rates, the Southern Pacific, Northern Pacific and Great Northern lines, impose no such charge, and to the east where defendants' lines have their termini in cities competing with Los Angeles, this charge is also unknown.

The Commission thus described the character of the service in question: "Spur-track delivery is a substitute service, a service which it has solicited the right to give, as the evidence here shows, a service which costs the industry for the installation of the track and the use of its property as a railway terminal. It is a service over the carrier's own rails to a point where it yields possession of the property transported and which involves no greater expense than would team-track delivery. It relieves the carrier's team tracks and sheds, necessitating less outlay for expense of yards in a crowded city, promotes the speedy release of equipment, and vastly aids in conducting a commerce which is greater than the carrier's own facilities could freely, adequately, and economically handle.

"Again it is not to be overlooked that the delivery given on an industry spur is not supplemental to any other delivery. Cars destined to industry spurs are not placed first at a spur, depot, or on the team tracks, or at the sheds, and later switched to oblige the consignee. A train of freight cars goes to the breaking-up yards which lie at the entrance to the city, and there it is divided up with respect to the character of the freight in the various cars and their destination. No one has access to the cars at this point. This yard is purely a railroad facility. After the cars are segregated they are taken to the tracks to which they are ordered-some to the various team tracks distributed along the main line, some to different industries, some perhaps to the railroad shops or to freight sheds or to the stock yards. Before the cars are placed the consignees are given notice of the tracks to which they are to be sent, so that there is no confusion, and the switch

engines which place the cars on one track also serve to haul the 'loads' in and 'empties' out at the other tracks. After a most exhaustive inquiry we cannot find, taking this service as a whole in the same way that it is treated by the carriers, that the service is more expensive to the carrier than if all cars were given team-track delivery.

"An additional charge may be made when an additional service is given. But the service here given is not additional to that for which the rate pays. If the shipper pays for team-track delivery and does not receive it, but asks instead and is given a sidetrack delivery which costs the carrier no more, he may not be compelled to pay an additional charge upon the assumption that he has received a terminal team-track service which has not been given. A carrier may not so construct its rates as to compel an extra charge for like service, and this, in our judgment, the defendants at Los Angeles have done." 18 I. C. C. pp. 317, 318.

1. It is urged that the Commission's order rests upon a construction of the statute which would forbid any carrier from separating its terminal and haulage charges on the same shipment, and that this is a fundamental misconception of the law.

We do not think that the order is open to this objection. It is true that the Commission directed attention to the distinction between the American and English methods of stating rates, pointing out that the English practise of fixing separate schedules for 'conveyance' and 'station terminal' rates had not obtained in this country so far as the records of the Commission show. The opinion was expressed that the provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce were enacted with reference to the American method of rate-making and that the rate which the statute requires to be published is 'a complete rate,' including ‘not only the charge for hauling but the charge for the use of

the terminals at both ends of the line.' 18 I. C. C. pp. 315, 316. We need not stop to consider whether this is a correct interpretation of the act, for the question of a segregation of haulage and terminal charges (meaning, by the latter, charges for the use of ordinary terminal stations in receiving and delivering goods) was not before the Commission and its propriety was not necessarily involved in the decision. No such segregation had been attempted by the carriers here. On the contrary, it was undisputed that the line haul carload rate comprehended receipt and delivery on team tracks or at freight sheds.

The Commission conceded the right of the carrier to charge for any terminal service that was accessorial. But it was held that an additional charge was not justified if additional service was not in fact rendered.

2. Nor do we understand that the Commission ruled that the receipt and delivery of goods at plants located upon spurs or side-tracks could not, in any circumstances, be regarded as a distinct service for which separate compensation might be demanded. Cases of an interior movement of plant traffic to and from various parts of the establishment, and of deliveries through a system of interior switching tracks constructed as plant facilities, were expressly distinguished by the Commission (18 I. C. C. pp. 313, 314); and it is apparent that the ruling of the Commission would not apply in any case where by reason of the location and extent of the spur tracks and the character of the movement the facts were essentially different from those upon which the decision was based. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney, 215 U. S. 98, 105.)

3. On the other hand, it cannot be maintained that the delivery and receipt of goods on industrial spur tracks within the switching limits in a city is necessarily an added service for which the carrier is entitled to make, or should make, a charge additional to the line-haul rate to

or from that city, when the line-haul rate embraces a receiving and delivering service for which the spur-track service is a substitute. It is said that carriers are bound to carry only to or from their terminal stations. But when industrial spur tracks have been established within the carrier's switching limits, within which also various team tracks are located, these spurs may in fact constitute an essential part of the carrier's terminal system. It was stated by the Commission that carriers throughout the country treat industry spurs of the kind here in question 'as portions of their terminals, making no extra charge for service thereto when the carrier receives the benefit of the line haul out or in.' It was added that while this general statement covered perhaps ten thousand cities and towns in the United States, the carriers before the Commission could name only three exceptions, to wit, the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. But, laying the generalization on one side, it is plain that the question whether or not there is at any point an additional service in connection with industrial spur tracks upon which to base an extra charge, or whether there is merely a substituted service which is substantially a like service to that included in the line-haul rate and not received, is a question of fact to be determined according to the actual conditions of operation.

Such a question is manifestly one upon which it is the province of the Commission to pass.

4. We must therefore take the findings of the Commission in the present case as to the character and manner of use of the industrial spurs in Los Angeles-that they constituted part of the carrier's terminals and that under the conditions there existing, the receipt and delivery of goods on these spurs was a like service as compared with the receipt and delivery of goods at team tracks and freight sheds as conclusions of fact. Assuming that they were based upon evidence, they are not open to review. Balti

more & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481, 495; Interstate Commerce Commission v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 220 U. S. 235, 251; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 547, 548; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 92; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. v. United States, 232 U. S. 199, 221.

In this view, we find no ground for holding the order of the Commission to be invalid. It is not denied that the complaining shippers and these carriers were heard before the Commission and that evidence disclosing the terminal situation in Los Angeles, and the nature and use of the various tracks within the switching limits, was presented; and it cannot be doubted that the case demanded an appreciation of a variety of details, or minor facts, in order that the ultimate questions of fact could be determined. It is said that it was established by undisputed evidence that the team tracks and freight sheds provided by the carriers were fully adequate for all carload freight. Putting aside the denial by the Commission of this allegation, it is evident that the question was not simply as to such adequacy, but as to the actual use of the various tracks, the services thereon relatively considered, and whether there was really an extra service in the circumstances shown. Again, it is said that the Commission did not find the switching charge in itself, that is, taken separately, to be unreasonable, but the inquiry was whether in view of the conditions of the distribution of the carload freight through a large area there was in fact such a similarity of movement as to negative the basis for a separate charge. It is further urged that while the contracts for the construction of these spurs did not fix the charge, it was proved by undisputed evidence that at the time these contracts were made the shippers consented to a special charge, if freight were received and delivered thereon, and that the charge in question had been generally