TOPIC D-UNREASONABLE RATES.

[Particular rates are discussed in Chapters XI, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX.]

§ 932. General principles.

No one can refuse to pay the published tariff rates, on the ground that they are unreasonable; since it would be a crime to accept from him less than the tariff rates. Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., 81 Fed. 545 (1897). It is necessary, therefore, in order to obtain redress where rates are unreasonably high to apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission for redress. Upon a complaint to the Commission for reduction of rates the burden is on the complainant to establish his case; it must affirmatively appear that charges assailed as unreasonable are so and ought to be reduced. Lincoln Creamery v. Union P. Ry., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 794, 5 I. C. C. 156 (1891); Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 85 (1894). Where a change of rates would involve a reduction of rates on other competing lines not parties to the proceeding, and unsettle relative rates in a large extent of territory, such a change ought not to be made unless based upon clear grounds. Rice v. Western N. Y. & P. Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 298, 2 I. C. C. 389 (1888); and see Dallas Freight Bureau v. Texas & P. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 33 (1898). In a proper case, however, the Commission will declare a rate unreasonable. Jerome Hill Cotton Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 601 (1896); New Orleans L. S. Exch. v. Texas & P. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 327 (1904); H. B. Pitts & Son v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 691 (1905).

While, as has been seen, the reasonableness of a rate may be tested by comparison with similar rates, such comparison alone, without other evidence, will not justify the conclusion that a rate is unreasonable. Allen v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 106 Fed. 265 (1901); Interstate Commerce Commission v. Nashville, C. & S. L. Ry., 120 Fed. 934, 57 I. C. C. A. 224 (1903); Kentucky R. R. Comrs. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 380 (1897); Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 111 (1904).

$933. Passenger rates.

Several decisions on the reasonableness of passenger rates are interesting. Thus twenty-five dollars is not unreasonable for a mileage ticket. Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 321, 393, 1 I. C. C. 156 (1887). A passenger fare from A to B is not necessarily unreasonable because it is higher than that from B to A. MacLoon v. Boston & M. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 642 (1903); Hewins v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 221 (1904). A through rate is not necessarily unreasonable because it is higher than the sum of local rates fixed by State laws. Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transp. v.

Charleston & S. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 601 (1898); see, however, Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Eureka Springs Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 69 (1897). See for other discussions of the reasonableness of passenger rates, Willson v. Rock Creek Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 83 (1897); Cist v. Michigan Cent. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 217 (904).

§ 934. Freight rates; instances.

In the following cases the reasonableness of rates on particular articles was considered by the Interstate Commerce Commission:

Agate Ware-Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 117 (1904).

Agricultural Implements-Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Angle Beads-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Apples-Truck Farmers' Asso. v. Northwestern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295 (1895); National Hay Asso. v. Lake Shore & Michigan S. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264 (1902).

Asbestos-Chicago Fire Proof Covering Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 316 (1899).

Astragals-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Bacon-Rates on.

Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transp. v. Louisville

& N. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 377 (1899).

Baking Powder-Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1903); Re Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 1 (1904); Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 117 (1904).

Balusters-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Bananas-Gardner & Clark v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 342 (1904). Barley-F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61 (1894); Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago G. W. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 650 (1905).

Barrel Material-Holmes & Co. v. Southern Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 561 (1900).

Beans Truck Farmers' Assoc. v. Northeastern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295 (1895); Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43 (1896); Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902); Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 117 (1904).

Beef Cattle- New Orleans Live Stock Exch. v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 10 1. C. C. Rep. 327 (1904).

Blacking Brushes-Derr Mfg. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 646 (1903).

Blankets Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1903).

Blinds-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Boards-Central Yellow Pine Assoc. v. Illinois C. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 519 (1905).

Books—Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1903). Boots and Shoes-Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Bottles-Of milk, rates on. Milk Producers' Protective Assoc. v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 92 (1897).

Box Shooks-Michigan Box Co. v. Flint & P. M. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 335 (1895).

Bran-National Hay Assoc. v. Lake Shore & Michigan S. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264 (1902).

Brandy Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Brushes-Derr Mfg. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 646

(1903).

Buckwheat Grits-F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 61 (1894).

Buggies Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902); Holdzkom v. Michigan Central R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 42 (1901).

Cabbage Truck Farmers' Assoc. v. Northeastern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295 (1895).

Candles--Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 J. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Canned Goods-Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902); Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 111 (1904).

Cans-Of milk, rates on. Milk Producers' Protective Assoc. v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 92 (1897).

Cantaloupes-Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43 (1897).

Carpenters' Mouldings-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Carriages-Holdzkom v. Michigan Central R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 42 (1901); Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Cartridges-Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 118 (1904).

Cattle-Leonard v. Chicago & A. R. R., 3 I. C. C. Rep. 241, 2 Int. Com.

Rep. 599 (1889); Squire v. Michigan Cent. R. R., 4 L. C. C. Rep. 611, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 515 (1891); Cattle Raisers' Assoc. v. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 513 (1898); Sayles v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 492 (1903); Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. Ry., 10 I. C. C. 428 (1905).

Cedar Lumber, Poles, Posts and Shingles-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. 489 (1905).

Cement Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1903). Cercal Products-F. Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Rỵ., 6 J. C. C. Rep. 61 (1894).

Chair Stuff--Murphy v. Wabash R. R., 5 I. C. C. 122, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 725 (1891).

Champagne-Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Cheese-Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902).

Chewing Gum-Wrigley v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 412 (1905).

Chocolate Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1903).

Citrus Fruit-Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. Co., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 182 (1902).

Closet Fittings, Seats and Tanks-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Coal--Rend v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 2 I. C. C. 540, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 313 (1889); Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R., 2 I. C. C. 618, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 436 (1889); Coxe v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 4 I. C. C. 535, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 460 (1890); In re Louisville & N. R. R., 5 I. C. C. 466, 4 Int. Coni. Kep. 157 (1892); Fewell v. Richmond & D. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 354 (1897); Montell v. Baltimore & O. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 412 (1897); McGrew v. Missouri P. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 630 (1901); Mayor and City Council of Wichita v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 558 (1903); Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 226 (1904); Denison Light & Power Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 337 (1994); Re Transportation of Coal and Mine Supplies, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 473 (1905).

Cocoa--Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1903). Coffee-Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 568 (1896); Danville v. Southern Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 409 (1900); Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 250 (1902); Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern Ry., 10 1. C. C. Rep. 117 (1904).

Copper-Kindel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 606 (1993). Corr-Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R., 3 I. C. C. 435, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 715 (1889); In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates, 4 I. C. C. 48, 3 Int. Com.

Rep. 93 (1890); Suffern, H. & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 255 (1897); Grain Shippers' Assoc. v. Illinois C. R. R., I. C. C. Rep. 158 (1899); Re Export Rates from Points East and West of Miss. River, 8 I. C. C. Rep. 185 (1899); Re Export and Domestic Rates on Grain, 8 I. C. C. Rep. 214 (1899); Board of R. Comrs. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304 (1899); Mobile & O. R. Co., Re Rates and Practices of, 9 I. C. C. Rep. 375 (1903); National Hay Assoc. v. Lake Shore & Michigan S. Ry., 9 1. C. C. Rep. 264 (1902); Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 281 (1904); H. B. Pitts & Son v. St. Louis & S. F'. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 684 (1905).

Corn Meal-Board of R. Comrs. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304 (1899); Aberdeen Group Commercial Assoc. v. Mobile & O. Ry, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 289 (1904).

Corn Products-Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R., 3 I. C. C. 435, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 715 (1889).

Cornice Brackets-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Cotton-New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Illinois C. R. R., 3 I. C. C. 534, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 777 (1890); Troy Bd. of Trade v. Alabama M. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 1 (1894); Phelps v. Texas & P. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 36 (1894); Re Alleged Unlawful Rates, 8 I. C. C. Rep. 121 (1899); Dallas Freight Bureau v. Texas & P. Ry., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 33 (1898); Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transp. v. Louisville & N. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 377 (1899).

Cotton Piece Goods-Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 568 (1896); Kindel v. Boston & A. R. R., 11 I. C. C. Rep. 495 (1905).

Cotton Seed-Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & P. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 696 (1905).

Cotton Seed Meal-Boyer & Co. v. Chesapeake, O. & S. W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 55 (1897).

Cowpeas-Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 281

(1904).

Cream-Milk Producers' Protective Assoc. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 92 (1897).

Cucumbers-Truck Farmers' Assoc. v. Northeastern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295 (1895); Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43 (1897).

Cymbling-Truck Farmers' Assoc. v. Northeastern Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295 (1895).

Dog Collars-Business Men's League of St. Louis v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 330 (1903).

Doors-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).

Door Frames-Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 489 (1905).