from 24 cents to 13 cents, at Fort Madison from 24 cents to 15 cents. There were also advances from Michigan. The whole situation was a most troublesome one, leading to many disputes and to many unfortunate rate situations from the standpoint of the carriers. Frequent conferences were held, until finally the matter was laid at rest by the present adjustment.

This case does not clearly show the exact theory upon which that adjustment has been worked out, nor does there seem to have been any exact theory. Probably, in view of the conflicting interests and the great number of carriers involved, it would be impossible to apply any uniform rule. Generally stated, rates from Michigan in all cases are less to the Mississippi river, as♪ in our opinion, they properly should be. Soon after crossing that river a point is reached where the rate from Michigan and from Kansas becomes the same, and this relation is continued west, producing a blanket of considerable extent, beyond which the rate is in favor of Kansas.

We have examined a great number of these intermediate points. As must be the case with every blanket, instances are found upon the edges where the present adjustment is not altogether in accordance with the relative distances and is not probably the adjustment which would be established if that point alone were under consideration. In the very nature of things it would be almost impossible for us to look into each instance, nor have we attempted to do so. The matter has been long the subject of controversy; the settlement seems to have been honestly made, and without undertaking to approve the adjustment in detail and without expressing an opinion which would prevent a further examination of particular instances which may be called to our attention, we fail to find, on the whole, that this adjustment unduly discriminates against the interests of Kansas, which are represented by the complainants.

On the whole, we are satisfied that the present rates of freight are as favorable to the Kansas field as, all things considered, they should be, except that a rate applicable to the transportation of bulk salt from the Kansas field to St. Louis should be named to correspond with that established from Detroit.

The Wabash Railroad Company will be required to cease and desist from the discrimination now arising out of the maintenance from Detroit to St. Louis of the 9-cent rate upon bulk salt. Otherwise the complaint will be dismissed.

FOURTH SECTION APPLICATIONS

It has been already noted that rates from the Kansas field to some points west of the Mississippi river are slightly higher than those at the river crossings, and it therefore results that in some instances there is a violation of the fourth section. This is referred to in the complaint and the intervening petitions.

The case was originally heard in the fall of 1910, but was not argued or disposed of at that time for the reason that the parties indicated a desire to make certain rate changes which it was thought might remove the cause of complaint. In fact, the rates from Detroit to St. Louis were advanced, as already indicated, but this was not sufficient to satisfy the complainants, and the case was accordingly set down for further hearing in November, 1911.

No reference was made upon the first hearing to the violations of the fourth section. It was the purpose of the Commission to set down for investigation upon the same date with the last hearing the applications which had been filed by the defendants to this proceeding for leave to maintain the higher intermediate charge, but through error, only the Wabash Railroad Company was notified.

Upon the hearing the examiner called attention to the fact that the fourth-section applications of the defendants should have been assigned and the defendants were given an opportunity to introduce any testimony upon that point which they desired. Some of them availed themselves of this opportunity, and the subject is referred to in more or less detail in all the briefs which have been filed and was to some extent discussed upon the argument. It was, however, said by counsel for one or more of the defendants upon the argument that this matter ought not to be disposed of upon the present record, for the reason that other carriers not defendants to this proceeding were interested in these rates.

So far as appears the question presented under these fourthsection applications is an extremely simple one. Lines leading

from Kansas in meeting competition upon the Mississippi river have made rates which they allege to be abnormally low, and for this reason they ask to maintain at intermediate points higher rates, which, they say, are reasonable. We have found that there is active competition upon the Mississippi river between these two salt fields and that the rates from both directions, especially from the Kansas field to these various Mississippi river crossings, are low, but we have not found, nor do we find, that they are so unreasonably low as to justify the charging of a higher rate at intermediate points.

Neither do we find that the competitive conditions which are alleged to justify the higher intermediate rates do, under all the circumstances of this case, afford such valid justification. Nor yet, while declining to condemn as unreasonable the intermediate rates, have we given to those rates such examination that we can pronounce them reasonable at this time.

Before we allow these defendants to depart from the mandate of the statute as expressed in the present fourth section we must be satisfied that the more distant rates are unduly low and that the departure from the fourth section is warranted by competitive conditions at the more distant point which do not exist at the intermediate point. In this case we fail to find that the longdistance rates are unreasonably low, and apparently the competition at the more distant point is of exactly the same sort as at the intermediate point.

If, therefore, these applications stood for disposition, we should deny the right to maintain the higher intermediate rates. So far as we can see, the facts are fully before the Commission, and nothing would be gained by another hearing; but if these defendants, or any of them, conceive that a further investigation should be held they may file with this Commission, on or before the 15th day of March, a statement asking for such further investigation and giving, briefly, the reasons why the present investigation has not been sufficient. If upon considering these statements ground for further investigation appears, the applications will be set down for hearing. Otherwise orders will be entered denying the applications as to these rates on salt, effective as of May 1, 1912.

VIII

RELATIVE RATES

THE EAU CLAIRE LUMBER CASE1

KNAPP, Commissioner:

1. The complainant, the Eau Claire Board of Trade, is an association of citizens and residents of the city of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, organized to promote the business interests of that city. The defendant railroad companies are severally common carriers engaged in the interstate transportation of lumber and other freight. The sources of supply of the west-bound lumber shipped over these roads are the forests of northern Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota; and the main points from which such shipments are made are Minneapolis, Eau Claire, Winona, La Crosse, Oshkosh, Milwaukee and Chicago, and the following towns on the Mississippi river, south of La Crosse, to wit: Dubuque, Clinton, Lyons, Fulton, Moline, Rock Island, Davenport, Muscatine, Burlington, Keokuk, Hannibal and Louisiana. The market or distributing towns to which these shipments are made are for the most part the "Missouri river points," Sioux City, Omaha, Council Bluffs, St. Joseph and Kansas City.

2. No one of the defendant roads reaches all these points of production. From Eau Claire shipments of lumber are made to the Missouri river over the (Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha, and the Wisconsin Central. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul road, (hereinafter designated the "Milwaukee,") has main lines as follows: from Chicago to Council Bluffs; from Marion, Iowa, on said former

1 Decided June 17, 1892. Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, Vol. V, pp. 264-298. For significant features of this case, consult Ripley's Railroads : Rates and Regulation. (Index.)

line, to Kansas City; from Oshkosh to Milwaukee; from Milwaukee to Sabula Junction; from Minneapolis via Wabasha to Sabula Junction, called the "river line;" from Minneapolis to Mason City, called the " Iowa & Minnesota line." Minneapolis, Winona and La Crosse are on the "river line," but Eau Claire is on a branch forty-eight miles in length connecting with that

line at Wabasha. The Milwaukee road has an arrangement with the Iowa Central by which, in hauling from Eau Claire and Winona to Council Bluffs, it uses the latter road from Mason City to Pickering, a distance of 97 miles, and, in hauling to Kansas City, it uses the same road from Mason City to Hedrick, a distance of 167 miles. The distances via the Iowa Central are considerably less than those over the Milwaukee line proper.