rates but the latter included store-door deliveries in New York City and pick-up of small lots at four origins within a 15-mile radius of each other, while proposed rates were limited to platform or team-track delivery at Harlem River piers, and stops were restricted to intermediate points for a fixed charge per stop. Cranberries from Massachusetts to Harlem River, N. Y., 553 (554).

Proposed reduction of export rates on grain from central-territory points to north Atlantic ports, to meet water competition via Great Lakes, was not justified when it threatened to disrupt the grain-rate structure and provoke a rate war disastrous to the revenues of all rail and water carriers of export grain from the Midwest. Not only might the lake lines feel compelled to meet the reduction on their enormous traffic at heavy loss, but because of rate relation of Atlantic ports to Gulf ports, through which a far greater volume moved, any reduction to the former would spread to carriers serving the latter, as evidenced by their recent applications to the regional carrier committee, as well as to competing river barges. Export Grain, C. F. A. Territory to North Atlantic Ports, 655 (672, 673). While the competitive value of proposed reduced export rates in attracting added traffic from all-water and part-water routes to fill available unused train tonnage, might be considered a matter of managerial discretion, it did not outweigh other considerations. Id. (672-673).

Proposed reduced less-than-carload rate on boots, shoes, and related articles from Boston, Mass., to New York, N. Y., including ferry-car movement within Boston switching limits, plus charge for delivery beyond rail terminal to points south of Twenty-third Street to the Battery, to meet motortruck competition, below the level of minimum rates, found not justified. Boots and Shoes from Boston to New York, 688 (690).

Proposed cancelation of three-way rule on grain from Oklahoma points on line of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. north of Enid, Okla., to Kansas City, Mo., and beyond, and application of direct-route rates from those origins to grain stored at Enid, found justified to meet competition of carrier maintaining like adjustment. While the resulting rates via Enid would be lower than that from Enid, they would be compensatory, the out-of-line hauls were neither unusual nor unduly circuitous, and fourth-section relief was warranted. Transit on Grain at Enid, Okla., 720 (722).

Proposed reduced rail rates on naval stores from points in Mississippi to Gulfport, Miss., New Orleans, La., and Mobile, Ala., for export or coastwise movement beyond, to meet truck and private competition and to keep Mobile on a competitive basis with Gulfport, found justified. Naval Stores from Mississippi to Gulf Ports, 723.

Proposed reduced rate on jute yarn from Edge Moor, Del., to Thompsonville, Conn., and from and to intermediate points, found justified to meet motor competition when rate would be reasonably compensatory and would neither burden interstate traffic nor violate the act. Jute Yarn from Edge Moor., Del., to Thompsonville, Conn., 747 (749).

Average permanent reductions of 29 cents per ton, on traffic which would be affected by the proposed canal, would not be economically justified prior to its construction, on the information now available, since these reductions could not be confined to the traffic of those who would be expected immediately and directly to benefit by construction of the proposed waterway. Proposed Lake ErieOhio River Canal, 753 (794).

Voluntary: In the following cases, rates assailed were found not unreasonable in comparison with lower rates subsequently established: Casper Packing Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 47 (48); Jantzen Knitting Mills v. Boston & A. R., 29 (30).

In the following cases, rates assailed were found unreasonable in comparison with lower rates subsequently established: American Electric Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 435; Warren v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 55.

REFUND.

Basis of Transit Charges: See TRANSIT (BASIS OF CHARGES). Passenger Fares: See PASSENGERS (REDUCED-RATE TRANSPORTATION). REFUSAL TO ACCEPT. See TRANSPORTATION (REFUSAL TO CARRY).

REFUSAL TO PERFORM SWITCHING. See SWITCHING (REFUSAL TO PERFORM).

REHEARING.

Denial of a petition for rehearing in an I. and S. case was not an affirmation of the finding which related only to the rates under suspension. Permission given to establish other and different rates was not a finding that such rates were justified, which would be an open question for determination. State of Alabama v. New York Central R. Co., 255 (297).

RELATION OF RATES.

In General: Carriers' poor financial condition is no bar to a readjustment of unlawful rates or rate relations. Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 451 (454).

Commodities: See DIFFERENTIALS IN RATES AND ROUTES (COMMODITIES).
Intrastate with Interstate: See INTRASTATE COMMERCE.
Lake-and-Rail: See LAKE-AND-RAIL.

Localities: See also EQUALIZATION (RIVER CROSSINGS).

The desirability of rate structures providing reasonably uniform levels of rates from adjacent producing sections of the country to common markets is not open to serious question. When the important products of one producing section are subjected to a higher level of rates to such markets than are like products of adjacent competing producing sections less distant from such markets, it generally cannot develop unless, and then only to the extent that, the differences in transportation charges can be offset by lower production costs or absorbed by a reduction in profits. And even though differences in transportation charges can be thus offset or absorbed, this in itself generally tends to retard growth and prosperity. In these circumstances, the relation of the rates may be of greater importance than their intrinsic level or measure. State of Alabama v. New York Central R. Co., 255 (319-320).

In 104 I. C. C. 104, 120 I. C. C. 537, United States lines were required to establish rates from Milwaukee, Wis., the same as from Chicago, Ill., to eastern cities, in disregard of geographic location with respect to distances in this country, since the distances from Milwaukee through Canada were about the same as those from Chicago over routes within this country, but the routes from Milwaukee within this country were 85 miles longer than from Chicago. In reason and fairness Madison, Wis., could be accorded relatively the same treatment. Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 451 (453).

Economic and transportation conditions in eastern and central Montana were less advantageous than in the Dakotas or zone III generally when, progressing westward, elevations increased, with consequent greater cost of railroad construction, maintenance, and operations; and population became sparser and commercial and industrial development lessened, except at Great Falls and Billings. The complaint area was therefore not entitled to rates on the zone III basis. In comparison with Wyoming, however, operating and topographical conditions were more favorable, although traffic density was lighter. Considering relations with adjoining territories, class 1 rates to the complaint area should be on zone IV 216338m-40-vol. 235-58

basis prescribed to Wyoming in western trunk-line adjustment, or 115 percent of the zone III level. Great Falls Traffic Assn. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 459 (462, 463).

To avoid jeopardizing long-established rates from western trunk-line and official territories to Spokane, Wash., railroads serving Montana were grouped for the purpose of relating class rates from those territories to eastern and central Montana, and percentages of the lower classes to first-class rates prescribed on zone IV level were made the same as in western trunk-line territory for section A, with percentages successively higher for sections B and C. While some rates higher than the zone IV level would result, the differences were relatively small, were part of the necessary scheme of grading for the whole of Montana, and would not seriously affect the complaint area, most of which was in section A. Moreover, material differences would still have to be absorbed by the territory between that area and Spokane, and carriers were authorized to recalculate percentages for section D, west of the complaint area, to reflect an approximate average between class rates so fixed for section C and the Spokane rates. Id. (463-466). Quantity vs. Carload Rates: See QUANtity (Rates).

REMEDIAL STATUTES. See CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION.
REMEDIES. See also ROUTES (REASONABLE).

A petition on behalf of southern shippers for a rehearing in an I. and S. case was denied when, on the same date it was filed, protests of the schedules filed in conformity with the findings had been filed and subsequently schedules were suspended and opportunity was afforded the shipping interests to establish their claims. State of Alabama v. New York Central R. Co., 255 (296).

REOPENING. See REHEARING.

REPORTS.

By Commission to the President: See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. RESHIPPING.

Comparison of ton-mile and car-mile earnings under proposed reshipping rates on grain with minimum revenues under prescribed or approved local rates was of dubious value in proving compensatory character of the former, when the compared local rates were authorized for circuitous routes under fourth-section applications, whereas earnings under the proposed rates were computed for short-line distances; minimum weights were used in computing earnings at the local rates and heavy average weights for those proposed; and if general increases reflected in the reshipping rates were added to the compared earnings, the disparities would be enhanced. Export Grain, C. F. A. Territory to North Atlantic Ports, 655 (664).

Proposed water-competitive reduction in export reshipping rates on grain from central-territory points to north Atlantic ports, to approximately 54.5 percent of normal rates, found to be unreasonably low and less than reasonable minima. Even if low earnings on oats or for longer hauls to Boston were disregarded because of lack of traffic, earnings on wheat, corn, and barley to Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, ranging from only 3.7 to 3.15 mills per tonmile and 12 to 15.1 cents per car-mile, computed over shortest possible routes and for heavier than general average carloads, were extremely low in comparison with freight expenses on all traffic of class I roads in eastern district for much shorter average hauls, or with earnings under reasonable minimum competitive rate prescribed from Buffalo, N. Y., on ex-lake export grain in 223 I. C. C. 415. Id. (673).

RES JUDICATA.

Since assailed rate on iron and steel articles from Pennsylvania to Sands, Mo.,
was on basis prescribed as reasonable maximum in western trunk-line revision,
and award of reparation to any lower basis was barred under principle in 284
U. S. 370, it was unnecessary to determine whether the same rate also com-
plied with minimum-rate provisions of that revision, or whether the principle
announced by the Supreme Court applied to the authorized minimum rate.
Mount Vernon Bridge Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 365 (369).

RESTRICTED RATES. See also AGGREGATE OF INTERMEDIATES (THROUGH
RATES EXCEEDING AGGREGATE OVER DIFFERENT ROUTES); COMMODITIES
(DESCRIPTION); EMERGENCIES (RATES) SCHEDULES (PARTICIPATING CAR-
RIERS).

Proposed restrictions on amount of absorptions by line-haul carriers of charges
of New Orleans Public Belt R. for switching service on import, export, and coast-
wise traffic were not unreasonable. Export and import rates to and from New
Orleans were on low basis, and addition of the small amounts which shippers
would have to pay or the Belt to absorb under the proposed restrictions would not
result in unreasonable aggregate charges. New Orleans Public Belt R. Switch-
ing and Absorptions, 613 (644).

RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

Divisions: See DIVISIONS OF RATES.

RETURN.

Fair: See Fair RETURN.
REVENUES.

In considering reasonableness of rates on processed or manufactured com-
modities from the South to the North, the manner in which carriers' revenue
needs are met or the distribution of transportation burden and the reasons
therefor must be considered. Changes in rates-which, in effect amount to
changes in the distribution of the transportation burden-invariably affect the
carriers' revenues. Often reductions, through increased patronage, increase
revenues. Revenue needs of the carriers is one of the factors specified in sec. 15a
(2). The weight to be given the particular factors depends upon the facts in
evidence. This view applies equally to the distribution of transportation burden.
State of Alabama v. New York Central R. Co., 255 (327).

Financial condition of New Orleans Public Belt R. did not justify proposed
increase in switching charges, as any emergency existing when the tariffs were
suspended had been relieved by recent general rate increases, by refunding of
certain bond issues, and by the securing of a new and profitable tenant for its
Mississippi River bridge. Restatement of carrier's accounts indicated that imme-
diately prospective revenues would yield net income in excess of its requirements
to cover all fixed charges and provide a sinking fund for the retirement of its bond-
ed indebtedness. New Orleans Public Belt R. Switching and Absorptions,
613 (643).

RIGHTS OF CARRIER. See COMMON CARRIERS (INITIATION OF RATES);
SCHEDULES (SERVICE WITHOUT TARIFF PROVISION).

RIGHTS OF SHIPPER. See SCHEDULES (CONSTRUCTION); SPORADIC SHIP-
MENTS.

RIGHTS-OF-WAY. See also COST OF SERVICE (Water vs. RAIL).

In contrast to railroads, motor carriers have no right-of-way facilities of their
own. Proposed Lake Erie-Ohio River Canal, 753 (794).

RIVER CROSSINGS.

Ohio River Crossings: See EQUALIZATION (RIVER CROSSINGS).
Mississippi River Crossings: See SWITCHING (INTRATERMINAL).
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. See ANTITRUST ACTS.

ROUTES. See also ROUTING; Through ROUTES.

Circuitous: Following 283 U. S. 686, Peoria, Ill., rates could not be applied
under an intermediate rule from Godfrey, Ill., to central territory, since Godfrey
was intermediate only over a grossly circuitous route, use of which would result in
fourth-section violations. Swift & Co. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 173 (179–180).
Reasonable: Carriers who published rate subject to intermediate rule and con-
sidered a particular route unnatural or unduly circuitous could have restricted
their routes pursuant to rules in Tariff Circular 20. Wilbanks & Pierce, Inc., v.

Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 371 (373).

ROUTING.

Carrier's Responsibility: There is no good reason why the rule requiring strict
observance of complete routing appearing in the bill of lading should be abro-
gated where one of the carriers named is a barge line; and Southern Ry. was
under no duty to forward shipments via the cheapest rail-barge route when that
would require movement by connecting rail line, and bill-of-lading routing osten-
sibly provided complete routing over the Southern and the barge line. Complete
routing from origin to destination was unnecessary: use of the words “rail-barge,”
"Federal Barge Line," or "barge-line delivery" would have entitled shipper to the
lowest rail-barge rate giving the originating carrier a line haul. Miller Waste
Mills, Inc., v. Southern Ry. Co., 679 (681).

A shipper who tenders a shipment to a rail line unrouted is entitled only to the
lowest rate for all-rail movement. If rail-barge movement is desired, some instruc-
tion to that effect must be inserted in the bill of lading. Id (681).

Shipments routed "Sou-Rail Federal Barge Line" and interchanged by the South-
ern with the barge line at St. Louis, Mo., were misrouted when lower rate was
available over that line with interchange at Memphis, Tenn. Id. (681).

Cheapest Available Route: See CARRIER'S RESPONSIBILITY under this head-

ing.

Shipper's Responsibility: When shipments of asphaltic limestone from Mar-
gerum, Ala., to Fulton, Miss., moved over circuitous route, reparation base under
scale prescribed in 172 I. C. C. 100 was computed for shipments routed by shipper,
or for which routing responsibility was not disclosed, on basis of actual distance;
but reparation on shipment tendered unrouted, and reasonable rate for the future,
were computed on short-line distance. Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co. v.
Mississippian Ry., 609.

Failure of Southern Ry. to forward shipments routed "Sou-Rail Federal Barge
Line" over lower-rated route via Cairo, Ill., was not misrouting when the Southern
did not connect with the barge line at that point. While there was some evidence
that shipper intended to indicate routing over the Southern and rail connections
to the barge-line junction through which the lowest rate applied, such intent was
not readily discernible in the wording, and shipper's routing was not so patently
ambiguous as to obligate carrier's agent to seek more specific instructions. Inter-
prepation of "Sou-Rail" as abbreviation for “Southern Railway" was not unreason-
able, and the instruction thus designated a complete route, which ordinarily pre-
cludes movement over an unnamed intermediate line. Miller Waste Mills, Inc.,
v. Southern Ry. Co., 679 (680).

RULES, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES.
headings.

SCALES.

Distance: See DISTANCE (SCales).

See under the various topic