 1.

Carrier may send equipment from its line for the things that are essential for its own operation. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. et al. 451.

Custom for carrier having long haul to supply cars for through shipments. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric R. R. v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. et al. 20.

Usual for carriers to do what they can to keep control of their own equipment. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.

CARTAGE.

To coal yard not on line of carrier. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.

CATTLE.

Rates on.

Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

Morti v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 513.

CEMENT.

Rates on. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry Co. et al. 319.

CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS.

The Commission views with disfavor the maintenance of a lower rate for a longer haul than for a shorter one included within the longer, and the circumstances and conditions obtaining at the more distant point which are relied upon to justify it must not only be clearly shown to be substantially dissimilar from those prevailing at the nearer point, but also to clearly exercise a potent or controlling influence in making the lower rate. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.

Dissimilar circumstances which justify under section 4 a greater charge for a shorter than for a longer haul will also prevent such rate from constituting an

Under the circumstances and conditions shown to exist in this case the Commission is unable to find that the class rates now in effect for transportation of property from Chicago, St. Louis, Omaha, and Denver to El Paso, Tex., unduly prejudice Pecos, Tex., or that the lower rates from such points of origin to El Paso constitute a violation of the fourth section of the act as that section is construed by the courts. Complaint dismissed. Pecos Mercantile Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 173.

Consideration to be given location in territory having certain method of rate adjustment. Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. L. & N. R. R. Co. et al. 300. Dissimilar at Ohio River crossings and Mississippi River common points. Phillips-Trawick-James Co. et al. v. S. P. Co. et al. 644.

Existing at time of complaint. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 605.

CLASSIFICATION OF FREIGHT.

The inclusion of wire coat hooks, packed in cases, when shipped in less than carload lots, in the third class in Official Classification territory is not shown to be unreasonable, and the complaint is dismissed. Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 118.

The inclusion by carriers operating under the Western Classification of multigraphs, in cases in less than carloads, in double first class is unreasonable. Defendants ordered to classify such multigraphs as 1 times first class. Forest City Freight Bureau v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 295.

Beer and mineral water. Milwaukee-Waukesha Brewing Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 28.

Brick. Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342. Cannel coal. Goff-Kirby Coal Co. v. B. & L. E. R. R. Co. 383. Differences in value or cost of service do not in all cases secure change in classification. Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 109. Motor cycles. Merchants' Traffic Assn. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 283. Official classification, cotton piece and knit goods. Johnston & Larimer Dry Goods Co. et al. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 388.

Not scientific if founded on distinction with no transportation significance. Fort Smith Traffic Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 651.

CLASS RATES.

Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 109, 118.

Wyman, Partridge & Co. et al. v. B. & M. R. R. Co. et al. 258.

Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 319.

Johnston & Larimer Dry Goods Co. et al. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 388.

COAL.

Clinch Valley field. Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. 230. Iowa rates. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 319. Mining and car distribution. Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. et al. 69.

Rates on lump and slack. Gentry v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 214. Reshipment at Kansas City. Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. et al. v. Mo. P. Ry. Co. et al. 154.

Amarillo Gas Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 340.
Cardiff Coal Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 460.

Goff-Kirby Coal Co. et al. v. B. & L. E. R. R. Co. 383.

Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 214.

Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. St. J. & G. I. Ry. Co. 317.

Nebraska State Railway Commission v. U. P. R. R. Co. 349.