that joint through rates on transcontinental traffic from the west are still available over this route to the so-called "unrestricted territory", including points on the Frisco south of Enid and west of Sapulpa, the route has not been used since June 1933, because reconsignment on basis of the joint through rates is not permitted to points outside of the "unrestricted territory". In other words, if the Floydada gateway were open his firm could "try the market" on fruits or vegetables at any point in this area, and if a sale could not be made. they would still have the advantage of Chicago or some other large eastern market, and without much delay over this route. To Oklahoma City there are at least three satisfactory routes open on transcontinental traffic from the west, in connection with which practically unlimited reconsignment is permitted, i. e., over the Santa Fe direct, over the Santa Fe to Amarillo and the Rock Island, and over the Santa Fe to Avard and the Frisco, but complainant's witness states that over such routes he would hesitate to divert the traffic down to Altus, Lawton, or Chickasha, Okla., to "try the market," because of the length of time such a move would consume. In his view, time is the essence on such traffic. Although the route via Amarillo and the F. W. & D. C.-Frisco is also open to such traffic, the witness understands that it takes a day longer. Prior to June 1933 the firm referred to above sold quantities of head lettuce in the southwestern portion of Oklahoma, moving such traffic via the Floydada gateway, but since the joint rates have been canceled the business has been lost. This territory is now being served by truck out of Oklahoma City. This firm does not desire to go into the trucking business. With joint transcontinental rates available over the route via Floydada, and with reconsignment permitted, a carload of produce could be placed on a track at Altus, for example, with a greater possibility of selling to a jobber at that point than if the car were placed on display on a track at Oklahoma City. A week prior to the further hearing the Mutual Orange Distributors advised this firm that they desired the opening of the Quanah route.

Upon the subject of requests for opening the Quanah route, a witness for defendants testified that all freight traffic representatives of the Santa Fe on the Pacific coast and intermediate territory had been addressed within three months prior to the further hearing, and the replies indicate that not a single complaint was received from any shipper or receiver against nonapplication of the joint transcontinental rates via the Floydada gateway.

To refute the assertion made at the prior hearing that the restriction placed against the Floydada gateway on transcontinental traffic was practically the only one which the Santa Fe has placed in the tariffs, defendants introduced an exhibit showing typical examples

required 39 hours, over the Santa Fe to Amarillo and the Rock Island 42 hours, over the Santa Fe to Floydada and the Quanah-Frisco route 30 hours 45 minutes, and over the F. W. & D. C.-Quanah-Frisco route 39 hours 30 minutes. Although the latter is the short-distance route, because of an all-day lay-over at Quanah, the service is longer than via Floydada and the Quanah-Frisco. In the report on reargument herein it was pointed out that it is within the power of complainant to make the latter service more attractive than through the Floydada gateway, it being remembered that a lower rate applies over the shortline route. But, on further hearing, a witness for the Santa Fe pointed out that freight-train schedules on its Plainview branch are influenced directly by the main-line schedules. In like manner the schedules of the Quanah are influenced directly by the main-line schedules of the Frisco beyond Red River.

On further hearing it was also testified that the Quanah-Frisco is now in position to haul livestock from the so-called plains country through the Floydada gateway to Oklahoma City and give overnight service without stop (under the 28-hour law) for feed or rest. Since the original hearing in this proceeding, due to inauguration of a new service over the Rock Island between Amarillo and Oklahoma City, those lines have put on a twice-a-week service (Tuesdays and Saturdays) between Lubbock and Oklahoma City and the scheduled time in connection with this service is approximately 18 hours 30 minutes from Lubbock, and 17 hours from Plainview. According to defendants the inauguration of this latter service bears out the testimony at the original hearing that freight-train schedules are not frozen, but are changed from time to time by controlling conditions, and a witness for the Santa Fe forecasts that if and when it is found that daily service is warranted between the plains country and Oklahoma City it will be established. He states that he did not consult the livestock dealers in the plains country as to their needs for service, but, as no car of livestock has moved on the recently established fast twice-a-week service, he assumes that the Oklahoma City consumers do not need it.

To supply the lack of evidence from livestock interests, commented upon in the prior reports, several witnesses connected with this industry were presented at the further hearing. Although not disapproving the present Santa Fe-Rock Island twice-a-week service to Oklahoma City, witnesses representing livestock interests in the plains country and the Board of City Development of Plainview, testified that they desire the every-day service via Floydada if joint rates over that route are established. Thirteen witnesses on behalf of the livestock interests at Oklahoma City also testified, or adopted the

testimony of other witnesses, seeking the every-day service via the Floydada gateway, which they believe will be of particular benefit at this time because of the abundance of livestock in the acknowledged superior feeding ranges of the plains country.

The record shows that, with respect to the Panhandle traffic, defendants do not maintain rates or routes which give the originating, the delivering, or other carriers the long haul, or which eliminate intermediate carriers where direct connections might be made by particular routes.

The record shows that the circumstances and conditions under which the joint rates are maintained over the numerous routes which are competitive with complainant are similar to the circumstances and conditions which exist in connection with the complainant.

SUMMARY

The evidence presented on further hearing has supplied certain information, the lack of which was criticized in the prior reports, and is sufficient in certain other respects to warrant restatement of some factual circumstances. For example, the services performed in effecting interchange between the Santa Fe and its connections at Amarillo, Sweetwater, Snyder, and other points, have now been shown; information as to the extent the joint transcontinental rates have been used over "bridge" or intermediate lines via those gateways has been furnished; testimony on behalf of interested shippers and receivers of livestock has been given; and it has been established that Plainview is on a main line rather than on a branch line of the Santa Fe. However, the evidence with respect to the allegation of unreasonableness of the existing combination rates via the Floydada gateway is still limited to a comparison of those rates with joint through single-factor rates maintained over other routes. In the circumstances it must be concluded that the extent to which the combination rates assailed in this proceeding may be unreasonable is not susceptible of accurate determination on the present record.

Practically all of the transcontinental traffic here considered moved via Clovis. The following table, compiled in part from the exhibit previously referred to showing the routing of eastbound and westbound shipments via selected Texas and Oklahoma gateways during the last six months of 1935, compares the approximate distances and the number of intermediate terminal handlings over such routes between Clovis, on the one hand, and St. Louis, Kansas City, or Chicago, on the other hand, with like information between the same points via the Floydada gateway. The table does not include dis

tances over routes in which the Santa Fe connects directly with a single line extending from the gateway to St. Louis, Kansas City, or Chicago, or in other words, where no bridge or intermediate carrier intervenes.

The distances from Clovis to Kansas City and Chicago over the Santa Fe direct are approximately 678 and 1,129 miles, and to St. Louis, over the Santa Fe to Kansas City, and the Alton beyond, 953 miles. The short-line distances from Clovis to Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago are 630.5, 885.2, and 1,067 miles, respectively.

In making interchange of traffic between the Santa Fe and its connections at Dallas, Fort Worth, Sweetwater, Snyder, and Oklahoma City, such interchange is made directly to or from a main line of the Santa Fe, whereas interchange with the Quanah at Floydada necessitates switching at Lubbock or Amarillo and at Plainview, and from the latter point the traffic must be handled to Floydada over a branch line. Nevertheless, a comparison of the distances and number of intermediate terminal handlings via the Floydada gateway with those via the other gateways shows, and we so find, that the Quanah route is relatively direct; that many of the competitive routes are extremely circuitous; that the intermediate terminal handlings via the Floydada gateway in comparison with those via the other gateways do not warrant penalizing complainant's line; and in the circumstances that routes embracing the Quanah are substantially similar to those embracing defendants' lines via the above-mentioned gateways. We further find that many of the routes over which defendants maintain joint rates do not include individual carrier's long hauls, this being true both of routes exceeding the circuity limitations hereinafter specified and of routes not exceeding those limitations; that the record on further hearing shows that a considerable amount of traffic moves over these routes, over which defendants voluntarily maintain joint routes; and, after consideration of all evidence relative to the ques

tion and contained in the record on further hearing as well as in the earlier hearings, that the said routes are as objectionable from a transportation standpoint as those via the Floydada gateway, in connection with which defendants have canceled the application of joint rates.

Defendants, on brief, refer to the report of division 3 in Bellefonte Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 216 I. C. C. 39, in which, among other things, it was found that, by reason of the long-haul provision of section 15 (4) of the act, we may not prescribe through routes and joint rates on certain described traffic, and further that the prescription of interstate through routes and joint rates over complainant's line from or to points on its line via Tyrone, Pa., on certain described traffic was found not to be in the public interest. Commenting on our powers and jurisdiction, the division, in the report cited, stated that the exceptions carried in section 15 (4) under which that section would not be controlling by reason of a violation of section 3 of the act, or because one of the carriers is a water line, "not here material". That proceeding was subsequently reopened for reconsideration and reargued before the entire Commission, but has not yet been decided. Among other proceedings, defendants also cite Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Cape Fear Rys., Inc., 218 I. C. C. 152, in which division 2 found that the refusal of defendant to participate in certain joint interstate rates via a certain gateway was not shown to result in violation of the act and dismissed the complaint. Such case was of course decided upon the facts therein introduced. At page 157 of the latter report the following pertinent language was used:

In Western Pac. R. Co. v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co., 191 I. C. C. 127, 134, in considering section 3 (3) allegations it was said:

"The retention of its long haul by a carrier permitted by section 15 (4) operates in most cases to the disadvantage of connecting carriers. Regardless of the extent of such disadvantage, the carrier which retains its long haul cannot be said to subject connecting carriers to the discrimination or undue prejudice which is remedial [remediable] under section 3 (3), unless the carrier which retains its long haul participates in joint rates with some connecting carriers and thereby discriminates against or unduly prejudices others."

It is apparent that the phrase in the above excerpt "unless the carrier which retains its long haul participates in joint rates with some connecting carriers and thereby discriminates against or unduly prejudices others" as applied to the instant proceeding, does not mean that the participating of defendant in joint rates with the Aberdeen & Rockfish constitutes participation with a connecting carrier as intended therein. It means rather, that if defendant, in addition to participating in joint rates with the Aberdeen & Rockfish, also participated in joint rates with some other connecting carrier as favorably situated as is complainant under which defendant would be