# Transcript of Record — Clark's Ferry Bridge Co. v. Public Service Commission of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386009_0039%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1934 - **Citation:** 291 U.S. 227 ## Text . IN DEX Exhibits 104 to 10 Comparative statements as te > revennes, tonpdge, ete), A. ©. Li. «cc vccsceasevews Exhibit 108: -Frattic density iesen peau cena. Dae exhibits. 109 and 110—Statements showing operat- ing expeuses MUN GUI soe rece tere ccce (heer. Exhibit 111-- ‘Tpnaphaintion of intventate i move- ment TUCTETIY CTT eT rere rere Poewewecesoevesus sxhibits 112 to 122—Analy ses of log mov ents to Various POIMtS....... esse eeeeees eecceccre ewes ‘ ‘Exhibit 123—Letter, Pittman to Gress Mfg. Co., _ a SE clstaas eaten Se el ala ea Exhibits 124 to 126—Statements comparing per car revenue On logs with other commodities.......... “Exhibit 127—Statement showing movement of lum- Se i ee ee ene ere Exhibit 128S—Statement, showing movement of logs. wxhibit 131—Property investment sand operating inconre phe SRREEECECRETOLETETT LL wer? Ler Exhibit 132—Statement— showing property invest- ment and operating revenyes.....s55 oY eae eens Exhibit 133—Statement showing consist of log i Pr ee Cnt a a ee Excerpts’ from transcript of record before Sy Sy Ln tional or net ratés under certain tariffs.......... ° + is NS Origiat Pre as © 2345 2354 CD hd tater at deded 2358 2360, 2Oo1 2362 2363 Woes TO, BON sc icacswnscdvstncavdsiosneesss 2365 * Testimony of Wea Bh. Ue aciedev iene wes a sce 2366. Testimony of G seorge i PU b ciéeacwedu wane - Sait Additional Ynformation in connection with Exhibit PE rT errr rT ye Te TI ere ere gresteese 2394 Report on further hearing proposed by E. J. Hoy and P,S. Peyser, examiners..... Veuiedabes vd wee 2897 Order of: Pecember 24, 1931, ex parte ‘No. Wise cues 2434 Report and order on further hearing (copy) (omit- ° ted in printing) .....2.......6.: 7) oe ponhbunds 2435 6brder of July 28, 1932 (copy) (omitted in | poten: TD cnn eccesesnennssses eb etedewtesenaesesetar 2406 Motior® for postponement of effective date of final’ order and order denying SamMe@........ 6c eee eee 2497 Petitions for further hearing in and reconsideration « ‘ Of proceeding... ce cceccrecceccesceceees Weeceeces 2500 ' Order denying petitions for ‘reconsider: ation, ete.... ‘2550 Petition of Wilson Co. for reconsideration, ete:, on ; ground of newly-discovered evidence.......... f. 2552 Repty to petition for reconsideration,-eke..6..... e-. 2562 Motion of State of Florida for reconsider@tion, ete... 2573 Petition of prguehiapncapin and petifion for farther hearing Oe re i Se Cis oad apes eneessaces 2586 Reply of Sw Hat bu to petitions for further hearing, EE EOE ETT OC OCTET TEEPE CORE OLIT ETL T ee 2601, Order reopening proceeding for further hearing, ate. 2610 COUGH FORAIERING COUUC. 6 occ cccieec ess ces tesceces 2615 _ Exhibits 134®to 137—Stateménts showing propor- ~ 3033 - 1179 1180 - 1182a os 1183 118+ * W185 1186 1194 1205 1209 1239 1240 1245 1278 ° 1279 1286 1293 1301 i STATE OF FLorIpA AND EXUGENE Ss. —— ws, Mair ——s (Greener, and Tucker Savage, as and ( onstituting Florida Railroad Commission, Petitioners, | Ve Unirep Srates or AMERICA, INTERSTATE COMMERCE Commission, Defendants Brit or ComMpPLaAINt To -the Honorable Judges of the District Court of the United States in ‘and for the Northern District of Georgia: —— The State of Florida, by Cary D. Landis, its Attorney General, and Eugene 8S. Matthews, Mamie Eaton-Greene and Tucker Savage, as and constituting Florida Railroad Commission, by T. T. Turnbull, Special Counsel for said Florida Railroad Commission, bring this their bill of com- plaint against the United States.of.America and Interstate Commerce Commission, and thereupon respectfully show as follows: | > ° * = «x 1 ny That the petitioners, Eugene S. Matthews, Mamie Eaton- Greene and Tucker Savage are the duly elected, qualified and actigg Railroad Commissioners of the State of Florida; that as and constituting such Florida Railroad [fol.5] Commission they are, under the constitution and laws of the State of Florida, charged with the duty and an-. charges for transportation service performed b railroads as common carriers in intrastate commerce in the State of Florida, and are authorized and- empowered to bring and maintain this proceeding. thority of supervising, regulating and rmed if a and 1—342 a. 6 ey" | | Lo 2 That the United States of America is made defendant herein by virtue of those certain acts of Congress known as the Commerce Court Act (36 Stat. L. 539), and the Dis- trict Court Jurisdiction Act (38 Stat. L. 219). The defend- ant Interstate Gommerce Commission is an administrative tribunal created by Act of Congress, February 4, 1887, and whose duties and powers are defined in such act and amend- ments thereto and supplements thereof. > | . 3 That the Georgia Public Service Commission is an ad- ministrativ e tribunal created and existing’ by authority of law under the constitution and statutes of the State of Georgia, having its official residence in the City. of Atlanta in the northern District of Georgia, and so within the juris- diction of this Court. - ) 4 | *, That the Atlantic Coasf Line Railroad Company at all times herein mentioned has owned .and operated various lines of railway in the States of Georgia and Florida. That for the transportation of logs, over six feet in length and other than walnut, cherry and é¢edar logs, within the State of Florida the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company (fol. 6] voluntarily established in the year A. 1D. 1914, and thereafter voluntar ily continued in effect and now charges a certain mileage seale of rates known as the ‘*Cummer/ Seale’’, which, for varying distances up to 170 hiiles, pro- vided varying rates ‘‘per car of 50,000 pounds, @xcess in proportion, -to be loaded and unloaded by ow ner and not to be unloaded on the Railroad’s right of way.’ That under the laws of Florida said Cummer. Seale be- ‘ame and was and:still is the legal and Jawful rate for the . transportation, of such logs in intrastate commerce within — the State of Florida, aud that no change ever coubkd-or now can be made in said rate without a hearing duly had - -after notice duly. given to all interested parties by said ‘Florida Railroad: Confmission and the consent. of said Florida Railroad Commission duly given after such hear- ing in the manner prescribed : ‘by the laws of the State of Florida. 7 ‘ - c ’ ‘ loads of loys. ; 3 Odie ¢ That over such lines of railway the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for many years prior to February 8, 1928, trans-* ported for shipment wholly within the State of “Florida under said Caummer Seale of rates vast numbers of car : 4 ss we ) That for many years prior to February &, 19: 28, said At- lantie Coast Line Railroad Company had also published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and continued.in effect certain rates which would be applic ible to any movement of such logs, viz, logs over six feet iti length and other than walnut, cherr y and cedar logs, over | its lines front Florida origins to Georgia destinations, which said rates, were higher in amount for like distances than the so-called ‘*Cummer Seale’? applicable for the like dis- -[fol.7] tances and under the eertain conditions’ between points in the State of Florida as above described. That there never was any movement of ‘such logs under said interstate rates, nor was there ever any movement of such logs after February 8, 1928, under the new interstate rates then established for ‘such traffic (in the event there should be any such traffic), by the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission as is hereinafter set forth. 6 On or about to-wit, May 3, 1926, said Georgia Public - Service Commission, in its own name, filed with the Inter- state Commerce Commission a certain complaint against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. In such com- “plaint it was alleged’ that the-rates of freight oy logs’ pub- lished by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad as applicable to shipments of such commodity -from origins on its line in Florida,to destinations on its line in-Georgia then were and thereafter would be unjust and unreasonable in viola- ‘tion of the provisions of Section 1 of the Interstate Com- merce Act. It was further alleged in sueh complaint that: the contemporaneous publication of such interstate and — intrastate rates above described constituted and thereafter would constitute undue prejudice and disadvantage to Georgia Lumber Manufacturers and Georgia communities and. unjust discrimination a interstate ecommerce to the undue pr eference and advant: age of shippers of logs = between points in Florida, in violation of the provisions of. Sections 3 and 13 of the interstate commerce act. i O7 * ) ie | Thereupon such complaint was served by the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the Atlantic Coast Line Rail- road Company, which;*thereafter, and in due course, filed aa ’ with the Interstate Com neree Commission its answer [fol. 8] thereto and in such answer that railroad denied that there was or had been-qny.violation on, its part of the interstate commerce act, and demanded that ‘‘it be hence dismissed.”’ 8 That the Interstate Commerce Commission in éompliance with Section 13 (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act, noti- fied the State of Florjda and the Florida Railroad Commis- sion of the pendency of such proceeding before it, and that said ‘Florida Railroad Commission upon the hearing and argument of the cause before said Interstate Commerce Commission appeared in defense of its jurisdiction of intra- state rates and of its power and authouity with respect thereto. { 9 That certain parties filed interventions, some in support of. and some in oppositiow fo the complaint, in said pro- ceeding, said proceeding being‘ known as ‘‘Georgia Public Service Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Com- pany, Interstate Commerce Commission Docket #18364", _and such interventiong were received and allowed in behalf of divers of said parties, including among other Brooks- ‘Seanlon Corporation, Cummer Cypress Company and Wil- son Cypress Company. That said last named interveners, with others, all of whom were shippers of logs in Florida, filed their interventions aforesaid in opposition to so much of said complaint -of said Georgia Public Service Commis- sion as alleged any violation of Sections 3 and 13 of the interstate Commerce act by the respondent Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. But each and every ‘order per- mitting such intervention expressly provided that the per- mission to intervene therein granted should not be con- strued to‘allow the interyener to introduce evidence which would unduly broaden the issues raised in the complaint. . eee tae Ye ea nape SNE ATS Mp, a MN ER ke oe Ce ee ee eee Pit BP APR APNE RE AI AOL . ~ 7 / 4 . fam. SatretAt a: Cr. [fol. 9] Thereupon public hearings were had by said Tn- terstate Commerce Commission in said proceeding, at which hearings evidence was introduced by said Georgia Publie Service Comniission, said Atlantic Coast Line Railroad and divers interveners who had intervened in support of the ' ‘ complaint. * At the conclusion of suit evidence the inter- veners, including those above named, who had intervened o in opposition fo the complaint submitted ald. filed a motion | to dismiss: the proceeding in entirety on the ground that. there was a total insufficiency of evidence in any way or remotely tending to. sustain atry- ‘allegation i in the: complaint _or sufficient to-constitute a cause of action within the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. , Said motion was taken under advisement and the hearings proceeded. There- ! upon the petitioners here, the above ‘named interveners and the other intervening shipper defendants referred to, without waiving their motion to dismiss, submitted a sub- stantial amount of evidence, which was received and al- lowed and made a part of the record in said proeeedings. That. in the course ‘of said proceeding the complainant, Georgin Public Service’ Commissién, averred that the end la > Vee At Benes sion of the then effective intrastate Flerida log rates (Cum- mer Serle) interstate .into Georgia aud took the position of record that the proceeding was ‘‘not a revenue case.”’ In the production of its evidence the defendant Atlantic #5 SIRS tines then effective intrastate Florida log rates (Cummer Scale) 5 were not compensatory, and stated as its position of record that it had not made and was-not making any proposal to revise those intrastate rates. Vi lfol.10] That thereafter said Interstate Commerce Com- merce li its report and order hereinafter mentioned denied ; the aforesaid. motion to dismiss said proceeding. 1 v4 That thereafter on, to- wit, August 2, 1928, Division 4 of i said Interstate Commerce Commission rendered its report and order in said proeeeding. That in and by such report and order it was found and — concluded by said Division’ 4 of said Interstate’ Commerce — Commission that the interstate rates on logs published by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to Georgia des- “sh 2 t soughtpto be achieved under the complaint. was the exten- . ~ Coast Line Railroad disclaimed any contention that the’ ee ete at ee ee © «5 Baer orn wale { | | t - tindations on its lines from Florida origins on its lines north of and‘including Jacksonville, Gainesville, Burnett’s Lake and High, Springs for -distances not exceeding’ 170 miles were, and would be, unjust and unreasonable te the extent that they exceeded, or might exceed, a distance séale of rates: therein prescribed, which rates said Division 4 found were and would be reasonable; and which rates said At- lantic Coast Lite Railroad Company was required to estab- _ lish on or before October 10, 1928. That in and by such report the Florida intr stata rates (Cummer Scale) were ‘found to result ‘‘in undue prefer- ence “ee 3 advantage of shippers of intiastate traffic within the State of Florida, in undue prejudice to shippers of in- terstate traffie from points in the State of Florida to points im the State of Georgia,. dnd in unjust discrimination against interstate commérce’’, and in and by said order said At- lantie Coast Line Railroad Company was required to estab- lish earload rates for logs (except walnut, cherry and _cedar) in intrastate commerce ‘within the State of, Florida”’ which, should be the same as the rates prescribed by the In- terstate Commerce Commission as réasonable for Sig [fol. 11] portation in interstate commeree from points i the northern portion of Florida to destinations in iar 12 n . ; based upon the difference between the’ Cummer Seale of _ rates and: the sealp of; rates preseribed by the Interstate ‘ommerce Commission. : And said motion averred that the stims Whereof restitution Was yeequested as aforesaid were in excess of $200,000. m0. Said motion prayed the following . . relief: ; , : ae Hig? -* 9 that this Commission proceéd to make such further findings and issue; ‘such further reports and order sin this cause as if may deem to be requisite or neces- sary: A - a“ “(b) hat this Commission: préserihte? such mitrastate rates in Florida. for the transportation of logs dter the at ‘ @ . I lines of this movant, for distances up to 170 miles and for ‘ distances Her ond said. 170 miles, as may be lawful. © vo. - . « \ 8 nt PIT “ # & . Sd ee a 11 c) That this Commission issue such other arid further reports, findings and orders as this Commission may deem propef.”’ : 4 That neither of said motions asserted in issuable form, or indeed asserted at all, that the level’of the Florida intra- staté rates were so low as to conssitute a revenue burden either! upon interstate commerce or wpon the general reve- nues of the carrier. 20 That. your petitioners filed with wid Interstate Com- ‘merce Commission a reply to said motions requesting that said motions be denied, and averring gthe readiness and— willingness of the Florida Railroad Commission, at any proper time upon the application of the Atlantic Coast Line [fol. 17] Railroad Company. or Anyoye interested to,.@nsider- and hear and to deteymine after notice and hearing as pre- seribed by Florida Law the level of the Florida intrastate rate. Said reply likewise averred that the Suprente Court had found that-the authority to determine the reasonable- ness per se of said intrastate rate lay with the State an- thorities and riot with the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion’ and thrat until such State authority had been invoked with respect to ‘the level of that ‘raté, Federal authority ‘ought. not to be exercised even if there were power: to exer- cise it, which power was expressly denied. . That on, to-wit, April 6, 1931, said” Interstate Commerce. Commission made an order reopenixg said proceeding for further hearing and Assigning said » ceeding for further hearing at Jacksonville, Florida. , O41 . ™~ a A That further hearing was had in the reopéwed proceeding at Jacksonville,.Florida, on, to-wit, June 10th to 12th, 1931 . and an additional further hearing was had in said proceed- ing at Washington, ID. C. on, to-wit, July 20th and 21st, 1931, That at the very outset of these heari ings and before any witnesses were ca}led and sworn, the State of Florida asserted of record: that the Interstate. Commerce Commis- sion had no jurisdiction in that proceeding to prescribe in- trastate rates ‘on logs in Florida; that the authority to determine the reasonableness of those rates lay. with the Florida Railroad Commission; that these rates had been ‘£ * fe - ° a ° : 7 : 3 . ’ pasa D * . v7 o ase ; * a. . > . edetighe® Bites SNe aes SELLA et a a A . : 8 . . . sx voluntarily initiated more than fifteen years theretofore and when established had become the lawful State rates; that the laws of Florida prohibited any change or increase of those rates without consent and approval of the Florida Railroad Commission after due notice to the interested par- [fol. 18] ties and a hearing; that no complaint had ever been made to the Florida Railroad Commission about the -level of that rate, although its doors all that time. had been open to anyone dissatisfied with that rate; that the result of the proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion had een to injure ‘and destroy intrastate commerce within the State of Florida, and to injure and destroy in- dustries and whole communitiés in Florida without benefit- ing anyone in Georgia or in Florida; and that the, Florida Railroad Commission considered that the Interstate Com- merece Commission was without power to invade the domain of the State in this matter, but if it had such power it should not exercise it until the railroad company had ap- plied to the State of Florida for suc& relief as it might deem itself entitled to have. That your petitioners have ever since maintained and still maintain the position so asserted. oe That evidence was taken and received at said hearings and said hearings concluded by said Interstate i ggg ee, . OMMUSSION, acting through the Mexaminer assigned by to conduct said hearings. ° 9 9 That the complainant Georgia Public Service Commis- sion offered no evidence whatever to prove any revenue burden on interstate ecommerce caused by the appli ‘ation of the Florida intrastate seale of rates (C ummer Seale), and thereupon, the Examiner havme ruled that the issue of undue burden upon interstate commerce was involved in the proceeding, a motion was made by “the interveners to dismiss that portion of the complaint: ‘which under such ruling was construed as alleging that said Florida intra: [fol. 19] state scale of rates unduly burdened interstate ecommerce. That the Examiner ruled that*he had no au- thority to dismiss the complaint and thereupon the defend- ant was permitted to introduce evidence designed to prove affirmatively this allegation of the complaint made against the defendant.. That said motion to dismiss was insisted i : ~ \ = 2 ORM A RINE Me 13 upon before the Interstate Commerce Commission and de- nied by it in its report and order of July 5th, 1932 herein- after referred to. - , ‘ 23 That on, to-wit, May 14th, 1931, and prior to the first hearing in said reopened proceeding, your petitioners and the intervening shipper defendants therein made written -demand upon the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company that it produee at said first hearing a statement of the num- ber of cars, total tonnage and charges applicable thereto . covering the transportation ‘of logs of the tariff description involved in said proceeding, moving in intrastate commerce in Florida -duri ‘ing the following ry periods: ~ - ~ February 1, 1926 io January 31, 1927; February 1, 1927 to January 31, 1928; j - | February 1, 1928 to January 31, 1929 ; a = February 1, 1929 to January 31, 1930; February 1, 1930 to January 31, 1931. That a similar statement as to such logs moving in inter- state commerce from Florida to Georgia during the same periods was included within the same demand: That said, 5 written demand likewise requested a statement showing the gross earnings of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Com- pany for the transportation of logs of the tariff description involved in. said’ proceeding, interstate as well as intra- state, over all or any parts of its railroad lines wherever [fol. 20] situate during the years ending respectively Janu- ©. * ary 31, 1927, January 31, 1928, January 31, 1929, January 31, 1930, January 31, 1931. That likewise in said written demand it was stated that if it was not practicable to fur-. nish. the data last mentioned except by ‘calendar years, that then that data be furnished for the calender years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930. That copy of said written de- mand was furnished to the Interstate Commerce Commis- ° sion and. the Georgia Public Service Commission. That the information so demanded was never furnished nor was any part Commission made no finding of the amount of revenue which can be reasonably expected-to be derived: from thie traffic in qnes- ‘tion under the increased intrastate rate which the Inter--. state Commerce Commission has ordered established. (X)- Because it did not and does not clearly appear that the evitence warranted.a finding of the amount of revenue which can be reasonably expected to be derive “1 from the ‘affic in question under the increased intr astate ‘ate which rt Interstate ommerce Commission ordered established. (XI) ‘Because the~. Interstate ommission made no finding that the application of.the existing intra- state rate (Cunimer Seale)’ resulted in-an ‘impairment of the income of the carrier which caused an undue burden - upon the ecarrier’s ipferstate revenues and obstructed the — maintenance of an adequate national transportation system. (XII) Because it did not and does not clearly appear that the evidence warranted a finding that the,application of the existing intrastate rate (Cummer Seale)’ resulted in an impairment of the income of the earrier which caused an undue burden upon the carrier’s interstate revenues and obstructed’ the maintenance-of an adequate national trans- portation system . [fol..30] (XITT) edaias the Interstate Commerce Com- mission made no-finding that, an undue burden,upon the . Pee eo wer as ~~ _ existed which was of such character and consequénce _transportation service. r ESS S eee ores 21 ’ . éarrier’s interstate revenues and obstruction to the main- tenanee of an adequate national transportation service ex- isted which was of such character and consequence that it: was the affirmative duty of the Interstate Commerce Com- mission as an important step in maintaining an adequate national railway system to remove such burden and ob- struction. . e * (XIV) Because. it did not and does not’ clearly appear den upon the carrier’ ‘revenues and, obstruction to t e maintenance of | an anaes national trausportation servi lat it was the allirmative duty of the Interstate Commerce Com- mission as an important step in maintaining an adequate national railway system’to remove such burden yand ob- struction. . - * ws. (XV) Because the Interstate Commerce Commission made no finding that “the alteration of the intrastate rapes would produce, or wa’ likely to produce an additional and greater amount of income, and made no finding that such additional and greater amount of income was necessary to prevent an existing undue burden upon the earrier’s inter-. state revenues and necessary to maintain an adequate ~ (XVI) Beeause it did not and aloes not clearly appear. ie that the evidence warranted a finding that the alteration of the intrastate rates: would produce, or was likely to pro- duce, an additional and greater amount of income and it did not and does not clearly appear that the evidence war- ranted a findings that such addi{ional and greater amount of income was necessary to prevent an existing undue burden upon the carrier’s interstate revenues! and necessary to maintain an adequate transportation service. [fol. 31] (XVII) Beeause the Interstate’Commerce Com- mission made no finding of the quantity or extent of any ~burden upon the nftterstate revenues of the carrier caused by the application of the existing Florida intrastate rate. (XVIII) Because it did tiot and does not clearly appear that the evidence wdétranted a finding of the quantity or extent of any burden upon the interstate revenues of the . ‘that the evidence w oe a finding that any undue bury - “carrier canned me the usoticaion of the éxisting Florida by indirection seeks to determine the reasonableness per se ‘Commerce Commission. . State of Florida as if unjust discrimination against inter- mission involving uny such subject matter. & g . 2. - ad . 2. z [fol. STE holdings and no longer ship their logs over de- . i fendant’s lines. At the time of the original hearings these i companies drew. their logs, usually in trainlo-d lots, from, rl points on defendant’s Perry branch, about 166 miles west i of Jae ‘ksonville, There was evidence to the -éffect that it A. Was gineconomical for mills to be located so far from the timber and that even the Cummer scale vate for that dis- tance, 3.7 cents, was higher than these mills could afford fo pay. The Putnam Lumber Company then indicated its intention to abandon those mills and to develop a plant in the timber. Int 1926" - acquired a mill at Bond’s Mill, about-85'miles sash of Jacksonv ‘lle, and in 1927 and 1928 it completed the construction, of two mills at Cross City, on defendant’s Perry branch. Shortly after the intrastate rates were increased in February, 1929, the Brooks-Seanlon d= S225 Bs re SS _ 1>° Corporation began the construction of a, mill at Foley, about 5!5 miles southwest of Perry. U sie the completion of that mill the one at Eastport was abandoned. During the six-year period from 123 to 1928 the defendant’s gross revenues from the movement to Kastport averaged $309,- S82.60 a vear, Defendant's eross yevenues from the move- ments to the Putnam mills averieed slightly amore, than $200,000 a vear, This movement — have been diséon- tinued even thoueh the Cummer seale had remained in force, Since the company had decided to move ifs mills to the timber prior to the rate increase, ~The defendant asserts that the change in ladatton of these mills from the vicinity of Jacksonville to Foley and Cross City Wds had a favorable effeet upon its revenues in ‘vielded by { two respects first, it has rendered unnecessary the trans- portafion of the logs at the inadequate remuneration lec ‘ummer scale; second, the present location of the mills in the interior has resulted’ in- producing ton- [fol. 58] nage of Jumber rather than of logs, and the tr TS- portation éf lumber from the standpoint Onet revenue is vastly better than the transportation of logs under the Cummer seale. The average weight ‘of 983 cars of logs handled under the.Cummer seale for the Brooks-Seanlon ¢ ovporation and the’ Putnam Lumber ( ‘oMMpany was 60.200 pounds per car, the average hanl was 158 miles, and the reveaiae was $20.47 per gar, or 12.9 cents pe¥ caranile, In 1930; 90 per cent of thedumber movement from Foley and 70 per cent of the lumber movement from Cross Cit® to “destinations on defendant's lines went to Jacksonville, The rate on lumber from Foley: to Jacksonville is 914 cents and based on the average. per car weight ofall lumber in the southern region of 52,000 pounds, the revenue .per car from Foley to Jacksonville, 169 mils $47.53. wach equals 28.1 cents per 1 ages The rate on lumber from Cross. City to Jackson ings was from Otto Creek, a point on defendant's Perry liranch, to the mill of the Cummer ( ypress Company at Lacoochée, This movement, whiéh was in trainload lots, began in January, 1925, and ended on May 5, 1928, which Was after the original hea¥ings but prior to the decision of division + herein, August 2, 1928. This movement ended ‘ille, TIS miles, is 813 eénts, pre.’ ducing revenue of $45.53 per car or 36.7 cents per ear-nile. ‘ Another large movement at the time of the original hear * s i ee ‘ 4 7 i, not because of the rate increase but because , of the exhaus- tion of thecompany’s timber near Otter Creek. Defend- ant’s gross revenues from this movement aggregated $120,- 261.40. - In January, 1929, the Gummer Company began to ship logs from Homosassa over defendant's line to Otter Creck, whére iteoperated a small, secondary plant, and it, continued this ymovement after the inereased intrastate [fol. O97] rates beeame effective on February 8, 1929, In 1 April, 1929, it began to ship eypress logs from Homosassa rt its mill at Lacoochee, over defendant’s line. In February, 1930, the movement from Ilomosassa to both Otter Creek and Lacoochee ended, and since then the Cummer Cypress Company has shipped no logs over the defendant’s lines. Defendant’s gross revenues from the Homosassa-Otter Creek moyement were $15,507.09 and those from the Hlomesassa-Lacoochee movement was $77,609.89. These movements wereestopped.in February, 1930, not because of ‘the rate increase, for the movements contimeed for a year after the increase beeame effective, but because the:timber , is ‘ 4H il at Hlomosassé was prac ‘tically cut out, although some addi- 7. tional logs of inferior grade would probably have been eut and shipped had the Cumuner scale remained in force, Its ¥ — present supply of logs from timber on the Withlacoochee ~ River is hanled over its own, logging road to the Seaboard é Nir Line and thence over tha} lime under trackage rights i. for a short distance to its mill.at Lacoochee. i. Representatives of these three interyeners, the Putnam i Lumber Company, the Brooks-Scanlon Corporation and the i Cummer Cypress Company, testified at the further hear- i ings fhat they would not resume the shipment of their logs i over defendant's lines even if the Cummer scale re ‘mained in effect. The fact that the total mmoveneint during the period of nearly two, years. from February 8, 1929, to January 31, 1931, consisted of 18,602 carloads was verified by an in- vestigation conducted by interveners; and their evidence, after eliminating 7,353 cars which moved in trainload lots’ from Hines to Palatka, showed that of the rémaining vol- ume (11,169 cars) 7,965 cars moved in the period from February &, 1929; to January 51, 1930, and 5,204 cars in the succeeding 12 months. (They wery/nabie to develop when 81 cars moved.) , [fol. 60] Interveners’ data,also shod the winatbihtiad with respect to these 11,169 carloads: 8 * 45 : . e Pine Cypress Hardwood - Cars Rewneus Cars Revenue Care Revenue First period. . 1,282 $31,052.33 2,890 $74,866.90 3,793 $96,971. 97 Second period... 206 . 5,288.84 1,566 36 387 O01 1,342 28 658.90 From what has been said above it is clear that the de- cline in the Florida log movement can not be ascribed wholly to the rate advance. Part of the decline has no doubt been due to that cause but a large part Has been due to the change from mill locations uneconomical because too far from the timber and cessation of movements because of exhaustion of the timber. The generally depressed ¢on- ditions ‘throughout the country, in Florida, in the lumber industry generally and in the Florida log industry have ‘also had a marked influence upon the volume of the log. nrovement in Florida, . The table below shows the decline in the total system*traffie and in the system log traffie dur- ing the five-year period 1926-1930: Tot al traffic. Log traffic Year Cars Tons Cars Tons . eee? Sz. veces 944,101 27 025 , 422 79,114" 2,196 971° RBA « BR 839 049 23,134,496 78 ,%32* 2 056 , 593°" EPP Oa Oe 20 402 922 5t, 801 1 422.874 _.. RRR Hee See ee 718,549 | 18.951, S02 37 206 — 949,840 1900 oneal tae aos Cees *.. -©21°242 16,784,331 25,738 667 612 . lnc Judes posts, poleSand cord wood. Likewise there has been a decline in the lumber traffic throughout the United States, in the Southern Distrie ‘t, and on.the defendant’s system, as shown by the following table which also shows the gross revenues received by defendant for the lumber tonnage transported over its lines: ; - am {fol. 61] United Southern _ Atlantie Coast Line States District ; Year * - Tons ‘Tons Tons Ciross*tevenue | Ee eee 48,617,871) 17,708,828 2.665.512 $5,503,389 44 a Ff 20 311.619 3,751,016 8.092 819 S86 Ree 42 508 ,620 17 872.965 3,093,168 ~ 6.641.449 38 Saree 40 565.975 17, 403.907 3.109.401 6,750 434.28 a...%.....-. Fe ,eee. 348 11.395 .S77 2.211 . 258 4.711.383 72 Thus, whilé there has been a substantial decline in the Florida log traffic, there have alse been declines im other | traffie, and the same forces that operated to cause a de- cline in other traffic were also no doubt responsible Jor —— much of the decline in the Florida log. trafhe, Coming now to consideration of the probable future vol- ume of the Florida log traffic, it is relevant to inquire into the total amount of standing timber now in Florida and how much of the total is reasonably tributary : to the de- fendant’s lines. The record indicates that, unlike most of -the other south- ern States, vast stands of virgin timber remain in Florida. An official bulletin of the United States Department of Agriculture (Circular No, 124, October, 1930, entitled ‘*Rate of Growth of Second-Growth Southern Pines j in Full Stands’’) indicates that in 1927 theré remained.in the eleven chief pine-producing States of the South 12,650,000 .- aeres of virgin pine, of which 5,450,Q00 acres, or 43 per cent, were in Florida. That bulletin also states that in ad- dition to this area of virgin pine, there is an area of 12,559,- 000 acres of cut-over pine lands in Florida, ‘of which 3,150,- 000 acres have been fully o? partially restocked to saw timber, and 4,300,000 acres fully or partially restocked to saplings and cord wood. The figures published in the Departments balletie were based chiefly on a survey of standing pine timber made in the main producing regions from Virginia to Texas in 1924. The Department’s bulletin states that this survey, which was conducted by the Southern Pine Association, is [fol. 62] believed to be the most accurate survey of fimber resources yet made in any important lumber -producing region of the United States. The data were obtained in the form of board.feet, but have been.converted into acre- ages for the purpose of,this bulletin. The com; ited figures have been checked against the local knowledge of State and Federal forest officers and other authorities.’? A com- pendium published by the Southern Pine pana ech en- titled ‘‘Keonomie € ‘onditions in Southern Pine Industry”, presented by the Association to the United States. Timber Conservation |. wd, dated July 1, 1931, shows the number of board feet » ihe acredges published in the Department’s ‘bulletin, . The 1924 survey showed that in Florida the pine timber stand was 21,582,000,000 feet of iene and 2,966,- 000,000 feet of shortleaf, or a total of 34,348,000 000 fect of pine. The produetion in Florida during the six years 1925-19380, totaled 4,564,000,000 feet, the regrowth in those six years being 2,129,000,000 feet, or a net depletion of 2,435,000,000 feet, leaving the then present (July, 1931 ) pine: timber stand in Florida, 21,913,000,000 feet. = eC — 0 The above figures -include pine only. That species of wood is of primary importance — in the Fl lorida lumber in- ; _ dustry. Cypress is second in importance, and hardwoods f. -such as ash, gum, hickory, cedar, and oak, are third.* The record contains no figures as to the stands of ¢ypress and hardwoods in Florida, but there is testimony as to the pro- duction, indicating that the annual: production of cypress [fol. 63] in Florida is around 200,000,000 feet,’ and that ‘hardwood constitutes probably 5 to 10 percent of the-total - business. ., . * 3 The record affords ad accurate basis of determining how much of the -sfanding timber in Florida is tributary to q the Atlantic Coast Line.’ By reference to the map of that railroad in Florideshowever, it will be seen that its main : and branch lines férmza network which virtually covers the State, except the extreme southeastern part. This fact,~ = im eennection with the practice of constructing logging roads, seems to indicate that a large percentage of the standing timber in Florida is tributary to defendant’s lines.- The defendant’s freight traffic manager testified : eeercoee 4 ‘‘Not less than one-half of the timber in Florida that is , ‘now reasonably adjacent to railroads is reasonably adja- ‘cent to the Atlantic’ Coast Line: . Pine timber along the south Atlantic seaboard has been characterized by the’ "+ United States Forestry Department as one of-the fastest reproducing kinds of trees in the world, and the total amount of timber in Florida will be large as a result.of re- growth. However, if the Atlantic Coast Line can be as- sumed to transport 40% of the logs to be produced: in Florida from timber now standing, it will handle approxi-- mately nine billion feet, or appr outmately 128 00 cars of os ee - ae *The aon seale applies on all species of logs except -eedar. The interstate rates found unreasonable in--the -g Original report herein applied on all, species of logs*except walnut, cherry and cedar, For this reason, the former order in prescribing interstate and intrastate rates on legs excepted those three species. The exception is unimpor- tant in so far as walnut and cherry are concerned, for there appears to be no movement of those species of logs in Florida. The term ‘‘hardwood’’ as used hereinafter will be use to vita hardwoods ather than: those three. , Biswreryasscosr ss: WOM pO oe 48 logs. If the average length of haul. should be. 81 ‘miles, as was the case in 1929-30, which average haul may be expected to be increased as the timber becomes more searee, our revenues under’ the Cummer seale, at an aver- age revenue of $16.10 per car, would be equivalent’ to gross revenue of $2,169,977.00. If the same transportation should be. performed at the rates prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, which for the average haul of 81 miles is 5.5 cents per 100 pounds, or $38.50 per car, the etoss révenue would be $4,949,945.00. The difference in the gross revenue under the two ‘seales of rates w ould be 2,779,968.00. ”’ A large movement of logs whith was going on at the time of the original hearings, and whith still continues, is the movement of cypress logs from, Hines, a point on ‘defendant’s Perry branch, to the umber manufacturing [fol. 64] plant of the Wilson Cypress Company at Palatka. . -began ,in January, 1926. “The company has its own log- - ging road in the timber, connecting with the defendant’ S line at Hines, from which the haul to Palatka is 119 miles. Although this intervener, as well as others, testified at the | original hearing that it would be impossible to contintte he movement of logs over defendant’s lines if the Cum- ‘ _mer scale were ‘increased, it actually has done so. It ap- “pears that under normal conditions it will eéntinue to ship these logs over the defendant’s line¢guntil the timber ad- _, Jacent to the Pegry branch is eut out. Under the normal rate of cutting, it appears this would occur in about one and one-half to two years after the time of the further hearing. During the four-year period, 1926-1929, the de- “” fendant’s gross revenue from the Hines-Palatka movement averaged nearly $90,000 .~@ year. During that four-year period 16,658 ‘carloads were shipped, averaging 4,164 car- loads a year. During 1930, whep the increased -rates ‘were in effect, 5,142 carloads were shipped, on which the de- fendant’s gross revenue was $205,096.20, averaging $39.88 per car at the increased.rate of 6.5 cents for the 119-mile - haul. During the first five months of 1931, 1,916 cars moved on which the freight charges (gross revenue of de- fendant) amounted to $50,366.17. Palatka is served by the Southern Raily yay System (Georgia, Souther n & Florida y This -Hines-Palatka movement, which is in trainload-lots,;———> 49 Ry.) and by the Florida East Coast .Railway, as well as _ by. defendant’s line. * “There is a small movement of logs into the Wilson Cypress Company’s mill at Palatka over the Southern. and the Florida East Coast. Besides the movement over defendant’s line from Hines there is a small movement over defendant’ s lines from various other points in Florida. [fol.65] There is also at present a small movement over defendant’s lines from various Florida points to the mill ef the Putif&&m Lumber Company at Bonds Mill and a. larger movement. to the mill of that company at Cross. City. During the period from February 8, 1929, to Jan- vary: 31, 1931, the movement to Cross City consisted of ,260 carloads af pine and cypress logs from seven dif- the movement to Cross Gity was 102: featloads from three points of origin. 4 ee Although the Cummer Cypr ess Company no longer ships rai points of Croce dity an the succeeding five months its logs over defendant’s lines, it does purchase and, re- ceive logs shipped over defendant’s lines to its mill at Lacoochee from points within distances of 10 to 18 miles. During the five-month period above mentioned this move- ment totalled 93 cars. In addition: to the aboye-mentioned movements to Pa- lataka, Bonds Mill, Cross City, and Lacoochee, there were movements during said five-month period to Apopka, Buf- falo. Bluff, Gainesville; Jacksonville, Kissimmee, Lake ‘City, Loughman, Leesburg, Nocatee, Perry, St. Peters- burg, Sanford, and Tampa, from numerous points of origin. At the time of the former hearings there was and at ‘present'there is a substantial movement of hardwood logs _in Florida. There are several: mills in thg State that are : engaged exclusively in the production of hardwood lum- ber, including that of the intervener Wilson Lumber Com- pany at Perry. Hardwood trees are usually found in tracts . consisting predominately of pine and cypress and are usually logged as an incident to, or by- product of, the pine or cypress operations. The hardwood lumber business : is relatively new in Florida.: Formerly the hardwood trees were left standing but now it is the practice of the pine [fol. 66] or cypress operators to cut the hardwood and sell the logs to the hardwood mills. In some instances the 4342 n* ‘hardwood aperators own their own tracts of timber. The Wilson Lumber Company built its hardwood mill at Perry in 1927. At that titne it made contracts with several of the large pine and cypress operators in.Florida for the: purchase of the hardwood. logs cut incidentally to their ‘operations. - There have been fairly large movements of ash, black gum and other hardwood logs from Hines, Cross City, Foley, Homosassa, Otter Creek and“other points to Perry. There have also been some movements of hard- ‘ wood as well as cypress to Necksonvlle As shown by -the table set out above, 5,135 carloads of hardwood logs mowed over defendant’s lines i in Florida during the period — February,8, 1929, to January 31, 1931. “~ Ancther type of log movement: that frequently uc place. in Florida is the movement from the log shipping point ‘of one lumber manufacturer to the mill of another limber ‘manufacturer. Such movements occur where the lumber company that cuts the logs is engaged i in the manufacture and sale of a particular kind of lumber, e. g., pine, and- sells its eypress logs to a cypress lumber manufacturer. Conversely, the pine manufacturer often buys. pine logs - cut by a cypress manufacturer. ‘ The 18,602 cars which moved during the period from. _ February 8, 1929, to January 31, 1931, were shipped from .~" 113 different origins to 20 different destinations in all parts of the Stati and the hauls ranged from 6 to 169 miles. At the hearing in July, 1931, defendant submitted a supplemental statement showing that the volume of the log-movement over its lines in Florida during the succeed- ing five months, that is, from February 1 to June 30,: 1931, which were the five months immediately preceding {fol. 67] the hearing, was 2,765 cars. (The Cummer scale was restored durin®@ that period, April 10, 1931:) These - " - cars were shipped from 52 different stations to 17 different =~ destinations. The record as.a whole warvente thre conclusion that there - will be a large- Florida intrastate movement of log’s over defendant’ s lines in the future. The movement at present is‘at A low ebb, but in view of depressed conditions the pres- °. ent movement can not be taken as the criterion for the future. In view of the vast quantity of timber in Florida | tributary to defendant’s lines, the large number co” mills © °: located on defendant’s lines at widely scattered puints in . gaa ae Florida, and the probability of the establishment of new mills, large and small, we entertain no doubt that the log. traffic will’increase well above the present volume when economic conditions change for the :better. In the Florida log transportation: some competition from” — trucks is met: but only to a very slight degree: It is not shown that logs can or will be’ transported by trucks except. for very. short distances, nor that truck competition was or will be increased under advanced rates. : ' + The defendant urges ‘hat the revenues produced by the- ‘ s Cummer scale are insufficient to cover the cost of the serv-. « ice performed; that no traffic is of value from a revenue ~ standpoint unless it yields more revenue than the cost of ' . its handling; that its study of the result of the operation _ + under thesCummer scale is conclusive to it that such opera- ‘tion yields it no profit, but, on the contrary, results in an : ‘actual loss on the log tr affic as a whole. It is manifest that .. ¢ 4f the Cummer scale: produces less revenue than the cost | | [fol. 68] of the service, declines in the traffic have the favor- able effect of reducing defendant’s losses and that an in- © crease in the traffic would only serve to augment those losses. In support of its contention that the Cummer scale results in losses, defendant submitted voluminous evidence * bearing upon the cost of transporting logs in Florida. It is necessary ‘to consider this evidence with a view to deter-. mining whether it shows that. the Cummer scale rates do result in revenue losses. The defendant’s cost evidence ueised with figures. show- ing that dufing the fiscal year ended June 30, 1929, the following road train expenses-were incurred in transport-— ing its system freight. traffic: + 6 2g errs ar) | = " Boss RAISE AY RAR SON DONC EN . > ' [fol. 69] va ’ 4 ‘ _ Acct. No. o ; 401 Trainmen ........ Se a ee Guanes - $2,048,715 - = 1 ' 392 Train enginemen ....... Pee ree 1,571,324 ~— | ‘ 394 Fuel for train-locomotives............ 2,281,332 4 : 397 Water for train’ lécomotives...... 2... - 96,575 : - 398 Lubricants for train locomotives |... . * 49,283 a 399 Other supplies for train locomotives |. 29,281 ; 400 Engine-house expenses—train ..:.... 450,414 402 Train supplies and expenses:......... 400,760 ~ Ad , ¥ ‘ : a eo . ‘ . ‘ Cg . ” wn . uJ ~~ * . ° ba ne ae : * : e J e : ‘ ™ These expenses are: denoiiinated in the ‘testimony ond. ‘ exhibits of record as ‘‘out-of-pocket’’-expenses and that tern will be used herein, although it should be understood that it has reference only to the particular expenses charged to-the above enumerated. accounts. ' An analysis was then made of the accounts of the third division which could ‘be definitely assigned to the freight service without question to develop the-out-of-pocket costs for that division. The third division is wholly in Fl «da, and includes all mileage séuth, of Jacksonville. The car- rier’s total mileage in Florida is 2,061.38 miles, all of which, except 126.34-miles north and west of Jacksonville, is in the third division. Hence, the out-of-pocket expenses on the third division were taken as fairly representative . the out-of-pocket. expenses in Florida. Taking into con- sideration the total tonnage carried and the distarice of the carrjage, and jncluding the empty-car mileage, the out-of-* pocket. cost per gross ton-mile was determined. . For the . - third division that figure was ascertained to be .0882888 eent. The items w hich made up the total out-of-pocket ex- _ penses for the third division were: “Acct. No, e ; ns ‘eB 2 eevee oe BS sae $637,337.05 392 Train enginemen ...... Weiss, ©.) $97,364.58 394° Fuel for train locomotives » ee 606,920.94 - 397 Water for train locomotives ere Re 28,406.12 398 Lubricants for train locomotives. ” 15,379.52 399 Other supplies for train locomotives ——-9,575.70 400 Engine-house. expenses—train .... ~ 126,854.35 402 ‘Train mnppnes and expenses... é 137,772.40 Total Need Seas oe OS Sar ee. ». $2;059,610.66 [fol. 70] The gross ton-miles in Florida during the fiscal year were*2,332,812,000, which, divided into the tota of- pocket expenses during that ‘year, .$2,059,610.66, ‘resul _ in the figure .0882888 cent per-gross ton-mile.: The out-o pocket expense on the other two divisions combined, simi- larly reduced to the unit of gross ton-miles, was 1053263 eent. An analysis was also made of the out-gf- poeket ‘costs on the car-mile basis, which gave final cost figures not-ma- terially. different from those developed’ on the gross ton- mile basis hereinafter stated. Qo amr So fQ~-- + ~ * 4 . The total freight operating exbennes ‘of the system dur-: ing the year 1929 were $36,308,813," over five times the system out-of-pocket expenses. of $6, 920,684. The exact |: ratio of the latter to the former is- 199069. “ .If this ratio is . used as a basis of expanding or projecting the out-of-pocket expenses to determine the total freight operating expenses. in Florida, the latter%is found to be. .462996 1d per gross — ton- mile. |t ; The weighted average distance of the 18,602 wiih of Yogs transported by defendant in Florida during the period . ' from February 8, 1929, to January 31, 1931, was 81.36 miles, the average weight of the lading was 56,754 pounds, and the tare w eight of the cars was 33,000 pounds, resulting _ina gross weight of the loaded movement of 89,754 pounds. -The testimony is to the effect that the 8g cars Were re- turned empty almost without exception. Using 100 per - cent as the proper figure for return empty movement, ffol. 71} the gross weight of the loaded and empty move- ment was 122,754 pounds or 61.377 tons. The latter figure . multiplied by 81.36 miles gives the gross ton-miles as 4,994. Che unit cost of .462996 cent per -gross ton-mile applied to 4,994 gross ton-miles results in a cost of $23.12 per ear. his figure-ineludes nothing: for taxes or interest on invest- ment. When $3.56-per car, as the proportion of taxes paid by defendant to the State of Florida, and $7.62 per car as” the proportion of interest on investment of 5°4 per cent, are added, the cost hecomes $34.30 per ear. The defendant did not present the figure $34.30 per car.as representing the actual cost of the service, but stated that it was greater than the cast because it included certain ex- penses which were nof attributable to the handling of logs. > *The primary segregafion of total operating expenses as hetween-freight and passenger. was made in accordance with the formula which we have prescribed. See order of _ Dee. 1, 1919, effective Jan. -1, 1920, providing rules for the ° separation of operating expenses betw een freight and pas- sengzer service on large steam roads. The total operating expenses were $53,431,589. The proportion assigned to ‘fy eight under that formula, $36,308,813, w vas 67.95% of the total. ** Byhibits of ieeena erroneously show this ratio as - 23.549. Defendant agreed that the .correct ratio is 19.069. a’ ot Defendant also presented another figure, $25.23 per car, based on the ratio of system out-of-pocket expenses to total system freight operating expenses after many deductions were made from the latter. There were deducted, first, all freight yard accounts, 42 in alt, the total of which aggre- gated $4,550,039. Then all amounts in 15 other accounts,. avgregating $4,665,936, were completely eliminated. Many of these were obviously not directly attributable to the handling of logs, such as wharves and docks, paving, asse$s- ments for public improvements, floating equipment, outside ageneies, advertising, traffic associations, industrial and immigration bureaus. Some of the others. were clearly at- tributable, at least in part, to the handling of logs but were entirely. omitted because of the difficulty of.ascertaining the proper proportion Ahat shotild be allocated to -that traffic, For ‘example, station employees in the transportation. block of expenses, account 373, shows charges to freight of. ’ $3,281,352.20. There would seem to be no doubt but “that a ‘fol. 72] portion of tlte charges to this account is properly’ attributable to the handling of logs. To this account: are charged agents, clerks, and attendants, telegraph and tele- phone operators, station agents, ete., who handle the billing of log shipments and, perform other services. But that ac- count wa® entirely eliminated.. Finally.there was eliminated 4.4897 per cent of general expenses, amounting to $413, 769. The grand total thus eliminated aggregated $9,629,744. This aggregate was deducted from the total freight a9} ating expenses of $36,308,813, leaving the sum of $26,679,- 069 denominated the ‘‘total haulage expenses.’* The ratio’ of the total system out-of-pocket Saponnen, $6, 920; ‘684, to the total haulage expenses, $26 679,069,182 D.9405. Use of this ratio results in a unit figure of .340351 cente per gross ton-mile (.0882888 cent divided by 2 5.9405 multi- ‘plied by 100). This results in a haulage cost of $17.00 per. ear. When a proportionate amount is added for. Florida: property taxes, $2.62 per.car, the haulage cost plus taxes becomes $19.62 per car. A proportionate amount adde that figure as representing-interest on investment at 5° * This ratio is erroneously shown i in exhibits of record as 35.027. Asa result of the error the cost figures were shown is be lower than they would have been if the eqrreet ratio had been_used. = & . « per cent, $5.61 per car, ienilite in a final nis of $25. 23 a ear: The defendant’s general auditor testified that the actual - oun lies somewhere between :$18.75** and $34.30 per cary that in determining the lower figure he eliminated ove - $9,000,000 of expenses embracing all yarditems and certain other items, some of which expenses are properly attrib- [fol. 73] utable to the handling of-logs, and that this figure understates the cost of handling logs; but from his experi- ence in studying accounts he does not believe it would be - proper to include all of the expenses included in the. higher figure, and that therefore. thé_cost lies somewhere between Cummer scale rates, and from his experience as an account- _ant, he expressed the opinion that the Cummer scale does ‘not afford'a revenue which is equal to the cost of doing the business covered thereby; that. as shown by the exhibits filed, in practically every case the cost, including.a reason- able return on investment, exceeds the revenue derived, and in some instances the operating expenses exceed the reve- nue, without including any taxes or feturn on investment: The average’ revenue under the Cummer scale on the the two. Based on his.survey of the application of the. 18,602 cars above referred to was $15. 12 per car. The rates - _ preser ibed by the order previously entered in this proceed- ing were in foree during the period in which all of these 18,602 cars moved, and the’ defendant’s actual aggregate — ‘gross revenue on them was’ $571,508.94. Had the Cummer scale been in effect, the aggregate gross revenue would have heen $281,225.75. The latter sum divided by 18,602. gives the above-stated average revenue per car under the Cum- mer scale—$15.12 per car. It will be noted’ that this reve- nue is substantially below either of the two cost figures mentioned above, ‘ 95,93 per car and $34.30 per car. It is ‘$1.88 per’car less than the haulage cost stated hbove, $17.00 percar. °° The unit cost as given above, 340351 cent per gross ton-- mile as the purely haulage cost, and .462996 cent per gross. , ton‘mile as the total operating cost, as applied to specific movements, -results in the following figuges, with which ** This figure, i is based on the pea % ratio of 35.027. When reecaleulated on-basis of the correct ‘ratio of 25.9405 it, beeomes $25. 33. . Py " . ¢. are included for comparative purposes the figures for the ‘fol. 74] averages of the total movement of 18,602 cars referred to above: ‘ . Per car ‘ - Total Purely operat- . Rev- haulage . ing ex- enue expense. : pense : . on Purely dus. . Total plus f Cum- haulage taxés operat- taxes ° — mer . ex- + and ing ex- and Moventent « Miles sesite pense! return pense’?. return Average @f 18,602 cars during period from Feb. 8, 1929, to Jan. 31, | ROPES anne AE yrnee 81.36 $15.12 $17.00 $25.23 $23.12 $34.30 Homosassa to Lacoochee. 68. 12.44 13.58 20.15 18.47° 27.40 Homosassa to Otter Creek 52. 12.02 10.80 16.06 14.69 21.79 © Perry to Eastport....... 169. 22.10 36.16 53.65 49.19 ° 72.98 Carbur to Eastport... :.: e 20.30 $82.52 . 48.25 44:23 65.63 Homosassa to Perry. 130. 20.62 28.80 «42.73 39.18 58.13 -Astor to Groveland...... 99. 13.78 19.54 28.99 26.58 39.43 ! Based on unit cost tof 340351 cent per gross ton-mile: 2 Based on unit ‘cost of” 462996 cent ars gross ton-mile. Defendant . also submitted evidence showing tee ‘actual out-of-pocket expenses for the movement of logs from Hines . to Palatka during the month of November, 1930, agreed to _ be typical @f the year 1930. This evidence discloses the results of a special examination of the .expenses incurred in connection with that partigular movement. The Wilson Cypress Company operates a private logging railroad from “Hts tract of timber to a point of connection with defendant’s line at Hines. The carstused in this service are ordinary flat cars owned by defendant but specially assigned to the. ~Wilson Cypress Company, which has equipped them with special devices for los transportation. This special equip- ment, owned and maintained by the lumber company, con- sists ‘of four stanchions on each side of the ear, which fit [fol. 75] into pockets of a design which permits release of the stanchions to facilitate quick unloading. Chains, fas- tened to the stanchions hold the Togs in place, and per mit the. car to be loaded more heavily than a car, staked in the ordinary way. . The ears are. loaded in the timber and the » trains are hauled by the lumbgr company over its logeing road to Hines. The defendant transports the trains to -alatka, 119 miles, and makes Glivery at the lumber ‘com- pany’s plant. A: trainload of 40 to 45 cars moves from -Hines'to Palatka-every other day. The actual time con- sumed in the trip from Hines to Palatka is about 8 hours. , & > _ - ot During the month in question this log’ movement salwanted to 3,734,936 gross ton-miles, whereas the move- ment between Hines and Palatka other than logs was only 128,515 gross ton-miles. Inasmuch as the latter is only 3.3 per cent of the total movement, the out-of-pocket expenses, for the movement..of the trains, reduced to the gross ‘ton- mile basis, may be taken as fairly’ reflecting the out- of- pocket expenses attributable to logs. ral The out-of-pocket expense for the total traffic, 3,863,451 gross ton-miles, was $2,398.55, made up as féllows: Account , ; et UN ee ke eer ee we $506.19. 394 Fuel for Train Locomotives....... pee . 1,138.49 . 397 Water for. Train Locomotives............. - 39.50 398 Lubricants for Train Locomotives......... "8.27 399 Other Supplies for Train Locomotives... . | 8.82 400 Enginehouse .Expenses—Train ............ 19.05 .401 Trainmen...:...... Wa REE St ear 062.86 402 Train Supplies and Expenses......... goo 115.37 et er tiene oth . - $2,898:55 —[fol. 76] This resulted. ih an out-of-pocket expense for this movement of .0620831 cent per gross: ton-mile. The aver- age loading of the log cars from Hines to Palatk ca during November, 1930, was 64,000 pounds and the tare weight of the ears was 33,000 pounds, resulting in a gross weight on the loaded movement of. 97,000 pounds, and, sinee the re- turn empty movement of these cars is 100 per cent, there should be added the tare weight of the ear for the empty movement, making the eross weight of the logded and empty movement 130, 000 pounds, ow 65 tons. Thus, 65 tons were ” transported 119 miles, equivalent to 7,735 gross ton-miles for each ear. If the out-of-pocket expenses on‘ this move- ment, .0620831 cent per grogs ton-mile, were 25.9405 per ° cent of thetotal haulage expenses, as they were on the sys-— tem as a whole, then the total haulage expenses on this movement were $18.51 per car. When 6 cents per car for Federal income taxes, and. $2.85 per car for Florida taxés are added, the haulage cost plus taxes is $21.42, and if: $6.10 as representing a proportionate share of interest on investment at 5°4 per cent is added to the latter figure, the .- haulage cost plus ‘taxes and return becomes $27.52 per car. — e . 58 | ines a & : ; . Durirfg the month in question the rates prescribed by the former order were in effect. The rate prescribed for the distance from Hines to Palatka,-119 miles, was 6.5 cents. This rate applied to the average weight of the Hines- Palatka shipments, 64,000 pounds, resulted in a revenue of $41.60 per car. The rate. under the Cummer scale for 119 ‘miles is 3.2 eents, yielding a revenue under.the weight of * 64,000 pounds of logs of $20.48 per car. This revenne is _but $1.97 per car greater than the purely haulage cost of $18.51 per car. It is 94-cents less than-the haulage cost plus taxes, $21.42, and is $7.04 less than the haulage cost plus taxes and interest, $27.52. | [fol. 77] The costs in eonnection with the trainload move-- ment from Hines to Palatka ame undoubtedly less than they are it connection with movements in single carload lots. The Cummer seale-rates are not trainload rates. but apply on single carloads; and all present log movements in Flor- ida other than the Ilines to Palatka movement are carload rather: than trainload movements. Practically the only service performed in the Hines-Palatka movement is the road haul, except that two switches a day are made at the Palatka plant. No other terminal services, such as are necessary in single carlot movements, are performed. The Florida interveners presented no affirmative evi- dence tending to. show the cost of transporting logs in Flor- ida but griticized defendant’s cost evidence, their principal criticisms being that the defendant’s cost figures are based on the average out-of-pocket expense of handlingvall traffic on the third division and that the methods employed in as- signing maintenance and other expenses, taxes, and return or interest on investment to this traffic were erroneous. The unit cost figure of .0882888 cept per gross ton-mile was admitted by defendant to represent merely the average out- | of-pocket expense of -handling all traffic on the third divi- sion. It:ean not, therefore, be accepted as indicating the’ average out-of-pocket cost to defendant of transporting logs in Florida. Nor. Pacifie Ry. v. Dept. Publie Works, 268 U.S. 39; Calif. Growers’ ¢ Shippers’ Protective League v. S: P. Co., 129-1. C. C. 25, 52. It appears that nearly 25 per cent of the traffie moving: in. Florida consists of fruits and vegetables which require special and costly service. The cost of such service enters. into the average out-of- pocket cost of the third division and would apparently tend to make it higher than the actual out-of-pocket cost of the log traffic. The conclusion seems to follow that the aver- [fol. 78] age cost figure of .0882888 cent per gross-ton mile is higher than the actual out-of-pocket cost of the Florida- log traffic.’ Oe the other hand it appears that the unit out-of- pocket -eost figure developed in connection with the Hines to Pa- Jatka movement .0620831 cent per grogs-ton mile, is below the average out-of-pocket cost of the Florida log transpor- tation. That movement, it must be remembered, was a reeular one in trainload lots of 4C to 45 cars, and the cost of handling such: solid trainloads direct between two given points without any intermediate.train breakup in classifica- tion yards and without any switching en routé, 7s undoubt- edly Jess than on single carload mov ements which are han- dled in ordinary pick-up service. There appears tobe no doubt that the opecation costs per unit are generally higher in Florida than the average, for the defendant’s system as a whole either including or excluding Florida. This is clearly indicated by various things. Using the year 1929 as illustrative, freight traffic density in Florida, expressed in terms of revenue ton-miles per mile of road operated, was 62.8 per cent of that for the system including Florigla, and 50.4 per cent of that for the system excluding Florida. Using a 5- -year average, 1926 to 1930, inclusive, which included | the boom ‘period, freight tralfie density in Florida wads 72.8 per cent of that for the system including Florida, and 63.9 per cent of that for the system excluding Florida. Also using the year 1929 as [fol. 79} illustrative freight service train- miles im Florida were 30.63 per cent of those for the system, ? Florida, and freight service locomotive-miles in Florida avere 30.92 per cent of ‘those for tlfe system including Florida, while loaded frefght ecar-miles in florida were 21.25 per cent of those for the system including Florida; loaded and empty freight car-miles in Florida were 22.43 _per cent of those for the system tincluding Florida, and revenue ton-miles in Florida were 25.05 per cent of those’ | for the system including Florida. In 1929 the trains oper- ated in freight service hauled an average of 18.16 loaded ears or 31.69 loaded and empty cars per train in Florida, - as compared with 26.17 loadef cars or 43.28 loaded and empty cars’ per train on the system includfhg Florida. : ; 4 59 icluding. a 60 an | 7 ‘ 8 Ac eiaaidadinn the out-of- “pac ‘ket. expenses *in’ Flor ida, the allocation of revenues and, expenses to Florida was” made. by defendant on the followiiig basis: Intrastate rev- enues were directly assigned and interstate revenues were apportioned to That State on the basis of a mileag. pforate, the operating expenses being allocated on the basis of .the operating ratio applied to the revehues. As all interstate traffic handled, in Florida originates or terminates in that State, the apportionment of the revenues therefrom on the basis of a straight mileage prorate, without regard to the | origin or destination terminal services involved, tends {o * understate the revenues from that class of ‘traffic. Fur- ther, the Florida commission refers to the higher rates on ‘class traffic moving to and from points in Florida south of the Jacksonville-River Junction line of the Seaboard Air Line, than on class traffic moving to and from other . sections of the South, which were preseribed by this Com- ° mission in Southern Class Rate Investigation, 128 I. C. C. 067, and points out -that Florida was not: given proper -eredit on this account in apportioning the interstate rev- [fol. 80] enues on the basis ofa mileage prorate. Defend- ant admits that the interstate revenues .apportioned to - Florida“were understated to some extent on account of these things, but calls attention to the facf that the eer. ating expenses were also understated, béCause the alloca- tion was based upon the revenues. Defendant also refers to the service, performed by the balance of its system in getting coal and supplies to Florida. Coal is charged to _ the operations in Florida at the average system cost, not-" +. withstanding a substantial haul from the Alabama, Vir- ». ginia, or West Virginia fields to that State is involved. The portion of the road in Florida, it is claimed, pee no like service for other parts' of the system. : - '-From the. foregoing it is apparent that the operating | ‘ expenses allocated by defendanj to Florida are not actual , iz but constructive expenses, and that they are understated _ te an unknown extent. In view of this fact, system figures _ including: Florida, which are not in question, me e- util- ized as the basis for approximating the cost of ‘tfansport- + ‘ing logs in that State. Ordinarily it would be unsound 4 to use a system unit cost to determine the cost in a par- t _ ticular State, but since it is indisputable that unit costs. if are higher in Florida than:elsewhere on the system, it 4 | . Oe ge te : f ; ; ‘ q seems clear that ‘system unit costs may be used to find a cost that may be said to be less than the cost in Florida. Appendix:E is a computation to approximate the cost of transporting logs on the basis of system average costs per unit, applied to the average carload, tare weight, empty haul, and average distance that class of traffic is hauled in Florida. In this computation attempt has*been made to . -meet as far.as possible the criticisms of’ the defendant’s cost evidence. For instance, deduction from the freight service operating expenses has been made for wharves and — docks, maintenance and operation of floating equipment, and certain traffic expenses, which the defendant concedes [fol. 81] are not involved in handling logs. The deduc- .tions for these items include their proportion of the ex- penses for superintendence, as well as their proportion ofthe general expeyses. The total freight service oper- ating expenses amounted to $36,308,813 in 1929, and these deductions aggregate $1,281,069, leaving $35, 027, 744 as the remainder. This amount has been apportioned 70.3539 per cent to road or haulage expenses and 29.6461 per cent to - yard or non-haulage expenses; these percentages being ‘based upon the road’ and yard proportions of certain of the maintenance of way and structures and transportation expenses which are segregated in the accounts between these services in accordance with our rules. These are fhe proportions used by the witness for the Florida commis- sion in his apportionment of the toperating expenses be- tween road or haulage and yard’ ornan-haulage expenses. Applied to the net amount of the freight Service operating ' expenses above, namely $35,027,744, these percentages re- . | sult in road or haulage expenses of $24,643,384, and yard or non-haulage expenses of $10,384,360. _ Giving consideration to the criticism that the traffic here involved is carload traffic, and that deduction should be made for the excess terminal expense attributable to hand- ling less-than-carload freight over that attributable to car-. load traffic, the amount of $2,555,778 has been deducted from the non-haulage expenses, making the net amount of the non-haulage expénses $7,828,582 applicable to car- , load traffic. This deduction of 42, 555, 778 for platform and excesg clerical expenses that are inv olv ed for I. c. 1. freight, but n8t for carload freight, is an estimate based upon 75 per: cent of the aggregate amount of the expenses for. 62 Account 373, Station employees, and’ Account 376, Station supplies and expenses. As a substantial part of the ex- penses ‘for station employees and station supplies and ex- [fol. 82] penses is obviously aftributable to carload a the amount that should be deducted on account of |. e. 1. freight was therefore estimated at TD per cent of cae ex- penses, Dividing the total haulage expenses, $24, 643;384, by the. total numbew of gross ton-miles, 11,600,825,000,. comprising Moth revenue and non-revenue or company . freight, pro- _duced an average haulage éxpense of .21243 cent per gross ‘ton;mile, revenue and non-revenue. Mt , he statistics kept by defendant ‘made 310 segregation of the loaded car-miles and. the gross ton-miles between rev- enue and non-revertie freight, and the record does not show tht 1umber, of. tons and ton-miles of non-revenue. freight. Dut to this faet it is not practicable to segregate the cost of transporting revenue freight on the basis of including therein the cost of transporting non-revenue or company freight,.so, that the costs hereinafter developed are understated on this account. , Based on‘total loaded car-miles (revenue and non-rév- enue), 209,835,784, and total revenue ton-miles; 3,281,- 770,000, there was an average of 15.6397 tons of revenue’ freight carried per loaded car-mile (revenue and non-rev- enue). Using this figure us the divisor, and the total tons of revenue freight gaxried, 18,951,802, as the dividend, there was isenesinnds a total of 1,211,775 loaded cars of revenue and non-revenue freight carried. Based on total non-haulage expenses of $7,828,582, applicable to car- load traffic, the average non- haulage expense -was $6.46 per loaded ear. . In 1929, U. S. Government taxes (corporation “income) amounted to $570,076, and other than U. S. Government taxes (state taxes) to $5,669,924, or a total of $6,240,000 for the road as a whole. Based on these figures and total . operating expenses of $53,431,589, freight and passenger, [fol. 83] taxes amounted to 90. 11678 per ddlias of operatiyg expenses. ‘ Property. investment in 1929 amounted to $306,439,250, and 5° per cent interest theresi to $17,602,257. Based on total ecities expenses of $53,431,589, freight and pas- . s J tae Ee COO =~ ‘ - ee -— 63 senger, interest on- fern amounted to $0.32977 per dollar of operating expenses. ; Based upon the foregoing the following is a summary of | the computation of the cost of transporting the average car of logs in Florida the average distance of 81.36 miles: Operating Expenses: ae Haulage Expenses : 4,994 gross ton- miles x .21243 cent per gross ton-mile ....,..2$10.61 ° Non-Haulage Expenses: Average per *loaded car ....... “aoe 5 SAP RS ea - 6.46 Total operating ne, Me nake le ae eee : $17 .Q7 Taxes: $17.07 (Oper. Exp.) x $0. 11678 (Taxes per dollar | of operating DE Seek re thee et naaes 1.99 Interest on Inv estment at 5°34 Per Cent: “ 07 (Oper. Exp.) x $0. _— Cinneesit per dol. lay oem, GH) ..... sa ba all owt 68 [fol. 89] me ~ Appenpix A Docket No. 18364 Letters from the Florida Railroad Commission Having - Reference to the Establishment of the Cummer nenle—- File #3685 | De ae not ap- _prove this tariff with the above paragrapl incorporated therein, and will expect that you immediately re-publish. the tariff €ith this paragraph eliminated. When this is done, Freight Tariff No. 3339 will comply _Wwith the ideas of the Commissioners, in that the rates dre “stated jper carload, and that they apply between all sta- tions up ta the given distance of 156 miles. The Commis- sioners. Wish it distinctly understood that. this appreval ; extends only to the method of stating the rates in this’ tariff and not to the rates,themselves, and that in their | opinion they are too low. The rates carried in this tariff are such as might -be deemed confiseatory, and there is little doubt.in the minds: of the Commissioners if they were to order such a scale of is | | cs) f ‘ is : - - es oe Sy . . ' . j ‘rates that your company would contend that they amounted . to confiscation and the taking of your property without the due process of law. _ [fol.90] To make such a scale of sates for the movement of logs in this State reduces+the power of the Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Company to make other just and reasonable rates to he charged on all classes of freights that the pub- lie may be interested in. It also reduces “the power of this | Commission upon complaint and hearing hereafter to pre- scribe what might be_just and reasonable rates to be charged for other freights when the entire revenues of the. Atlantic Coast Iane Railroad Company are to be taken into consideration. They amount practically to a dis- crimination against other élasses of freight and all other - people engaged in different lines of business: . You will recall that at the conference in Tallahassee. on the 14th of July when the matter of withdrawing your log rates to Milldale, Fla.gwas under discussion the Commis. ‘ sioners advised you that they thought you should supplant the Milldale rates with your present rates on logs as they are being applied to other points in this State, ‘which ad- vice, was: based on the .conviction that your log rates to’ ° Milldale were entirely too low. The Commissioners regret that you have seen fit to pub- _lish these extremely low rates. .There is no question but that the time will come when these barely’ remuncrative - rates will be used as the basis for opposition to the reduc- tion of other rates, where perhaps a reduction might not . only be justifiable but necessary, and thereforé the Com- missioners wish to impress upon you the fact that the low rates carried i in your Freight Tariff +: 3339 were not only not ordered into effect or suggested by them, but were pub- lished by you in direct ss aaa to their advice and sug- ‘gestions? : Yours very cub, (S. ) Jd. H. Tench, Rate ———’ :- . [fol. 91] Railroad Commission, State of Florida a Tallahassee, Fla,” - August.18, 1915. . ss C. MeLeod, Rendeik, Fla. Dear Sm: Replying to your letter of August 17th, with reference to the present rate on logs, carload, applicable Pe 69, LOS IN TES * 70 between statioris on the Atlantic Coast Line R. R., for a dis tance of 150 miles and under. ' Be& to advise that the Commissioners thoroughly agree with you that this rate is toolow. It was not made by the Commission, nor was it put into effect. with our approval. On the contrary, it was made effective contrary to the ad- vice and wishes of the Commission. However, in order that you may become familiar with the situation, it will be nec} sary for me to go into the history of this rate at some ‘length. In April 1914, it eame to the attention—of the Connie. sion that the Atlantic Coast Line was operating a special rate on logs in trainload lots from stations on the New- berry district to Milldale, Fla., that were not only much lower than the Commission Class P rates, which were ap-. plicable on logs, but they were much lower than any other rates that the Atlantic Coast Line had in effect on logs between points in this state. To be perfectly frank, in the opinion of the Commis- _sioners, this was a preferential rate, made in the interest of a the Cummer Lumber Company, because the timber holdings of the Cummer Lumber Co., largely lay on the Newberry District of the Atlantic Coast Line, and because of the fur- ther fact that there was no mill at Milldale exceptethat of the Cummer LumIf%r Gompany. The Commissioners advised the Atlantic Coast Line R. R:-; Co. that they would have to cancel this tariff or make it | applicable between all stations on its line in Florida, and that in any event they would have to cancel the applic ation of the rate to logs in trainload lots, as tlie Commissioners -would not recognize e anything above the carload as a rate making unit. Much to the surprise of the Commissioners, the Atlantic Coast Line corrected the tariff so as to make it applicable between all stations, and open to every one who had as much as one car of logs to ship. As soon as this was’ ‘done, we advised the Atlantic Coast Line that we did not approve of these rates, and we also asked counsel for an opinion as to whether we had authority under the law to order the can- eellation of a rate on the ground that in our opinion it was too low. We could get no encouragement fr ‘om counsel that the Commissioners possessed such authority under the law. [fol. 92] As further: information I enclose herewith a copy - +4. a 71 ( ) “tecoumeegtion that was addressed to Mr. Jas. Menzies, j ‘0 Teaffie Manager of the Atlantic Coast Line R. R., be aft 1 ther decision to publish these rates as open rates oe « tuleage basis. Should the railroad at any time make application to the (‘ommussioners to be allowed to cancel this scale of rates, we would unquestionably allow them to be canceled, but as the matter now stands the move to cancel must be made by~ the carrier, as the Commission is without authority to order cancellation of a rate because it is too low... So long as the present conditions prevail it would be to your advantage to locate your mill in Ocala, for the yeasons set forth in your letter. The Commissioners regtet this condition exists, and I feel sure that after. you r ad the letter to Mr. Menzies, which is attathed hereto, vou Will be convineed that these rates are in effect, not because bf: afiy action of the Commissioners, but in spite of their expressed objection. . The present Class P rates: ‘in this state, which apply on lumber, logs and wood, were put into effect by the Commis- sioners after an extended investigation, not only of the lumber industry in this state and adjoining territory, but also of the financial condition of the carriers, and we are convinecd that these rates are just and reasonable as appli- . cable to this traffic. If you will compare the rates on lumber in this state with the rates on lumber in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee, you will find that our rates are lewer than. in any of these . states, in which states the conditions ‘are pr actically th - same, except in that in each state mentioned the density of population is greater than it is in Florida. Yours very truly, (Signed) R. Hudson. Burr, Chair- “man. ‘ 4 peg : = fol. 93] ArrENDIXx B 7 . Docket No. 18364 - . Florida Intrastate Log Seales Compared with Various Interstate Seales in the South, (Reduced to Cents per 100 Pounds) Florida Intrastate Seales Interstate Seales in the Southeast Interstate Scales in the Mississippi Valley ms aad Riker acter sae bahalilianeap duces aeaainay cates ala tg aa eae cneniillga’ Column | Colimn 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 ‘Column 8 Columr® - Seaboard Air Georgia. ; ‘Single-line scale = Net transit sealeon ' ~ Local scale on : Atlantic A.C. L. & Line (other Southern On A. C.1.., -preseribed in 178 1. Ceand M. & O. — Local seale on Mobile & Ohia Coast Line* S. A. L. (not | than cedar, & Florida 3S. A. L., Southern 1. C. C. 671 te (except cedar, ‘Tilindis Central (except cedar, \ « (other than — over six feet, and over six © (other than and as net transit destinations in cherry and certain (except, cedar, walnut, cherry \ Distance cedar) in length) feet long) cedar) rates on L.-& N. Tennessee foreign woods) walnut and cherry)» and mahogany) \ 7 5 miles and under... 2.2... 1.71 . 2.4: 2.81 1.95 2.5 3.56 -% 3.5 4.5 15 miles-and over 10....... 1a 2.37 2 SI 3.16 3 4 9 5 45 . 6 20 miles and over 15....... 1.71 2.37 ‘2.81 3G - ! 2.50. 5 : 6 25 miles and over 20....... +. 71 2.75 3.37 . 3.06 3.5 4.5 2.5 2 6 : 7 30 miles and over 25....... 1.71 2.75 3$4t ° 306 3.5 4.5 2.5 6 7 35 rhiles and over 80....... 1.71 2.88 3.94 7) 1 5 3.5 6.5- Be 40 miles and over 35....... 1,7) 2.88 3.94 3S 4 5 ‘28 7 8.5 45 miles and over 40....... 2.10 3.25 3.94" 4.33 4.5 5.5 ~N 4 8 8.5 50 miles and over 45.0... .. 2.10 3.25 3.94 4.33. 1.5 5.5 4.5 5 8.5 55 miles and over 50... ..... 2.10 3.50% 4.50 4.60 1.5 g 4.5 85 85 60 miles and over 55....... 2.10 3.50 4.50 4.60 5 6 5 8.5 8.5 65 miles and over’ 60....... 2.3” 3.75 4.50 5.00 : 5 -6.5 \ 5 9 es 70 miles and over 65....... 2.30 3.75 4.50 5.00 ‘5 6.5 . 5 9 8.5 75 miles and over 70:;...... 2.30 » «4.00 5.06 5.33 5.5 7 6 10.5 8.5 SO miles and over 75...:... 2.30 4.00 5.06 5.33 5.5. 7 " 6 10.5 8.5 85 miles and over S8O....... °° 2.30 4.25 5.63 5.66 . 65 7 > 6 10.5 8.5 90 miles and over S85..... ae 2.30 4.25 ~o.G8 «= oc 6 . 7.5 ‘ 6.5 10.5 10.5 95 miles and over 90....... 2.60 4.50 “6.19 6.00 6 7.5 6.5 11 10.5 100 miles and over 95....... 2.60 4.50 6.19 6.00 6 y i 6.5° 11 10.5 105 miles and over 100....... « 2.80 £. 62 6.19 6.16 , 6.5. 8 6.5 dl 10.5 110 miles and over 105... .. 2.80 4.62 6.19 - 6.16 4.5 8 6.5 7 i 0.59 115 miles and over 110....... 3.20 x) 5.00 6.19 6.66 6.5 8 6.5 11 10.5 120 miles and over 115.¢..... 3.20 ~* §.00 6.19 6.66 0.5 8 6.5 11 10.5 125 miles and over 120....... 3.20 §.13 6.75 7 8.5 7 - 11.5 10.5 130 miles and over 125....... 3.20 §.13 6.75 Yj 8.5 7 ~ .> — 8.40 5.75 m, 7.5 9 7 11.5 11.5 160 miles and over 155... .... ~ 3.40 5.75 ; 7.5 of) 7 14.5 11.5 165 miles and over 160... ... 3.70 Ho 25 s 9.5 Ss 12.5 - 11.5 170 miles and over 165....... 3.70 6.25 s 9.5 &. 12.5 115 [80 miles and over 170... .... ¢ . $3.33 6.25 S 9.5 ‘ 200 miles and over ISO... 0... 8.33 0.25 8.5 10 220 miles and over 200... .... - $.67 6.50 i) 10.5 240 miles and over 220. ...... 9.00 . 6.75 9.5 1 ' 260 miles and over 240... ..... eS : an 6.87 10 11.5 ¢ lF 280 miles and over 260.8... -. 9.50 ie 10.5 tt Be Ae Ie 200 miles and over 280... ... . 9. 67 7.25 HH 12.5 é 300 miles and over 290... 0... 9.83 7.37 © ie 12.5 shore *A¥ Note: On A. C. L, (Seale runs to 800 Note: On L. C. does *Cummer scale t6 and including 170 tiles; class P minimum 30,000 scale does not apply miles.) not apply on pine pounds for distances over 170 miles. on cedar, cherry, or walnut. ; a , ‘mahogany, or wai- ; ; “a ' nut logs. (Scale - nn sd ° ; ot runs to 550 miles.) sie [fol. 94] Aprenpix C | - ‘ ade Docket No. 18364 Comparison of Cummer Scale with Intrastate Rates on Logs Between Points on , the Atlantic Coast Line Railrgad in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. (Reduced to ts per 100 Pounds) ~ *Cummer Virginia Scale (except cedar, North South. = Georgia (except cherry, mahog- Caro- Caro Ala- Miles cedar) any and walnut) lina lina Transit Local bama ie ae 1.71 25 1.8 2 1.83 3.05 3.5. RS 1.71 2:5 1.8 2 1.83 3:05 | 2.5 a wat 1.71 2.5 1.8 Ss .¢ £3. 3.51 2.5 ae 1.71 3 1.8 Sa 9.3 3.51 3 1.71 3 2.13 2.5 2.11 4.17 3 a ied 1g 3 2.13 2.5 2.5 4.17 3 ee. are I. 3 (2.138 2.5 °2.6 4.38 3 Ds ive’ . oe 3.5 2.13 3 2.63 4.38 ~~ 3.5 ' RR 1.71 3.5 2.62 3 ‘2.88 4.79 3.5 , sees 1.71 3.5 2.62 ‘3 2.88: 4.79 3.5 RY 1.71 3.5 2.62 3 3 ..§ 3.5 aes 1.71 eo : 2.62 3 3 Jan 4 cede a 1.71 4 2.88 3 3.25 5.41 4 See 1.71 “4 2.88- 3° 3.25 5.41 4 ids 1.71 » 4 2.88 3 = - 3.38 a Pe Si _ Fee 2.1 4.5 2.88 ° 3.5 3.38 5.61 4.5) ae 2.1 4.5 2.88- 3.5 3.5 5.91 45> ae 2.1 4.5 3.25 3.5 3.5 6.91 °4.5 ae 2.1 4.5 3.25 3.56 : 3.5 5.91 4.5 . ee, 4.5 3.25 3.5 3.5 5.91 4.5 ae 2.1 4.5 3.5 | 3.5 3.63 ~ 6.04 4.5 Re 2.1 5 3.5 4 3.63 6.04 5; Say 2.1 5 3.5 4 ea 6.66 5 ~ . See 2.3 5 . 3.§ - 4 4 6.66 5 i @. ... SZ 61 8 SF € b ZI _ 3. aan: of cS 6b =. 00 8% Ct SS ves IF 6. 0S 91 a 9 CLG ¢c¢ ZI ieee bE SE 00 02 Ch Ss . 08 £6 IF 6 «6 OF 91 i) t Slc., c¢ Zl | teases. cl LE SE 00 SI FI $e 26 61 If 6 * GLEl . , 2 . 88 ¢* ZI Se Ol oe szs OO FIS “FI Ezs 46 °61$ If 63 Gl eis b 8G cc € me 6 Se |S ¢ ae “Sl OFL'OL “S41 000'0S *Sq] OFE'ZE “Sq] O8S‘99 “sq ODO'SS Sq] 000'SG JUSWA = ew] ~~ pues pur YOU —- BPWISWAQUT BUYSuVIUT — STI jUIUIOQ eu PUBS PUB YoU = a}BSBIPUL 9} BSI} UT JPAR) UuCMTMOD = Bpuoyy : - PAD bpuoyy co . 9) BysI9} UT BPHO]_J-B1B10a") cae $307] a ' ayiysioqur BpuOLy-wEOGn) “3 S307] ‘ =) - . 2 oOo sneniieaneissnie — ----—— a r ivy Jad anuaaay : e | _ (spunod gg] aed aon Ul) S8IRyy . aU] ISBOD oUM}Y 9Y) UO Ss}UIOg BIFI0aN) ae - : pus epuo.y ywon Uod@OM Ig Fup sayipouwoy jyuvjsodwuy ya 840] UO pollessy soyRy sopu MUIAIY-IBD puv sajywy jo uosusduoy” P . FOBT ON YOG | |, 7 | ; d xlangaay : a . [$6 103] = ~*~ @2 . . . ™ ~~ 2 ° oe ; ee : . . v s » } * 8 A .'@ ; ™~ ny, _ ; ‘ " ’ ‘ ' -@ ‘ € . % es » 8 oe , , ; 2 . . ? : 4 : ; om = : . ay , . ‘ ‘SOI EFF “JUIW {sais 21% ‘IUIT] ‘saytw QZ] ‘aawss pus pues ; {sap STZ “You ‘sap GOT ‘sdoy :gZGI ‘ABpY ut waysAs 1ojfivy osvsway CZ] Ul Wa JSAsS BY} JO} BBBIBA BY} BIB UMOYS SBUIPVOT :ALON - ; : 5; . : os $6 00° 9¢ S109 «= 93 ES * SEZ OO ft ~ G's ae | ¢°9 ~ 02°: ee ; a 4 00 FS ct 09 6 6F OL 81 SZ °1h £1 8 Ol “¢'g. GL o WE es 091 «9616 = OOS * ZS SS «FG GF Op St $e ib * et gor 9 62 ope? 3 Saat oct t : OO'cS . ze c¢ 19 9F . O28I OS SE Gsl FOL 9 . L ' OF ES 4 Tee OFT } 00 cS cs. $¢ 19 96 - O9 ZI OS '8E Gal 7Ol 9 :. @e | ea ty OSI OO';OS - O06 OS . 19°9F 09 LI Gl Se al, Ol " - | L 0 € bes: OzI 00 0¢ 06 0S 19 OF OP SI GL SE . él Ol cs L 08S ae wo oe Oll OOS 229 SE OE FI «ORE STE 8G ¢ -o9 .09°% 001 00 SF Lo OF 82 fh =, OF FI 00 €¢ cll 96 Cc. ¢9, 09 °% 9 _ “f fee | a es b — - ; oe ene — ie cee ~ , " ; ( 6 7 : a s v ° © [fol. 96] * ; AppeNpbIxX E 33 , 543 1,473 $1,226,021 sa eeaed ee 1,281,069 epee SS alee $36, 027. 744 Apportionment between Haulage and Non-Haulage Expenses: eet Freight Service Operating Expenses apportioned: 70.3539% to Haulage and 29.6461% to Nen- Haulage, based on proportions obtained from those,of Maintenance of Way and Structures and Transportati ion —Rail Line accounts, which are segregated between Road or Haulage and Yard or Non-Haulage Expenses (See testimony witness Pettijohn—R.1465) ................° Haulage Non-Haulage Expenses Expenses and cypress logs net over six feet in length) by.points of grigin’ and destination, and by rates (the movements under the Cum- ‘mer Seale and under the s ‘ale prescribed by the Interstate “Commerce Commission’s order of August.2, 1928, to be so identified), the number of tars, total tonnage, and charges applicable-to the transportation of such logs originating on your line of railroad at points in the State of Florida and destined to points in the State of Florida on your line of railroad, during the following periods: February 1, 1926, to January 31,1927. February 1, 1927, to January 31, 1928, ~~ February 1, 1928, to January 31, 1929. February 1, 1929, to Jannary 31, 1930. February 1, 1930,.t0 January 31, 1931. * — . eae Pe ee ee gee ee Soe Cw eS eee were _ . Florida, : (dl). Acstatemeut, supported by individual ear reeord movements, showing by classes of logs, except cedar logs (and: exce nt ash, gum, hickory, oak, pine and erprces logs not aver six feet in length) by points of- oriedn aed destma- tion, and by rates, the number of cars, total tonn: ree, anil charges applicable to such logs originating on the line of another carrier within ¢4he State of Florida but destined to , — - ~ — FR “es Lis la c a point in the State. of Florida upon the hne of your rail-, road, 7 ‘(e). Ao statement supported by individual car. record movements, sliowing by classes of logs, except ¢edar logs (and exce pt ash, gum, hickory, oak, pine and eypress logs not over Six feet in leneth) by. points of origin and destina- tion, and by rates, the munber of girs, total tonnage and aaa ‘har ves applicable to suc ‘h logs ori@Mating and terminating at. “pOltheS a= hese; State of. Florida off your line of railroad but which have been transported ove er “you! Tries TSR A necting line: “arrier, (f). A statement showing the eross earnings of tlie At- lantic Coast Line Railroad Company for the transportation of logs, except cedar logs (and except ash, gum, hickory, oak, pine and eypress logs not over six feet in leyeth) inter- state ds well as intrastate overall or aay parts of its rail- way lines wherever situate during the vears ending re- spectively’ January 3ist, 1927, January 3Sist, 1928, Janu- ary Bist, 1929, January 31st, 1930, and: January 31st, 1931. If it is not practicable for you to furnish the data re- quested in the above paragraph (f) éxcept by calendar years, thon please furnish this data for the calendar vears 1026, 1927, 1928, 190294 and 1930 respectively. ”* Items (a), (by) and (f) ave the identical data requested also by.the various intervening Florida log shippers. ? Under date of May 2h Mr. Frank W. Gwathmesy, Special Counsel for the Atlhintie Coast Line, addressed me jointly with Messrs. Wight, Oda, Cooper & Osborne, one of counsel for the Mlorida log shippers, as follows: . lfol. 1145] ** While we — to submit at this ae ihe core tain-data concerning the movement of logs by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Cempany, and the. revenue derived thereon, we regret that we are ‘not ina position to compile cand furnish thecinformation requested in veur respective letters. The: records of the movement af logs during the vearly periods referred toby vou have not been kept upon the basis of a separation of theginterstate and: intrastate movements, nor of the separation as between the several classes. or length of logs handled. Neither: during the periods referred to, nor at the present time, is it the prae- tice of shippers to indicate in their bills of lading the elass 92 of logs offered for:shipment, except in the case of-eedar logs, upon which special rates have been applied. For ~ these reasons, the underlying data necessary to compile the ° statements which you request is not available. In addition; it would not be practicable to compile this information | within the time available even if it could be obtained by an_ examination of the original records of the as a il . , | "Because of the allegations in the complaint of violation. of Sections 1 and 3, and particularly also, of Section 13, of’ the Interstate Commerce Act,‘it would seem to us that-there should be submitted at the further hearing all of the data which we have asked the Atlantie;\Coast Line to produce, and - which they have declined to furnish. In view of the carrier’s refusal to furnish the informa- tion requested, the Florida Railroad Commission respect- fuller requests that the Interstate Commerée Commission issue its sakpoena duces tecum upon the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company requiring the carrier. to produce the data outlined above’ at-the further hearing tn this pro- ceeding at Jacksonville, Floridy, on ? uite_10, 1931. Yours truly, Fiorida Railroad 'canmission, By T. T. Turnbull, Counsel. ©... , ts Copy for Messrs, Robert C. Alston, Frank W. Gwathney, Carl 1D. Davis. ; Copy. (fol. 116] Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Cen- tral of Georgia Railway Company, Ovean—Steamship Company of Savannah, Florida Mast Coast Railway Company, Merchants, and Miners Transportation Co., Clinchfield Railroad Company, Charleston and Western Carolina Railway Co., Eastern Steamsiip Lines, Ine. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, Richmond, Fred- ericksburg & Potoniace R. R. Co., Nashville, Chattanoogs & St. Louis Railway, Clyde Steamship Company, Atlanta- and West Point Railroad Company, The Western Rail- “way of Alabama, Georgia Railroad. Ms , Frank W. Gwathmey, special .counsel; Henry Thurtell, assistant special. counsel, Charles P. Reynolds, attorney; - Richard B. Gwathmey, attorney. ‘ Office of ‘Speeial Counsel, _for the production of any dvcoment or paper which is now 4 ‘ . ’ ‘ ~“ Interstate Commerce Cases, 1210 Shoreham Building, Waghington, D.C. Refer to File No. 1590 oo 2, 1931. fwe. 1. C. C. Docket No, 18364. } Grorcia Pusniic Service COMMISSION v. AtLantic Coast Lint RaiLroap COMPANY George B. McGinty, Esq., Secretary, ‘Interstate Commerée Commission, Washington, D. C. — Dear Sir: I have copy of a letter to you dated May 27th from counsel for certain shipper interveners in the above case in which the Commission is requested to issue its subpoena’ duces tecum to require the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to produce certain data at the hearing set for June 10, 1931. Your attention is respectfully directed to the statement in-my letter of May 21st (quoted in the letter of May 27th) that the Atlantie Coast Life Railroad Company has no records from which this data can be compiled ; also to the fact that the subpoena requested by opposing counsel is not in the defendant’s possession, hut it is sought rather to compek the defendant through subpoena to prepare and compile certain statements; and in addition, that. the re- quest relates to a miseellaneous mass of information, very large in volume, with me tudication whatever -es, t= Awe extent, if anyyof the relevancy “thereot to any issue in the proce ecding, Under these eonditions, it is respectfully urged on behalf of the defendant that no subpoena should be issued. | [fol 17] Very truly vours, OS.) LW. Gwathmey, Attor ney for Aflantie Coast Line Railroad Com- pany. | iutheim, Esq., 712 Jackson Place, Messrs.. Knight, Adair, Copper. & Os- Copy to August T. Washington, D. C. 2% ’ +4 borne, Atlantic National Bank Building, Jacksonville, Fla. Charles EK. Cotterill, Esq., Grant Building, Atlanta, Ga. Theo, T. Turnbull, Esq., ¢/o Florida Railroad Commission, Tallahassee, Fla. J. V. Norman, Esq.,; Inter-Southern Louisville, Ky. | oe; , [fol. 118] EJH: JPM. Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington : June 3, 1931. Mr. T. T. Turnbull, Counsel, ir lorida Railroad € ommission, Tallahassee, Is la. ’ Dear Sins T his i ig in response fo your letter of May 29thi relative to Docket No..18364, Georgia Public Service Com- mission v. Atfantie Bast Line Railroad Company. «You state therein that on May 14th you requested defendant to prepare and preduce at the further: hearing on June 10, 1931, certain data, ‘consisting of statements, supported by individual car record movements, showing by classes of logs, by points of “origin and destination, and by _rates, number ‘of cars, total tonnage, and charges applic: thle on logs, except cedar logs (and except ash, gum, hickory, oak, pine, and cypress logs not over six feet in length) originat- ing on defendant’s line in Florida and déstined to points in Georgia during certain periods, showing similar infor- mation as to such logs originating at and destined to ‘points on defendant’s line in Florida during the same periods, and showing the gross earnings of defe ndant for the trans- portation of such. logs over all of its lines during certain periods. You also quote from the reply of Mr. Frank W. Gwathmey, counsel for/defendant, in Wwhigh he staies that defendant ’s. records Tiave not noon * ‘kept in such form as would enable + (+ S5aztink.the .stustenrentcucmkiehs wietk e quested. You ruethion state that it would seem to you that all of the data which you requested defendant to ‘produce should be of record’ inthis case, and request, in view of defendant's refusal-to furnish same, that the Commission issue its subpeeha duces tecum upon deféndant requiring it te produce the data requested at the further hearing on June 10th. Your request is for a subpena duces tecum tod. produce certain data, consisting of certain statements to be com- Fla. Ga. sion, ern 99 piled by defendant, w which data seems to you should be of ae record in this proceeding but which defendawt states it eannot furnish. You do not specify juste what hooks, papers, or documents of defendant you desire it to produce at the further hearing, as required by rule XII (b) of the Rules of Practice. That rule also provides, that there should be a showing that the bdoks, papers or documents sought will be of service in the determination of the .pro- ceeding. There is ‘no such. showing in your letter of May 29th. It seems apparent, as stated by Mr. Gwathmey, that even if the statements: which you desire could be compiled from. the original records of defendant, there is not sufficient time within which it could be done before the further heare. -fol.119] ing on June.10th. Mr. Gwathmey states that defendant expects to- submit certain data copeerning the movement of logs over its lines and the revenues derived: therefrom and it may well be that such data will be suf- ficiently complete and Satisfactory to all parties and to. the Commission that additional data will not he deemed neces- sary. ° Respectfully, G. B. MeGinty, Secretary. (fol. 120] EJH: JPM. ’ Interstate Commerée Commission, Office of the Secretary, W ashingtoh . George B. McGinty, Secretary. ~ , June 3, 1931. Mr. H. P- Adair, Atlantic National Bank Blde., Jackson- ville, Florida. Mr. C. E. Cotterill, 525 Grant Building, ‘Atlanta, Ga.» Mr. A. C. Gutheim, 712 Jackson Place, Washington, D. CC. Mr.-J. V. Norman, 1506 Inter- ° sSeuthern. Bldg. , Louisville, Ky. a en De AR Srrs: This “Ce RRORER. ta your igint, jetter ¢ of _ May 27th relative to’ Docket ‘No. 18364, Georgia Public’ Service Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Com- pany. You state therein that on May 14th you réquested defendant to prepare and produce at the further hearing on June-10, 1931, certain ing consisting of statements, supported by individual’ ¢a ‘record movements, showing Se Sh A hal 96° ~ by elasses of logs, by points of origin and destination, ‘and ~by rates, number of cars, total tonnage; and charges appli- ——{~- == cable on logs, except cedar logs (and except ash, gum hickory, oak, pine, and express logs not over s4x feet in leneth) originatme on defendant’s line m- Florida and destined to points in Georgia during certain perjods, sliow- ing similar information as to such logs originating at and destined to points on defendant’s line in Florida during the same periods, and showing the gross earnings of defendant for the transportation of such logs over all of its lines - during certain periods. You also quote from the reply of Mr. Frank W. Gwathmey, counsel for defendant, in which he states that defendant’ s records have not been’ kept in such form = as- would enable it to furnish the statements which you requested. You further state that it would seem . ° ? , ‘to vou that all of the data which you requested defendant to produee should be of reeord in this ease, and request, in view of defendant's refusal to furnish same, that the commission issue its swypona duces teeum upon defendant requiring it to prodfte. the data requested at the further hearing on Jane 10th. ‘ Your request’ is fora subpeena duces teeum to produee eertain data, consisting of certain statements to be eom- piled by det ‘ondant, which data seems to you should be of ree8rd in this proceeding Imtywhich defendant states it [fol. 121] eannot furnish. You do not specify just what hooks, papers, er documents of defendant you desire it to produce at fhe further hearing, as required by rule NIT (h) of the Rules’ of Practice. “That “ule also provides that there should be_a showing that the books, papers or doeu- ments songht All be of service in thedetermination of the proceeding. fThere is no such showing 11) your letter of May 27th. It seems apparent,.as stated by Mr. Gwathmey, that .- even if the statements whieh vou desire could be compiled from the original records of defendant, there is not suffi- cient time within which it.could be done before the further hearing on June 10th. Mr. Gwathmey states that defend- ant expects to submit certain data eoneerning the move- ment of logs over its lines and the revenues derived there- from and it may well be that such data will be suticiently. complete and satisfactory to all parties and to the Com- “mission that additional data see not be deemed nevessary, , Respectfully, . B. MeGinty, Secretary. Cee ee Vw OA ow . EH fle ev Catan “ | at a ati - ———— Copies to: Mr. Carl H. Davis, Coynsel, Atlanti¢ Coast Line RailroGt Company, Wilmington; N.C. Mr. Robert (. Alston, Counsel, Atlantic: Coast Line Railroad Com- pany, Atlanta, Ga. Mir Frank W. Gwathmey, Counsel, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Washington, D.C. [fol. 122 August G. Gutheim, Attorney At Law, Numbers Juckson Place ’ Washington, DuC., Jyme 4, 1951. How. George B. MeGinty, Seeretary, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D: ¢, Inre LC, (364, Georgio’ Public Service Commission v. ue Atlantic Coast Line R. Rk. (‘9, Deak Sur: With reference to” your letter of June 3 ad- dressed jointly to Messrs. H. P, Adair, C. i. ¢ ‘otterill, J.C. Norn and myself in the matter of owr request in joint. letter of May 27 for subpeena duces tecum on proper off-* eers of the Atlantie Coast Line to produc e certain data Gut- lined therein for the further hearing in the above-entitled proceeding at Jacksonville, Florida’ on June 10 before Mxaminer Toy. 7 7 + Counsel for these mtervening F lorida log shippers are without information as to what specifie kooks or papers or dociiments of the defend:MAl, ‘Atlantic Coast Line Railroad ° Company contain the data which is sought. That is infor- mation which is peeuliarly in the hands of the carrier: Moreover, the defendant. Atlantie Coast Line: Railroad — Company has not informed us as to the nature of the ‘*cer- tain data concerning the movement of logs by the Atlantic — Comste Line Ralivout Company and.the revenue derived therefrom” and we are therefore unable to advise the Commission whether it wilk be sufficiently complete and satisfactory. en , May We are however, still of ‘the opinion that the data asked for in our letter of May 27 is necessary, and awe respectfully renew our request for ‘the issuance of subpena duces tecum upon thee proper officers of the Atintie Cdast Line for same, to cover all books, documents, and other papers which contin the data required. Our letter of May 27, page 3, first two paragraphs, outlines the reasons why the ‘ 4—342 ’ A. 98 . . e. data sought would be ‘of service in the determination of the proceeding. , . ind In Florida, et al. v. United: States, 282 U. S. 194, the Supreme Court found unlawful the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission entered in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, now set for further hearing. Violations of See- tions 1, 3, and 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act were alleged in the original complaint, and of course, are again in issue in the further hearing. Developments since the . original complaint Was filed point to the fact that thé de- -fendant Atlantic Coast Line will stand with complainant. In Florida, ét al. vy. United States, supra, the Supreme Court, in discussing the Section 15 aspect of the case, said: [fol. 123] “* * * if must appear that there are find- ings, ported by evidence, of the essential facts as to the particular traffic and. revenue, and ihe effect of the interstate rates : upon the income of the ear- riers * * *. (Ttalies ours. § And again—‘* In dealing with unjust discrimination as het ween persons and localities in relation to interstate com- merce, the question is.one ef the relation of rates to each 4ther,”’ a And. also that in considering the authority to change intrastate rates in-the interest of the carrier’s revenue, ‘the question is that of the-relation of rates to income.”’ We therefore respectfully submit that the data which these intervening Florida log shippers seek through the issuance of a subpeena duces tecum is of vital importance in the proper determination of this proceeding by the Com- mission, apd urge that the defendant Atlantiet Coast Line Railroad Company be required to produce same. [If sueh data is not furnished at the hearing now set for Jacksonville June 10, we shall teserve the right to ask that the Commission give this request further consideration, to _the end that this information be: placed before the Com- mission before the ease is finally presented for a determi- nation of the issues taised. ek Yours truly, (S’e’n) H. P. “Adair, C. E. ‘otterill, A. G. Gutheim, J. V. Norman, Counsel for Various Intervening Florida Log Shippers. Copy for Messrs. Robert (, Alston, Cant Davis, Prank w Gwathmey. 99 ° fol. 124] | P LAINTIFE’S Mxuipir 4 INTERSTATE CoMMERCE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON I, George B. MeGinty, Secrefary of the Interstate Com- merce Commission, do hereby certify that the attached are true Copies of order of the Commission entered May.19, 1914, Classification of Operating Revegines and Operating Expenses of Steam Roads, prescribed by the Interstate (‘ommerce Commission, in accordance with Section 20 of the Act to Regulate Conimerce, effective July 1, 1914; of orders of the Commission entered June 2, 1924. July 25, 1925, April 18, 1928, and November 23, 1928, In the Matter of a Uniform System of. Accounts to be kept by Steam Roads; and of order. of the Commission entered June 2, 1924, In the Matter of the Reeovery and Payment of KMxeess Net Railway Operating Income Under the Pro- visions of Section 15a of the Interstate Commerce Act, the originals of which are now on file and of record in the office of this Commission. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said Commission this 6th day of Sep- tember, A. D. 1952. George B. McGinty, Seeretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission. (Seal Interstate Com- merce Commission, | 1887. ) ~~. . ad ee $e 104 no | —_— ~~ CLASSIFICATION -. OPERATING REVENUES AND OPERATING EXPENSES OF STEAM ROADS PRESCRIBED BY THE INTE TATE, COMMERCE COMMISSION “IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION|20 OF THE _/ ‘ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE » Pes ISSUE OF 1914 | Effective on Juty 14,1914 . WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING a achaiaae 1914 102° THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, _ James S..Harwan, of Ilinove: ; Jupson C. Clements, of Georgia. ' Epear E. Crark, of Jowa. CHartes C. McCuorp, f Kentucky. ‘BatruasaR H. Meyer, oj f Wisconsin. Henry C. Hatt, of Colorado. : Warraeey M. Dantats, of New Jersey. GEORGE B. McGinty, See _\ Introductory letter - CONTENTS. | Order of the Comrhissiog.......... a Ur cusichaawe evaiuadaddesaakiaeds General instructions: a Be . 1, Operating accounts ...... idedaucivenianechesadesdbaeneiddeaoxsn yea 2. Unaudited items affecting operating accounts............-.--/.---- ve 3. Delayed items ee ee ee a ee 4, Miscellaneous operations.......... eee, ous woseeeiccecsesens bi hag 5. Submission of questions Opcrating revenue accounts Special instructions Ce ee ee ee ee ae Text for operating revenue accounts Operating expense accounts. ..>......-.......- ssunnredowdalice Pieedee erees Special instructions....... dalatbecescustvisendetseendve poteusuaiwd echo Text for operating expense accounts.............¥ vrs cee ee Ei Mata! “eceeece g.- cay § . a eal 2 * o : e ADDITIONAL COPIES _ OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM _THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. ¢. Oa AT ’ 40 CENTS PER COPY - At a General rane of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE ae it ORDER. | = : os COMMISSION, held at its office in Washington, D. C., on the 19th day of May, 1914. The subject of a Uniform System of Accounts to be prescribed for and kept by carriers being under consideration, the-following order - was entered: PNB » It as wield, That the Classification of ‘Operating Revenues and > Operating Expenses of Steam Roads and the text pertaining theréto, ~*embodied in printed form tobe hereafter known as Issue of 1914, . a copy of which is now before this Commission, be, and is hereby, approved; that s copy thereof duly authenticated by the Secretary of the Commission be filed in its archives, and # second copy thereof; in like manner authenticated, in the office of the Division of Carriers’ Accounts; ‘and.that-each of said copies so authenticated and filed shall be deemed an original record thereof? It is further ordered, That the said Classification of Operating Reve- nues and Operating Expenses of Steam Roads, with the text per- . taining thereto, be, and.is hereby, prescribed for the use of carriers by rail (exclusive of electric railways) subject to the provisions of the . Act to Regulate Commerce as amended, in the keeping and record- ~ ing of their operating revenue and operating | expense accounts; that "each and every such carrier and each and every receiver or operating trustee of any such carrier be required to keep all operating revenue ‘and operating expense accounts in conformity therewith; atid that a copy of the said issue be sent to each and every such carrier and to each and every receiver or operating trustee of any such carrier.. _ It i further ordered, That any such carrier or any receiver or operating trustee of any such carrier may subdivide any ‘primary . , account established in the said issue or may make assignment of the amount credited or charged to any such primary account to operat- ing divisions, to its individual lines, or to States: Provided, however, That such subprimary accovuts set-up or such assignments made by any such earrief or by any receiver or operating trustee of any such carrier do not impair the integrity of the accounts hereby prescribed: And provided also, That a list of such subprimary accounts set up or such assignments made be first filed in the office of the Divisior of Carriers’ Accounts, subject to disapproval by the Commission. 5, ORDER. ie : 6 It is further ordered, That in order that the basis of comparison with previous years be not destroyed, any such carrier or any receiver or operating trustee of any such carrier may, during the twelve months from the time that the said issue becomes effective, keep. . and maintain, in addition to the operating revenue and) operat- ing expense accounts hereby prescribed, such portion or portions of. its present accounts with respect to operating revenue and operating expense items as may be deemed desirable by any such carrier or by any receiver or operating trustee thereof, for the pur- pose of such comparison; or, during the same period, may maintain such groupings of the primary accounts hereby prescribed as my be desired for that purpose. . y ‘It is further peri That, unless otherwise ordered, any such « car- rier or any receiver er operatin trustee of any such carrier may keep any temporary or ccpniaetal accounts for revenues or ex- penses, the purpose. of which shall be to develop the efficiency of operations: Provided, however, That such temporary or experimental : accounts shali not impair the meray of bd ‘general or primary account hereby prescribed. © oe \ It is further ordered, That July 1, 1914, % and is hereby, fixed ‘as the dateon which the said issve of the Classification of Operating Revenues and -Operating Expenses of Steam Roads shall .become . effective. , s By the Commission: j ) | . ; Wes GrorceE B. McGinty, [SEAL.]} ' 7 Secretary. i INTRODUCTORY LETTER. INTERSTATE COMMERCE Comrsston, . Division or Carriers’ Accounts, ’ Washington, May 19, 1914. To ACCOUNTING Orricins: or STeAM Raliways: / This Classification of Operating Revenues and Operating sittin . supersedes the Classification of Operating Revenues, First Issue, ‘effective July 1, 1907, and the Supplement thereto, effective July 1 1908; the Classification of Operating Expenses, Third Revised Issue, effective July'1, 1907, and the Supplement thereto, effective July 1, 1908; and the Classification of Revenues and Expenses for Outside Operations, First Issue, effective duly 1, 1908: e ‘ ( bd ° ? ? GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. x The carrier’s records shall be kept with sufficient particularity to show fully the facts pertaining to all entyies made in the accounts pro- ’ vided herein for railway operations. Where the full information is not recorded in the general books, the entries therein shall be sup- ported by other records in which the full details shall be shown. Such general book entries shall contain sufficient reference to the detail records to permit ready identification, and.the detail records shall be filed in such manner as to be readily accessible for examination by representatives of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 1, OPERATING AccounTs.—The accounts of this classification are designed to show the revenues and expenses (including the maintenance of the facilities used) of the carrier's railway operations, including rail-line transportation, water-line transporta- _ tion, if any, and servic’ incident to transportation. ' Transportation includes the receipt, conveyance, and delivery of traffic. ‘Rail-line transportation includes not only the conveyance of traffic over tracks, but also the necessary conveyance by water transfers (ferriage, lighterage, and floatage) either between track terminals or between track tefminals and points not reached _ by tracks, such as the water transfers at present operated by carriers having track . terminals at New York harbor, and the water transfers at present operated by the— Ann Arbor Railroad Company between Frankfort, Mich., and Manistee, Mich., Menominee, Mich., Kewaunee, Wis., and Manitewoc, Wis. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company between Ferry Point, Cal., and San Francisco, Cal. Morgan’s Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company across the Mississippi River near New Orleans, La. Nashville; Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway between Incline, Ala., and Gunters Landing, Ala. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad Company between Cape Charles, ¥a., and’ Norfolk, Va. Southern. Railway Company between Pitiners Point, Va., and Norfolk, Va. Southern Pacific Company between Oakland, Cal., and San Francisco, Cal. Water-line transportation includes the transportation of local traffic from port to port, and the transportation of both local and interline rail and watfer-line traffic from port to port, such as the water-line transportation operations at present con- ducted by. the— Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Company on Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey. vapihaaes New York, N. 'Y., and Atlantic Highlands, N. J. Erie Railroad Sane between Buffalo, N. Y., and Manitowoc, Wi is. , Milwaukee, Wis, "pnd Chicago, I Sdfithern Pacific Company between New York, N. Y., and New Orleans, La.; between New York, N. Y., and Galveston, Tex.; between New Orleans, La., - and Habana, Cubay and ‘between San Francisco, Cal., and Sacr: umento, Cal! - 9 eee = «am ‘ 10 . GENERAL TRSERUCEI. e . ree revenues. from — inaeeene, books, periodicals, etc., sold on vessels, % have, because of established practice, been provided for in the primary accounts ‘ included in revenue general account II, Transportation—Water Line. Carriers are_at liberty to subdivide tht general and primary accounts here given, but if this option be exercised a statement of the accounts adopted shall be filed . in the office of the Division of enced _ Accounts # the Interstate’ Commerce Commission. ‘The carrier means the accounting carrier, except wees ere specifically indicated. - 2, Unaupirgep Irems AFFECTING OPERATING AccouNTs.—When for any cause the amount of any item affecting operating revenues or operating expenses can not be accurately determined in time for inclusion in the accounts of the monthin which _ the transaction occurs, the amount of the item shall be estimated and in such form. —_ or credited to operating accounts and credited to balance-sheet account No. ‘“‘Other unadjusted credits,’ or charged to balance-sheet account No. 727, » ome umadjusted debits,’’ as may be appropriate, the necessary adjust [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386009_0039%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.