should be the same as that applied to junk in Official Classification, to wit, sixth class, which affords sufficient compensation for the transportation service performed, because such second-hand dynamos have no more value than the metal contained in them.

IV. That the wrongful classification and rating above set forth results in unreasonable and unjust transportation charges on complainant's shipments of secondhand dynamos in Official Classification territory, in violation of section one of said Act to Regulate Commerce, and subjects complainant and other shippers of secondhand dynamos, and their traffic, within the Official Classification territory, to unjust discrimination and undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, in violation of sections two and three of said Act to Regulate Commerce.

V. That on or about the 5th day of October, 1905, complainant had shipped to it from Marietta, Georgia, one secondhand dynamo, weighing 6,300 pounds, and costing complainant $85.00, which was delivered by connections to the defendant, the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, at Cincinnati, Ohio, and transported thence by said defendant to Columbus, Ohio, thence via the Cleveland, Akron & Columbus Railway Company to Hudson, Ohio, and thence via the Pennsylvania Company to complainant at Cleveland, Ohio. That said shipment was billed out as "one box of scrap iron" and complainant expected it to take the scrap-iron rate of 65 cents per 100 pounds; but before delivery the rate was advanced to the rate on new dynamos of $1.33 per 100 pounds. That complainant was compelled to pay the unjust and unreasonable rate of $1.33 per 100 pounds for the transportation of such shipment, aggregating the sum of $83.79, instead of the just and reasonable rate of 65 cents per 100 pounds, aggregating the sum of $40.95. That by reason of said unjust classification complainant was compelled to pay an excess charge of $42.84, for which reparation is claimed.

Wherefore, complainant prays that defendants may be required to answer the charges herein; that after due hearing and investigation an order be made requiring the defendants, the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, the Cleveland, Akron & Columbus Railway Company, and the Pennsylvania Company, to pay to complainant the sum of $42.84, or such other sum as, upon the proof to be adduced, the Commission may find complainant entitled to; and requiring all the defendants herein mentioned to wholly cease and desist from the aforesaid violation of said Act to Regulate Commerce; and that such other and further order or orders may be entered as the

Commission may deem necessary in the premises and complainant's cause may appear to require.

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, for answer to the said petition, or so much thereof as it is advised it is necessary for it to make answer unto, saith:

First. That it admits that a through route between the various companies respondent exists, substantially as alleged in said petition, and that the rate of charges for lumber from the points indicated in said petition, that is to say, from Macon and Atlanta in the State of Georgia, and from Johnson City, in the State of Tennessee, to Boston, are, as per their tariffs filed, the same as set out in the said petition.

Second. That whether the petitioners have a large amount of money invested in business in Johnson City, which they cannot withdraw without severe loss, is a fact as to which this respondent cannot be advised, and asks that the petitioners be held to proof thereof. This respondent, however, denies that the rate which the tariff describes for lumber on said through line from Johnson City to Boston is unjust or unreasonable, or that it greatly unjures or unjustly restricts the business of the petitioners.

Third. That the rates from Macon of 36 cents and from Atlanta of 34 cents per 100 pounds upon lumber, as well as the rate of 36 cents per 100 pounds from Johnson City, were fixed by the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company, the initial company; and that the reasons justifying the said rates of 36 cents and 34 cents per 100 pounds respectively from Macon and Atlanta, respectively 1328 miles and 1240 miles from Boston, as compared with the rate of 36 cents per 100 pounds for the shorter distance from Johnson City, in the State of Tennessee, to Boston, are as follows:

(a) That the rates in the State of Georgia are fixed and controlled by the Railroad Commissioners of that State, that Commission fixing the charges for transportation to coast cities from mills in the State of Georgia.

(b) The fact of water competition from Brunswick, Georgia, on the Atlantic Ocean, to Boston and other North Atlantic points; that adding the rate from the mills to Brunswick, as fixed by the Railroad Commissioners of Georgia, to the rate given by the coast line water carriers to Boston, the aggregate is less than the amount charged, as aforesaid, upon the tariffs of the respondents on their through railroad carriage from Macon and Atlanta to Boston.

(c) A large amount of freight is received at Altanta and Macon from eastern cities, including Boston, vessels containing which would have to return empty in large part, but for the fact that they can be returned loaded with lumber.

(d) The reason why the Atlanta charge is the same as that from Macon arises from the fact that the lumber shipped from Atlanta is manufactured at mills a considerable distance from that city, and transported there over local roads before being marketed.

(e) That the lumber shipped from Johnson City is for the most part poplar lumber, while that which goes from Georgia territory is exclusively Georgia pine; and that the rate per 100 pounds per mile for hauling poplar, by reason of its greater bulk, should reasonably be greater than that for hauling pine.

As to all of which matters reference is made for fuller details, to the answer of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company. Wherefore this respondent prays that the said petition be dismissed. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, By......

§ 4. Answer denying the jurisdiction.

General Freight Agent.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Caption as above.]

The New York & New England Railroad Company, one of the respondents in the above-entitled cause, separately answering such portions of the complainants' petition as it is advised it is important and necessary to make answer unto, says:

That it is not true, as averred in the first paragraph of the said complaint, that the respondent with the other companies named therein form one connecting through line under joint traffic arrangements; that the respondent has no contract or contracts or traffic arrangements with the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Com

pany nor the Norfolk & Western Railway Company, nor with the Shenandoah Valley Railroad Company; that it has no contract or contracts or traffic arrangements with the respondents named herein whose railroads are located south of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company; the lumber received by the respondent from points south of the Cumberland Valley Railroad is rebilled by said Cumberland Valley Railroad Company and again rebilled by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company at Harlem River.

It admits that it has carried lumber at the rate of 36 cents per 100 pounds in full car-load lots, which it is informed has come from Johnson City, in the State of Tennessee, to Boston as aforesaid; but the respondent denies that it has carried any lumber from Atlanta, Georgia, or any other point south of Hagerstown at a rate of 34 cents per 100 pounds from such initial point to Boston; and it denies that it has charged or received any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of like kind of property under substantially similar circumstances and conditions for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance.

It admits that it has carried lumber over this road which it is informed has come from Macon, in the State of Georgia, to Boston, at a rate of 36 cents per 100 pounds, and says that this rate was made by the initial road without consultation with this respondent.

And the respondent, further answering, says the rate of 36 cents per 100 pounds for transportation of lumber from Johnson City to Boston, a distance of 915 miles, which rate of 36 cents is less than eight mills per ton per mile, and which is divided among seven railroad companies, for which service this respondent is required to furnish expensive terminal facilities is not in itself an unreasonably high rate, and that said rate should not be reduced.

This respondent denies each and all of the allegations of the petitioners' complaint not hereinbefore admitted or denied.

NEW YORK & NEW ENGLAND R. R. COMPANY,

By....

Vice-President.

APPENDIX F

FORMS FOR PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING COM

MISSIONS

§ 1. Bill to enforce order of the Commission.

To the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in equity, etc. [hereafter these bills will be brought in the Commerce Court sitting].

Your petitioner the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was created and established and now exists under and by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States, entitled an Act to Regulate Commerce, approved February 4, 1887, as amended, etc. (here follow dates of amendatory acts), humbly complaining showeth:

I. That the Illinois Central Railroad Company is, etc. (here follow the names of the various railroad corporations made defendants with the usual descriptions).

II. That the defendants above named were on the 24th day of July, 1903, and ever since have been and still are common carriers engaged in the transportation of persons and property by railroad under joint through rates and as members of continuous through lines between points in different States of the United States, and particularly in the transportation of lumber from lumber-shipping points on their respective lines, [etc.] to "Ohio River points" [etc.], and to points north of the Ohio River and on and east of the Mississippi River, and as such common carriers and in respect to such transportation were and