tance was 912 miles and the short-line distance was 377 miles, which makes the former route 141.9 percent circuitous. From East St. Louis through Chicago to Cincinnati the distance was 590 miles and the short-line distance was 335 miles, which results in a circuity of 79.1 percent. Consequently, the used route was unduly circuitous and the rate sought was not applicable. The rate charged was applicable. Although the weights mentioned above are less than the minimum of 20,000 pounds, charges were based on the minimum by collecting for the difference between the actual weight and the minimum at the rate of $1.42 from the transit point. This was authorized by the applicable transit tariff.

(158C62).-Two carloads from Marshfield to Charlotte originating between August 31 and October 15, 1931, inclusive, moved over route 1 to Chicago and the Chesapeake & Ohio and its connections beyond. These shipments were delivered during October and December, 1931. The Evansville combination rate of $1.925 was charged. Defendants are seeking to collect the Chicago combination rate of $2.11. The claimed rate is $1.82, composed of the column 60 rates of 27 cents to Springfield and $1.55 beyond. These shipments moved after routing was authorized through the St. Louis gateway and since they moved over an authorized route the applicable rate under rule 55 (c) of the Tariff Circular 20 was $1.82.

(164072).—Eleven carloads from Marshfield to Charlotte originated between June 11 and September 24, 1931, inclusive, and were delivered between August 4 and November 30, 1931, inclusive. Four of these shipments moved inbound over route 2, which embraces the Illinois Traction, a carrier not a party to the column 60 rates, and outbound over the Chicago & Eastern Illinois and its connections. The Evansville combination rate of $1.925 was charged. Complainant contends that the applicable rate was charged and defendants are seeking to collect the Chicago combination rate of $2.11. The tariff naming the factor from Marshfield to Evansville was an open-routing tariff. The distance from Marshfield to destination over the used route was 1,542.1 miles and the short-line distance 978.1 miles, which makes the used route 51.7 percent circuitous. From Marshfield to Evansville over the route of movement the distance was 835.3 miles and over the short-line route 377 miles, which results in a circuity of 121.6 percent. From St. Louis through Chicago to Evansville the distance was 621.3 miles and the short-line distance was 163 miles, which produces a circuity of 280.1 percent. The claimed rate was not applicable. The applicable rate on these four shipments was the Chicago combination rate of $2.11. Seven of these shipments moved inbound over route 1. The Evansville combination rate of $1.925 was charged. Defendants are seeking to collect the Chicago

combination rate of $2.11. The claimed rate is the Springfield combination rate of $1.82. These seven shipments moved after routing was authorized through the St. Louis gateway and they moved over a route specifically authorized by the tariff. The applicable rate was $1.82.

(162842).-One carload from Marshfield to Jacksonville originated on December 23, 1930, and January 2, 1931, and was delivered on January 14, 1931. Additional charges were collected on October 25, 1933. This shipment moved over route 2 to Chicago and over the Chicago & Eastern Illinois and its connections beyond. The Chicago combination rate of $2.36 was ultimately charged. The claimed rate is $2.015, composed of a third-class proportional rate of 62.5 cents to Evansville and the third-class rate of $1.39 beyond. The column 60 rates to and from Springfield had no application because the Illinois Traction participated in the movements. The tariff naming the factors to Evansville was an open-routing tariff. The claimed rate was inapplicable due to the circuity set forth in connection with No. 164072. The rate charged was applicable.

(162988).—One carload from Marshfield to Jacksonville originated January 2 and 21, 1931, and was delivered on February 3, 1931. Additional charges were collected on November 23, 1933. This shipment moved inbound over route 2 and outbound over the Chicago & Eastern Illinois and its connections. The Chicago combination rate of $2.36 was ultimately charged. The claimed rate is the Evansville combination rate of $2.015. The claimed rate was not applicable for the reasons stated in connection with No. 162842. The rate charged was applicable.

(162614).—One carload from Marshfield to Jacksonville originated on June 2 and 5, 1931, and was delivered July 28, 1931. A rate of $1.98, composed of the third-class proportional rate of 69 cents to Memphis and the third-class rate of $1.29 beyond, was charged. Defendants are seeking to collect the Chicago combination rate of $2.36. This shipment moved inbound over route 2, which embraces the Illinois Traction, and outbound over the Illinois Central and its connections. Complainant contends that the rate charged was applicable. The tariff naming the 69-cent factor to Memphis was an openrouting tariff. The distance from Marshfield to destination over the route of movement was approximately 1,776.6 miles and the shortline distance was 973.1 miles. The used route was 82.5 percent circuitous. From Marshfield through Chicago to Memphis the distance was 1,076.2 miles and the short-line distance was 306.1 miles, which results in a circuity of 251.5 percent. The used route was unduly circuitous and the claimed rate, therefore, was not applicable. The applicable rate was $2.36. The shipment was undercharged.

(162987).—One carload to Atlanta contained 5,877 pounds, from Wakeeney on November 15, 1930, and 14,123 pounds from Marshfield on December 4, 1930. The inbound movements were over routes 5 and 2 respectively, and the outbound movement was over the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville and its connections. It was delivered December 23, 1930, and additional charges were collected December 4, 1933. The column 60 rate of $1.65 was charged on the Wakeeney portion and a combination rate of $2.03, composed of a commodity rate of 69 cents to Chicago and the third-class rate of $1.34 beyond, was ultimately charged on the Marshfield portion. In the informal complaint a rate of $1.60 was claimed to have been applicable on the Marshfield portion. This rate was composed of 27 cents to Springfield and the column 60 rate of $1.33 beyond. The $1.33 factor was not applicable, because the Illinois Traction was not a party to the tariff naming that rate. For this reason complainant in the formal complaint abandoned its original contention and asserts that the applicable rates were charged. Before determining the applicable rates, the question of split billing must be considered. It has been the practice for sometime to load portions of carload shipments from different origins into one car at the transit point and apply the carload rates applicable from each origin to final destination on each portion making up the carload. The governing Rock Island transit tariff did not expressly authorize this practice, but did authorize it by implication and usage. In Rudy-Patrick Seed Co. v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 206 I. C. C. 355, 357, the Commission said:

To grant transit at the through carload rate upon surrender of only a less-thancarload quantity of billing would be in substance to permit the application of the through carload rate on less-than-carload shipments to and from the transit point.

In that proceeding it was found in substance that when an outbound carload shipment from the transit point contains portions equivalent to a carload of one or more inbound carload shipments from a single origin and less-than-carload portions of inbound carload shipments from other origins, the carload rate applied only on the portion or portions equivalent to a carload from a single origin to a single destination and the less-than-carload rate applied from the transit point to destination on the balance of the shipment. Under these findings the applicable rates on the 5,877 pounds from Wakeeney would be the carload rate from origin to the transit point and the less-than-carload rate from the transit point to destination, and on the 14,123 pounds from Marshfield the applicable rate would be $2.03 as charged, but since the latter weight was less than the minimum of 20,000 pounds the difference between those weights, 5,877 pounds, would have to be charged for at the carload rate of

$1.34 from the transit point to destination in accordance with the following provisions of the governing transit tariff:

When the actual weight of a shipment from transit station is less than the minimum, the difference between the actual and minimum weight shall be charged for at the carload rate in effect on date of shipment from transit station to transit destination on the commodity forwarded, unless applicable freight bills are surrendered to cover the deficit, in which event the balance of the through rate as provided in Item 20 will be applied.

In a subsequent proceeding, Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 223 I. C. C. 55, the Commission did not apply the split-billing principle announced in Rudy-Patrick Seed Co. v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., supra, in connection with a carload of shorts, which was a portion of the product of two carloads of wheat from different Kansas origins, and one carload of flour, which was a portion of the product of two carloads of wheat shipped on different dates from one Kansas origin. In discussing the split-billing principle the Commission pointed out that it was "dealing with transit on grain and grain products, and not also with transit on the many other commodities with respect to which transit services are provided," and that its finding was based solely upon the record then before it. It was also said: "From a commercial standpoint it seems clear that some use of split billing is necessary in order to make transit arrangements entirely practicable." The split-billing principle was discussed and found to have no application in connection with carload shipments of lumber from points in the South to Louisville, Ky., there manufactured into box and crate material and the products reshipped, in carloads, to Moraine and Akron, Ohio, by division 3 in General Box Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 223 I. C. C. 649. Thus, it is obvious that butter is not a commodity that is subject to that principle. The rates charged were applicable.

(164765).-One carload to Jacksonville contained 1,689 pounds from Marshfield on March 16, 1932, and 20,233 pounds from Carthage on March 20, 1932. It moved inbound over route 1 and was forwarded from Chicago on March 24, 1932. The Chicago combination carload rate of $2.36 was charged on the Marshfield portion and the Chicago combination rate of $2.70 was charged on the Carthage portion. The rates claimed on these portions are the Springfield combination rate of $1.79 and the third-class rate of $1.67 from Chicago to destination, respectively. The last rate is 10 cents higher than the column 60 rate from Carthage to destination and it is claimed to have been applicable because the applicable transit tariff referred to the Boyd tariff, which provided for the application of the rate from the transit point to destination when higher than the rate from origin to destination. Defendants contend that the applicable rate on the

Carthage portion was $2.545, composed of 87.5 cents to Chicago and $1.67 beyond, and they concede that there is an outstanding overcharge thereon. This carload involves the question of split billing, which was discussed in connection with No. 162987. For the reasons there stated regarding split billing and the facts that this shipment moved after routing was authorized through St. Louis and the transit tariff referred to the Boyd tariff, the claimed rates were applicable. One carload from Carthage to Jacksonville, originating April 1 and 12, 1932, moved inbound over route 1. It was delivered April 22, 1932. A rate of $2.545, composed of a commodity rate of 34.5 cents to East St. Louis, the third-class rate of 53 cents to Chicago, and the third-class rate of $1.67 beyond, was charged. The claimed rate is $1.67, the rate from Chicago to destination. Due to the provisions of the Boyd tariff the applicable rate was $1.67.

(158037).-One carload from Kansas City to Jacksonville originated on March 18, 1929, and was delivered on April 2, 1929. Additional charges were collected on June 6, 1931. The shipment moved inbound over route 3 prior to March 18, 1931, the date the joint column 60 rates became effective. A rate of $2.43, composed of 76 cents to Chicago and the third-class rate of $1.67 beyond, was ultimately charged. The claimed rate is $1.85, composed of the column 60 rates of 21 cents to Turner, Kans., and $1.64 beyond.. Turner is on the Santa Fe 6.8 miles west of Kansas City. Since the lowest combination rate made on Turner that rate was applicable under rule 55 (c) of Tariff Circular 20.

(162843).—One carload from Marshfield to Atlanta originated July 29 and August 6, 1931, and was delivered October 5, 1931. It moved inbound over route 1. The Springfield combination rate of $1.60 was charged. Defendants are seeking to collect the Chicago combination rate of $2.03. Complainant contends that the applicable rate was charged. This shipment moved after routing through the St. Louis gateway was authorized and it moved over an authorized route. The rate charged was applicable.

The special-docket application embraces two carloads to Jacksonville. One originated at Wakeeney on March 14, 1932, which moved inbound over route 6, and the other originated at Kansas City on February 23, 1932, and moved inbound over route 4. On the Wakeeney shipment a rate of $2.85, composed of $1.18 to Chicago, for which there was no tariff authority, and the third-class rate of $1.67 beyond, was charged. On the Kansas City shipment a rate of $2.44, composed of 77 cents (tariff rate 76 cents) to Chicago and $1.67 beyond, was charged. Complainant originally contended that these rates were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded the column 60 rates of $1.83 and $1.64 respectively. However, reparation is now