in each of said States and Territories to points in each of the other States and Territories than the one from which the shipments were made, but the dates and amounts of such shipments and points between which they were made complainant can not now show, but offers that its members will make such showing of the said facts as the Commission may require upon granting the relief hereinafter prayed for.

5. Complainant would further show to the Commission that the rates of freight upon cattle and other live stock applicable to such interstate shipments as is hereinbefore mentioned, were before the increases and advances complained of sufficiently high to afford to the defendants reasonable compensation for the service of performing such transportation, and the amount thereof was, during the year 1898 and up to the advances made in the year 1899, substantially the average of such rates in force for the ten years next preceding said advances complained of, and are now higher from substantially all points in said States and Territories than they have been for fifteen years.

The local rates within such States, where regulated by law, upon cattle and other live-stock shipments have had no material advance during the period of the advances in the interstate rates complained of, and, as a comparison of such interstate rates and local rates will show, are from 20 to 30 per cent lower than the interstate rates complained of for similar distances.

For example: Texas local rates on beef cattle and calves, distance 500 to 550 miles, 264; distance 650 to 700 miles, 30. From Fort Worth and north Texas points to Kansas City, distance 500 to 550 miles, 36; north Texas points to St. Louis, distance 600 to 700 miles, 42.

And by the local distance tariff of the States of Illinois and Iowa, rates on cattle and other live stock are proportionately still lower than those of Texas, while local rates in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska are not substantially higher than local rates for similar distances in Texas.

This complainant would show that it is because of the fact that the defendants are unrestrained as to such interstate rates, and by reason of the combination of the defendants whereby competition is eliminated, that such interstate rates are abnormally high, whereas, by the action of State commissions and legislative action, the local rates within such States have been kept down to a reasonable basis.

6. Complainant would further show to the Commission that previous to January 1, 1904, the shippers of live stock were accorded the privilege, as specified in said tariffs, of going along with their live stock on the same train in which the same was shipped to attend to such live stock and look after its welfare en route, and where such shipments were composed of two carloads or more to have return passage on passenger train, free of charge, which was a valuable privilege, permitting the owner or his representative attending the marketing and selling of such live stock and caring for them according to his judgment from time of shipment until they were sold, and to otherwise see that his interests were protected. But, as complainant avers, on or about January 1, 1904, the defendants, by their joint and several action, and by concerted agreement and combination with each other, canceled said tariffs according the privileges to the owner, his agent or employee, of going with such shipments and having return passage free, and now no such privilege is had in such shipments, and if the

owner or shipper would have the privilege of going with such shipments of live stock he inust incur the expense of paying his regular fare for return passage.

This results in most cases of depriving the owner of the privilege of going along with his live stock or sending his agent or employee to see to it that such live stock are properly cared for, to the end of getting the same upon the market in the best condition. Thus not only have said rates of freight been increased, but the service heretofore performed to the owner or the shipper in consideration of such rates has been materially curtailed, and the said rates rendered still more unjust and unreasonable.

Complainant would further show to the Commission that some of the defendant carriers effect to believe, and they make the claim, that the advances in freight rates were justified by the increased value of live stock over what it was when the lower rates prevailed. As to which complainant says that the value of cattle has decreased enormously within the last two years, as is well known to the defendants, and are of less value on the markets to-day than at any time in many years, and the burdens of excessive rates of freight to-day bear more heavily upon the producers of cattle than at any time in the past, so that upon shipments from southwestern Texas, western Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the rates of freight to the markets, upon ordinary range cattle, which are the kind produced and shipped, take from 30 to 50 per cent of their value.

Complainant would further show that the defendants claim that, because of an increase in operating expenses due to an alleged increase in the cost of material and supplies and to an increase in the wages paid to employees and laborers, the defendants were entitled to advance their rates and to so maintain such advanced rates. As to this complainant would show that any increased cost of materials and supplies, as well as the price of labor, is and has been more than offset by the increased tonnage carried by said railroads and by the various economies which have been constantly introduced in railroad operation and adopted, or which might have been adopted, by defendants. That, by reason of the increase in tonnage, these economies, and of the improvements in roadway and equipment freight is moved cheaper to-day than at any time during the history of railroading, yet the rates complained of are higher, which shows an additional ground for holding the same unjust and unreasonable.

7. Complainant would show to the Commission that the defendants, or some of them, seek to justify said advances in said rates and the existing rates upon the claim and pretense that the service which said carriers perform in transportation of live stock has been improved, and that it is better and quicker service than it was when the rates were lower. As to this, complainant says that the service has not improved; that cattle trains, as a rule, are not run at any greater speed, and, in fact, as complainant believes, the service is poorer than it was ten years ago, both in the manner of handling cattle and other livestock shipments and in the time consumed in their transportation, and is therefore less valuable than it was ten years ago.

Defendants also seek to justify such advances in the rates of freight and the existence of the present rates complained of upon the claim that so large an amount of damages is paid on cattle and other livestock shipments that the business of transporting such freight is

unprofitable. As to which, the complainant says that if there is any increase in the amount of damages incurred to live-stock shipments, it is by reason of the negligent acts of the defendants themselves, in delaying the shipments by failing to furnish cars or delays in transportation. Complainant says that to permit defendants to maintain unreasonably high rates of freight in order to enable it to pay damages occasioned by their negligence would be to permit them to tax all shippers of live stock to enable defendant to compensate a shipper who is damaged by the carrier's wrongful act, and thus enable the carrier to reap a benefit from its own wrong.

8. Complainant would further show to the Commission that in addition to the aforesaid unjust and unreasonable charges that all of said defendants impose and charge, and the defendants whose lines reach the market at Chicago charge, demand, and collect, in addition to the regular transportation charges to Chicago from said States and Territories, a $2 terminal charge upon each car of live stock going to the Chicago market, and have so imposed, charged, and collected the same since June 1, 1894. Complainant avers and charges that the same was and is an unreasonable exaction added to and collected in addition to said unreasonable transportation charges, and that the service for which it purports to have been imposed, viz, for delivery to the Union Stock Yards at Chicago, was and is comprehended in the through rate. Complainant says that the said through rate to Chicago at all times comprehended the service of transportation of live stock to said Union Stock Yards upon the Chicago rate from all points in said States and Territories, and that the same was at all times sufficiently high to afford a reasonable compensation for such transportation from points in such States and Territories to the Union Stock Yards at Chicago, including the delivery there of such live stock. That such terminal charge is therefore unjust and unreasonable, and in violation of section 1 of the act to regulate commerce. Complainants further show that no such charge is made at any of the other markets, and that under the circumstances the imposition of such charges at Chicago constitutes an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage to shippers who ship, or desire to ship, to said market, and is therefore in violation of section 3 of the act to regulate commerce.

9. Complainant would further show to the Commission that the defendants customarily feed cattle in transportation to market and elsewhere, and in doing so the charges made therefor follow the cattle to destination and are there customarily collected along with the freight charges, and that such feed charges are exorbitant, unjust, and unreasonable in this, that the charges made for feed furnished or fed to cattle and other live stock, consisting of hay, grain, cotton-seed meal, or other classes of food, are not based upon the reasonable value thereof, but are made against the shippers at a price 50 per cent more than its value. The complainant avers that such unreasonable charges in connection with the transportation of cattle and other live stock are in violation of section 1 of the act to regulate commerce.

PRAYER.

Premises considered, complainant prays that the defendants be required to answer this petition, and that the matter be set down for hearing by this honorable Commission as soon as practicable, and that

upon hearing of the evidence that the Commission find said rates of freight and advances and charges unjust and unreasonable and make its proper order commanding the defendants to cease and desist from charging and collecting such unlawful rates and charges; and, also, that the Commission make an order of reparation against said defendants in favor of the complainant and its members for the injuries and damages which may be shown to have been suffered by them because of such unjust and unreasonable rates and charges; and, also, complainant prays for such other findings and orders as it shall show itself or its members entitled to, or to which it may be made to appear to the Commission others are entitled, by reason of such unjust and unreasonable rates and charges.

THE CATTLE RAISERS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS,

By JOHN T. LYTLE,
"Secretary and General Manager.

COWAN & BURNEY,

Attorneys for Complainant, Fort Worth, Tex.

Mr. COWAN. I would ask the committee, in view of the fact which has been stated by a number of railroad gentlemen that unreasonable rates of themselves had disappeared, and in view of the fact that I dispute this proposition, I would ask this committee to pass a resolution requesting the Interstate Commerce Commission to submit the actual advances in rates by tariffs, not per ton per mile, because there is absolutely nothing in that. Let the actual advances be produced, because that is the test. The test is what the people have to pay, not what is the average per ton per mile. What the railroads' accumulation of traffic may amount to, when figured out, is only a matter of curiosity, because no traffic man pays rates based on that, and no shipper gets a rate on it. When you accumulate the whole traffic, divide it into the revenue, and thus obtain the rate per ton mile, you have nothing but a mere curiosity in figures. Their total rate per ton mile showed a decrease. I have seen railroad men undertake to mislead the Commission and these committees with such statements until, candidly, as a lawyer, I am heartily tired of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Has there been an advance in the expenses of operating the roads and in the prices of beef cattle?

Mr. COWAN. To the man who sells beef cattle there has been a very serious decline; to the man who sells the meat products there has been an advance.

The CHAIRMAN. A railroad man would ask that question.

Mr. COWAN. I can answer your question as to the increased cost of operation, referring to the increased cost of supplies, material, and labor, by filing with you a brief that is the result of months of work, the statements in which are taken from the annual reports of the railroads mentioned, and from the actual testimony of witnesses with respect to the prices of specifically named articles.

The brief referred to follows:

Before the Interstate Commerce Commission-In the matter of class and commodity rates from St. Louis to Texas common points in force over the lines of railway of the following-named respondents: No. 677, Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company; No. 678, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company; No. 679, St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company; No. 680, Missouri Pacific Railway Company; Texas and Pacific Railway Company; St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company; International and Great Northern Railroad Company; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company; Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company; and Chicago, Rock Island and Texas Railway Company.

Brief and argument by counsel for the Commission.

[S. H. Cowan, Fort Worth, Tex., P. J. Farrell, Washington, D. C., attorneys representing the Com

mission.]

In briefing this case we desire to confine the discussion principally to the disputed questions of fact. There are really no questions of law involved. Most of the facts are admitted. We do not intend to undertake to lay down or establish any principles with respect to the matter as to what in the first instance would constitute a reasonable basis for a schedule of freight rates or the relation between them, the one to the other. When the advances were made in the rates which are complained of there was existing a certain status or condition of affairs with respect to these rates, and for the purposes of this case we will assume as a premise that the relation of the rates and the amount thereof were proper-certainly that the rates were high enough to afford a reasonable compensation for the service performed. The fact that they had existed for so many years, as shown in the subsequent table, ought to be sufficient proof in the absence of some competent evidence to prove the contrary.

A discussion of all the testimony in the case would extend this brief beyond the point of usefulness. Much of the testimony enters into the minute details of operating expenses, and we deem it unprofitable to take up time in discussing it. Furthermore, not knowing in advance the grounds which will be taken by the respondents in justification of these advances that is, the grounds of argument which they may adopt-if we should undertake the discussion of other points than are presented directly by the answers which they have filed it might miss the points of dispute.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND ISSUES.

On the 15th day of March, 1903, material advances were made in the class rates and many of the commodity rates from St. Louis to Texas common points. The common-point territory in the State of Texas includes almost the entire State commercially, though in point of geographic area it leaves out what may be called western and southwestern Texas. The effect of increasing these rates from St. Louis was to increase the rates from all territory east of the Mississippi River, whether moving through the St. Louis gateway or the upper Missis