# Appendix — Western Pacific Railroad v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0195%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1965 - **Citation:** 382 U.S. 237 ## Text SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1964 /J65 No. 598 /2 THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLANTS, vs. UNITED STATES, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INDEX VOLUME 1 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission Secretary’s certificate (omitted in printing) Complaint in Docket No. 33679 Separate answer of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Separate answer of Northern Pacific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company and Walla Walla Valley Railway Company __ Answer of Union Pacific Railroad Company and Spokane International Railroad Company __. Answer of Great Northern Railway Company and Pacific Coast R.R. Co. Answer of Washington, Idaho, and Montana Railway Company Petition of Southern Pacific Company for leave to intervene in opposition to complaint —___- Record Press, Printers, New York, N. Y., May 27, 1965 ii INDEX Original Print Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued : Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961 _— 37 16 Appearances 38 16 Testimony of T. P. Wadsworth— direct (by Mr. Treanor) 41 19 Statement of T. P. Wadsworth entered into record 44 21 Statement of D. L. Loftus entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) 75 43 Offers in evidence 84 48 Testimony of D. L. Loftus— cross (by Mr. Hobbs) —. 84 49 redirect (by Mr. Burkett) - 90 53 Offers in evidence 92 54 Testimony of Grant S. Allen— direct (by Mr. Treanor) 93 55 cross (by Mr. Hobbs) — 111 67 cross (by. Mr. Farrell) —.. 116 72 cross (by Mr. Burkett) 120 74 eross (by Mr. Farrell) —— 123 77 redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 125 - 8 recross (by Mr. Farrell) - 126 78 Offers in evidence 126 78 Testimony of F. B. Stratton— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 127 79 cross (by Mr. Hobbs) ——. 136 85 eross (by Mr. Farrell) —. 136 86 Testimony of Charles K. Faye— direct (by Mr. Treenor) —. 137 87 cross (by Mr. Hobbs) —— 144 91 cross (by Mr. Farrell) —_. 147 94 Statement of A. K. Hinckle entered into rec- ord— direct 158 101 eross (by Mr. Burkett) — 161 103 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, ana 10, 1961— Continued Statement of F. W. Fuller entered into rec- ord—. direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ cross (by Mr. Farrell) ___ redirect (by Mr. Treanor) recross (by Mr. Farrell) _ Statement of M. A. Kasen entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ record— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ cross (by Mr. Farrell) redirect (by Mr. Treanor) Statement of N. C. Kunzmann entered into record— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ eross (by Mr. Burkett) __ eross (by Mr Farrell) __ redirect; (by Mr. Treanor) recross (by Mr. Farrell) _ Statement of John M. Cox entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ cross (by Mr. Burkett) __ Statement of Robert Stoll entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ cross (by Mr. Burkett) __ redirect (by Mr. Treanor) recross (by Mr. Burkett) _ Statement of C. V. Donaldson entered into record— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ eross (by Mr. Farrell) ___ cross (by Mr. Burkett) __ iii Original Print 165 106 168 108 171 110 171 110 172 111 177 114 181 117 184 119 185 120 186 121 188 122 189 123 189 123 190 124 190 124 193 126 194 127 196 128 197 129 197 129 199 130 203 132 iv INDEX: Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Testimony of Clifford Worth— direct (by Mr. Treanor) ~ eross (by Mr. Burkett) —~ cross (by Mr. Farrell) Offer in evidence Testimony of P. Steele Labagh— direct (by Mr. Treanor) cross (by Mr. Burkett) Statement of Myron Lindgren entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) —. cross (by Mr. Burkett) — Statement of Avery M. Cloninger entered into record— direct (by Mr. Treanor) - cross (by Mr. Burkett) —. Statement of Paul J. Roche entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) - cross (by Mr. Farrell) —. redirect (by Mr. Treanor) Statement of Frank L. Sigloh entered into record— direct (by Mr. Treanor) - cross (by Mr. Burkett) —. redirect (by Mr. Treanor) recross (by Mr. Farrell) Testimony of A. R. Allen— direct (by Mr. Treanor) ~ eross (by Mr. Hobbs) —— Testimony of T. P. Wadsworth— (resumed )— cross (by Mr. Farrell) cross (by Mr. Burkett) ——. redirect (by Mr. Treanor) recross (by Mr. Farrell) INDEX Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Offers in evidence Testimony of T. P. Wadsworth— cross (by Mr. Burkett) __ Complainants rest direct case Testimony uf A. J. Stilling— direct (by Mr. Hobbs) ___ cross (by Mr. Treanor) _. cross (by Mr. Tjosseni) __ redirect (by Mr. Hobbs) _. Offer in evidence Statement of R. B. Hardin entered into rec- ord— direct (by Mr. Higgins) _ cross (by Mr. Treanor) __ cross (by Mr. Pfrommer) _ Offer in evidence Statement of G. E. Roeder entered into ree- ord— direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ cross (by Mr. Burkett) __ cross (by Mr. Farrell) ___ redirect (by Mr. Treanor) recross (by Mr. Farrell) _ Testimony of C. W. Evers— direct (by Mr. Hobbs) __ eross (by Mr. Treanor) _ Offers in evidence Statement of L. S. Davis entered into record— direct (by Mr. Farrell) __ eross (by Mr. Treanor) ___ redirect (by Mr. Farrell) _ recross (by Mr. Treanor) _ redirect (by Mr. Farrell) __ Offers in evidence Sai Original Print 316 212 316 212 318 213 318 213 328 219 333 223 333 223 334 224 334 224 351 236 368 249 370 250 372 250 374 252 376 254 378 255 378 255 378 255 386 261 391 265 392 265 431 294 446 304 447 305 448 306 vi INDEX Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and iv, 1961— Continued Testimony of Ferdinand Wascoe— direct (by Mr. Burkeiti) —- eross (by Mr. Treasor) — cross (by Mr. Pfrommer) — redirect (by Mr. Burkett) Offers in evidence EXHIBITS : No. 1—Map which shows the Pacific Coast areas involved in this case, as well as the locations of the lines and routes of the complainants and defendants — No. 2—Map which shows the points in Cali- fornia served by complainants, as well as the relationship between such points and those situated on the Southern Pacific, with whom the defendants maintain joint rates via Portland, Oregon —— ~~... No. 3—Tables 1-18 of Statistical and other data referred to by Witness Wadsworth’s prepared statement No. 4—Pages of Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau Tariff 1-S, ICC 1352, containing present routing arrangements in effect via the Southern Pacific Company via Port- land, Oregon, thence via the Northern Pa- cific Railway or Union Pacific Railroad Company No. 5—Pages of Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau Tariff 1-S, ICC 1352, containing present routing arrangements in effect via The Western Pacific Railroad Company via Bieber, Cal. between points in Cali- fornia and points in Oregon, Washington and Northern Idaho Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Exursrrs—Continued No. 6—Map showing “Stations designated in red are junction points between Union Pacific and Great Northern Railway in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, affording interchange of carload freight without transfer of lading” No. 7—Map showing “Stations designated in red are junction points between North- ern Pacific Railway and Great Northern Railway in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, affording interchange of carload freight without transfer of lading” ___ No. 8—Page 38 of Southern Pacific Com- pany Freight Tariff 230-K, ICC 4960, containing absorption of Western Pa- cific’s switching charge at Sacramento on Canned Goods moving from Sacramento via SP to points on NP or UP in Oregon, Washington or Idaho No. 9—Statement showing “Representative Commodities on which present combination rates applicable via Bieber and Portland thence Northern Pacific Railway or Union Pacific Railroad Company are compared with joint through rates in effect via de- fendant’s routes with the Southern Pa- cific Company via Portland” __ VOLUME 2 No. 10—Statement showing “Originations and terminations of Carload freight traffic via Bieber moving west of transcontinental — for the years 1955-1959” Original Print 508 355 509 356 510 357 512 359 viii Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission-—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Exuisits—Continued No. 11—Statement showing “Cars via Santa Fe Via Bieber or Portland (West of Transcontinental Territory) for the years 1955-1959” No. 12—Statement showing “Traffic via Bieber compared with total revenue freight traffic handled by The Western Pacific Railroad Company for the years 1955-1959” No. 13—Statement showing “West of Trans- continental Traffic via Bieber compared with other West of Transcontinental Traffic moving via The Western Pacific . Railroad Company and with the total rev-. enue traffic handled by that Railroad” _... No. 14—Pages of Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau Tariff 1-S, ICC 1352, containing present rates on Cast Iron Pipe from Decoto, California on the Western Pacific Railroad to. points in Oregon, Washington and Northern Idaho, via Western Pacific to Bieber, Cal.; Great Northern Railway to Portland, Oregon, thence via Northern Pacific Railway Company or Union Pacific Railroad Company No. 15—Pages of Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau Tariff 1-S, ICC 1352, containing present rates on Automobiles from Oak- land and Decoto, Cal. to points in Oregon, Washington and Northern Idaho, via Western Pacific to Bieber, Cal., Great Northern Railway to Portland, Oregon, thence Northern Pacific Railway Compeny or Union Pacific Railroad Company —..... 558a 559 Print 406 407 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Exusrts—Continued No. 16—Pacifie Southcoast Freight Bureau Tariff No. 297-D (and Supplements 3 and 4), ICC. No. 1678, containing present rates on Automobiles from points in Cali- fornia on the Western Pacific Railroad Company to points on the Northern Pa- cific Railway and Union Pacific Railroad Company via Western Pacific Railroad Company to Bieber, California, Great Northern Railway to Portland, Oregon, thence Northern Pacific Railway or Union Pacific Railroad Company No. 17—Statement on “Economie Growth” No. 18—Statemeut on “Production” No. 19—Statement on “The Western Pacific Transportation Plant” No. 20—Map of The Western Pacific Rail- road showing the interchange points between the Western Pacific and the Sacramento Northern, the Tidewater Southern, and other railroads No. 21—Map of U.P.R.R.Co. showing main railroad routes and connections—Port- land, Oregon, Aug. 4, 1960 No. 22—Statement showing “Gross ‘ Ton Miles Trailing East, West & Total” ____ No. 23—Statement showing “Northbound— Southern Pacific Schedules” __ ia No. 24—Statement showing “Soutabound— Southern Pacific Schedules” ° No. 25—Statement showing “Comparison between Lowest “Through” rate on Fibre- board boxes, KD Flat from Stockton and Antioch, Calif. to Selected Stations in Washington and Lowest “Combination” Rate Applicable via the Bieber Route” _ 578 595 597 598 601 603 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Exurits—Continued No. 26—Map showing the Union Pacific line in California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Ore- gon and Washington indicated in red, the principal lines of the Southern Pacific in Oregon and California indicated in blue and the joint line of the Santa Fe, West- ern Pacific, Great Northern, between Cali- fornia and Portland indicated in green -_ No. 27—Map of Portland, Ore. and Van- couver, Wash. and Vicinity showing prin- cipal railroad trackage therein os No. 28—Statement showing “Northboun Freight Train Schedules Southern Pa- cific—Union Pacific and Bieber Route and Elapsed Times” No. 29—Statement showing “Southbound Freight Train Schedules—Southern Pa- cific—Union Pacific and Bieber Route and Elapsed Times” No. 30—Map showing Lines of Southern Pa- cific indicated in blue, Inside Gateway to Portland, Ore. indicated in green, Lines of Northern Pacific Railway Co. and connec- tions indicated in red, and Lines of Ore- gon Trunk and Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railways indicated in yellow No. 31—Enlarged Map showing Lines of Southern Pacific indicated in blue, Inside Gateway to Portland, Ore. indicated in green, Lines of Northern Pacific Railway Co. and connections indicated in red and Lines of Oregon Trunk and Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railways in yellow —. 605 606 607 610 466 467 468 470 471 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961— Continued Exuiits—Continued No. 32—Exhibit showing comparison of Railroad Distance via Existing joint rate routes with route sought in this proceeding and also routes via Oregon Trunk- Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Companies between Representative Points on the Northern Pacific Railway Company and San Francisco and Los Angeles, Cali- fornia No. 38—Statement showing Transportation Conditions of Southern Pacific Routes Compared with Western Pacific Route via Bieber, California between Portland, Ore- gon and Stockton, California, San Fran- cisco, California, and Los Angeles, California No. 34—Statement showing “Freight Train Schedules—Southern Pacific Routes Com- pared with Western Pacific Bieber Route” No. 35—Statement showing “Gross Ton Miles Trailing East, West and Total— Gerber—Dunsmuir” Brief of complainants to the Hearing Examiner, dated and served July 6, 1961 (excerpts) _. Complainants’ reply to exceptions of Northern Pacific Railway Company, Union Pacific Rail- road Company and Southern Pacific Company (excerpts) Transcript of hearing December 14, 1961 (ex- cerpts) Statement by Commissioner Freas and colloquy with Mr. Treanor Complainants’ petition for reconsideration of the report and order of Division 2, dated and served August 27, 1962 (excerpts) 612 622 641 659 473 501 8 3 s & S 510 xii INDEX Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Complainants’ petition for further hearing for purpose of introducing newly developed evi- dence, dated December 28, 1962 __._. Order of Commission denying petition for recon- sideration of report and order of Division 2, entered January 18, 1963 Complainants’ petition for waiver of the provi- sions of Rule 1.101(e) of the Commission’s general rules of practice, January 19, 1963 __ Petition of The Western Pacific Railroad Com- pany pursuant to Rule 1.101(a) (4) general rules of practice seeking a finding that an issue of general transportation importance is in- volved, filed January 30, 1963 Reply of defendants Northern Pacific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company and Walla Walla Valley Railway Company to complainants’ petition for waiver of Rule 1.101(e) and petition for further hearing __ Reply of defendant Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany to complainant’s petition for waiver of Rule 1.101(e) and petition for further hearing Reply of intervener Southern Pacific Company to complainants’ petition for waiver of Rule 1.101(e) and petition for further hearing Order of the Commission designating this pro- ceeding as one involving an issue of general transportation importance, entered February 14, 1963 Complainants’ petition to the full Commission for reconsideration of the report and order of Division 2 and complainants’ request for oral argument before the full Commission (ex- cerpts) Petition of United States for leave to intervene for the purpose of petitioning the full Com- mission for reconsideration of the report and order of Division 2 and to be heard on oral argument Original Print 666 512 674 516 676 517 682 519 687 522 697 527 710 536 717 541 719 542 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Petition of United States to full Commission for reconsideration of report and order of Division 2 and request of United States for oral argu- ment before full Commission Reply of intervener Southern Pacific Company to petition of Department of Justice for leave to intervene for the purpose of petitioning the full Commission for reconsideration of the re- port and order of Division 2 and to be heard on oral argument dated and served August 1, 1963 Petition of United States to Full Commission (1) to vacate its order served July 30, 1963; (2) to reopen the proceedings for the purpose of considering petitions of the United States filed July 26, 1963 and such responses thereto as may be filed by the parties; (3) to hear oral argument if then warranted; and (4) to issue a decision stating findings and conclusions and the reasons or basis therefor upon all material issues as well as an order granting or denying the relief sought Reply of defendants Northern Pacific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company and Walla Walla Valley Railway Company to petition of the United States for leave to in- tervene Order of Commission denying petitions of United States entered August 9, 1963 Motion of Union Pacific Railroad Company, de- fendant, for The Interstate Commerce Commis- sion to deny or reject the petition of The United States for leave to intervene served August 9, 1963 Reply of defendants Northern Pacific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company and Walla Walla Valley Railway Company to petition of the United States to reopen pro- ceedings 740 8=— 5553 768 573 774 8577 783 = 5583 794 589 796 590 Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com- mission—Continued Reply of Union Pacific Railroad Company, De- fendant, to petition of The United States to reopen proceedings served August 16, 1963 __ Reply of intervener Southern Pacific Company to petition of United States to reopen proceed- ing served August 21, 1963 Letter from Secretary, Interstate Commerce Commission to Mr. John N. Dougherty, De- partment of Justice, dated September 10, 1963 Record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division — Complaint : Exhibit “A”—Report and Order of the Com- mission, Division 2, Commissioner Freas, de- cided July 26, 1962 and served August 2, 1962 Exhibit “B”—Notice of denial of hearing by the full Commission, dated July 12, 1963 and service date of July 30, 1963 _...__ Exhibit “C”—Report and Order recommended by Hearing Examiner, John F. Wright, dated July 31, 1961 and served August 10, 1961 Order granting motion of Northern Pacific Rail- way Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Com- pany and Walla Walla Valley Railway Com- pany to intervene as defendants, November 4, 1963 Answer of intervening defendants Northern Pa- cific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Rail- road Company, and Walla Walla Valley Rail- way Company filed November 4, 1963 ______. Order granting motion of Union Pacific Railroad Company to intervene as defendant, November 26, 1963 Original Print Record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of. California, Southern Division—Continued Answer of intervening defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company filed November 26, 1963 __ 886 661 Order granting motion of Interstate Commerce Commission to intervene as defendant, Decem- ber 16, 1963 890 664 Answer of intervening defendant, the Interstate Commerce Commission filed December 16, 1963 891 665 Answer of the United States of America filed December 16, 1963 896 669 Order granting motion of the Southern Pacific Company to intervene as a defendant, dated December 16, 1963 898 669 Answer of intervening defendant Southern Pa- cific Company filed December 16, 1968 __.__ 900 670 Order allowing intervention of The Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, dated Janu- ary 13, 1964 905 674 Answer of intervening defendant, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company filed January 13, 1964 907 675 Transcript of hearing on motion to enjoin, set aside, suspend and annul order of Interstate Commerce Commission 909 676 Appearances 909 677 Argument by Mr. Treanor on behalf of plain- tiff 910 ~=677 Argument by Mr. Ginnane on behalf of Inter- state Commerce Commission 938 693 Argument by Mr. Higgins on behalf of Union Pacific, intervening defendant __ - Argument by Mr. Farrell on behalf of North- ern Pacific, the Camas Prairie and Walla Walla Railroads 975 715 Rebuttal argument by Mr. Treanor ; 983 720 Opinion and judgment, Zirpoli, J.—Order deny- ing petition, June 19, 1964 960 707 Record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division—Continued Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States Designation of additional portions of the record, ete. Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) — Order noting probable jurisdiction Original Print 1003 735 1011 740 1015 741 1016 742 1 [fol.1] Secretary’s Certificate to following transcript (omitted in printing). [fol. 5] BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Docket No. 33679 Tue Western Paciric Ramroap Company, SACRAMENTO NorTHERN Raiuway, and Tiwewater SourHern Rarway Company, Complainants, vs. Camas Prarie RR. Co., Great Nortoern Raruway Com- PANY, NortHern Paciric Ramuway Company, Paciric Coast RR. Co., Spokane InrernationaL Rarroap Com- PANY, Union Paciric Ramroap Company, WALLA WALLA VALLEY RarLway Company, Wasuineton, Ipano & Mon- TANA Rattway Company, and THe Artcuison, Topeka AnD Santa Fe Ramway Company, Defendants. CompLaint—Filed February 10, 1961 To the Interstate Commerce Commission: The complainants, The Western Pacific Railroad Com- pany, Sacramento Northern Railway and Tidewater South- ern Railway Company, hereby charge that they are unlaw- fully prevented from publishing competitive through joint rates and competitive through routes with the defendants, Camas Prairie RR. Co., Great Northern Railway Company, Northern Pacific Railway Company, Pacific Coast RR. Co., Spokane International Railroad Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Walla Walla Valley Railway Company, Washington, Idaho & Montana Railway Company, and The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, on [fol. 6] freight traffic moving between California points on 2 the one hand, and points on defendants’ lines in Oregon, Washington and Idaho on the other. Complainants serve the territory herein involved through, and together with its connections, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company, and as the complainants seek the pre- scription of through routes and joint rates to which these carriers will be necessary parties, they are herein named as defendants. However, the defendants, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company, have clearly stated their will- ingness to voluntarily join with complainants in the estab- lishment of the sought through routes and joint rates be- tween points in California and points on the lines of the other defendants in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. By this complaint, therefore, complainants respectfully show: I That the complainants, The Western Pacific Railroad Company, Sacramento Northern Railway and Tidewater Southern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as “Western Pacific’, “Sacramento Northern”, “Tidewater Southern”, or “complainants”, are all corporations orga”- ized and existing under the laws of the State of California; that they are all common carriers by railroad engaged in [fol.7] the transportation of property in interstate and foreign commerce and as such are all subject to the pro- visions of the Interstate Commerce Act. II That all of the defendants, hereinafter referred to as “Northern Pacific”, “Union Pacific”, “Great Nor‘hern”, “Santa Fe”, or in the case of Camas Prairie, Pacific Coast, Spokane International, Walla Walla Valley, Washington, Idaho & Montana, as the “short line connections of defen- dants Northern Pacific and Union Pacific”, are common carriers by railroad engaged in the transportation of prop- 3 erty in interstate and foreign commerce and as such com- mon carriers are subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. III That the complainant, Western Pacific, is an integral part of a north-south route via Bieber, California, which route is known as the “Inside Gateway”; that the “Inside Gateway” route is composed principally of Western Pacific and the defendants, Great Northern and Santa Fe, and serves among others, points in California on the one hand, and points in Oregon, Washington and Idaho on the other ; that the principal California terminals of this route are at San Diego and Los Angeles, California, on the Santa Fe; on Western Pacific in the San Francisco-Oakland, Cali- fornia, Metropolitan Area; and that the principal northern (fol. 8] terminals are on the Great Northern at Portland, Oregon, and Seattle and Spokane, Washington. That the complainant, Western Pacific, connects with the defendant, Santa Fe, at Stockton, California, and with the defendant, Great Northern, at Bieber, California; that the defendant, Great Northern connects with the defen- dants, Union Pacific and Northern Pacific, at Portland, Oregon; that the complainants, Sacramento Northern and Tidewater Southern serve points in northern California and connect with the complainant, Western Pacific, at vari- ous points in northern California. IV That defendants, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific, with their short line connections, also named herein as de- fendants, make up a north-south route between California and other points, on the one hand, and on the other, points and places in the States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, via connections with the Southern Pacific Company at Port- land, Oregon; that through routes and joint through rates now exist and have for many years existed for the routing of traffic between points on the Northern Pacific and Union 4 Pacific, including their short line connections and points in various western states, including southern and northern California, served by the Southern Pacific Company and the defendant, Santa Fe: That the following named tariffs {fol.9] are representative of those which publish such through routes and joint through rates: 1.C.C. Number of Pacific Southcoast Freight Tariff Number Bureau, Agent 1-8 1352 60-M 1420 80-I 1536 241-E 1577 295-D 1677 297-D 1678 1016 1590 Vv That complete interchange facilities have existed for many years and now continue to exist between the com- plainant, Western Pacific, and the defendant, Great North- ern, at Bieber, California, and between the complainant, Western Pacific, and defendant, Santa Fe, at Stockton, California; and between the complainant, Western Pacific, and the complainants, Sacramento Northern and Tidewater Southern, at various northern California points; that com- plete interchange facilities now exist and for many years have existed between the defendants, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific and defendant, Great Northern, at Portland, Oregon. VI That complainants have requested defendants, Northern Pacific, Union Pacific and their short line connections, to [fol. 10] join complainants and the Santa Fe and Great Northern, in the publication of through rates and divisions between California points and points in Oregon, Washing- ton and Idaho; that such through rates and divisions have been sought on the same basis as that granted by said de- fendants to complainants’ competitor, the Southern Pacific Company; that defendants, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific, together with their short line connections, unlaw- fully refuse to join with complainants and the Santa Fe and Great Northern in such joint through routes and rates as they have accorded the Southern Pacific on traffic be- tween the territory herein described; that this refusal has been complete except to the very limited extent that the defendants have joined with the defendant, Great Northern and the complainant, Western Pacific, in joint through rates and routes via Bieber on motor vehicles originating at Decoto and Melrose (Oakland), California, and on cast iron pipe from Decoto, California, and to those instances where the Interstate Commerce Commission has heretofore prescribed through routes and joint rates such as on live- stock and the Class Rates. VII That by reason of this unlawful and unreasonable re- fusal, the combination of rates and charges are the appli- cable rates and charges on traffic moving via the “Inside Gateway” between points in Oregon, Washington and Idaho on lines of the defendants, Northern Pacific and Union __ [fol. 11] Pacifie and their short line connections, and points in northern and southern California, Such combination rates exceed the joint through rates over Portland, Oregon, which apply when the routing south of Portland is via Southern Pacific Company only, or via Southern Pacific Company and Santa Fe. VIII That by reason of the relationship of rates outlined in paragraph VII herein, complainants are unable to compete with the Southern Pacific Company for traffic moving be- tween points in California and points in Oregon, Washing- ton and Idaho on the lines of the defendants, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific and their short line connections named as defendants herein. Ix That this refusal and failure by defendants, constitutes a violation of Sections 1(4) and 3(4) of Part I of the Inter- state Commerce Act and is contrary to the provisions of the National Transportation Policy. x That the Commission is requested to prescribe just, rea- sonable and nondiscriminatory competitive joint through rates, charges, practices and through routes applicable to the transportation of freight traffic moving between points in California and points in the States of Oregon, Wash- ington and Idaho via the “Inside Gateway” through Port- [fol.12] land, Oregon, so that complainants and defen- dants, Great Northern and Santa Fe, may participate on a basis equal to that being maintained by the defendants, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific and their short line connections, with complainants’ competitor, Southern Pacific Company, also through Portland, Oregon. XI That complainants are willing, and they are informed that their connections, Santa Fe and Great Northern, are also w'lling to voluntarily establish such just, reasonable, equitable, nonpreferential and nonprejudicial divisions as will assure the Northern Pacific, Union Pacific and their short line connections the same earnings under the sought routes and rates as the latter carriers are now earning on the involved traffic which they now interchange with the Southern Pacific Company at Portland, Oregon, when and if the sought rates are made effective; that this proceeding should be held open to allow the parties an opportunity to voluntarily establish such just, reasonable, equitable, non- preferential and nonprejudicial divisions; that in the event of failure to voluntarily establish such divisions the pro- ceeding should be assigned for further hearing so that the Commission may determine and prescribe just, reasonable, equitable, nonpreferential and nonprejudicial divisions as between the parties. XII That the traffic covered by this complaint, and the re- [fo]. 13] lief sought thereon, includes freight traffic gen- erally of whatever description or class of service, together with all terminal services, allowances, transit and other privileges, including, but not limited to diversion and re- consignment in connection therewith; that the relief is sought wherever such arrangements do not already exist - via the “Inside Gateway” in conjunction with complain- ants; that complainants seek equal treatment with their competitor, Southern Pacific Company, on traffic moving between points in California on the one hand, and points on the lines of the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific and their short line connections in Oregon, Washington and Idaho on the other; that complainants seek this relief of such equal treatment to the same extent and/or on the same basis as such joint rates, routing and privileges are now, or in the future may be, accorded their competitor, Southearn Pacific Company and its connections. XIII That by reason of the facts stated in the foregoing para- graphs, the failure and refusal of the defendants to estab- lish competitive joint through rates and charges and through routes applicable to the freight traffic from and to the points hereinabove described, constitute violations by defendants of Sections 1(4) and 3(4), Part I of the In- terstate Commerce Act; are contrary to the National Trans- portation Policy; and deprive the public and complainants of the use of reasonable through routes at reasonable and [fol. 14] nondiscriminatory through joint rates which are necessary and desirable in the public interest. Wherefore, complainants pray that defendants may be severally required to answer the charges herein; that after due hearing and investigation, an order of the Commission 8 be made commanding said defendants, and each of them, to cease and desist from the aforesaid violations of the Inter- state Commerce Act and the National Transportation Policy and requiring said defendants to establish, put in force, maintain and apply in the future to the transportation of the freight traffic hereinabove described in lieu of the exist- ing unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory combination rates and charges and practices, just, reasonable, nondis- criminatory and competitive joint through rates, charges and practices and through routes; in the event defendants fail and refuse voluntarily to establish just, reasonable, equitable, nonpreferential and nonprejudicial divisions of said joint rates and charges, the Commission by its order determine and prescribe such divisions; and that the Com- mission enter such other and further order or orders as it may deem meet and proper in the circumstances. Dated at San Francisco, California, this 6th eeian of {fol. 15] February, 1961. Respectfully submitted, Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran- cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants. {fol. 17] BEFoRE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ICC 33679 (Title omitted] SeparRaTeE ANSWER OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND Santa FE Rartway Company—Filed March 2, 1961 For answer to the complaint herein, defendant, The Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Railway Company states that it is willing to join with complainants and other rail carriers in establishing the joint rates and through routes which complainants ask the Commission to prescribe, and 9 therefore consents to the entry against it of appropriate orders granting the relief prayed for by complainants. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Com- pany, By Roland J. Lehman, S. R. Brittingham, Jr., Its Attorneys. 1211 Railway Exchange, Chicago, Illinois. Dated: February 28, 1961. [fol.18] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing). [fol. 19] BerorE THE Interstate ComMERCE CoMMISSION Docket No. 33679 [Title omitted] SeparaTE ANSWER OF NorTHERN Paciric Ramuway CoMPaNy, Camas Prarrte Ramroap Company and WatLa WaLLa VauLey Ramway Company—Filed March 10, 1961 Come now the above-named defendants and in answer to the complaint in this proceeding respectfully state: 1. These defendants admit that they are common car- riers by railroad engaged in the transportation of property in interstate and foreign commerce and are subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act as alleged in Paragraph II of said complaint. 2. Except as above admitted, these defendants deny each and every other allegation in said complaint. Wherefore, defendants pray that the complaint in this proceeding be dismissed. Northern Pacific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company, Walla Walla Valley Railway Company, By M. L. Countryman, Jr., Earl F. Requa, Its Attorneys. 10 Dated: March 7, 1961. 1018 Northern Pacific Bldg., St. Paul 1, Minnesota. [fol. 20] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing). {fol. 21] BerorE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Docket No. 33679 [Title omitted] Answer oF Union Pacrtric Ratmtroap Company and SPoKANE INTERNATIONAL Rartroap Company—Filed March 13, 1961 The above-named defendants, for answer to the com- plaint in this proceeding, respectfully state: 1. These defendants admit that they are common car- riers of property by railroad in interstate commerce sub- ject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, as alleged in Paragraph II of said complaint. 2. These defendants deny each and every other allega- tion in Paragraphs I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII of said complaint. Wherefore, defendants pray that the complaint in this proceeding be dismissed. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Spokane Interna- tional Railroad Company, By L. W. Hobbs, John J. Burchell, Their Attorneys. Dated: March 10, 1961. 1416 Dodge Street, Omaha 2, Nebraska. [fol. 22] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing). [fol. 24] BerorE THE InTERsTATE CoMMERCE CoMMISSION Docket No. 33679 [Title omitted] ANSWER oF Great NorTHERN RatLway Company and Paciric Coast R. R. Co.—Filed March 15, 1961 Defendants Great Northern Railway Company and Pa- cific Coast R. R. Co. for answer to the complaint herein: A Admit and allege that they now are and have been will- ing to establish voluntarily on traffic moving between Cali- fornia and Idaho, Oregon and Washington via the “Inside Gateway” a general line of competitive joint through freight rates to and from stations reached via defendants Union [fol. 25] Pacific and Northern Pacific and their short-line connections. Such joint through freight rates would be equal to and competitive with those applicable via the route of Southern Pacific in connection with such other defen- dants. These answering defendants further admit and al- lege that they are willing to establish just, reasonable, equitable, nonpreferential and nonprejudicial divisions on traffic moving under such rates. These defendants allege, in addition, that to and from stations in Oregon, Washing- ton and Idaho on their own lines and the lines of short-line connections of Great Northern there is now applicable a general line of joint through freight rates via the Inside Gateway competitive with rates via Southern Pacific. It is now and has been the policy of these answering defen- dants to preserve and foster the Inside Gateway as a route for all traffic between points in the states described moving under rates within the control of these answering defen- dants. 12 II. To the extent that the complaint herein alleges a failure of the defendants Union Pacific, Northern Pacific and their short-line connections to join with complainants, Santa Fe, and Great Northern in joint through freight rates via the Inside Gateway fully competitive with those in which Union Pacific and Northern Pacific now participate in connection [fol. 26] with Southern Pacific, these answering defendants, Great Northern and Pacific Coast, allege that they have no control over and are not responsible for such failure. If the situation resulting therefrom is violative of any provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act or of the National Trans- portation Policy, these answering defendants, because of the facts stated in this answer, are not chargeable there- with. Wherefore, these answering defendants pray that this Commission take such action with respect to the complaint herein as may be warranted by the facts to be shown by the parties and as shall be consistent with the allegations of this answer. Dated March 13, 1961. Anthony Kane, L. E. Torinus, R. P. Tjossem, Wood- row L. Taylor, Attorneys for Defendants Great Northern Railway Company and Pacific Coast R. R. Co., 175 East Fourth Street, St. Paul 1, Minnesota. , [fol. 27] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing). [fol. 28] Brrore THE InTERsTaTE COMMERCE COMMISSION ; Docket No. 33679 [Title omitted] Answer or WasHIncTon, IpaHo, AND MonTANA Rat.way Company—Filed March 16, 1961 The above-named defendant, for answer to the complaint in this proceeding, respectfully states: 1, The defendant is a common carrier of property by railroad in interstate commerce subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce, Act, as alleged in Paragraph II of said complaint. . 2. The Washington, Idaho, and Montana Railway has a physical connection and interchange traffic ONLY with the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Great N orth- ern Railway Company at Palouse, Washington, and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railway Com- pany at Bovill, Idaho. 3.. The Washington, Idaho and Montana Railway Com- pany is a party to certain tariffs named in the complaint and does participate in through routes and joint rates with the Great Northern Railway Company and the Western Pacific Railway Company to the extent it has been requested and is able to handle traffic with the GN-WP. 4. The Washington, Idaho and Montana Railway Com- pany does not have through routes and joint rates with the Northern Pacific Railway Company or other defendants (except the Great Northern Railway) since it is not the dominating factor in determining participation in sought routes and rates. 5. The Washington, Idaho and Montana Railway Com- pany denies other allegations named in complaint. Washington, Idaho and Montana Railway Company, By A. K. Hinckle, Vice President. . 14 Dated: March 10, 1961. P. O. Box 600, Lewiston, Idaho. [fol. 29] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing). [fol. 31] [File endorsement omitted] [fol. 32] BerorE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Docket No. 33679 [Title omitted] Petition or SouTHerRN Paciric Company For LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN Opposition To CompLaiInt—Filed at Hear- ing, May 8, 1961 Comes now your petitioner, Southern Pacific Com- pany, and respectfully represents that it has an inter- est in the matters in controversy in the above-entitled pro- ceeding and desires to intervene in and become a party to said proceeding, and for grounds of the proposed in- tervention says: I Petitioner is a Delaware corporation which owns or operates property situated in the states of Oregon, Cali- fornia, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Texas, and is a carrier by railroad subject to Part I of the In- terstate Commerce Act. [fol. 33] II Petitioner’s lines of railroad connect with the lines of railroad of defendants Northern Pacific Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company at Portland, Ore. Through routes and joint rates exist and have existed for many years for the interchange of traffic between said de- fendants and petitioner, said through routes and joint rates covering freight traffic moving generally between 15 points on the lines of said defendants in Oregon, Wash- ington and Idaho, on the one hand, and points in Cali- fornia, on the other hand. Said routes constitute reason- able through routes between said points, and said joint rates are just and reasonable. Il The violation of section 3(4) of the Interstate Com- merce Act alleged in the complaint in this proceeding raises the issue of the favorableness of the transportation conditions of the lines of railroad comprising the Bieber Route between Portland, Ore., and California points (re- ferred to in paragraph III of said complaint), on the one hand, and the transportation conditions of the lines of petitioner between said points (referred to in paragraph IV of said complaint), on the other hand. IV The position of petitioner is in opposition to the relief sought in this proceeding. Wherefore said Southern Pacific Company prays leave to intervene and be treated as a party hereto, with the (fol. 34] right to have notice of and appear at the taking of testimony, produce and cross-examine witnesses, and be heard by counsel upon brief or at the oral argument, if oral argument is granted. Dated at San Francisco, Calif., this 5th day of May, 1961. Charles W. Burkett, Jr., Attorney for Petitioner. Duly sworn to by T. F. Ryan, jurat omitted in printing. 16 [fol. 37] BerorE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Docket No. 33679 In the Matter of: Tue Western Paciric Ramroap Company, et al., Complainants, v. Camas Prareire Rattroap Company, et al., Defendants. Transcript of Hearing—Monday, May 8, 1961 Room 226-A, Old Mint Building Fifth and Mission Streets San Francisco, California [fol. 38] PROCEEDINGS Exam. Wright: Come to order, please, gentlemen. @ & eo @ e oe & APPEARANCES Who appears for the complainant? Mr. Treanor: Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Francisco, California. I am an attorney admitted to practice. Exam. Wright: Any further appearances for the com- plainant? Mr. Treanor: No, sir. Exam. Wright: Who appears for the defendants? Mr. Hobbs: L. W. Hobbs and William P. Higgins, 1416 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska, appearing for the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Spokane International Railroad Company. We have both been admitted to prac- tice before the Commission. Mr. Farrell: Frank S. Farrell, Room 1008, Northern Pacific Building, St. Paul, Minnesota. 17 I appear on behalf of the Northern Pacific Railway Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company, and the (fol. 39] Walla Walla Valley Railway Company. I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Com- mission. Exam. Wright: Any further appearances on behalf of the defendants? Mr. Tjosseni: R. Paul Tjosseni, 404 Union Street, Se- attle 1, Washington, appearing for the Great Northern Railway Company. I am an attorney admitted to practice. Mr. Pfrommer: Frederick G. Pfrommer, 114 Sansome Street, San Francisco. I am an attorney admitted to prac- tice. I am appearing on behalf of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, named as a defendant in this proceeding. However, our formal answer already filed with the Com- mission states that we consent to the entry against us of appropriate orders granting the relief prayed for by complainant. Exam. Wright: Any further appearances for the de- fendant? Mr. Hinckle: My name is A. K. Hinckle, vice-president of the Washington, Idaho and Montana Railroad Com- pany, named as a defendant. My appearance today is in support of the complainant. I am not admitted to practice before the Commission. Exam. Wright: As a full-time employee, your appear- ance is noted. Any further appearances? Mr. Burkett: Mr. Examiner, my name is Charles W. Burkett, Jr. I am an attorney-at-law, admitted to prac- (fol. 40] tice before the Commission. At this time I would like to tender a petition for leave to intervene in opposition to the complaint, original and one copy for you, one copy for the reporter, I believe. Exam. Wright: Are there any further petitions for in- tervention? (No response.) 18 Exam. Wright: Any further appearances? Mr. Allen: Mr. Examiner, my name is A. R. Allen. I am manager of the Portland Freight Traffic Association. I am admitted to practice before the Commission. Our appearance at this moment is as an interested arty. Should I have given my address on that, sir? Exam. Wright: For the benefit of the reporter, yes. Mr. Allen: 907 Oregon Bank Building, Portland 4, Oregon. Exam. Wright: Are there any further appearances? (No response.) Exam. Wright: If there are no further appearances, do the parties wish to examine this petition for inter- vention? Mr. Treanor: So far as the complainant is concerned, Your Honor, we do not. We are delighted to have them in. Mr. Burkett: We are delighted to be here. Exam. Wright: Are there any objections to the peti- tion? (No response.) Exam. Wright: Hearing none, the petition is granted. {fol.41] As I mentioned previously, this is a complaint proceeding, and I believe there is no need of any state- ment regarding the issues. They are pretty well framed by the complaint and answers. Mr. Treanor: I would like to call Mr. Wadsworth. 19 T. P. Wapsworth was duly sworn and testified as fol- lows: Exam. Wright: Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Exam. Wright: On the record. Mr. Treanor: Your Honor, this witness has prepared his testimony in statement form. I would like to request the permission of the Examiner for Mr. Wadsworth to read this statement as his direct testimony. Exam. Wright: Does the statement make reference to the Exhibits 1 through 16, which were just marked off the record? Mr. Treanor: Yes, Mr. Examiner, and they are referred to in order, as we come to them. [fol.42] Exam. Wright: And this statement, copies of it, have been provided all the parties? Mr. Treanor: Yes, sir, it was provided for them this morning in the hearing room. (Complainants’ Exhibits Nos. 1 through 16, inclusive, Witness Wadsworth, were marked for identification.) Exam. Wright: I wonder—it is quite voluminous. I was thinking possibly of saving time by having it entered into the record the same as if read. [fol. 43] Direct examination. By Mr. Treanor: Q. Mr. Wadsworth, I would like to direct your atten- tion to your exhibit which has been marked for identifi- cation as No. 9. . You have called my attention to a correction which you desire to make in that exhibit. Would you please state for the record the nature of that correction in Ex- hibit for identification No. 9? 20 A. I would like to eliminate the Columns 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, lines 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Hobbs: One page? Mr. Treanor: One page. The Witness: The first page. Exam. Wright: Will you state that again? Columns— The Witness: Columns 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, lines 1, 2 and 3. By Mr. Treanor: Q. For clarification, Mr. Wadsworth, you are talking about the elimination of those columns only to the extent that they refer or apply in connection with the specific lines that you have mentioned? A. That is right. Q. You do not desire to take out those columns in their entirety? Exam. Wright: I think that is clear. [fol.44] The Witness: Also, the same columns for line 14, I believe it is 14. Mr. Farrell: On the same page? Exam. Wright: The same page? The Witness: The same page. Exam. Wright: Exhibit 9 is so modified. Thank you very much, Mr. Wadsworth. If there are no further questions, you are excused until tomorrow morn- ing, and I direct that the reporter enter into the record, the same as if read, the 3l-page statement headed, “State- ment of T. P. Wadsworth.” (Witness excused.) (The document referred to is copied into the record in words and .ig’ res, as follows:) 21 SraTeMent or T. P. WapswortH My name is T. P. Wadsworth. My business address is 526 Mission Street, San Francisco 5, California. I am employed by the Western Pacific Railroad Company as Assistant Director of Pricing, a position sometimes iden- tified by other railroads as Assistant Freight Traffic Manager. I have been continuously employed in the field of trans- portation, primarily dealing with rates and rate practices, since 1926. I have been with the Western Pacific since 1929. I have a Bachelor of Science degree granted by the [fol.45] University of California at Berkeley. I am a registered practitioner before the Interstate Commerce Commission. My present duties include, among other things, the supervision of the preparation of data for sub- mission to the Interstate Commerce Commission and va- rious State regulatory bodies. I submit this statement on behalf of the complainants. The Northern Pacific, whose rails reach no point in California, maintains joint rates with the Southern Pa- cific via Portland, Oregon, in order to participate in traffic between points in California and points in Oregon, Wash- ington, and Northern Idaho. The Northern Pacific, having an interchange at Port- land also with the Great Northern, has refused to publish rates through this interchange, thence via Bieber, in con- nection with the Western Pacific, Sacramento Northern and Tidewater Southern, the complainants in these pro- ceedings. The Union Pacific, whose own rails reach California only in the Los Angeles area, participates in joint rates between points in California on the complainants, and points on its lines, Huntington, Oregon, and east, includ- ing all stations, in Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Montana and Wyoming. Such joint rates are competitive with those maintained by the Union Pacific with the Southern Pacific via Wells, Nevada, or Ogden, Utah. This segment of the Union Pacific was formerly known as the “Oregon 22 [fol.46] Short Line Railroad”. The Union Pacific par- ticipates via Portland, Oregon, with the Southern Pacific in joint rates between points in California and points on its line west of Huntington, Oregon, located in the States of Oregon, Washington, and Northern Idaho, but has de- ~ clined to participate with complainants, from or to the same points, via Portland, Oregon, thence via Bieber, Cali- fornia, over the routes presently in effect between com- plainants and the Great Northern, a connection of the Union Pacific at Portland, Oregon. ~~ This segment of the Union Pacific was formerly known as the “Oregon, Washington, Railroad & Navigation Com- pany.” The Great Northern participates with complainants in joint rates via Bieber, California, between points in Cali- fornia and Portland, Oregon, and other points on its lines in Oregon, Washington, and Northern Idaho. Such joint rate policy of the Great Northern and the complainants has been in effect since 1931 when the Bieber route was constructed under authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s Finance Dockets Nos. 7439, 7440 and 7781 (166 ICC 3 and 170 ICC 399). Such joint rates were then, and are now, generally the same as those published by the Great Northern with the Southern Pacific via Portland, Oregon, which were then, and still are, the same generally as the joint rates pub- lished by the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific via Port- land, Oregon, thence Southern Pacific. {fol.47] Joint rates are now provided in connection with the Santa Fe as follows: 1. It participates in joint through rates via Bieber to or from points on the Great Northern. 2. It participates in joint through rates in connec- tion with Southern Pacific via Portland to or from points on the Great Northern, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific. My Exhibit numbered 1 for identification, is a map which shows the Pacific Coast areas involved in this case, as well as the locations of the lines and routes of the complain- ants and defendants. This map is a situation map designed to show this information in a general way. It was not drawn to scale or intended to be completely accurate in all respects. Exhibit 2 is another map which shows the points in Cali- fornia served by complainants, as well as the relationship between such points and those situated on the Southern Pacific, with whom the defendants maintain joint rates via Portland, Oregon. Complainants operate 987 miles of railway lines in the State of California, as shown by Table 1 of Exhibit 3. The larger cities in the territory served by complainants are listed in Table 2 of Exhibit 3. Through joint class and commodity rates are in effect with routing via Bieber between points on complainants’ (fol. 48] lines shown in Exhibit 2 and points in Oregon, Washington and Northern Idaho on the Great Northern and its short line connections other than Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. These rates are published in tariffs is- sued by the Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau named in Table 3, Exhibit 3. Tariffs in Table 3, Exhibit 3, also contain rates between points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific in the Northwest and points in California on Southern Pacific with routing via Portland, as shown by my Exhibit No. 4. The details of the routes now published via Bieber in the above tariffs are shown by my Exhibit No. 5, containing copies of pages of routing in PSFB Tariff 1-S, used as representative. These routes are summarized in Table 4 in Exhibit 3. Some of the points on the Great Northern, to or from which present rates with complainants apply, are equipped with facilities for the interchange of freight with the North- ern Pacific or Union Pacific. These stations are named in Table 5 in Exhibit 3, and are shown as well, in red, on Ex- hibits 6 and 7. 24 Some stations served in common by the Great Northern- Northern Pacific or Great Northern-Union Pacific, have no facilities for the interchange of freight; those in Table 6 in Exhibit 3 are representative. Table 7 in Exhibit 3 outlines the basis of charges gen- erally applicable now, on traffic moving via Bieber between points in Oregon, Washington and Northern Idaho on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific and points in California on the complainants. [fol.49] Table 7 in Exhibit 3 shows that shipments may move from or to points in California via complainants’ existing routes with the Great. Northern via Bieber to or from industries on the tracks of the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific at stations named in Table 5, Exhibit 3. They will be assessed the existing through joint rates of complainants and the Great Northern without extra charges for switching by Northern Pacific or Union Pacific in some cases, and with such charges being in addition, in others. The reason for the difference is that the Great Northern does not absorb the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific switching charge in all instances on traffic moving via Bie- ber. Its tariff No. 2500-E, ICC A-8996 permits absorption of connecting lines’ switching charges only on “competi- tive” traffic. Item 110 of that tariff defines “competitive” traffic as that “which at time of shipment may be handled at equal rates (exclusive of switching charges) from same point of origin to same destination via other carriers, one of which performs the switching service or absorbs the switching charge of the line serving the industry.” Thus, under this tariff, the Great Northern absorbs the switching charges of the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific at stations named in Table 5, Exhibit 3, only when the traffic has moved via Bieber from or to points on complain- ants’ lines shown in Table 8 in Exhibit 3. This traffic is “competitive” since the points in Table 8 in Exhibit 3 are [fol. 50] common with the Southern Pacific, and the rates from or to such points via Bieber are the same as apply now between the same points via other routes, such as: SP-Portland-GN, SP-Portland-NP, SP-Portland-UP. The stations on complainants’ lines, originating or ter- minating traffic on which the Great Northern absorbs Northern Pacific or Union Pacific switching charges, as above stated, are divisible into two main classes. The first class covers the points having facilities for in- terchange with Southern Pacific. They are designated on Exhibit 2 by a *” reference mark, and are summarized in Table 8 of Exuxbit 3. The second class covers those which while served in com- mon with the Southern Pacific, have no interchange facili- ties with that line. Those stations are underlined in Ex- hibit 2, and are summarized in Table 9 of Exhibit 3. Shipments from or to points served only by complainants such as those named in Table 10 of Exhibit 3, are subject to extra charges for switching by the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific at stations in Table 5, Exhibit 3, when routed to or from the stations in Table 5 of said Exhibit 3 via the Great Northern via Bieber. This is due to the fact that the traffic is not “competitive” as present combinations be- (fol. 51] tween points in Tables 5 and 10 via Bieber-GN- Portland-NP or UP are higher than rates now published via Bieber-GN. The amount of the unabsorbed switching charge depends upon the station where the switching is performed or upon the switching zone where the industry is located. Repre- sentative charges of this kind are furnished in Table 11 of Exhibit 3. Traffic moving to or from points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific which are not also served by the Great Northern, such as those listed in Table 12 of Exhibit 3, is subject to charges described below: Present charges are combinations of unabsorbed switch- ing charges and through rates, as to shipments from or to points which complainants serve in common with Southern 26 Pacific, where interchanges exist as described by Table 8 of Exhibit 3. The switching charges cover the movement of the freight between the industry track on complainants and the interchange with the Southern Pacific. The rate covers the movement beyond. the station via Southern Pa- cific through Portland to or from the exclusive point on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. This switching charge is $6.89 per car and is published in tariffs named in Table 13 of Exhibit 3. This switching charge is assessed, in addition to appli- cable freight rate, because it is not absorbed by the South- ern Pacific. This charge is not absorbed because Southern Pacific absorbs connecting lines’ switching charges only on [fol. 52] “competitive” traffic, and this traffic is not “com- petitive” as defined by Item 10 of SP Tariff No. 230-K, ICC No. 4960. Denial by the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific of through joint rates via Bieber deprives complainants of an opportunity to participate in line haul service on this traffic. A good example is the movement of canned goods from Sacramento, California, to points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific in Oregon, Washington, and Northern Idaho. In 1959 the Campbell Soup Company, whose plant at Sacramento is located on the Western Pacific, shipped over 150 carloads to exclusive points on the Northern Pa- cific and Union Pacific. This traffic moved from Sacramento via Southern Pacific since the combination rates applicable via Bieber exceeded the through rates via Southern Pacific- Northern Pacific or Southern Pacific-Union Pacific through Portland. In November, 1960, the Campbell Soup Companv applied to the interested lines for through competitive rates from Sacramento via Bieber to destinations on the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific as well as to points on their short line connecting carriers. The applicant stated at that time that the use of existing routes via Southern Pacific through Portland imposed additional transportation charges over 27 and above those that would apply if rates were established via Bieber. Such “additional transportation charges” re- ferred to the charges of the Western Pacific for switching (fol. 53] from the plant to the interchange with the South- ern Pacific. At that time, those switching charges were not absorbed by Southern Pacific. However, on March 6, 1961, Southern Pacific published an extraordinary exception to its general practice of ab- sorbing switching charges only on competitive traffic. Effec- tive on that date, it published a provision in Item 995 of its Tariff 230-K, ICC 4960, authorizing absorption of the charge made by the Western Pacific for switching freight from industry tracks at Sacramento to its interchange track with Southern Pacific. This absorption was published on “Canned or Preserved Foodstuffs (not cold pack nor frozen) and other articles moving to stations on the North- ern or Union Pacific in Oregon, Washington or Idaho, under rates published in Items 4837, 4837.8 or 4838 of PSFB Tariff 1-S, ICC 1352.” A copy of this absorption is reproduced as Exhibit 8. Combinations of line haul rates now apply on shipments between exclusive points on complainants in Table 10 of Exhibit 3, and exclusive points on N orthern Pacific or Union Pacific in Table 6 of Exhibit 3. Exhibit 9 shows examples of the present combinations over Portland, Oregon, using the following rates as factors: Between Portland and points on complainants, the rates used are the present through joint rates published via Bieber by complainants and the Great N orthern. (fol. 54] Between Portland, Oregon, and points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific, the rates used are the present rates published by the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. Exhibit 9 shows that the combinations over Portland applicable via complainants to Bieber-GN. -Portland thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific exceed the present through joint rates published by the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific to Portland thence via Southern Pacific, to 28 or from points in California on the Southern Pacific or the Santa Fe Railway. The lowest combination rates now applicable via any all-rail route, between points on complainants and points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific, are the lower of the combinations described below: 1. Combination over the lowest rated interchange point with the Southern Pacific in California, or 2. Combination over the lowest rated interchange point between the Great Northern and Northern Pa- cific or Union Pacific in Oregon, Washington or North- ern Idaho. Combination rate, now the lowest rate applicable on canned goods from McHenry, California, to Yakima, Washington, via any all-rail route, is an example of the situation where the lowest rate from a point on a com- plainant’s line to a point on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific is a combination over a point in California which is an interchange with the Southern Pacific. This rate is [fol. 55] a combination over Stockton, using the rate from McHenry to Stockton as one factor, and the rate from Stockton to Yakima, as the other. This combination rate applies only via the route of the Tidewater Southern to Stockton, thence via Southern Pacific to Portland, thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. This combination rate prevents Western Pacific from participating in the move- ment of canned goods to Yakima which originates at a local point on the Tidewater Southern, a subsidiary rail- wayline owned by the Western Pacific. The reason is that both the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific have refused to publish the same rates on canned goods from Stockton to Yakima via WP-GN-Portland, as apply now via SP- Portland. Moreover, they have also declined to publish through joint rates on this commodity from McHenry to Yakima via TS-WP-GN-Portland thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. The station, McHenry, is located on the Tidewater Southern between Stockton and Modesto, and would have rates competitive with other shippers in the same general area, if the Northern Pacific or Union Pa- cific would establish the same rates to Yakima from Modesto via TS-WP-GN through Portland as they now maintain from Modesto via Southern Pacific through Portland. Another illustration is the present lowest all-rail rate on canned goods from Yuba City to Walla Walla, Wash- ington. Canners located at Yuba City on the rails of the Sacramento Northern, cannot have their cars switched by [fol. 56] the Sacramento Northern to the Southern Pacific at Yuba City for movement to Walla Walla via SP- Portland-NP or UP under present through joint rates, since Sacramento Northern and Southern Pacific main- tain no interchange at Yuba City. The lowest rates now applicable are combinations over Marysville, using as fac- tors, the local rate of the Sacramento Northern from Yuba City to Marysville, plus the joint rate of the Southern Pacific-Northern Pacific or Southern Pacific-Union Pacific from Marysville to Walla Walla. Here, too, the lowest applicable rate deprives the Western Pacific of an oppor- tunity to participate in traffic originated by the Sacra- mento Northern, its wholly owned subsidiary. This is due to the refusals of the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific to publish rates to Walla Walla, either from Yuba City via SN-WP-GN-Portland or from Marysville via WP-GN- Portland, the same as apply now between the same points via SP-Portland thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. Present rates on other traffic, between points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific and points on complain- ants, are combinations over junction points in the North- west between the Northern Pacific and Great Northern, _or the Union Pacific and Great Northern. Forest products are an example, where the lowest rates from Olympia, Shelton and other points in Washington on the Northern Pacific to San Francisco Bay points are combinations over [fol.57] Portland, Oregon, using the following rates as factors: RE ance aren 30 From point of origin to Portland, the rates of the North- ern Pacific in North Pacific Coast Freight Bureau Tariff No. 41-J, ICC No. 994. From Portland to California, the present rates via Bieber in Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau Tariff No. 80-I, ICC 1536. At the present time, the combinations over Portland are lower than the through joint rates on Forest Products published to San Francisco Bay points in PSFB Tariff 80-I, ICC 1536, and the restricted routing to confine the application of the through rates to routes via Portland in connection with Southern Pacific are of no avail. This situation is undoubtedly temporary, as if and when the through rates are adjusted to a level lower than the pres- ent combinations, they will again be subject to the general routing provisions of this tariff, confining their applica- tion to routes between Southern Pacific and Northern Pacific via Portland. In other instances, the lowest combination rate on traffic between points on the complainants and points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific, is a combination over a northern junction point other than Portland. Present rate on canned goods from Oakland, California, to Bellevue, Washington, is an example. Here, the lowest rate is a combination of line haul and switching rates, the latter being absorbed by the Great Northern under authority of [fol. 58] its tariff No. 2500-E, ICC No. A-8996, Item No. 520. The line haul rate is published from Oakland to Seattle, Washington, via WP-Bieber-GN in PSFB Tariff 1-S, ICC No. 1352, and the switching rate is published from Seattle to Bellevue in Northern Pacific Tariff No. 333-B, ICC No. 9801, Item No. 210 of Supplement 12. There are no through joint rates via Bieber between points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific and points on the Santa Fe. On the other hand, through joint rates are in effect now between those points with routing via Northern Pacific or Union Pacific to Portland, Southern Pacific to a junction point in California, thence via the Santa Fe, as shown by Exhibit No. 4. Those joint rates 31 are published both to points located exclusively on the Santa Fe as well as to points served in common by the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific. They are the same, to or from common points, as the rates published via NP or UP-Portland-SP. They do not, however, include points on the Santa Fe in the San Francisco Bay Area. No other rates than combinations are available between the same points via NP or UP-Portland-GN-Bieber-WP- Stockton-AT&SF. Exhibit 9 shows that those combina- tions exceed the joint through rates now in effect via NP or UP-Portland-SP to a junction in California, thence AT&SF. This denies the public of the advantages of al- ternate routes and deprives the Western Pacific of an op- portunity to participate in the movement of traffic between points in California on the Santa Fe and points on the [fol. 59] Northern Pacific and Union Pacific. Exhibit 10 shows the extent of the movement of freight via Bieber from or to points on the Santa Fe from 1955 through 1959. This exhibit shows the following: 1. More than 50 per cent of all the cars handled via Bieber moved from or to points on the Santa Fe. This percentage ranged from a high of 58.5 per cent in 1959 to a low of 54.2 per cent in 1957. 2. The number of cars handled via Bieber froin or to points on the Santa Fe ranged from a high of 34,077 in 1955 to a low of 28,655 in 1958. 3. Southbound traffic predominates. I have determined the following since preparation of Exhibit 9: (a) 1959 traffic via Bieber between points on the Santa Fe and points in the Northwest on the Great Northern produced revenues for the Western Pacific averaging $126.00 per car, northbound, and $116.00 per car, south- bound. (b) Western Pacifie’s revenues would average about $101.00 per car, northbound, and $93.00 per car, south- 32 bound, if the same rates were published between points on the Santa Fe and points on Northern Pacific and Union Pacific via Bieber as apply via Northern Pacific or Union Pacific to Portland, thence via Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe. Exhibit 11 compares the movement of cars from or to {fol. 60] points on the Santa Fe via Bieber with those handled by the Santa Fe in connection with the Southern Paeific through Portland. Prior to analyzing this exhibit, its following aspects should be observed: 1. Santa Fe furnished only its total number of ears, northbound and southbound, separately. Its totals included its movements both in connection with Southern Pacific through Portland and via Bieber. 2. As shown in the exhibit the total cars via Santa Fe moved only between the States of California and Oregon-Washington. 3. Information on the exhibit as to the extent of Santa Fe’s movements via Bieber came from Western Pacifie’s Accounting Department records. Their scope geographically was broader than the information fur- ‘nished by the Santa Fe as they included all shipments via Bieber between points west of transcontinental. 4. Information on the exhibit as to the extent of Santa Fe’s traffic in connection with Southern Pacific was determined by subtracting its traffic via Bieber from the total. It should therefore be evident that the resulting traffic via Santa Fe-Southern Pacific was understated. Exhibit 11 shows that the Santa Fe handled consider- ably more cars of freight via Bieber than in connection [fol.61] with Southern Pacific. The totals of the cars handled, northbound and southbound via each route, are summarized in Table 14 of Exhibit 3. It is reasonable to assume that the Bieber route han- dled a predominating proportion of the traffic which moved to or from points on the Great Northern from or to points on the Santa Fe. This assumption is based upon the fol- lowing facts: : 1. Santa Fe-GN-WP work as partners in the solicita- tion of traffic via Bieber, and as I previously testified, the present rates via Bieber apply only to or from points on the Great Northern. The sales activities of these three lines are coordinated and the lines have close working arrangements. No similat arrangements exist between the Santa Fe and Southern ific. 2. Santa Fe and Western Pacific freight trains sched- ules between California and the Northwest are keyed together to produce the best possible services via Bieber. On the other hand, the Santa Fe has no working schedules with the Southern Pacific on California-North Coast traf- fic. Southern Pacific does not make connections with the Santa Fe’s schedules at Stockton. Its “Star Pacer” train to Portland does not pick up cars at Stockton, and its NCP goes through Stockton too early to connect with Santa Fe’s SWG. 3. Santa Fe has rates from or to more points on its line via Bieber than in connection with Southern Pacific. [fol.62] For example, San Francisco Bay points on the Santa Fe are accorded rates via Bieber, whereas they are not permitted to participate in rates via Southern Pacific through Portland. If the foregoing assumption is true, the preponderance of the traffic handled via Santa Fe in connection with Southern Pacific originated at or was destined to points on the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. Consequently, if an alternate route had been available to or from points on Northern Pacific or Union Pacific via Bieber, it may be reasonably assumed thai it would have handled a large portion of additional traffic (see Table 15, Exhibit 3). 34 Extent or Present Movements Via Breser TO on F'Rom Points on NortrHern Paciric on Union Pactric Complainants’ Accounting Department records show that the Bieber route handled 143 carloads in 1959 and 165 in 1960, which were shipped to or from points on the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific in Oregon, Washing- ton, and Northern Idaho. Included therein were 124 ecar- loads of cast iron pipe in 1959 and 154 in 1960. The cast iron pipe moved from Carpenter, California, under joint through rates published via WP-Bieber-GN-Portland, thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. The remainder consisted of 19 cars of government and commercial freight in 1959 and 11 cars in 1960, as shown by Table 16 in Ex- hibit 3. [fcl. 63] Commercial traffic, other than cast iron pipe, con- sisted of 16 carloads in 1959 and six in 1960. It is described by Table 18 of Exhibit 3. All of the Government traffic moved from military instal- lations in California to Fort Lewis, Washington. It con- sisted of three carloads in 1959 and five in 1960 as described by Table 17, Exhibit 3. The extremely limited amount of traffic handled during the past two years, between points on Northern Pacific or Union Pacific and points on complainants, shows that appli- cable combination rates were too high to permit the traffic to move via Bieber in competition with other routes through Portland, thence Southern Pacific. Extent or ALL Trarric MoveMEeNts Via Bieser Exhibit 12 shows the extent of the movement of all freight traffic handled by complainants via Bieber for the five years from 1955 through 1959. It shows the number of cars and tons handled, together with Western Pacific’s revenues, for the movements via Bieber for both transcontinental and west of transcontinental traffic. The following information is evident from the exhibit: 1. The Bieber route produced about 20 per cent of Western Pacific’s freight revenues. The range was 35 from 19.9 per cent in 1955, 1958 and 1959, to 18.7 per [fol. 64] cent in 1957. 2. Most of the traffic handled via Bieber moved be- tween points west of transcontinental territory. This segment of the traffic via Bieber contributed 83 per cent of the cars and more than 78 per cent of the West- ern Pacific’s revenues. The percentage of west of transcontinental cars handled via Bieber ranged from 86.3 per cent in 1955 to 80.3 per cent in 1958 and 1959. Exhibit 13 compares the cars, tons and Western Pacific’s freight revenues from traffic moving via Bieber to and from points west of transcontinental territory, with those from: minated by complainants, as well as those on which they 1. Other traffic moving via the Western Pacific to and from points west of transcontinental territory. 2. Total revenue freight traffic handled by the West- ern Pacific. This exhibit shows the following: 1. Traffic moving between all points west of trans- continental territory (including Bieber) produced more than 50 per cent of the cars of freight handled by the Western Pacific during the five years from 1955 through 1959, and more than 37 per cent of Western Pacific’s freight revenues. 2. Traffic moving via Bieber between points west of transcontinental territory, produced 46 per cent of the cars and more than 40 per cent of Western Pacific’s freight revenues from all traffic handled between points (fol. 65] west of transcontinental territory. 3. While Western Pacific’s traffic from and to points west of transcontinental territory declined in this pe- riod 15 per cent, the decline via Bieber was only 12.6 per cent. Exhibit 10 shows the number of cars originated and ter- 36 performed intermediate service to or from the Santa Fe and other connections. This exhibit shows the following: 1. The Bieber route produces an important amount of traffic for complainants. 2. Northbound traffic in Column 3 exceeded south- bound in Column 5 in 1955, 1956 and 1957, but in 1958 and 1959 southbound traffic exceeded northbound. I have determined the following information concerning Western Pacific’s revenues from these movements in 1959, excluding its revenues from traffic which moved in connec- tion with the Santa Fe, on which I have already commented: (a) Its revenues from northbound traffic averaged $169.63 per car. (b) Its revenues from southbound traffic averaged $171.86 per car. I have estimated that Western Pacific’s revenues would average about $144.00 per car, northbound, and $146.00 per car southbound, if rates were published via Bieber between [fol. 66] points on Northern Pacific and Union Pacific and points on the complainants and their connections other than the Santa Fe, competitive with those via Northern Pacific-Southern Pacific or Union Pacific-Southern Pacific. Northern Pacific and Union Pacific have made the fol- lowing tariff publications which show that Portland, Ore- gon, is an interchange point on carload traffic with the Great Northern. They have complied with Rule 10(h) of LC.C. Tariff Circular No. 20 which requires distance tables to clearly in- dicate which stations are junction points where it is possi- ble to interchange carload traffic with another railroad without transfer of lading and must name the connecting carriers at each such junction with which such transfer is possible. 37 Northern Pacific’s Table of Distances 1500-I, LC.C. No. 9759 names Portland, Oregon, as a junction point with the Great Northern at which it is possible to interchange car- load traffic without transfer of lading. It also shows that this interchange is through the intermediate switching serv- ice of the Northern Pacific Terminal Company. This provi- sion is a comparatively recent publication having been established effective January 31, 1955 on page 3 of Supple- ment 20 and was designated as resulting in a reduction. While the Northern Pacific’s Table of Distances indicates that its interchange with the Southern Pacific at Portland, Oregon, is by direct track connections, this provision is in- (fol. 67] accurate because other publications show that the interchanges between these two railroads at Portland, also involve intermediate switching services of the Northern Pacific Terminal Company. The following publications are representative : (a) Northern Pacific published on page 408 of The Offi- cial Railway Equipment Register for April 1960, ICC-RER No. 335 of The Railway Equipment and Publication Com- pany, Agent, that its interchange with Southern Pacific at Portland, Oregon is via the Northern Pacific Terminal Company. (b) Southern Pacific Local and Joint Distance Table N 0. 420-D, ICC 4687, shows on page 24, that Portland (Park St.), Oregon, is a point where carload traffic may be inter- changed with the Northern Pacific through the Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon. Shippers are not concerned with the function of the Northern Pacific Terminal Company in these routes, in view of provisions such as Item 735 of PSFB Tariff 1-S, that the joint rates include ail charges for switching at intermediate interchange points on shipments handled through. The Distance Tables show the following with respect to the Great Northern’s interchange at Portland with the Un- ion Pacific. 38 Page 12 of Union Pacific’s Distance Tariff No. 4000-B, ICC 5537 publishes Portland, Oregon, as a station where it is possible to interchange carload traffic between the Union [fol. 68] Pacific and Great Northern without transfer of lading. Page 12 of Great Northern’s Official Table of Distances No. 400-C, ICC A-6710 (effective December 14, 1929), shows Portland, Oregon as a point to interchange carload traffic without transfer of lading, between the Great Northern and other defendants as follows: (a) Northern Pacific (through Northern Pacific Termi- nal Company of Oregon.) (b) Oregon, Washington Railroad and Navigation Com- pany (now the Union Pacific Railroad), through Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon. Page 3 of Supplement 77 of this publication shows that North Portland, Oregon, is another interchange point be- tween the Great Northern and the Union Pacific. This sta- tion is within the switching limits of Portland, Oregon, on the Union Pacific according to Official List of Open and Prepay Stations No. 75, ICC A-40 of Station List Publish- ing Company, Agent. The following tariffs, other than distance tables, provide that the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific interchange freight with the Great Northern at Portland, Oregon: North Pacific Coast Freight Bureau Routing Tariff No. 77-D, ICC 980, publishes the i‘ollowing: Route Numbers Route 5H5 GN-Portland, Oregon, UP 9D5 NP-Portland, Oregon, GN [fol. 69] 13D5 UP-Portland, Oregon, GN 13D17 UP-North Portland, Oregon, GN This tariff also provides that “routes should be read from left to right or from right to left, according to direction in which the shipment moves.” Thus, these routes apply in 39 either direction, both inbound and outbound through Port- land. NPCFB Routing Tariff No. 77-D contains the routes via which the joint rates apply which are published in rate tariffs of the North Pacific Coast Freight Bureau. Item 18710 of NPCFB and PSFB Freight Tariff No. 1016, ICC 1590 provides routing via GN-Portland-UP for class rates published in that tariff: From: GN Ry. stations Nos. 9400 to 10040 (points west of Wenatchee, Washington, to but not including Seattle, including Vancouver, B.C., Bellingham, Everett, and Anacortes. To: UP Stations Nos. 10505 to 10520 ( Kenton, Fir, Ward and Hemlock, Oregon.) 10540 to 10680 (Montavilla, Oregon, to Miller, Ore- gon, including Hood River and The Dalles). 10855 to 11270 (Biggs, Oregon, to Pilot Rock, Ore- gon, including Arlington, Condon, Heppner and Umatilla). 11715—Juniper, Oregon. [fol. 70] 117-8—Wallula J unction, Washington. Item 12420 of PSFB Tariff 220-D, ICC 1514 of PSFB, Agent, provides routing via NP-Portland-GN , Bieber, Cali- fornia, WP or WP and connections via California Junc- tions: Between: Points on Northern Pacific in Washington, Yakima, Washington, and West, including branches. And: Points in California on the Western Pacific and connections (except AT&SF, NWP, SP and VE). Such routes govern the joint rates published on livestock between the points above mentioned. Other tariffs mentioned on the following pages, provide joint rates with routing via WP-GN-Portland-NP or UP; to the extent shown. 40 Cast Iron Pipe Joint rates are published from Carpenter, California, on the Western Pacific to points in Oregon, Washington, and Northern Idaho via WP-Bieber-GN-Portland, thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. These rates are the same as apply between the same points and Decoto, Cali- fornia, on Southern Pacific with routing via Portland, thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. Included in the rates published via Bieber also are rates to various con- nections of the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific, such as the Camas Prairie RR., Washington, Idaho & Montana Ry. [fol. 71] and the Spokane International Ry. Exhibit 14 contains copies of the pages of PSFB Tariff 1-8, ICC 1352, in which these rates are published. Initial publication of rates on cast iron pipe in Exhibit 14 became effective June 21, 1952. It was an adjustment to satisfy a complaint filed by the United States Pipe & Foun- dry Company in Docket 30964. The pipe company had constructed a plant at Carpenter, California, a substation of Decoto, which was located upon the Western Pacific. It alleged violations of Section 1 and 3 of the Act, arising from the fact that the combination rates then applicable to points on the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific, exceeded the through rates published to the same points from Ironton, Utah, on the Union Pacific. About four months after this complaint was filed, the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific concurred to the publi- cation of rates which satisfied the pipe company. Their concurrences were subject to the same divisions north of Portland, on traffic via Bieber and the Great Northern to Portland, as they received from rates published with the Southern Pacific routing via Portland. There has been a regular movement of cast iron pipe un- der these rates; amounting to 124 carloads in 1959 and 154 in 1960. 41 [fol. 73] Automobiles Joint rates are published via WP-GN -Portland, thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific on automobiles from Mel- rose (Oakland) and Decoto, California, on the Western Pacific which are the same as rates between the same points via SP-Portland-NP or UP. Copies of pages of PSFB Tariff 1-S, ICC 1352, contain- ing rates for boxcar service are contained in Exhibit No. 15 and Exhibit No. 16 contains a copy of PSFB Tariff 297-D, ICC 1678 in which are published TOFC rates on automo- biles. These rates were initially published effective October 4. 1959, as a result of ICC Docket 33118, Western Pacific RR. v. Camas Prairie RR. Co. et al. This complaint was filed in July 1959, alleging violations of Section 1(4) and 3(4) of Part I of the Act by refusal and failure of defendants (in- cluding Northern Pacific and Union Pacific) to publish joint through rates with the Western Pacific from Decoto and Melrose (Oakland) via Bieber to the Same extent as was granted to the Southern Pacific by defendants. Shortly after the Commission scheduled a hearing for September Ze 1959, the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific advised. the Commission and the Western Pacific that they would join in the rates and divisions to the extent requested in the complaint. Upon complainant’s request, the Commission dismissed the complaint on November 10, 1959. [fol.74] A limited number of commodity rates have been published to or from points on Northern Pacific and Union Pacific with routing via complainants to or from a junction point in California with the Southern Pacific, thence South- ern Pacific through Portland. Rates on sugar from Clarksburg, California, to Walla Walla and Yakima, Washington, via SN-SP-Portland-NP or UP were published in 1936. Both Northern Pacific and Union Pacific declined to participate via Bieber. Com- plainants agreed to publish these rates in connection with Southern Pacific since the sugar company needed the rates 42 in order to reach those markets in competition with other California producers. Other rates established via SN or WP-SP-Portland-NP or UP prior to 1931 were published in that manner because the industries located on the complainants had no other access to markets located in areas served by the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. Since that time, the Northern California Extensions of the Great Northern and Western Pacific resulted in the construction of the Bieber route in 1931 under authority of Finance Dockets 7439, 7440 and 7881 (166 ICC 3 and 170 ICC 399). In the meantime, the Bieber route has developed into important segments of both the Great Northern and Western Pacific. The condi- tions justifying issuance of certificates of public conveni- ence and necessity in the Bieber Gateway Case dictate against establishment of additional rates via complainants [fol. 75] with Southern Pacific through Portland, thence Northern Pacific or Union Pacific. Another significant change in conditions was the emer- gence of the Western Pacific from a hectic early period fraught with financial problems. This railroad’s stature has matured to the extent that it now actively and posi- tively contributes to the public welfare and justifies the faith of the Interstate Commerce Commission in awarding it the certificates of public convenience and necessity in the Bieber Gateway Case. The Western Pacific has vigorously and successfully carried out a program of industrial de- velopment in areas tributary to its rails, as well as areas served by the Sacramento Northern and Tidewater South- ern, its subsidiaries. For example, its acquisition of land in California has resulted in the location on its rails of such large industries as the Ford Motor Company’s automobile plant at Milpitas, and the Campbell Soup Company’s plant at Sacramento. Exam. Wright: Will you call your next witness, Mr. Treanor? Mr. Treanor: I call Mr. D. L. Loftus, please. 43 D. L. Lorrus was duly sworn and testified as follows: Exam. Wright: Be seated, please. Mr. Treanor: Your Honor, this witness has three ex- hibits. May we go off the record and mark them for identi- cation? (fol. 76] (Discussion off the record. ) Exam. Wright: On the record. During the off-the-record discussion, Exhibits 17, 18 and 19 were marked for identification. These are exhibits to be sponsored by Mr. Loftus. (Complainants’ Exhibits Nos. 17, 18 and 19, Witness Loftus, were marked for identification. ) * * oe ee 7 * 7 Direct examination. By Mr. Treanor: Q. Mr. Loftus, would you proceed to read your state- ment. A. My name is Donald L. Loftus, and I have been em- ployed by the Western Pacific Railroad since 1952. My ad- dress is 526 Mission Street, San Francisco, California. My present position is Assistant to President in charge of the Research and Planning Section, which position I have held since 1956. [fol.77] Prior to this, I was a transportation engineer in the same Section. I am a graduate of N orthwestern Uni- versity, receiving a B.B.A. degree in 1948, and majoring in transportation. Prior to joining Western Pacific, I spent three years with Pullman-Standard Car Division of Pullman, Ine., as re- search analyst and field service representative, During the sam period, I was a lecturer in the Transportation Depart- ment in the Evening Division of Northwestern University. My responsibilities include the areas of Market Research, Economic Research and Long Range Forecasting and 44 Planning. Presently, I have a staff of three analysts and one secretary-clerk. In connection with this proceeding, I have been asked to develop and present certain data relating to the growth of the geographical areas involved; and data illustrating the progress made by Western Pacific in improving and mod- ernizing its transportation plant and equipment during the past ten years. The latter program has been carried out with the prime objective of meeting the current and future transportation needs of the regions we are capable of serv- ing, either directly or through connections. I have prepared, or caused to be prepared under my di- rection and supervision, three exhibits for introduction in this case. They are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Briefly, they cover three [fol. 78] principal subjects: First, Economic Growth: the rapid increase in popula- tion, consumption and production, which has characterized the Pacific Coast regional economy in recent history, and the prospects for this growth continuing into the future; Second, Production: the economic base supporting this growth; and Third, Western Pacific’s Transportation Plant: the up- grading of Western Pacific’s plant as a major link in the transportation system of the regional economy. The statistics largely tell the story and the following commentary will therefore be brief, and designed to enable a better understanding of the exhibits. Exhibit No. 17—Economic Growth Unfortunately, such accepted indicators of economic growth as Gross National Product or Industrial Produc- tion, which are available on a national basis, are not com- puted for individual states or regions. As an alternate, this exhibit provides other statistics which describe broad trends in area development. Population is a general meas- ure of state and regional growth. Statistics on value added 45 by manufacturing and farm income, while not including all sectors of the economy, nevertheless provide a valid indica- tion of production trends. State and regional consumption patterns are accurately reflected by personal income and (fol. 79] retail sales. Taken together, these figures present a balanced picture of the growth trends within a region. In the last 20 years, population growth on the Pacific Coast has been impressive, taking place at a rate three times that of the nation. California has led the way, its population more than doubling. The Northwest states have also been growing rapidly, at a rate almost twice that of the nation. The population growth reflects an economic expansion which has been well diffused throughout the region. Both industry and agriculture have shared in the gains. Value added by manufacturing and farm marketing cash receipts have been both increasing at rates significantly higher than for the entire nation. To varying degrees, all three states have contributed to this expansion. The impact of these trends on the West as a market is clearly shown by the tables on Personal Income and Retail Sales. Much of the absolute gain in dollars shown in the tables must be credited to inflation since 1940 (a 1940 dollar equals 2.10 1959 dollars) and, for this reason, the rates of increase are compared with those for the nation. In these non-inflationary terms, the growth is still impressive. While not shown in the tables as such, the Pacific Coast states have enlarged their share of total U. S. population from seven per cent in 1940 to 11 per cent in 1960; their (fol. 80] contribution to national value added by manufac- turing from six per cent in 1940 to 11 per cent in 1958; and total retail sales from ten per cent in 1939 to 13 per cent in 1958. These gains were made in a time when the nation as a whole was experiencing wide growth. Generally accepted projections of the Pacific Coast econ- omy foresee these growth trends continuing into the fu- ture. Two of the tables in this exhibit, those for population and personal income, include projections through 1970. In both cases the growth record established in recent history 46 is expected to continue. Population additions are antici- pated to continue at a rate well in excess of the national average. Personal income, probably the best indicator of consumption, is also predicted to maintain its upward trend line. Note that personal income statistics 1940-1958 include a sizeable element of inflationary growth while that for 1970 is in constant 1959 dollars. As optimistic as these projections appear, in the past they have almost always erred on the conservative side. Generally accepted projec- tions of the other measures of economic growth used in this exhibit are not available but, in my opinion, it is a reason- able assumption the same general relationships which have held in the past will continue into the future and the growth rate suggested by these projections will be general through- out the regional economy. [fol. 81] Exhibit No. 18—Production The production of California, because of its diversity, does not lend itself to description by showing the physical output figures of a limited number of industries. It is prob- ably sufficient to cite the production statistics in the previ- ous exhibit. In addition, those shown in this exhibit indicate that production generally from California has been increas- ing its share of national totals during a period when the national total itself underwent rapid expansion. For the Northwest, because of the less diversified nature of the economy, it is possible to show general growth pat- terns by measuring production of a relatively small number of basic commodities. The Northwest is a major supplier to national markets for forest products, paper products, non- ferrous metals, and certain agricultural commodities. These product groups account for almost all of the rail movements originating in the two-state region. Production statistics for major components of these product groups are shown, including the 1959 relationship between Northwest production and that for the entire na- tion. While the Northwest share of the national market for the specific products listed ranged between nine percent 47 and 30 per cent in 1959, the Northwest had only 2.6 per cent of the total U. S. population in that year, emphasizing the importance of out-of-state markets. (fol. 82] The total forest products industry output in- incluudes many products, but lumber is the basic com- modity. Although production from Washington has been declining in recent years, Oregon output has more than re- placed this loss and the two states accounied for almost a third of total U. S. production in 1959. Closely allied to forest products, wood pulp is the basic raw material of the paper industry. The increasing importance of the North- west in the paper industry is clearly shown by the 152 per cent increase in wood pulp production since 1940. The statistics on wheat and apples are included as indi- cative of the participation of this region in national agri- cultural output. Production of wheat has shown a con- sistent upward trend. Apple production has been trendless for many years, but Washington still remains the largest producing state for this crop. Agricultural commodities in general have shown an upward production trend. The Northwest has long been an important factor in the national supply of non-ferrous metals. Aluminum produe- tion in 1940 was negligible; in 1959, the region supplied about one-fourth of all national needs. Copper, lead-and other non-ferrous metal production in the Northwest is also important. Exhibit No. 19—Western Pacific Transportation Plant With the general economic growth in its service area, the Western Pacific transportation plant has been systemati- [fol. 83] cally improved. The tables in this exhibit are divided into two general areas, road and equipment, and measure changes in specific items as indications of general improvement. The extent of improvements to road is indicated by the consistent trend to higher grade materials and facilities. A program of rail re-laying has increased the number of track miles in heavy weight rail to almost three-fourths of the 48 entire system. Tie replacements have resulted in almost the entire system now being in treated ties. The portion of mileage with higher grades of ballast has been consistently increased. Bridge structures have been systematically up- graded. Not shown in the exhibit is the fact that 75 per cent of tunnels formerly timber-lined are now concrete-lined. The capacity of equipment, both motive power available and freight cars, has been significantly expanded from both a quality and quantity standpoint. The statistics on motive power speak for themselves. Statistics shown extend back to 1954 and represent diesel-electric power only. The num- ber of freight cars in Western Pacific’s fleet has not only in- creased by 22 per cent since 1954, but the portion of the fleet made up of special equipped cars has increased from less than 200 cars to more than 1,800 in 1960. Of the entire fleet, almost one-third are special equipped and more than 60 per cent of these are equipped with special interior devices. While not a recent or continuing project, it is noteworthy [fol. 84] that all mainline trackage has been under CTC or automatic block signals for almost ten years. To summarize—the statistics, in my opinion, portray a picture of a regional economy which has been expanding, both relative to its past size and as a share of the national economy. This growth has taken place on a wide front in all three states and generally in the various sources of both production and consumption. Generally accepted projec- tions see these trends continuing through 1970. At the same time, the capacity of the Western Pacific transportation plant has been systematically expanded apace with the regional growth. Mr. Treanor: That concludes the direct examination, Mr. Examiner. Exam. Wright: Are you going to offer the exhibits at this time? Orrers IN EvipENcE Mr. Treanor: I was going to offer them after cross, but I will offer them at this time. 49 Exam. Wright: I am going to defer ruling until after cross-examination. Cross examination. By Mr. Hobbs: Q. Mr. Loftus, referring to your Exhibit 19, did you make any comparison of your Western Pacific transporta- tion plant with any other railroads in the west? A. No, I did not. Q. Then so far as you know, the defendants, Union [fol. 85] Pacific, Northern Pacific and Great Northern—no, not the Great Northern—the Southern Pacific, Union Pa- cific and Northern Pacific’s plant likewise then has been systematically expanded apace with the growth of the reg- ion that they serve in the Northwest? A. I don’t know that they have. Q. You don’t know that they don’t? A. I don’t know that they don’t. Q. Why did you pick out the year 1950 to compare with the year 1955 and 1960? A. I picked this because our program began, our im- provement program began in 1950. Q. And what was it before that? A. (No response.) Q. You mean it was just let slip? A. No, we had a change in management in 1948 and ’49, and the new management brought in this program in 1950. I am not too conversant with the program prior to this pe- riod. It was before my time with the railroad. Q. Have you made any comparison of the physical char- acteristics of the Western Pacific with any other railroad in the region or in the Northwest? A. Not physically. Q. You don’t know how they compare then, physically? A. (No response.) (fol. 86] Q. The Union Pacific, for example in Oregon and Washington, the Western Pacific in California, the North- 50 ern Pacific in Oregon and Washington, do you know how the physical characteristics of those roads compare with the Western Pacific plant? A. First-hand, I do not. Q. Well, do you know any other way? A. (No response.) Q. You say first-hand you do not? A. [have heard comment that— Q. You don’t know anything— A. —that improvements were made, but I don’t know exactly what improvements were made. Q. Well, you don’t know how the physical characteristics of the Western Pacific plant compare with any other rail- road out West? A. No. Q. I am talking about the curves and grades, and all the rest of that. A. Well, I do know that our expenditures, percentage- wise, have been very high, as a per cent of our gross, one of the highest in the nation during this period. Q. And that could be accounted for by the level of your growth? A. It could. Q. Now, then, on your Exhibit No. 18, why did you go back in making in your comparison or showing your figures [{fol. 87] for 1959, why did you go back to 1940 and calculate the per cent of increase? That is 20 years ago. A. Well, this is a judgment sort of thing. You can pick just about any year you choose. Usually, to show growth trends, however, you should cover a wide span of years. Usually 20 years is the period selected to show trends. Anything shorter might be mis- leading. Q. Well, then, does that mean that the comparisons you are making on Exhibit 19, then, are not valid? Mr. Treanor: I object— Mr. Hobbs: You only go back to 1950 there. 51 Mr. Treanor: I object to that, Your Honor, because the witness has already testified as to the reasons for his start- ing in 1950 in connection with his Exhibit No. 19, and no proper comparison can be made. These figures on Exhibit No. 18 are national published figures, and the figures on 19 are directed to the physical experience of the Western Pacific plant. Mr. Hobbs: You are just answering for the witness, and he could have said the same thing, and probably that could have answered my question. Exam. Wright: I will overrule the objection. Do you remember the question? The Witness: I believe so. On Exhibit 19, as I said, the Western Pacific improvement [fol. 88] program began in 1950. Actually, the planning was begun prior to that time, but the actual physical work began in 1950, and this is the reason for taking 1950 as a starting point on this exhibit. By Mr. Hobbs: Q. Well, wouldn’t it seem to you more reasonable on your Exhibit 18 if you had just compared 1950 with 1959 rather than 1940? A. (No response.) Q. That indicates the real trend, doesn’t it, at the present time? A. I say this is a judgment sort of thing, and we could probably debate this all day as to what the proper base year would be. Economists themselves can’t agree on this point, and I would have to get into a long discussion on why ’40 is not a good year. I would say usually we use 20 years as a time span to il- lustrate growth, and this is my reason for so doing. Q. Well, taking the lumber production for 1940 in Ore- gon, for example, at—what is it—5,202 million feet? Do you know whether 1940 was a good year when there was a lot of production or a poor one when there wasn’t too much pro- duction ? 52 A. I think it was a normal year. I don’t recall anything— Q. Well, do you know whether it was or not? A. Not exactly, no. [fol. 89] Q. Now, in the case of the Oregon Lumber, if you had compared 1950 with 1959, it would show quite a de- crease in the production, wouldn’t it? A. It would show a slight decrease. Q. And the same thing applies to the amount in both Ore- gon and Washington, isn’t that true? A. Yes. Q. If you had taken the year 1950, you would have shown quite a decrease— A. Yes. Q. —rather than an increase. A. Yes. Q. Does that have anything to do with you selecting the year 1940— A. No. Q. —for the comparison? A. I think I made myself clear as to why I selected 1940. Q. On page 3 of your statement you say that “the popu- lation growth reflects an economic expansion which has been well diffused throughout the region.” Did you make any attempt to segregate that into the vari- ous states, for example? A. The states involved in this proceeding? Q. Yes. A. Yes, it is done on the exhibit. [fol. 90] Q. What exhibit is that? A. I believe 17 at the very top. Q. You couldn’t, or did you break it down to areas served by the railroad? A. No, population data are not available on this basis. They are statewide. Mr. Hobbs: That is all I have. Exam. Wright: Cross-examination, further cross-exami- nation? Mr. Farrell: No questions. Exam. Wright: Redirect? Mr. Burkett: I have some. By Mr. Burkett: Q. Mr. Loftus, what is the mainline mileage on the West- ern Pacific between Oakland, California, and Salt Lake City, Utah? A. Between 920 and 24 miles, I believe. Q. How much of that mileage is east of Keddie, Califor- nia, and how much is west of Keddie, California? A. Do you want it exact or just approximately? Q. No, just approximately. A. I would say slightly over 600, 650. Q. Would be east of Keddie, California? A. Yes. Mr. Faye: Keddie is Milepost 280. Mr. Treanor: May we disregard that statement, sir? Exam. Wright: Yes. [fol. 91] The Witness: Milepost 280, it is around 625, I believe. By Mr. Burkett: Q. And what is the mileage from Keddie to Bieber? A. 112. Q. Now, am I correct that traffic from California to Port- land generally would move over the mainline of the West- ern Pacific to Keddie, and thence north to Bieber? A. That is my understanding. Q. And could the mileage then from Oakland to Bieber normally be the way I calculate it, about 400 miles? A. Right, roughly so. Q. And that is out of a total main mileage of, say, ap- proximately 1,050? A. I think it is—yes, that is close. Q. Now, turning to your Exhibit No. 19, please, I notice there that on line 1 you state, “Percentage track miles in rail 112 pounds or heavier, 71 per cent.” 54 Would you please state what portion of that is on the line between Keddie and Bieber? A. I don’t know specifically what portion that would be of the total, but the entire Bieber line is 112 pounds, if I am not mistaken. Q. And let’s pass down to the next 115 pounds, or heavier. Is there any 115-pound rail on the Bieber line? A. I don’t know th.t, the answer on that. There may be [fol. 92] some on curves, but that I am not qualified to com- ment on. Q. Now, with respect to all of the items which you have shown here on your Exhibit 19, can you provide a break- down of the statistics as they apply to the line between Oakland, Keddie and Bieber on the one hand, and the line between Keddie and Salt Lake City on the other hand? A. This could be provided. Q. Can you tell us now what those figures are? A. No, I cannot. I believe one of our engineers would be more qualified. Q. Now, referring specifically to the freight car fleet where you list total cars, is Western Pacific today a creditor or a debtor road with respect to the freight car ownership? A. With respect to the freight cars themselves, we vary from year to year. It is very close to a break-even, I would say. We are a creditor some years, and some years a slight debtor, but I would say the balance is a creditor. Q. Can you tell us whether you were a creditor or a debtor for the year 1960? A. I wouldn’t want to answer that. I think I would be guessing. Mr. Burkett: That is all I have. Thank you. Exam. Wright: Any redirect? Mr. Treanor: No, sir. OrFersS IN EVIDENCE I would like to offer the Exhibits 17 through 19, inclusive. [fol. 93] Exam. Wright: Any objections to Exhibits 17, 18 and 19 for identifieation? Mr. Hobbs: No, we have none. Exam. Wright: Hearing none, they are received. (Complainants’ Exhibits No. 17, 18 and 19, Witness Loftus, were received in evidence.) Mr. Treanor: At this time, Your Honor, I would like to eall Mr. Grant Allen. Grant S. ALLEN was duly sworn and testified as follows: While off the record, Exhibits Nos. 22 through 24 were marked for identification. (Complainants’ Exhibits Nos. 24 through 24, inclusive, Witness Allen, were marked for identification. ) Exam. Wright: Proceed with your direct examination, Mr. Treanor. [fol. 94] Direct examination. By Mr. Treanor: Q. Will you state your full name, please, sir. A. Grant S. Allen. Q. And what is your address? A. 526 Mission, San Francisco. Q. Mr. Allen, by whom are you employed, and in what capacity? A. The Western Pacific Railroad as superintendent of transportation. Q. Briefly, what has been your railroad experience? A. My experience covers the last 48 years as a telegra- pher, and train dispatcher and brakeman, trainmaster, as- sistant superintendent, superintendent, superintendent of transportation, and I had charge of the railroad operations for the six companies during the construction of the Boulder or Hoover Dam. 56 During this period, I worked for the Santa Fe, the D&RGW, the Oregon-Washington Railroad, and Naviga- tion Company, the Oregon Short Line, the Union Pacific, the LNSL, the Northern Pacific, and the Southern Pacific. And I was employed for about two years on the Portland Division of the Southern Pacific as an operator and a train dispatcher, and during my experience on the Portland Divi- sion I worked as a telegraph operator at their Brooklyn Yard in Portland. Q. How long have you held your present position, sir? (fol. 95] Q. How long have you held your present posi- tion, sir? A. Since 1952. Q. Have you—excuse me. What is the general area of responsibility for the superin- tendent of transportation of the Western Pacific Railroad? A. I have charge of the, general charge of the operation of the freight and passenger trains on the railroad. The manifest department is under my jurisdiction, the compil- ing and making of through schedules, and employees’ time tables, the claim prevention work, and the general distribu- tion of cars is all under my jurisdiction. Q. Mr. Allen, at what points are there presently in effect interchange arrangements between the Western Pacific, Tidewater Southern, and Sacramento Northern, with other railroad carriers? A. I think that Exhibit No. 20 will show that more readily than I can tell it. It is a map of the Western Pacific Rail- road, and it shows the interchange points between the West- ern Pacific and the Sacramento Northern, the Tidewater Southern, and other railroads. Q. Mr. Allen, have you personally familiarized yourself with the interchange between various carriers, carriers— railroad carriers at Portland, Oregon? A. Yes, sir. Q. How recently have you personally observed the inter- [fol. 96] change arrangements in and around Portland, Oregon? 57 A. I was up there in the early part of May, and I was in Portland again last week. Q. Is that May of 1960? A. This year. Q. May of this year? : A. Early in April, I should have said, excuse me, early in April 1961, and I was up there last week. Q. Now, based upon your own personal observation, would you please briefly describe the manner of interchange or the actual physical operation of an interchange between the Great Northern and Union Pacific at Portland, Oregon? A. If you will refer to this map, this large map, to inter- change a car from the Union Pacific at their Albina Yard to the Great Northern, the Union Pacific yard engines move these cars from Albina across the Willamette River on a steel bridge and bring them to the interchange yard oppo- site the Union Station. At that point the Northern Pacific terminal handles the ears for delivery to the Great Northern at Guilds Lake Yard. Q. Mr. Allen, will you also, based upon your own per- sonal observation, briefly describe the manner of inter- change or the actual physical operation of an interchange between the Great Northern and Northern Pacific at Port- land, Oregon? A. These cars can be interchanged between both rail- (fol. 97] roads at the Lake Yard. Q. While you were in Portland, did you observe any ac- tual interchange between Union Pacific and Southern Pacific at Portland, Oregon? A. No, sir. Q. Are you familiar with the manner of that operation? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you please briefly describe it? A. The interchange is effected by the Southern Pacific Yard engines. They move cars from the Southern Pacific directly to the Union Pacific yard at Albina, and they will move cars being interchanged by the Union Pacific to the Southern Pacific from Albina back to Brookland. 58 Q. In your opinion, Mr. Allen, is there any material dif- ference in the manner of interchange between Great North- ern and the Union Pacific or the Northern Pacific at Port- land, on the one hand, and the interchange between the Southern Pacific with the Union Pacific or Northern Pacific on the other hand? Mr. Higgins: If the examiner please, I object to that. There has been no sufficient foundation at this point. The witness merely has given a very generalized description of the switching and interchange between the respective roads there. To lay a foundation, there would certainly have to be more detail as to distances, characteristics of movement, and so on, and I submit at this point the witness has not [fol. 98] been qualified in addition to the fact this founda- tion has not been laid for that type of an opinion and, therefore, I object to it. Exam. Wright: I will sustain that objection. By Mr. Treanor: Q. Mr. Allen, I would now like to direct your atten- tion back to your explanation of your own personal knowl- edge of the manner of interchange at Portland, Oregon, between the Great Northern on one hand, and the Union Pacific on the other, keeping in mind, Mr. Allen, that your previous answers have not been considered to be complete enough, so please take your time and give it to us in as much detail as you can. A. In order for the Union Pacific to deliver or interchange traffic to the Great Northern, the Union Pacific yard en- gines leave Albina Yard. Q. Now, is that shown on— A. Which is shown on the map, on the east bank of the Willamette River. Exam. Wright: This is Exhibit No. 21 for identification. Mr. Treanor: Yes, sir. The Witness: Yes, sir, and they move upstream to the [fol. 99] place on the map marked as steel bridge where the cars are brought across the river and brought into a yard which is directly opposite the Union Station. From this point, the cars are moved on the Northern Pacific terminal from the depot yard and interchanged on the Northern Pacific at Guilds Lake Yard. By Mr. Treanor: Q. Is that shown on Exhibit No. 21? A. Yes, sir, further down the river opposite that Swan Island Shipyard shown on the map. For traffic th [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_IA40386411_0195%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.