these rates are relatively reasonable and just, so far as New Orleans is concerned, than is the result that the bulk of the cotton on the line of the Illinois Central Railroad generally, as well as near to Memphis, is carried to New Orleans upon a long haul, while very little of it is carried to Memphis by this carrier upon a short haul, and the proportion of it carried by the Illinois Central Railroad to Memphis and all the northern and eastern mills is very small compared with what it carries to New Orleans. It is obvious that New Orleans, owing to the advantages of its position, enjoys in a general way the benefit of these rates to an extent that Memphis and northern and eastern mills can not, in receipts of cotton, although over the line of this carrier rates are made substantially the same on north-bound as upon south-bound shipments of cotton between New Orleans and Cairo. It would make this report and opinion, already unavoidably lengthy, unnecessarily long, to take up each of these numerous stations and show that this is true, as could easily be done. The transportation embarrassments that environ this carrier at many junction points along its line, occasioned by the near competition of the Mississippi river in conjunction with rail east and west lines, are serious indeed. It has already, according to the evidence, practically been driven out of the cotton-carrying business from Memphis by the competition of the Mississippi river and of the Mississippi Valley Railroad Company to New Orleans.

Now, this method of rate-making, necessary as it is to the business of this carrier, especially at junction points, in order to enable it to participate in the traffic along its line against the competition of the water and rail carriers, operating in effect in conjunction with each other upon east and west-bound rail lines crossing its line, might, as a mere question of the relative reasonableness of rates as between points on its line such as Cairo and New Orleans, be the subject of complaint that this was done in favor of New Orleans, if this carrier did not meet this phase of the subject by making the same relative rates, substantially, on northbound as well as south-bound cotton transported over its

line. But this it has done. This is apparent from the first and second tables in this report and opinion when the one is applied to the other. As, however, Cairo is not a cotton market while New Orleans is, under this system of ratemaking New Orleans has practically received the bulk of the cotton along the line of this carrier, getting twice and onehalf as much as has gone to Cairo, Memphis, and all other points. One test of a rate that can never be ignored is its actual and practical effect.

The Illinois Central Railroad Company and the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company will be allowed until the first day of June, 1890, to comply with the order made in these proceedings relative to adjusting their respective rates at Jackson, Mississippi, and Meridian, Mississippi.

An order will be entered in conformity with the facts found and conclusions reached in this report and opinion.

At the hearing and decision of this case the Chairman was absent because of illness, and did not in any way participate.

THE WORCESTER EXCURSION CAR COMPANY v. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint filed April 3, 1888. Answer filed April 24, 1888. Heard June 19, 1888. Briefs filed on behalf of Parties July 16-October 8, 1888. Brief filed for Pullman's Palace Car Company, October 15, 1888. Decided April 23, 1890.

1. Where a railroad company has by an arrangement with one car company procured a sufficient supply of sleeping and excursion cars for all the business of its lines, and refuses to haul excursion cars of other private car companies over its track for this reason, it can not be forced to do so against this objection.

2. Unless the contrary is imposed as conditions in the grant of its charter, the right to construct and operate a railroad is a franchise in its nature exclusive, not held in common with the public, though the grant of the franchise is for the public use; and the tracks of a railroad are not a common highway upon which any one can enter and use his own cars for transportation purposes against the objection of the company owning the tracks.

3. The extraordinary liability imposed by law upon a railroad company as a common carrier for the sufficiency and safety of its passenger cars and the competency of its employees in operating such cars is a highly important protection to the public, but such company might very reasonably claim that it was not responsible for a passenger car of a private car company, or the consequences of that passenger car being transported as part of its train in causing a wreck, collision, or delay, when it had no volition in accepting or rejecting such car, but was forced to transport it by order of a civil tribunal.

4. A railroad company may acquire cars by construction, by purchase, or by contract for their use, and no one has the power to compel a railroad company to select among these several modes or to contract with all comers.

5. The interest of the public in a matter of this kind is vitally important, and lies in the direction of holding every common carrier by rail to the strictest responsibility in furnishing safe, suitable and sufficient car equipment for the transportation of persons over its line; and the law making power in enacting the Act to regulate commerce has not undertaken to divide this responsibility with the carrier in the selection of its cars.

6. It would be directly at war with the rights and safety of the traveling public, as well as of the railroad company, if the line of the carrier

should become an arena over which it should be compelled to make a contract of some sort with every car company or inventor of cars, and transport the public in trains of which such cars were part.

Rice, King & Rice, for complainant.

James A. Logan, for defendant.

William Burry, for Pullman's Palace Car Company.

REPORT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

BRAGG, Commissioner:

The complainant in this proceeding is a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, for the purpose of building, constructing, furnishing, and keeping in repair cars to be run upon railroads for the use of pleasure and hunting parties and excursions. The cars it manufactures and uses for this purpose have a general resemblance to the sleeping cars in use throughout the country. Its custom is to rent the cars to parties on terms agreed upon between the complainant and the parties hiring them, and they are then drawn over the various railways of the country. From the evidence it appears that there are several car companies in the country which do a like business, and among them are the leading sleeping car companies, the Pullman and the Wagner.

The defendant refuses to receive the cars of the complainant and draw them over its lines, in that respect differing from some of the railroad companies, and perhaps a majority. It makes three objections to doing so. The first of these is that it has a contract with the Pullman Palace Car Company, whereby it obligates itself to draw for the general use and convenience of the traveling public the sleeping cars of that company exclusively, and also its cars which are hired out for excursions, as are those of the complainant. The second objection is that the cars of complainant are in some important particulars so different from any others that it draws upon its roads, that when anything is out of order with them the difficulty of repairing is very serious and may cause delay or the leaving of the car at the place where it

thus gets out of repair, and the entailing upon the defendant of a large outlay in the way of machinery, appliances and materials at different points on its line for the purpose of keeping these cars in repair, when there are but few of them, in consequence of which the defendant can not possibly be remunerated for any such outlay of expense. The third objection is that the cars offered by complainant to be transported were in fact out of repair.

We consider these different objections somewhat in their inverse order for the purposes of this report and opinion. As to the third objection made by the defendant, considerable evidence was given at the hearing, but in so far as it tended to show that the cars offered for transportation were not in proper condition, the proofs were conflicting. The question, however, whether defendant was or was not justified in its refusal in a particular instance is not so important. It is the right to refuse in all cases, regardless of the condition of the cars, that is the main point in issue. The defendant says that it is accustomed to keep on hand at convenient stations on its lines the several parts of the Pullman car which are liable to be broken or get out of repair, so that breakage or other injury can be easily and without delay remedied. The corresponding parts of the complainant's cars are not identical with them; and, as defendant can not be expected to keep on hand the various parts of the excursion cars, not often used in running on its road, it is claimed that it would be unreasonable and unjust to require it to receive such cars, in view of the embarrassment and delay that might follow an injury. To this it is replied that the difficulty suggested is one that is constantly liable to arise when cars of any kind are received by a railroad company which differ from those which constitute its ordinary equipment. As, for example, in the case of refrigerator cars, special stock cars, or tank cars, as well as excursion cars; and that when the cars, which are liable to the accidents and delays suggested are merely drawn for the owner, upon whom, and not upon the railroad company, rests the responsibility for their being kept in condition for use, the embarrassment to the railroad company in