Appendix — Western Pacific Railroad v. United States

Supreme Court brief1965

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

PREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 196% /7 65

rh cr

‘THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v8.

UNITED STATES, ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INDEX

VOLUME 1

Original Print

| Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

a mission

| Seeretary’s certificate (omitted in printing) 1 1

Complaint in Docket No. 33679 5 1

' Separate answer of The Atchison, Topeka and

_ Santa Fe Railway Company 17 8

| Separate answer of Northern Pacific Railway

Company, Camas Prairie Railroad Company

- and Walla Walla Valley Railway Company _. 19 9

_ Answer of Union Pacific Railroad Company and

- Spokane International Railroad Company —.. 21 10

__ Answer of Great Northern Railway Company and

' Pacifie Coast B.R. Co. 4 ll

_ Answer of Washington, Idaho, and Montana

_ Railway Company 28 13

_ Petition of Southern Pacific Company for leave

to intervene in opposition to complaint 32 14

Recorp Press, Printers, New York, N. Y., May 27, 1965

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961 __

Appearances

Testimony of T. P. Wadsworth—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) —

Statement.of T. P. Wadsworth entered into

record

Statement of D. L. Loftus entered into rec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) -

Offers in evidence

Testimony of D. L. Loftus—

cross (by Mr. Hobbs)

redirect (by Mr. Burkett) —

Offers in evidence

Testimony of Grant 8. Allen—

direct. (by Mr. Treanor) _.

cross (by Mr. Hobbs) —

cross (by Mr. Farrell) —

cross (by Mr. Burkett) —.

eross (by Mr. Farrell) __

redirect (by Mr. Treanor)

recross (by Mr. Farrell) _

Offers in evidence

Testimony of F. B. Stratton—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _

cross (by Mr. Hobbs) —

cross (by Mr. Farrell) _..

Testimony of Charles K. Faye—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) __

cross (by Mr. Hobbs) —

cross (by Mr. Farrell) _

Statement of A. K. Hinckle entered into rec-

ord—

direct

cross (by Mr. Burkett) —

Seis se

3ePuesaag FSs5 E86

101

INDEX iii

; Original Print

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Statement of F. W. Fuller entered into reec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) 165 106

eross (by Mr. Farrell) ___ 168 108

redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 171 110

recross (by Mr. Farrell) _ 171 110

Statement of M. A. Kasen entered into rec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 172 111

eross (by Mr. Farrell) __ 177 114

Statement of Waldo Wolgamott entered into

record—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 181 117

eross (by Mr. Farrell) __. 184 119

redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 185 120

Statement of N. C. Kunzmann entered into

record—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 186 121

cross (by Mr. Burkett) __ 188 122

cross (by Mr. Farrell) ___ 189 123

redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 189 123

recross (by Mr. Farrell) _ 190 124

Statement of John M. Cox entered into rec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 190 124

eross (by Mr. Burkett) __ 193 126

Statement of Robert Stoll entered into rec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 194 127

eross (by Mr. Burkett) __ 196 128

iedirect (by Mr. Treanor) 197 129

recross (by Mr. Burkett) _ 197 129

Statement of C. V. Donaldson entered into

record—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) _ 199 130

cross (by Mr. Farrell) ___ 203 132

eross (by Mr. Burkett) __ 209 137

iv INDEX

iss ae Original Print

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) — 211 138

eross (by Mr. Burkett) — 216 142

cross (by Mr. Farrell) —.. 222 146

Offer in evidence 225 = 147

Testimony of P. Steele Labagh—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) - 225 147

cross (by Mr. Burkett) — 229 150

Statement of Myron Lindgren entered into rec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) -- 231 152

cross (by Mr. Burkett) 234 8614

Statement of Avery M. Cloninger entered into

record—

direct. (by Mr. Treanor) . 235 14

eross (by Mr. Burkett) — 238 =: 156

Statement of Paul J. Roche entered into rec-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) 240 = 158

cross (by Mr. Farrell) —.. 243 =o

redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 244 160

Statement of Frank L. Sigloh entered into

record—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) ~ 244 ~=s 16

eross (by Mr. Burkett) — 247 163

redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 249 164

recross (by Mr. Farrell) — 249 164

Testimony of A. R. Allen—

direct (by Mr. Treanor) . 250 = 165

cross (by Mr. Hobbs) —— 254 167

Testimony of T. P. Wadsworth—

(resumed )—

cross (by Mr. Farrell) 257 169

cross (by Mr. Burkett) 304 =. 202

redirect (by Mr. Treanor) 312 = 209

reeross (by Mr. Farrell) — 314 += 210

roceedings 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

hearse of 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 ree-

ord—

direct (by Mr. Higgins) _

cross (by Mr. Treanor) __

cross (by Mr. Pfrommer) _

Offer in evidence

Statement of G. E. Roeder entered into reec-

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) __

cross (by Mr. Treanor) _.

Offers in evidence

Statement of L. S. Davis entered into record—

direct (by Mr. Farrell) __

cross (by Mr. Treanor) ___

redirect (by Mr. Farrell) _

recross (by Mr. Treanor) _

redirect (by Mr. Farrell) _

Offers in evidence

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-. .

mission—Continued spr

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Testimony of Ferdinand Wascoe— ‘e

direct (by Mr. Burkett) —_

cross (by Mr. Treanor) —

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 1-8, 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

Original Print

449 - 37

472 399

475 39

ATT. 80

479 39

482 3%

482 309

483. 3%)

484 33

495 32

501 348

INDEX vii

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Exuipirs—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” 508 355

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” === 509 356

No. 8—Page 38 of Southern Pacific Com-

pany Freight Tariff 230-K, ICC 4960,

containing absorption of Western Pa-

cifie’s switching charge at Sacramento on

Canned Goods moving from Sacramento

via SP to points on NP or UP in Oregon,

Washington or Idaho 510 357

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” == 512 359

VOLUME 2

No. 10—Statement showing “Originations

and terminations of Carload freight traffic

via Bieber moving west of transcontinental

for the years 1955-1959” 556 403

viii INDEX

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Exurrrs—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. 183—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 Company

or Union Pacific Railroad Company —

Original Print

557 404

558 405

558a 406

559 401

569 417

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Exuits—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 “Economic Growth”

No. 18—Statement 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” ss

No. 24—Statement showing “Southbound—

Southern Pacific Schedules” e

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

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Exuisits—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 indiéated in green

No. 27—Map of Portland, Ore. and Van-

couver, Wash. and Vicinity showing prin-

cipal railroad trackage therein —____.

No. 28—Statement showing “Northbound

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 Portlanc, 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 __

Proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission—Continued

Transcript of hearing, May 8, 9, and 10, 1961—

Continued

Exuisrrs—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. 33—Statement showing Transportation

Conditions of Southern Pacifie Routes

Compared with Western Pacific Route via

Bieber, California between Portland, Ore-

gon and Stockton, California, San Fran-

cisco, California, and Los Angeles,

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) _..._

Original Print

612 473

622 483

640 501

641 502

642 503

648 505

654 508

655 508

659 6510

xii

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

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

768

7174

783

794

796

573

577

589

590

592

xiv INDEX

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 _.. 821 = 6

Reply of intervener Southern Pacific Company

to petition of United States to reopen proceed-

ing served August 21, 1963 830 = 610

Letter from Secretary, Interstate Commerce

Commission to Mr. John N. Dougherty, De-

partment of Justice, dated September 10, 1963 835 = 613

Record from the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California, Southern

Division 836 = 614

Complaint 836 = 64

Exhibit “A”—Report and Order of the Com-

mission, Division 2, Commissioner Freas, de-

cided July 26, 1962 and served August 2,

1962 846 = 6

Exhibit “B”—Notice of denial of hearing by

the full Commission, dated July 12, 1963

and service date of July 30, 1963 871 —s 6

Exhibit “C”—Report and Order recommended

by Hearing Examiner, John F. Wright,

dated July 31, 1961 and served August 10, |

1961 872

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 878 656

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 880 6H

Order granting motion of Union Pacific Railroad

Company to intervene as defendant, November

26, 1963 884 = 660

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 __.

Order granting motion of Interstate Commerce

Commission to intervene as defendant, Decem-

. ber 16, 1963

Answer of intervening defendant, the Interstate

Commerce Commission filed December 16, 1963

Answer of the United States of America filed

December 16, 1963

Order granting motion of the Southern Pacific

Company to intervene as a defendant, dated

December 16, 1963

Answer of intervening defendant Southern Pa-

cific Company filed December 16, 1963 _._.__

Order allowing intervention of The Atchison,

Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, dated Janu-

ary 13, 1964

Answer of intervening defendant, The Atchison,

Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company filed

January 13, 1964

Transcript of hearing on motion to enjoin, set

aside, suspend and annul order of Interstate

Commerce Commission

Appearances

Argument by Mr. Treanor on behalf of plain-

tiff

Argument by Mr. Ginnane on behalf of Inter-

state Commerce Commission

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

Rebuttal argument by Mr. Treanor

Opinion and judgment, Zirpoli, J.—Order deny-

ing petition, June 19, 1964

Original Print

886 661

890 664

891 665

896 669

898 669

900 670

905 674

907 675

909 676

909 677

910 677

938 693

960 707

975 715

983 720

998 730

xvi INDEX

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

*huedmops peor Tey OF sTORg UsezSeM OUL JO SP1008I TBOTISTIBIG seorNOEg

shredasg PeOLl Tey OTJTO¥d U107SOM JOs

n°62 42S sCoszoe*sts §«of9e 8 Coltd 38 e°ce 68 «~(6uOCG ft dM 8 6S6T

thie. "Sted 0) st Eze BVEr 9}: ST 2 op

» oP *|2; . ape uot a oy rans

sosofezs §69°C9 «§ «#OCOTZT 8 O°Ge § SzgtTT seeeeececece

re". "ter te of. Yt te.mCUF”™C Cm! CUCU ae.

O°ze —- 8SS6 ‘OTS |

S $s 8 Sa08 0 8 ff 3 3 s c* a CPeeeoesoece aSLy *

‘ 5 +} 4 *\*| ted: *} Te se

& z 8 $ 8 a 8 8 ,equBUteTdmoD 3

JA ~ We “ss r “tits =~

E B62 = SELT*GTS —692z_ 8 HOt § POE =F =—SOS*OT & dM 8 SS6t

C ee hel eh t oe Te

I Twnuuy JO $ step sTenuuy Jos sieD £ Temmy jo 8 sz¥p) 8 wo 2

e2Ue018g 3 8 squsczegt $ equecteg 8 $ Sswtog o> 8&8 avez

: 1890] ; SOT IWUTEIOL + i uot wUTSTIO ra ea TE

: ee , 2: ht , RR, 4 7 7 me t T UE a 7.

5 Luar, yo 490m Butaom s0qeTE eTA OTJJEIz WUFTEIZ PwOTARD JO sUCTzBUTMIEq PUB sUCTZWUTSTAO |

+, 20UTE SThe DUS aTBICL. uSONQeq SoueressTAg

vemos uyuSeRaoBeLD Ue VTUIOSTTCD UOOKIOde

1Wqaey Soueiejey Jo uoTaeuelaxg

*spz0ceg 8, 3uemjzedeq OT jsseay &,ABMTT CY eg SUBS

*sps00eYy queesredeq Par Qeneney s,fuedmog peorlyeg OTjJToOeg UreqZsSem | SO0uNOS

No. 11

A OS ab hk <5 CT 6 OT SE +5 Ce AL’ ip! 040 si ea CA ait ot EO base's + ano" + 18304 tO

ote a ’ to eset

— t 00°96 + es-ert ¥ sees 1 ---- 4 gz°ett ae asrizt Fearne om 4 6zte ' Bae On'e9 + s3ueD8

t 3

Cae i Maa a a A wis ar TO a a 9 Ont + tf a Se*tr to ae |

eto tetris: | oah's ¢ 660°p2 ! @ co tT Kea am: fate tT Ofot;T ein t tol al tage c ' 929 Il! goer!

91g Fogtrst ft ogn gt 9008 ete ert oeote 3 ccetel tc eet ot rot + ogee t Ocoucy + {sort

ad tegoin + 0c0'o + tO ze geist page te Tor Tato) Tt enetat tose? tzont to ol tet

A268 119. CT Cl CE TA A wee as I (Te ES CS A) 54 5

< Teaee t Peete et th 1 [e301 Me red eae tee

: 5 4 ‘ ‘ y pa ie

pt is : ‘e , ad

: ‘ aN ut a meee me a

a a ae t ; 2 ’ ] . RK GAT” SS “owe mee sae eas ae

Be ne aan Bae ee oa ¢ at : ane aa aS EEL SRE BPRS CTT 4

Sp FEATS pk BS AAS ie Wea ee oe oe ete. - 1 EB, AC ? Y pee - s Re

nee yee Net . ae * FS ee BO 7 $ ~ eae ” Sa an

5A A A ALT TPA : t bos cL t Ts 7 Tsar nl

| dt

BEFoRE THE ITERSTATE Commerce ComMISSION

cnet eg See

: “ose “ a a

4 ee a ah. cre ee so Hin «

7 ine Sees Se 2 ROT A - el 0 St A “ . 5 9 oe * 0 te fe

. me * ss Re 4 x as me é

GRR wi. WES SS ‘

CS SAI BEE 8

a 7 ae , eRe ee

L.-T Ps O'ooL * 0 OULS 0 OUL S5uy

rt, oe | Ue 8 he OOF Ok y

kg... OveL © otee Oc F §5e Ff tt BSu BE.

A ORES 1 OES RT BT eo ee rome

woe fle Sl US ge SUC FO 1 S907 Ge |

' REEED es TG HAL ES. BRE se RR A at”

art ate. ovce * cu © U'SG * Oe 57 3 6

Cr tet Se ONT ULE OL Sie Do Liv 6 *yuy wy SF Se ork Tea, y

Se, ) hk 4 2 YUL SLU Bee

i> ok <A WL 746 Te fe ;

aoe —— ae sit fA +7

. vy 1830; :

r=]

iat

eed

SOT 89

POOLT IBY CT J TORg herp eee 900° °E"d*A

—-

We DE RE Pe GB fi Me Dic i

hae be

WE ie Pc Dr PBF Dip De P|

“ana 6

aA S

i >

a hs}

REPREEREAEPHEEER

GEEEEEELEEEEEEI

143

leiclclaielelal-I-diddaddvueia Sele

BREE

Sets

44:

Be fc DPF FF be PD

MOPPREREEPPEE CK cK ERD

axe em

ian 44344444049 499040 944.

CS GR ee) A

| Ost 6F Bie F Oke F Om BG Tre | Fs Fur GF Ode Cts LF > 0

a ak | Rt . am mL pots & 6* he BLS LF ce0 C

RRM TE BEL 1 A

Os ) lt eck S 2 2Y Sect F Po § FA usc & F O90 G:!

Berore THE [nrersTaATE COMMERCE Commission

wee UOc @ S* wie tee bt * bes -

Pweode

sonusssy

@,otstomg t quoy exe

Og i ap oc ngs

"fol. 5588]

Mose agit

407

[fol. 559]

;

“QRTL PTE OSTL ‘SFI ‘OFTZ BuIET] cos ‘so7"2 ¢ 20 F ‘DH ‘a ‘A ‘Cl ‘OD ‘G “VY TUMpOD Bupzes sojorze jo yey] 20g

wo spdde seje2 ¢ dumMpoD

KEL! SIHL OL SONEUEATE OLAIORS ONINVE SELVE HLIM NOILOZNNOO NI ATNO SETIAAY

———SS—

5} yupod oq) WoTUA WO CUT CT SeIeTTPUT PU JOqUINY ZepUT OG sf SuIvT WOReIs ¥ 03 Pexyeld sequInU OGL

“ezequiny dnesp fq peseudpep syupod 20; , Ardy sesey YOR OL pus wary 0 BepUT,, cog

*(s0p208 S55-X) OST FaecmeRddng pus FrgE-X w0IT Ty 0 | @j01 seeeerzsU

eS % pied. 2... , 2 SSE“ SLT eee 3

> —— APONTE - : : . ee : en pas cee ot

Va eee : pase i —— ~ e 42 ee! rae = ea acim

(fol. 561)

vere

ok he ST “AY —ONNE—O

somo PeeeNTnd BL Om £4 pense;

Test ‘St HOWWN ZALLONASE 19st ‘ST AUVOWEEs CENSSI

“SURLL PP OF Comeg one “eee commen eoqTe PoP ment Eel ee

5 S08 SED BS SE BR PS SE A We SE RRR SS ASS Tek ogy | SRE

outs

—_ Teer? Cece (eee tor seeee eeaheeedeeee cea gst erehecee clwy eeerheeeee ee.

gy Mees .

Us Ss EE SS Fe Pa =

“ae Seer vee 20 Geepe Gee Ser fee ce el ee os eee ey

— —|—| ee

ae ae HS A Lee mG Se

ort | evr | ort |---| shee ho n\n ary AT a

berate Bere oo effet ef ee eof fae

voor ge ke a Fe am HG Eh Oly Oy se wel a ae

Pee) Bee) (Pee Cees Cee Cee eee ee eae” CLR ,|)6 6 eee)lCUR eel 6? BS

POP eee eee? OREO Eee) eee eee eee oo

8 | 8

Hee

: |

“e

“OSTL PEP OST ‘SPIL ‘OPTL Ser] O08 ‘sores yy 20 f ‘A ‘D ‘a ‘a ‘Cl ‘O ‘a ‘¥ SUUINIOD FuryTs soporszE 39q 4Og

T-feets. me37 “OSTL 09 OFIL SUI04] UT Poquosep su ‘sepeRR TW peegg 10 WOZy

To 8 FupOd Og? YoTYs WO SUT OTT? S9R8IFPU] PUT JequINA XepUy eq? s} CUTSU TOPITIS & OF Pexyeld sequING eq,

“sequin anol fq peyeusysep syujod 10; ,,A|ddy erty oA OL PUY MOLY SJUPOY JO Fepuy,, cog

moped UROUE ve seers “EET OOT HEI SLNAO MI SALVE MOILLOES

Gh ar area abl Woonaoe one See |

“en ea en erst ps oe et %

410

Vvete

‘g cospouerg ‘eonng sea70RE 111 "eLy8-C'T “4qINY—00KE—O

‘10980 BV ‘O ‘& 4q pense]

196t ‘Sl HOUVA ZALIO“NLIZ T96T ‘ST ABVOUGAL CANS

‘OL We4] O08 ‘sysvpy GoUsIE}9Y (10430) Jo UOW;wuEfdxy 104

*sBup10ea00 0413003010 10930 10 uynedie; Aq poz0e}01d you sI¥9 do4 uedo ut 87! Ayuo seyddy—g e037

ape oT L—T 40

¢, BOGIES 4UB9 10d GUO JO G7" 19AO 4ON,, OSNG[O OY} OpNyout 03 Jeps0 8 pus jo

“8q] 000'Z 20d @7U90 uy

*Arao

Bs | “a

“pezou se ydeoxe ‘*eq] 000'0r “4 *t

“9q]

“(¢ pu® 1 Se,0N 04 400fans) woqz¥o yu90 zed eu Jo gp" J8A0 You pus eIOO uf ‘droxy Uo uD

‘T8O ‘10818 IZ69P 20 an iste Eales —A

“AS.LY 0 syuyod 61 dt

[BE ‘WO4]OD JO yeve ‘BrUIO;ITVL) Uy SIUIOd ye ORT Woy] Aq pespOgyNe seSo[tauid 41suBI} 0} oN—8

‘ompisgy weg ‘EAL “[eD ‘worTAIG TVS 200043 “TD ‘01;09D Iq 04 4B YA BOROGUMOO UT _g WOREg UT soyNOI BIA —

‘Ajdde 40u [jt 801108 OGTT uioy] 4q portuoyame seBorta qysuws} Ut —d

“WEA “WUITELM OESLT PUP SPAS PUY ND wo symod 1z dnow ‘dN Pus S¥ds ‘ds dN wo % ns aye ge de

“LIOL We}] Jo g pus Z syduisuied jo suoystaosd 0} 10U ‘DM JO ¥G [NY JON ‘4040 40 soyouT

*PIsNo ‘gHTL Wo] Ut Pequosep se ‘s9x0147 10 QT eBnET) puvpuYg ” A hooys 10 06rd 1, 40 odig wo ATuo sox pagel

eousys “e10 ‘paep0d ‘ND “T¥D ‘10qeIg ‘dM PIA ‘Af 40 ZN Uo syuTOd 04 “TED 1, xopuy

-‘squjod ouypeoy ose soqt yy —4

04 d ouITepIs Ue.y

"A CATO By Persad ay vores Gert 85 ORES SE et ceeds oles te ae en

*SBIOA 10

‘

paw ‘yea ‘A119 oN] 3¥g BIA ‘AA Mis wonvou0D ur 9 uoRGeg uy peprAosd seynos LA coueGs “T8C ‘eopebuy £07] ass

mtianige ag ty Ry he a rg a

‘OLTZ Pue goLz surony 99s ‘sores 20) ‘(GTTBT 10 Or@ht SeOHPUT) “830 ‘one 04 10 woayp Ajdde you so0q]—q

"Q0SL W104] Ul PourvE ore SoZEI YOTYs 10j BO[TAW GY] TUINIOD UO Ajdde you seo”]—¥

(ojne10y Comore zor oyjoeds SupyVUT $0381 T}fm WORSeUUOS Uy AUC seTTddy)

SNUVN ZONRUEATE 40

G-L"eets m09] see

411

[fol. 563]

‘ov tua ponent uz om

geg pena qo or pear whey sano

40u S90p pus 1 UOH}eg UI pepraord OF) 40 OTT

"TSC ‘108TH 1269 10 GOUBIIOT, OLS Totter 199 09 20 wa0yy Xydde 9

“ES.LV U0 SuTOd 04 10

bes gs rp ip age Ba,

“LIOL M94] JO g pus Z sydusSusE JO sUOIstAOId 04 10 OM Jo ¥6 8 a 8 ;

opieyno ‘gpIL Ws} Uy pequiosep sw * JOqORT) 20 aia EB ns

WPL “OPE ‘SN day “yey

‘ND “T®O ‘zeqetq ‘dA BIA i ck ccs dk anal am va

‘ND “TO ‘seqorg ‘AM S14 “THD ‘0,000CT EL XOPUT W103} A\dde *

"df 20 IN eouey} ‘ “alge pUvTIOG NO | ‘Te ‘seaeia “Ak wu ho “ox009CE O8F2 ;

“qeeAA “SICA FITEM OLS6T@ PU IN UO “YS “ATETEM LEVEL PUB VITEA FITEM SOVET— =

‘zeqerg ‘dM *iA “TRO ‘07000 OEP, XOpUy wor; Ayddv osys [[~s Eg Pus pas ge “ig adou =

‘m0 iescessic sos ies eedoe anneiTi ameaiaien se

Been ae “qeum ‘ooseg

20 (9g %13d) PAVNI0g 0} Tg TEA woRceuuOS uy 9 BON,0eg Uy Popraoid soynor via AyUO

wath

eousy} “ery ‘puepz0g ‘ND “TSO ‘1eqeIg ‘dM BIA dN 10 AN UO syuIOd 0 “TeD ‘o,000C] OBFL XOpU "ka as

Yer

“841 000‘09 “344

: BAL 000 a

80482]

0 0

eee 6SSET BOF?

ee isaac ee een

"Teo ‘g Oospoutrs Udy ‘700I3g IORTVN LIL "$180-N ‘A4INV—00L2—O

_‘weowO FUPTSHANT BECL NOSTAN “V ‘WW Aq ponssy

= o96t ‘OT AUVANVE ZAILODIAA 696t ‘S UMAMAOAG AANSSI

‘SOOLL Wer] Sos ‘SIV PY COUEI9;971 10470 Jo UOHSUBIaXT 40g

"UOTJONPSs JO OSVOIOUT OU .

“kqwo ‘yee MA “vorz0Ur0ag| 090g 0%

‘0g W197] dod ov soutdxy

| 0% wey] sod ev sosjdxy@®

SPeceScses coosecsescsocsseosesoeeese” vel eeeeeeee coeneace ss St OOTgD eeeeeeee gaan.

eccesesst ere seeeeteresere wel eeeeeene tat fv AL [- tet a aig “Use Msofosuy 110gO§ 0668

eevee seefevesvseesferveerre ZOI® eeeeeeee Tet 06g eeeeeeee Itt ape qeum’''' 92037 OO 0168

4 ‘a ‘O‘V

OR FER BERRIES Pareeneres RETTTT TS BRPRP YESS AEE OTEODL Z spepeeen bervrerrserss pS yherrerryres rT

O1L@# vege | g

et Gan Ha lougye [el (eR? (OBE Ieee iodo cc

ecereceopececsoseosererese SII@ rreeres 1 OpT s01@ poues 06 sha H‘o‘a ‘a JOPPUCWOM, MON GLB

Otl

ete ee er me td OM fee de bey

PPrrerTr Cree ee 1s1t@ eeeesece OFI COl@ cto | | H 0 ‘a‘a |

O1l@Fe =| SIT sone?

Tereeer,) @Pee eee, Bee e eee Sit Olt orl pst) 4 ps 94 gel eseeeveere 5 we | ‘ad IGANOIUY A 00.8

PS APPS. FE ee oml oboe dane oI £01® 96@#l scevecse gz Perse re. Vv

- RR ee ee Rees BLD ot edt 1zz@ soe er eee ogee eee ereeee Loz@ weet eeerr Powter eere re) )o'a e8200f) COULLg COPSP)

°o

basa wee cr eee ec esosesestserrs $ezt ervveceven ceeseses $601 wodbeveceheovesesesteeeres et v@l'o ‘e** ***SLIOFOLA P98

~ eevateet ees eonG 9208

ee oo en lgtecs dome - een ici Ave Vion oe Dares a | Pe poo

4 i eet et Ne ee an + damarnee PSS rs pia‘a'o'v keer pa

Olt

OLL@# ? I g

Bane tess ae! Sad PO 3g PP cS fc

errr re? eee ees Cee eee SII@® eee eeeee OPI rs 4) (a) 240 94 56 H‘p‘a‘a 10)907UrI}8044 “ON OBTSt

o1r

aoe eee Sr ott nae a ee Mees Se

so Helen ope ect ee wI® ae Se Ede ae yk Oe © ae, OS wa

2, MORE He a [fom we |S | woa'a worucmerg 0800r

me eeeee eit ee eae weer eeee ait Bae ane rere? eee eee eee 2, a Pana ores

g 9I@® | vet se G01D® | vet ca CODD | tt rrsseessegy | <***(UoqBaRUnE) 68 Gnosp

eeeeeeee wel {901 eeeeeeee wel eeerweeee ell 3) a‘a‘v

$ me eS 6h1 [ote See OFT | eeeneeee Stl SA

eeeeeeee ial Ot ef . * 6rt 901 isda) | o‘a‘a‘o'v "+9" (gowqega) gg dnospy

ue too wa 16@ [oo wi we on a ee = meme sae

OCI@® | 61 wig OCI@D® | rt [sts WIG® | 821 ina’ (ajo puvg) Le dnoz_y

eeeeeeee OFT eoweeeee tI 901 ddcktdeos o'a'a

($a) LHOIZA KOMIK ocd o

Sate 777)

os] peron st {decry

idence: Ho (seteary 9071) (oBeofgO 9304) gt dnozp

To." 1 Vit dnoip (cospoueig weg) gt dnozp ‘| ermous

“OOTL PAW OOTL ‘GPIL ‘OPIL emery Cos ‘sows ¢ 20 Fy ‘H ‘a ‘A ‘OD “V MHINJOD SupyEy SoTOHAE JO YH 40d

‘OTL 9 OPIL 9U04] Uy Poquosep sv ‘soqoFRzy J909g 20 TORT ||

... eet nee genres TEWOOELNOS OL4TOVA sO ween ene ewnees ms, , meena -— em

Be) a fo N soabigapciticadatipniohninetiol: %

Bheger aes

Bei Go SRS

"GIE-X Wer] UE O passeyer soevezouy

“J WaINJOR UT PeprAos

"QE W9}] Jed sv sas

“LIOL 94] JO £ pus z'

“01 ‘pucg 99671 09 AIddv you

“M-dO 2° M-NO

m9} 40d ee 901 e sod ¥

wo oye oop sodeed sv 40 ‘sya}0d BONBUNSeP M-NO 04 soubseqrN} 10} OT

q1H0N oe doad ©

) BIQUINJOD YsHLIG UI euIOd 04 peuNsep syaourdrys UO o484

TIWe@ “eqi 000‘09 “4 “TIS

sip epywyno ‘gh LL Wie4] By Pequosep sv ‘10q01q} J0 QT BBNeC) puspuTyg *s “1

‘£fuo wujod ouTTpeoy 0%

sousg; * ‘ND. “Ie ‘s0qe1g df 20 dN wo syupod 0 “T¥D ‘ox000CT

Sort wo (enemey eo) Or dnaif) 04 20 fa ati ae no t

"21

“GOLL PT" OTL ‘SPILL ‘OPIL eUIEr] O08 ‘soqus ¢

queSy ‘OVEunG LHDIZS I

904208 GEE-K) OCT aSTIE;dC

10H ‘D ‘a ‘2

415

(ites

LIQ9T WoF}901200

"Teo ‘g ospouurg Ueg ‘700299 IOAIVN ETL

‘2000 JUTYSHAN BHVL NOSTAN V “WH

“o06t ‘9! HOUVN SAILOS&AZ

q penises]

THL-MIN “AWINyY—ONLZ—O

ooer ‘Ol AUVNUAAA AAASSI

*9q] 000'08 “34 “S1N@ “eq{ 000'09 "348 "UW ® 4

; “LIUT Wer] Jo ¢ pus Zz sydusPuse,| Jo Bo}AoId °

“20A0 30 SOGOU] OF 210UTSTP OpyeyNo ‘20R0749 40 OT “ON paspuvig 8° 8248 20 078)d ‘BuyqnL, 20 odjg wo AjuO “laa

“you ‘0119808 ‘AN 20 ‘AN “CO “PuTHOd ‘ND “I®D ‘“20qe1G ‘dM FA “ISD oveeg Oty, Xopul wos soyddy ovj y@

: “10% 40 or ‘3 ‘Suiqny, 40 odig 40

‘saq0qq) 20 Bee gf ‘yooge 30 exer “(qyBnOAM 20 yewO YoU) BaTINS, 19 Soh aya “aduyydnog wo Os{* punogyji0Uu

eur[peoy 07 syuj0d woy A\ddv oats 60) ¥ yj

"dS Yiys wopoeww0s Uy YELY VO 0} 40 way {yddv you s00(j

"dQ YA WOH I0UUOD U] AGLY VO SUjod gt dno_ 0} 40 WIOd Ajdde you s00q]

“1 Wolq20g Bt Poplacad [2-1 40 19-N “ZL-D 823N0U FIA

"1 Uoq}00g Uy popracad ¢-/) JO O-N ‘Z-D Oe ton tench

“dQ Gs VORCoUUOD B} FE.LY UO syujod gt dnoss Woy 700 S90(j

“dQ YES GOP}I9UU0D UE FEL VO eyajod wos) A\ddv you s90(]

“991199 ELT L WIE;] 008 ‘994U1 10}, ‘}20UN,)

"04

*so1108 FggTZ W97] o08 ‘so}u1 107

eer eeeseeere

see eeeeeeees

eeeeeeeeeees

eeeeesrereeeheseerrerreee

eee eee eeeere

seer eer eraser eeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeertem lemurs rt

eee eeeeeetee

eeeweeeeeeeet rer eeeeereee

eeeeeeeeeeee

Pwerereeeeeenry PES eS SSSR

eee eeeeereee

emo

pussumoy, 140g@ 06281

ee eeeeereeee

weeeeecesesereeeemy FER serreee

sewer erereee

se eeeeeenere

eee eeaeeeeert eer rerererere

eee ewer eeene

we eee eee sere te eeeseeereeeeeeeee

eee eesereeeeee eee FR - cer ererre

(soqeSary 8071) Wit dno2p

(peyom se sdeorg) HOWL

2-00, 103]

te Ean GEREN SEAN NNNLY” pneaRaaeee

~peawoot sj aupod ou) WOFTM WO SUT] OC) SPAEOTDUT PUL sequINY XepUT eT} s SuIET WOT EIS ¥ OF Poxyerd JOqumNU eC

“azequing dnosp fq peywudesp eyU7od 209 ,,AVday seey FM OL PUL MIOIE SIT]O JO TPT, O08

QOLL PUT ODT ‘SPILL ‘OPTL Sure] OO8 ‘eoVes f:20 FF 'D ‘A “A ‘Cl ‘OD “A “V MUMIOD BuPTE) Soforse Jo 381 20d

"S91L 99 OFIZ SM127] 1} Poqtdeep sv ‘sejoPzy [904g 40 Wor]

: VVSCE @TOST WOT}901100

aD *g CORPOUTAT Weg '70019g IOAIUW LIL "0298-al “ANINV—00FE—O

‘s0omO SuTUETGnd UCL © “O ‘A Aq ponssT Ae ee Bt cae

T96T ‘SB TIUCV ZAILOGIA Te6T ‘LT HOUVW GANSSI

anil SS EN

— ne -

sostdxy@®

2 20 M-NO ey} uo

VILOQLY Ul SuONuUNIEp 04 40 “(°D “A ‘s0anoouR AVON qdooxo) ¥ ary} "AU

wioysuq Wey Sylow ‘M-dO ‘M-NO VA “| “ff toanoauw A

*eq1 000°08 “344 Te

0] \ 10

]| ‘soyory? 20 oFinw# gt “Joous 10 ayn ‘(4ysnosM JO YeUD Jou) Burqny, 40 Oty >°BlA uo

moped our[pvoy 07 syujod ouropTs

(oSvoraD 32Cd) 9T Aner

(cosjouvig weg) 9T noi

“QOTL PUY OOTL ‘FIL ‘OTL Sur] O08 ‘sous ¢ 40 FF ‘DH ‘a ‘TC *c ‘gl SY BUNJOD SuPes SofoHAT Jo YY 49.7

“QSTZ 9 OPIL SUI0}] Ul poquosep su ‘seTIPATY [e034 10 WOT]

<peqeooy 8] auyod eu) qoyqa WO UT] ony) SeqEOTDUT PUL ‘IqUINN xOpPUT oq? H eurNE WORIEDS ¥ 09 pexpesd soquINU oy

-axequing dnosp £q peywudjsop syuyod 20; , Addy sew TOTTI O, PUY MIO HIU}Og JO TOUT, 09g

‘SUT 0OT WHd SLNEO NI ‘SALVE ALIGONMMOO AVOTEVO—? NOILOES |

T 44Tav.

quety ‘nvzung LHDIgdd LEVOOHLNOS OLAIOVd :

“Cat-XE DUS GTU-x SoNNAT Uy 0 possepes senvasomT 08 “pI0T Fe Meone ‘300f

GT "ON wiarexgy

NOISSIAMO) GOUXNWO) TLVISHELNT HHL aL0REG

[69¢ ‘[oz]

++ oe

‘Teo ‘g compu weg ‘300739 494707T LIL CO ETT RY OES

‘s00GO FUITSHGN BHTL ‘ATLNAD ‘O ‘Ai 4q ponssy |

t96t ‘9 TIHdV ZAILO@AAA 196T ‘9 HOUVYN GANSHI

"OT Wer] O08 ‘sxIWP] C9U010;07] yay jo uolyuundx:s 104

18 Y I

‘A204 ‘ND “I¥D ‘20q01g ‘AM VIA soydde ‘oArenfouy ‘oyvpy ‘ously, 4ne0D SPELT pus 0} “Yee Bee ho xepuy

OL ‘18 Wow aa 10 dN 00 ‘puvpod ‘ND “180 soqorg ‘dM ve ose rednt “dh 20ELI We

“IO ‘“seqerg ‘dM 20 quED “Yyoum ‘vwdry ‘(“qeuy ‘oowey WA) GN “OO ‘Putiog ‘ND Meg ‘oqo “dM wr wortey ep

Bie eB “AUOd “WM “For ANY Youig “AN 40 0

‘ND “I8D ‘Jogo “aM BIA “TeD ‘ox000CT DEF, PUY “IVD ‘PUTIVO OIF, XOpuy Woy i! Wuod we

Mpevianeds VONAVA GT96T

w tat PUSTYON O8F6I

» EMO PIOPWUHT LLPGT

» “SOM PrOjUVHT y

ee a

[fol. 570]

‘I8@ . ‘dN a0 “eq] OOOO “34 “UWS

uo (eur: . “Apdde you T14 BUVL S51 J L101

sik ics ee WOH] 10 OM JO FE CTY JO SUOISTAOIG—OI0N

“Aydas jyva FOLOT Wd]

eee eee eee mms aon tlt tt tt ee

*****fgeeaseSerw aeorr) at Gna {°******

‘soo AOA JO GM ‘OpOYOA ‘sz0TIL@

Pe (@,0N 00g) 3 "S14 ‘sePOPATY 20490 PUY sepOTWOA

***(sopeBay 907) yLt dnoip | --:--:**:

aes ae

HS Seas» ‘Rae fdr pete ee dod

anos)

“pezeso] sf yUpOd eq) oFUA WO CUT OTT) seqeorpuy pue ZequIny EOpUl ou ey euIEU WORERS ¥ OF pexpeddl zequm ou

‘srequing dnosp £q pegeudjeep squyod 203 ,, diddy eeyey qorG A OL PUY WoIg SIT}OT JO XepU],, og

“‘S@T COT Ud SLNZO NI ‘SELVA ALIGOWMOO AVOTUVO—*% NOILOIS

—

| weet" OOF queiy ‘nvzung 1: 08 O1aIOVd Fag Poe peenen ae ||

(s0}208 $28-X) OST QueUIETddng 20 ETE-x ‘sOs-K ‘NGt-K ‘OLT-' ©} Dersejex SOsvET.UT 03 300fGNS TON

‘ ane fe Pe Me aE ne OI Oe ee ee ieeiha vase idiinceae ee li ao ws 7s na tsies tere os

— pee: iS ae Sat ei i Si ae Ba in MERE

NE RNS

(fol. 571]

Yup * oonjoureag UR "00008 105UTEE 111

“WLLL “ANRY—00SE—O

‘r09TGO FUISHANA HRVL ‘NOSTAN “V ‘Wi 49 pons]

096t ‘ST UHMWALATS TAILOIIST

210

2e9Ut dds

“SPI WOzeLMer]

; I

reyajod Buymojpos 03 9 Aja0 kydde

GAOAN 0 “pu0dy *

sapnpout O78 yy

: to s[dde soyes g WuNToD

-uroy{ 9984 Ut peprsoad osraz0q70 ssOTUN “sPeO|eTS Paxrar 10 4q9TVIIg

(¥ pee g ‘t senony oes) dn you ‘seDneesed ‘senrtowomny

(> pure ¢ ENON O98) dn yee “yqB10x3 ‘seTTGoMOINY

rata “(g OJON 008) SOTOIAY JOTI PUB ‘1070UT ‘SOT>TIOA

: Wo s[ddv seqei y wamjop

ures] S779 0} Cowr0ze2 OYToeds SuPywUL S072 qI}m WoP}oeMUCO Uy Ayu seTTddy

~poreo0} 8} aupod oq} WOTGA WO SUT] Ou soz8oTPUT PUT quNN ZepUy eu? sf CUTIE WoTIeys ¥ Oy PeyeId JOquINT ONL

“saoquan q dnosg £q pegeudpsep squpod 20; ,,<iddy s03ee WLM OL Put mIOrg SIU}Og JO XPT, 08

‘SUT 0OT HAd SLNZO NI SALVA ALIGOMMOO AVOTUVO—*F NOILOTS

ee ner

M-OMEOT PAE X-OMEOT STeIMVH A-OPEOT 104]

get .

. ‘qe0ng 205250 “LIve-wu “47ay—00KE—O

‘m0B0 ‘O ‘mw 4q penesy

"69206 WOIssTUIET OO] ‘eorj0u AvP OI UO ponssy

g Test ‘8 AUVONW? BAILONASE 196t ‘81 AUVONVS GEOSSI

"S'OFVEOT PUB OT SUEZ] G08 ‘sxIUPY 9900I0;077 jo uonvuyidry 104

"o $9484 JO 8¥OU9AI}00 49 JO ane atv tenes os

“SA 40 dS ‘Ad ‘AS.LY 9° syu10d 03

20 38 SupwoSu0 oyses} G31 GOr}0eUU0S UT ATUO ser tear0a cox 20 ‘ARASH “HM “SEIN Tall tA eoUaM “BO ‘pare

420g 380q 20 (9G FF8q) puvyy0g wos 10 0} 91 q¥: ‘9 WoI}Oeg UI 94NOJ YILA UOT}99UTOD UT re sear ng ‘ASLV UO svutod

04 peuyysep 40 48 owes; uo Ayu soyjade “Ted ‘seqoig wiA e1quorjdde ‘g Uorjoeg ut se}NOs qIIM

“AS.LY vo eu}0d woIy 30U s20¢]

"dD 200043 “Jf 20 LO wo “oxy “709 O[LAdULIg 07 OAOgN Z OINOY SIA

“dJOQ 2024} ‘LO U0 “21Q “30 aII1AdouLL 09 eynoy ¥iA

"(9 Xepuy) “[eD ‘puomqory wo ou

“pejou ee 3deoxe ‘7g 431M BONIeMUOD UI g GOI}90g UI peplAcid sa;nol VIA—~s OUNOY

“porou ow ydooxe “Twp ‘seqelg BIA ¢M Y}i4 UOHIUUOD UI g UOT}90g Ul peplAoid saznod BIA—T eNO

ST ge a a a vay Taacee Sea

“qeeys oor jose |} (e? its “Spl “"yeruey ozos

eze jere jose jeze | 1 Lv *K@]JOOM — .

-o1peg SOIT ] ***OMYOIO OLS8

a Oe eee eae am an -Spy’*-- "40nd Seas

» ‘wo ZurNg OOOTT ——

: eel : peer Sek

Dos lie exe |ece luc 8 lave > ‘oUtaekseyy, 09601 > “yuoures,) OSS

“qeum’*"*** cp CoP eeneeheoseee Z8e 782 s “gor Breic) o6r8

SpuowIpy OF60T » *'* SUOqny 0648

“Spl oesepind SBrs

eze jooe jsze jooe j6iz 61Z "ysem ey jew joy sre syeo “SP]""U0{M MOT CFE

eC" ane O1Z0T £98 98 £98 e98 008 00g eeeeeeeeeeees (urey

& L; -qInWIeqD $8901 -Burtjog) ez dnoip

ee | ores coe eee lee |e oe oes san oe

a ‘eiQ"uMboyryD OZgot|| sze |eze jsze |sze | Lz 74 *(3;0104q]) Voz dnospy

2 ee:

8%E | 80E@| 8zE Son | Lee 122@Q | ‘(o17980g) gz dnosp

wile lol: nog pear Semen SRO

907 90F o0P 907 Ore ore . oye] ees eee 8ZE 00g eereereee 61ze *"mmoys se ydeoxe

8280W® SOTOT ‘(pavyii0g) 2z dnosp)

eeeeetlereee SZE Sze wets et <* eae » ‘sanqsue[lq SEool

seeevethleeeee Sze 8ze eeerenee PA 4 7, 8ZE ooeé eereee estes 61Z sere cees ** [aos se 4deoxe

UNIT 91D SO00T ‘(puvy1404) 9¢ dnoiry

eeeeehecees Sze Sze a ee Lv J)’, ar 912 0ez® 11g O&% StI® StI a ween gbeiee

wmBOUINTy 0906 qIwarely) oz

aliviaiyv v v 4 aivigaiv v Vv d

SNBO'I00 OL SNWO'100 OL

4 4

B32 » 8882 >

| afl (ateee lpedlladel a ape

a if & fone ie H H Babes —

ere _ §g 8 ae : g 3

* * e “Oud .' =.

kl 2 2] 25 "mom |

“OSE0T WEI] 908 ‘say~s g 10 y TUMIOD FuryT) sopONTE 70 YT] JOT

“Pevsoor sf sumed errs worg. wo ou

oq} 8e380;pU} Puy sequin

peyeadysep syujod 103 ,

LOpU] Oy} 8] CUI TOTIe}S € 04

ddy sey qo mM OL Put UIOLgZ S}U}Og JO XepU],, oeg

-eBueqQ¥

‘qezp oBeg [wuBuK 04 paxeyorer; 4zy SBUZ PomLAsy 3817 UO UMOYS Ajs0mII0} OFEOT WIV

(9¢e9 Vu) “QLI-X WIT UT 04 paszEyer SoPNaIOTT] 07 oO[qGus 10N@

“SIS-X 20 QOC-X ‘B6I-X ‘grI-X SuNZ] BI 0} Poss9yes SoPVaIDUT 07 309!qns ON@

tik Seo tiodsta ‘alm wie "10 “ooo Gene Paw Spo femeio mk pet ws detrei?

: ‘dm M4 JQ wo *

paspog)

“poqes0] 8] 3apod oq} TORI Wo eur oq) SeqeoIPUT DUS squNE mPUT eqs S}oureT WORT ¥ OF peryerd sequInT od L

-szoquiny dnozp £q pereudmep eyuped 203 , Aiidy sesey GOMLA OL PUT WOIg F3T}Od JO NPT, 098

a eee lived eee

(fol. 574]

vad | ("| 8 | 8 RERRRRSHRR| 8 | BRERERR

t >

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 1960

M. A. NELSON, Tariff Publishing Officer,

Issued

in} Izarkot Street, San Francisco 3, Cal.

moana 5088 8 Hi

$a988 8|88| § it

ee .

dit

, oan en honhentand

i! bs

i reg reed s |G RARRNRAAER] 8 | RARRRBEIE :

acammgmn| ol 8 | ansuwaanae| & | saananslansaaleazsaaly | :

3 bd: LARRRRnnr ee Unnnnn BORE EYE Rane nner 9

: Le iris HA B || gas : ce gi deg cable iio 38 Ie

: cH a uldeleailliils lub anluntienss

=f EL BISSEAU SSR EL

H Ie oo'ta | (eleaees s]aa] +a

i cvero'vs Gn) |. |g /eeges 8 || & “4g

Screg ronen wa | \n|@[Seaee 8} | Sept

(iwc lal leleuase 8 na il;

od cog ji 5 an| rf i

| “Il assuEgp JULY 29, 1960

| || C-2500—Authy, C-7776.

motor,

list of

11635 Chewelah. Wash. 384

PLELT WORDSIION —

"OLLL-O “AqNY—0092—9

*g oospouvly “200139 2ONIVIT LTL

‘sooo SUTIN UNVL NOSTAN “VW ponss]

Oost ‘es ATOAL AAASSI

OO6T ‘ST UAAWALAAS AZAILOWIAL

40 seein ou

pas ovo buoy wos

“ABLY © “

Pp worroag

UoT00g

See

[fol. 575]

: "OSSOT wea] 998 ‘soy¥s G 40 ¥ BUMIOD BuIYe, sZoHIZ0 Jo yey 30.1 |

Seeee en ne ean acRRe oan Ee eT 20,0 “SOTOTGCA |)

A-OOSOT Te3Iy f |

a NR Te Ne one em na

ier pete eevecear arias alae ie a .

(fol. 576]

ZGB9T_WOTZI0170H

“Rg “g oosjues.z ung ‘799299 2ONTCTT JTL "SH LN *“A4I"V—0097—-90

‘sO TUTSHINA WHEL ‘NOSTAN “V “WAG ponssy

o06t ‘St ANNE AAILOALAT o6t ‘9 AV AANSSI

‘S843 "a goouny "4, poy he aid pis puviyod Hn i a pened’ ASL via hag wed ay

gai. ‘pusyz0g ates 42g) pusyywod “di f7 yaSny tA

dope ickeneiia Adds You 800)

ZIP errr est eriagngw 8x eee eeeeet ® **+ t(aneeweneens AAs oe imeem 206th tt tthe 9: I ae

Slt ’

weceee =©—U™lUC«&WS OQ Lome *** eel etl poeta iter

ereee

eee Ree ees Oe oe eee

see | Se cep

878@} LOO “vqUOUIAA SPSL

* se be oo oo Rae a ae hg. aeso coo

as his Asi9q suguu0;g ul @A0LT) 038330) SBOST

gaqivigaigyv e v 4 aivigagiyv Vv Vv 4

rg er

“ oni Sposa 00

A gga 80 SEL

nN ee os

Ba sr anesp

(

“ORLOT W209] Cos ‘wows G] 40 y UUINIOL BULyW, SOPOTIZE Jo Y81] 204

W934

ARLE ERS AAP ‘10,001 “SOFOFUOA |

(fol. 577]

‘90013 20RIVA LIL

‘mogo Merenand DVL NOSTEN Ye penss]

696t ‘) UMAOLOO ZAILOMAAE

"dn “910 ‘paspzog ‘ND “INO ‘0qerg “AM B14 soddy—s

“aoT;ONpeYP

Busy h

oe eusgodg o2z0e || 98 | soe 06Z

Piet Aouey) 99208 || Ver | Fer ELE

aie | SIF SE Se | » 7 UBUIGSICL OOTOS || HOF | FOF 8ZE

zai propjooy OZIOS || WE | H8E SZE

“GeUMA** PIOYATEA OTTO |] STF | STF ong

Lie

gi8%

8553

ee |

”

teens yf WOIU) O206T

* +++ -qsrudaequny O9O6I

”

RRESSSRER

P33 en ve

gon surest 02861 || Gee | Gee ee eS eg

Ziv | StF Bre B¥e “ee “pPeyreD OOBET || 8ZE | 8ZE 29%

"Spl" *““Mooso~y S¥R6I |] B2E | 8zE me les

eae wear Ogs6l || Sze | Bze rd

Ye *** XBH1OD OORET |] SZE | Sve - ee te

828 | 828 £9%

ese | 88€ oze eee aaah: TeuUOD 09261

ese | £88 0z8 0ze “SUONAGSE MA SZL6T ote WOPUOD STS8I

ese | Esse 0ze OZE | “Y®%M "988015 BT OLET . erin > eis

ea St96I || Sze | Sze L¥e Li@ ‘AOUIVA 888IE) OSZ8T

. “episAuung SScé6l ge te SN ee O10 OFZST

sce | 8ze 29% 29% “MOTAPUBIE) SE96I ages OO8BM SZLBT

“jew AoUMouUESE $Z¥6I

eae | dtd ee cane OhAST

ZOE | ZOE 628 et Ce ee ge puouipey 00z8T

Zee | 268 62E by e3pod Ofv6l Of OTTACUL $698T

ese | ese 028 ce | » '°' 7 MOMNqIwIg OIF ee seIpy 9998T

ee | ele 608 RE es ats workec OL86I || 8ZE | 008 61z 612 | » ** “SONS CYL, GODT

goe | 998 WE we | » °°“ Binqswem Ose6r Maar JO180W SZ98I

soe | 998 HOE | eS 7300801 OFE6T » JAI POOH OZS8I

EB —_ po Re RR

SIIFM FIFA OTS6T

ba |

OnOtL

4 a. ih v 4

te (9¢e9 Vu)

fe [ints fe

W-OLSOT Um03 1-H

“OLLOT W94] 08 ‘Baz8l G] IO Y UWINIOD Buryvy soporjse jo 4st] 107

Ut suoIsTAOId J9y4}0 pus 4yZIEM UINUTTUTUZ 07 yoefqns pus pequosep se ‘sofo1}I¥ Joy}0 PUY SyIV_ efofyeA 40. ‘0your any a A

“peq too 8} 3UTOd ey} TOTYmM UO CUT] OY} 899¥9IPUy PU’ JequINA epUT oy} #] CUATU TOT;eZe Oy Pexyerd sequin eq,

“srequing dnoip £q peseusysep s,ujod 203 Addy seve TOA OL DUS mOIE mI UIOd 20 SPT,

‘Set Ot Une SaagD i Sears AnecomED <7 Tee | oe

we eene

eee eee eee

eres TT

ae ees wre Ee passaged Cianaaaae es

*susdwoo

peolTyey Otsu uotug 10 AwmT yey OFsToOeY useyzION souSey, ‘ucFe19 ‘pueTqs0g

04 ABM Tey UISYUZION Queip ‘etUIOJT TED ‘aeqetg 07 Ausdmod peorttey oTsTorg

Uze7sem BTA AusdwoD peolT Tey oTsToeg uoTUQ pue LeMTTEY OTs TORg UsEYzI0N

ey} UO SzUTOd ‘07 AusdwOD pROITT EY OFFTOBY UTE;SeM e4} UO BTUIOJTTeD UT

SquTod Worl seTTqowoyny uo Sezel queseid Bupuyezuoo *E/9T *ON *OOI “(4 pue C

SjuemeTddng pue) G-26Z °ON JJTIBL nBeung ywWRTery YsPooyyNOS ITF POR” jy”

"18D ‘¢€ CoeFoURIY UBS

*geezas 2e4tW LIL

‘ze0T330 BuTYsT GMa J3JTIVL “ATINAD °O ‘M 4q ponssT

"1961 ‘ST HOUWN BALLOSAda Eee "1961 ‘@ AUVNUdad GaNssl

220920: BVO BV14 VSTIV GS

OldaVaL ALVISVAINI NO AlddV LON S300 AdLUVL STHL

ots ae

NOLONTIHS VM

NOSTzO

VNVINOW

OHVAI

VINUOAT .VO

ES See SSS

OL Woud

[fol. 579]

SA TOIHAA YOLON

Salva INIOr

se8ueyd [[T@ uyequOD » pue ¢ squeweTddns

aqa-262 dadalLuvi LHOLAAA

» INNA 1ddls

que8y ‘nyaund IHSIgua LSVOOHINOS O1dAlOVd

SI®) 3VTq UO pegzodsuvz3 pue sIeTTeIL UO pepeoyT SeTOTYeA UO kyuo a Tqeortddy

8291 SOL

-OL-

(e8eg 3821)

—————

*uoTIoOnNper-¢

“@PEIeUTWTTS n(ND YIFM UOFA2euUU0D UT A{dde jou S20q),, BUTPIOM~+¥

9961 ‘2 (2S9T-If9)

zequeqdes perep ‘ygeeg UoTSssTwieg DOI JO AQT10YInNe

&q poaatmzed st uotaqeotiqnd szyz jo mi0z ay]

"ZeTTer3 red OS*I$ JO ss"verDUT

ue 03 30efqns e1e 3nq ‘joe1eY43 SeNss}t sAtTsse2oNs 10

o3er0y2 squewetddns ‘1/91 OO diSd ‘€7Z~X SeBzeYyO

pue seqey pesweioul JO 3371eL ‘ZZ weal ut peptaoad se8ieyd

sesverouy 03 3oefqns jou ere sojezr [NeYy-suTT pue soley

gxe= ‘UOT Qdaoxg UT eseo129Ul

(uozadeoxg 98S) ‘*jJoezeyQ senssy saTssed

-ons 10 OJsi0ey3 Squowertddns ‘1/91 DOI disSd ‘€77Z-%

seSieyD pure seQey pesweroul jo Z3TAel 03 3>2efqns

ere ‘ojezey3 squowertddns ut pue ‘jz3xT1e] styQ ut se

-82ey> pue sejer ‘seZieyd pue sejez ze[noT3j1ed Yat

wot QoeuUCD UT pepzAoId estmreyj0 se ydeoxq

NOI LVOI IddvV

SNOILIVTNSTY GNV SAIN TVYINAD ~

SNOISLAOYd ONINYAAOD MaHLO GNV Sane.

T96t ‘Ot AUVONV GHOSSI |,

INUVL UV LV14d BITNVaAL |

[MEE Ge cos sabi tes

NOOTaO ¥¢ VINaO4TTVD

VEVINOR

OHVal

ol now

8292 LZ UO peyodsuan pus sseT7es], BO pepecy SepoTTeA GO Ayu erquondcy

SJ1IDIHIA YOLOW

salva LNIOf

G-£66 4d1aVL LAOS

€ LNXNAIddls

woby ‘Ny3uNd LHOI8I ISVOHLNOS IHDVd

Tea 8 yee eo tO my

;

ra na

- a

me.

x zi &

yf °

Hog! et

B be

Boi sx

hel |e :

pe ed

( y

ms 4 eo

Peed

—

: 1, rai

at i iff.

Note 1.—Substitution will only be at carrier’s option

Cancel ; provisions of Item 65 will apply.

70-A

|} SECTION 1—PROPORTIONAL RATES

Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B or C rates.

HB, Yao |

i3-

$113.70) 11

90} 11

i SESS

RSR S288

70 154

20 155

Ree RERS

Sous sess

$135.80

160.30} 130.00} 108.

$167.50

sdoaltiites

dddda defies

gi ber

FROM POINTS ON SP IN CALIFORNIA

~~ ~aeeed

S2888 RSRA

, + s *

ARSGE 8584

R28RR SEAR

SSSR ARSE

SSRe9 BeBA

RESSS ase

..eee} 135.50} 110.20] + 92.30

+] $182.40) $123.70

FROM POINTS ON WP IN CALIFORNIA |

Decoto, Melrose (Oakland Oakland,

Pag a meng

Route .

(see Section 3)

RARAAAS

SRARRSR

Vebicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B or C rates.

“quevzejddng #rq3

£-98 20 1-90 “H-96 “G-00 “C1-06 ‘ST “PI ‘ET ‘ZT ‘OT ‘6 '8 ‘L ‘9 ‘9 ‘g eNO THA BoROoUUOD aT ATuO SEHAGVS

s Surpnjouco eee ‘syIvUI eouDIEsS! Joq}O Jo DOF wUV[dxe OF

Aaeat “fjoo pourea syayod 09 soddy@D |

| en eo Rt

SeSSS See eSSeeSSSSSSSSSSESHSESSSSSSSSOES®

SOS SSS SSSCHESSSSSSSSSSSSSSHSHSSHSSSSSHENS

| 0-4 ave V-¥E

ao Ob 0 6S OO CH OSES SSS ORSS FSS OS HF SOCOT SOME

} 20 22 ESO

wee cdececesseessseSSsesesessssesesssesee®

[fol, 582a]

61 ‘ST

0&® 40 SI

. Ax

| (g woRseg 09g)

eynoy

VINUOATTVO NI dA NO SLNIOd NOMA

“eo83 () 20 G “Y SUUINIOD SUPTE ‘OOF UIEr] Jo SuOWACId oq} 07 yoo[qns PUL UT PeqHosep SE 'SOTYPA

ere eee etee

| ‘1-00 ‘He ‘D9c| 08"

eeeeeeeenee

) Ot ‘bt ‘et ‘et ‘It :

wee weet teens

O-O1 ‘A-Ol “VOI g

‘ett ;

eee eee eeeee

It 20 6 ’

19% ;

| I-96

} ‘aed ‘O-%) 09"

| (g BoRI0g 908)

omnog ts

| 9m won20g sim

| woSose A PoE

(see Section 3)

Column E

SOS xs +SS eK as +

san 2 *so9***s*

FERSSSAR S

ae. #2 @ @

pir

BSSIS FER

SB FASS Fk FRSR He

“aaa” "az "s

Column D

Vie ae (or Ce eS 8

Mt ae ee ae as ee

EO ae te ae cen ee ee

SS eee: ae ae ee

Se 6) C8 e. eis

ee ae ee ee

Ba ORM Ot 8D

6. Se Oe RO eS

tae ee OM ase ®

ee SX Sn tee he ee en

he ae ae a ee, a a

Bri bons! Be Re

2 62 Re BO &

8.’ @ - gee

Le RD eae oe

ea) -e 8

we €¢ e

Gh ROE Talk Te SBR AT ee ee Sa et

FROM

Renton, Wash.

Column C

61:9.) 2. AC SE 0

4.8 8. 0 bee

Oe Say ew: Ore ers

Po Oey O98 Ry eee

ye i ee ee Pe ee

Se Ae Oe eee ee

Ph Oe O58 ORs Gee’ wR

Oe We, Eo ee

me 4, Os. 0) Me

ee Oa ee 2

Sy Oe we ee ee ee ae

, A te ae ee ay eee

e.@ = ex 9

6) Si Oe

a AS bare °

Te ee te ae .

us at

Meee ‘SNssess ;

Cee Ce 2 be Os eS

ho ae ee ee

ee. € a's

Oc e. 2-56

_* © we *

ERS ae Ee A,

| 889484889

S28 "$ "S85

| $8 RRS s38R8 $=

82 <=8 282

b | BBS FS HSS te

BR "b “S8s

Column A

EQ KK

SHEE ES

a |Se pases yess ps

$3" ce” "sda "a

ie en ik MO Pek es SP ay ES

halt Sie, ook, OE ee ES, ke ae Rae ee Ee ey

A ty, ee ae a ie Hee ew

’

CRO oe> poi eS aoe a ae ow

OE Se RE 8 ee Lee a

F208 aA

OS i 6 eerie eS “eRe eee

Ree ee eae AR See iat ee BE wae eR

O32 ¢ a eee = a. 6 Cee re he

©: ee PKR ae

ee TP ee ee

9 ee eee

oer « te

| Vehicles, as described in, and subject .., the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B, C, D or E rates.

} 1030-B

* juouay t 8)eBed Surpnjouco ove ‘exIvUl GoUdIEJOI 12430 Jo UOI;UB|axe 104

‘ade tt ee ‘a1}}8Og Wor Pepracid os1m19Y70 8978I9F : pOyTUTUNTIO GOVT Y FF

ee ee OS

952/88

x den¢ | ae

R288

BSS

way |

"So4z SF 10 C1 ‘D ‘g ‘Y STUMIOD BuPIe ‘OOF wer] Jo FuoYACId OT~'04 yoolque pur “al pequosep oF ‘seTINeA Hf

RESRSVRRSAKS

ZFSSEEERSEEE

SRISRSISRSRA

SSSREVZASBSS

ASBassBsRzsr

SSSSEKSERSSS

SESnSsesaess

SSisserssese

SERRGSSSE

BLSSSIBIFS

FSSESRESRARSAB

gstasangsnas

seseanssesse

Seestcsgeses

| on eel

SESSRZSRBSSESS

SERSSEEBSSE

ZSSSSSSSSR2I8

nessereaneas

BRSISRSAS

S*uagstc

SSSSSSLANTBS

ZSARSIEVSIRE

SBSRSLAEKBES

BSRRGZRRIARAS

RRSSRSSASSsy

PrP T Tied ptt

SSLSEZRASESE

SRZLRESRINRVSG

BSSEASRBS

RINRRRALR

SSISISSSEAASS

BRSZLRSBSRRI

ZESSaRRSSRER

RRAGRSISREES

SSRESSZBB

accorded substitute service under provisions of Item 68.

as noted.

of other reference marks, see concluding page(s) of this Supplement.

ON TS&D

only in connection with shipments

except

tion

TO POINTS IN WASHINGTON

(JT-9770)

For

_ "007 tue] 09g -orwnbs oq} UNyILA pesofous sequin Suprweq yuourepddns wow penssoy | = Y

-® pexyerd e783 4q poseaco syusudrys uo Ajddv you seop 038y a

“Si 000'g poses 04 900 ofppyDs. Gove JO SABENA Sr eonade a :

"T8E) ‘(puBpyeQ) esorjeyy 10 0F000q] IOI; ATUO a

| -oed Ayoo Ayddw sexes ‘27 oynoy BA ‘puckeq Sujsow syuouldrys WoT} 9euT09 z

murgomonny wm Trego suoronpos sou toeveivysoqhou ty ayaass qorqa Supson Uf o3OW) S ~

] - ‘coqsywuem 20 ounqods ‘wumyuoyy ‘houpis 30 jomvy ‘jedstivy ‘sila 37020 ‘modevip ‘ound ol

"Od “WORM ‘94TH JOVI 40 oTyOg “AN “MO “PuNTHod ‘ND “MO Medd dM

[fol. 584a]

2A2RRAR 433

i. ‘puwyyod ‘48

so “emmoveryy “Exp somrpy “woveBorayy ‘yoxney ‘TredstTex “sIT¥A 100 ‘eaIPURTO * ‘epng

‘SPd8

"AN “80 “Puspiied

coo <

wene og nanaas 8 2 ged

T MOLLOES NI SALVA TVNOILUOdOUd HLIA NOILOANHOD NI ONILOON

(ooaT wea} POfqnS) SUAAWON ALNOM JO NOLLVNVIdXA

To6T ‘9 AUVONV( AALLOAAAT

VINMOAITVO

828) EL UO poyodsuey puv ss0];e1] UO PepvoT sepIFyeA BO Lya0 efqEoTddy

SZ1ISIHIA YOLOW

Salva LNIOf

D16B BUY Wyerg syooueD

G-£66 ddldVl LHS

woby ‘NV3UNd LHOITAI LSVOIHLNOS dIAIDVd

ymodpuyg qouepod

Alddv SXLV4 HOIHA OL SNOILVIS 40 LSII TVOILAEVHdTV

[fol. 586a]

im | 3

; ies:

I. piles

Af) | s| | a |

: i | |

Mlle

;

LE ee

| eda | || stds

fail itulblbtiulail

an of .

form of is of I

2, ;

For explanation of other reference marks, see concluding page(s) of this Tariff.

- GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

“lta is sat] 4 |i

ee ee

rs ass nae ane 38 § 3

i ‘i ae iH FF iF al ule iF

a (dt at et latin Tee | a (U

“ i a : 4 Hegel uh i ty He

a a a UE a | ee |

ciel | git ft jateaieeh i | alle rl

| i He a |e

a (Oe a (P| a

ar uate a a

A Eee sue ae ay

| Petar Sih,

sii 7: H: vite ley |eeye

dtu a) ER i

i R S 2 8 s © : a

nD f

on, be safely the

Interstate Commerce

‘ ”

(fol. 587a]

if order for such diversion or recon- |

+0 permit it to be acoomplished before shipment

time

for a eget

origin.

Prk

arrival at

are in

infor avery

20 *

: a

pahypns rei 2

fe fal dott.

Hide

consignee, the rate to apply will be that to

Fem point af which shipment fe diverted sa ap |

returned to

hi ts shenped

indicated in

sag i ats

eit

i Ny

323

$34

must be given or confirmed in writing by shipper.

eer ere

Condition of

240 Motor Vehicles | structi

(fol. 588]

tion plus stop-off charge. (see |

in a in |

is » Note), rate for all four or more if

in Agent Earp’s Washington Highway Freight |

: ot

T ! |

a trailer-load, charges will be assessed |

destination White sash villas Wu |

on Sunday, the following Monday will be treated the same as

where each vehicle is unloaded and delivered. |

in transit f |

boliday Talls

‘trailer:

(134) times the Column ‘‘A”’ rate to

of less than four vehicles are tendered as

trailer:

bf pre in

‘s Barthday

po mene dar

When shipments

14, I it

P es or P

destined for Seat:

Carriers will not be liable for damage caused by freesing of batteries.

a b vered f reason

at of

holidays.

times dus Cahomn “A” rate to destination

of f les per

sha eles: Sa naga i per sins Mae 1 RA ES

R' ; ce)

SPECIAL RULES AND REGULATIONS UNLIMITED

and delivered.

a fare pata

con’

on the trailer are

Note.

T :

taining

one of the

asf

it a|EE

Less Than

305 Trailer-Loads

320 Protection

a .

of ti

a eee a

id in

ermina! Handling Vehicles delivered to

- Origin | origin carrier's terminal at

"90482 O 10 g ‘Y SUUITIOD BuPTE, ‘OOF Wer] Jo Suo"sTAOId oq} ‘04 yoo[qne puv ‘Uy pequosep sw ‘Se]2T49A

| A! :

vat tn 08 "vet 08° 09T OF 861 ‘VOI ZI ‘ITC ber 08 SFI PRS Stabe ecg: Aoupig

Ai ‘S106 80T 00°0eT 08 09T bI ‘VSI ‘ZI \0e'26 02 OT PMS Bc oe snossIyy

PL ‘VBI ‘ZI HEI OL SFT 09° €8T VE ‘VSI ‘ZI /O9 PIT 02°98 ho ee SRRORE TS 4419) SII

uve ‘S106 S0T 00°08T 08 09T ys 02°96 09° SIT a Saari impel ities wo sBarary

ven ert 02° SIT 08 SET 03° LOT Ver aI at 09° 80 OL 8 Bo ae

G-El “TT /OL eT OF IST 00° Z8I @-Cr (TT 06°26 08 OT 3, Bae erigetees [eassy; =6seh

$91 “TT /06"80T 00°08T 08 'O9T A-€l ‘11/0686 00'SIT 8 SR: gee: STP 3901K)

I “V-8I ‘ZI/0e ‘08T 09°SST 02 ‘261 PI ‘VEL ZT/OT Oat ea! eae Pe OATpus{y)

ae “TT |0e 621 08 FST 02° 06T be ae OL 6IT 08 ZT aan, iatgapeaahbeasi 1D

. ° . Sectancwan0Ohlté<CédS one hOUCtéCédL ROOT CUT Ot feet eeesee

‘ tetlan‘ante® tas‘osT@ ins‘gvar@ i********"****

VINWOAITVD NI dS NO SLNIOd WOU

“oyeI O10 q “Y SUUMIOD Surv ‘OOF TI94] Jo suoysTAoId oy} ‘03 yoolqns pu ‘aI poqrIOsep Sw ‘soT>TTOA

| om wor20g sie UL pouren soyes Twu0HJ0doId orp 07 Burppe Aq sozez 38 Bopapiye Oy on igus pose on Sios poe troung poo

ce ioriee a, pus woReIG “wURIBOW Uy SyuTOd 0} wTUsOFTTN) Uy syUpod wos qoyya $078r O18 BORG S14} Uy poureU 8078

“OTOTOA 30d SWE) PUB sIBT}OC Uy sony

SHLVa TVNOLLEOdOUd—T NOLLOS

(g pus { suoT}0eg 9e8 ‘80781 10,7)

“Ge ernou THI wopoemao” uF IN eorteaNY

"q-ae 40 y-9e ‘Sz ‘FI ‘W-eI ‘ZI 8e;NoY 714 UoTceUUOS Ut ATUO seTiddy;

we Ove 08 ST 02 Est Rene Hepecsounpanetestertet tee? sete he | ae

W 00° S0T OL EZzt OF EST Siete ate SBA BENS ED Peta BE wan

3 we 06°26 08’ 9IT 08° SPT eee e eee eeewr erasers ney, ee

+4 06°86 00’ SIT Oe 'Stt eats onsen teen a ediahece Rc ne BIRR A id Lg § Ost

4 Ol'6ITt 08 ZT 00°SLT geet sane ati a chsh taste aie toon tear as Me: -

oe '% 08 26 0’ OIT 09 °S8I errr r re eee eee eee eee ee m yess tabi Pe o44Ng

% 09° s0Is OL’ SzI8 on'zors eee re reese eseesesesesesesese ssarTig

(g woR2eg ces) 7 ~ : hs VNVLNON

aynoy ag ‘ uvs§ NI

‘pavrqeo§ Ps Som «(pUSEReO) esoxjoyy ‘07;000q7 SINIOd OL pee

VINWOdITVD NI dM NO SINIOd NOW |

(SE9T-L£O) ‘£-98 40 FOC ‘H-9z ‘A-92 ‘A-02

eR HEHEHE EHR EHH HERE HEHE EEE

CRORE REESE REE HEHEHE HEHEHE HE EEE

nn aot

SRO Ree H HR E RH E ERE HERE EHEHEHHER HEHE EEE

[fol. 589]

40 72 RO

COOH EEE HEHE HEHEHE HEH HEHEHE HEHEHE EEE

POR HRERHEHEEHEEEH OHHH HERE EHH E HEHEHE Ee

(g BoRr0g 998)

VIN@OAITVS NI dA NO SINIOd NOUS

*eay8s 0 20 g ‘Y SuUNIOD Surqes ‘OOF wIO4] Jo suoTsAoId oY 04 yoo{qns Pav UT Poquosap sv ‘seTOFTA

eee eee wereee

seer tener eseee

VIN@OAITVD NI dS NO SLNIOd WOUd

“SOW8I C) 40 “Y SUUINIOD SuPTey ‘OOF Wes] Jo suOIsLAoId oy) 07 yoo{qns puT UY poquOsep FE ‘soTDTIOA

36. 7i|

: 2-289 :28

:| 895 ‘R22 /9 :2838 33

:|RRR 3838/8 388 :as

| 33.63| 96.82] 22:35] 44.71

“$a'75| 74/20! 6183] iaa.67,. |.

38.25] 20.60] 25.50] 51

400, taking Columns A, B, C or E rates.

FROM POINTS IN MONTANA (VIA ROUTE 28)

"28:10| 22:48) 18:73) 37.47

ia: 76)” 83.80) 60:83] 130-67]...°..]...1--]-.2.L... 198-28 20.60| 25.50) 51.

+*++[-g3'55|"70'60) 68.68 /4i7.67].-..-.|.-..-[e0.ce-[->-.--] 28-24| 18.62] 16-47] 30,98) 85.96) 28.20) 23.57 “a1

ibaux.....

‘ul

Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item

“F

Pes dee an Os RSGHSS

caeuae

s | SSSSRS

RSS | BVIESE | 89%

o8SS93 | SANSSS | ASRSRS

BSsss | RRSSR4 | S8auss

A |Shsaxee

o$55838 | S823

SRSSR |

wth

cal

Ez]

way]

. ; _ 5. Cae

Srp w pourrs eevas Sum om Sppe £q woNDeG eT meu sOTNEHASD ot 8 OP

° OO tin of te. metry ¥ é rm 4 , “ F :

SARS Pee ee ¢ : ; . )

i\3

<2)

ie | §

al, ‘Ss

Ala

‘3

(See Section

| Column B

| Column A rag | Column C

Ck ee ) .

| Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B, C, D or E rates.

BSSRSRSBs

RSRSELRLLAR

833583

SIRSRI

RBIISS

‘38 ‘ees ‘s

‘BS :2Ba 35

SSSR88S

SSSSXBSSR

BRARAA°KS

RASA

SSzSI3sss

FRRSARSIN

SRSESA

SSSSRR88R

5 \3

a \3

2 $

(fol. 591)

SR588R

SSESSSSSRRSSRSSSS

BRSBSVSSARS

SSRSARRSALS

SegAsseex

SRSRASELSSS

SSISRSSR3

‘ For explanation of reference marks, see concluding page(s) of this Tariff.

[fol. 591a]

SSLRSSSRSSRSISSR

oe 6.8, Cee Ph eee here 0s On C8 8 ee. Ces 8 - 8. 8

SERRSLSZSRSS

| Bie Ae ee “er Sie “fe RB

Sie eee. eee 8 LO ee eRe | 0) eee 6 ae 88. OD

ot @ © © © © © © © 8

_. @ © © © ©

0 ae ee

*“*e* + © © @ @

“7. e+ © @© @ ©

oS Se eee * 2 oO .e

a ee a, OO Re

Se ee ea Pe ee Le

"_2** © # @ ©

“ef e+ © @ @

-_2e* © © @ @

RI ieee Sie. £ At eee. © 6 Lb SO Pe. 28 2 8 2 eee Ae

oc. 9 © & 6 8 %& © BS 8:6

2 6 m0 6 8

“ee * * © @ ©

& » ¢) 6° @ a

ee oe a ae ee |

“7°. * © © @ @

1. Oe 6 eS:

as 8 9 88s

ee * © © #© @

oF a Wek ee

Pe er Ban Bt ee FB Pee Boe a Perey |

SRARSSBSRSS

SSRLARS

B83 2:5: 8aR

OR: ii kes

28:3: : 1888

ta ee

SSSRSSRVSAS

2 6 .. — 2. € @° ©

4 | SeaeseRsayga | se

SSSXBASISIQ

SRE is ee eu er a a Be

SISIZSSSSRIS

BURRESSE | RESRRASASISIARAS

RRSASSRAESSH

. 2 8 6 9 ¢ 0-0 6 w _®

SRALSSRS8SsR

RSRSSSSRSRE

en eh Ga ee De om) ey

OEE a Se Ee

Se we ea

Ji-0 2 to. «

eS a ee

6 Oe 04 Oey @

“7. © © © © # ©

CFs Or Or OE Or 6

66.40.08.) @ oy oe

oe. a) 69 Sr.€ 9. ©

ee wee ee Se er er ee oe ee Pe ee Ta,

SS 6259. 8S SE OE Rae, Fis

en Gh Se. 8 OS Oe Oe PR SS

OF es ete ote) eo" PR ROR? eee Oe

a> Ce Oe Te Se Oe Ee

oes.) 69’ Ger: 2". 6 Ce ee e442

Pt ae ie. a Re, Ae a Oe Re, SOR

OF 060: Be OP TE SOR Be ge! ES

6 ee oh SU Se Oe

ia Cet EPR Ta teh. et Be Se

"te ok ot be ae, ae ee

226 ee te ar ey

on Oe eg hee ae

Che Ee Soe aun ee eS

i: ye ee ee ee ee,

we Oe eS let ee

Oe Coe Poems teem. €

Ce Oo OR AS a a 8)

eh a ae ee a ee ee

0. 88 Oe BE Be Se eee

"© © © © © © © © #

oe ¢. &0 6 68 [9 ee

6 8). Co Me ee ee

Be ee Se ee a Oe

9.0) eS Oa DOOD Sank

ey a el ee ae, ee ae, ee ee ce

C10 RD Oe Ret Oe. eS

06 8 Oe Oe woe: C2

78 ee eye Pr Pie Pie 2

hls tok ee eee la Sat ee a

Soke. ae UE eee oe

Oe we. eae eee

6 a Be ee Ce oe

ee TR ee ee et ee ae oe ke

-o + PE.

0 6.8.66 6. * > ee:

ss ¢ & @ © @ e+e. 6

_2* * © © © © © © & ©

ee oe, oe ae Re ee a te

yh) tt ee ee a ae ee Pe en ee

-_* © © © © © © © @

70 a 2°49 @ 0108. 6

ee ee ae Pe ee

eo «6 ©. 68 © #1630 «6

aby hy de EA Sik ay ae hort ah Me

|] Vebictes, ne deseribed in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B, C, D or E rates.

For explanation of reference marks, ses concluding page(s) of this Tariff.

a |!

fy | é

a |3

SASSRSSR

RERRSSBR

A°ARRABA

SEZA5 582

SP SRRRSA

ABRSSSRS

S2R°2RR

(except as noted)

| Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B or C rates.

}

| item | TO POINTS IN WASHINGTON

a \§

TO POINTS IN WASHINGTON

ca NP

TO POINTS IN WASHINGTON

lemegt on ayeds)

CamP and UP

Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B or C rates.

j | RSSSRS

s|essszs

Column ©

umns A, B, C or E rates.

FROM SPOKANE, WASH.

ys]

aE:

a|3

li -

TO POINTS IN MONTANA

Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B, C or E rates.

| Vehicles, as described in, and subject to, the provisions of Item 400, taking Columns A, B, C or E rates.

ae om =

ij « i) « i)

g Ly i

| |p \B2Sseeeee | | |] (gSSR2EESee | | ||| gesascazeaas

: Fa anaes wa, sms

; |; |seeseeaee : iF reaagesgas : E |g |agegenszenee

< ‘ E gbSaaaae i é i padtass i : i qanitdacssas

g 3| 8 5| 6

| 3|q |ssgeaease | S|% |negeaesess Z| 3|4|seseeceseens

é : : gssaagsn° Z 2 j gGasnseneas g = i ZNRnSRKSSSAS

i i] ;

H eanzesnae | | |@ |sseasesecs | 3| |]|encesenasess

4 : i RSBRRRARRS i ZRRRIRRAVSAA

Ob Pa es We

mae} 6 A |

i i Pt) : é uid ub : e aE

is Au . : | 4 : | 4 : |

ease

say poo

| "ND “190 ‘aed, dit

] ‘eeqoqwae susqodg ‘vunjuoyy ‘Moupis 30 josey ‘yedstTey ‘sIT¥d 39026 ‘model ‘oung, ‘sDOrTe O

! et “Od “GeeM ‘20aTY AovTE 40 Of999R “AN “SO “pusfiiod ‘ND "9 Seqeid ad,

"Od “ ‘0ATY Ou 40 opNqwEG ‘AN “CIO ‘PUBTtod ‘ND “I¥O "i ‘a

"Od “Weem “J04TY Jour 10 of980g ‘ND “IFO *

"dN,“810

“Tse

woySuyyse A 0

‘puvyyog

‘puspiiod

yb aeons oo

‘

“dN “GSE * *,

| . “0 ¢

| : m ‘wo.00

| 30 ‘sinosstny ‘44D SOTA smear ween ‘etearn ae ee ‘Buta OL

‘

"dN “

Bee.

AN WORD eS

T NOILOES NI SALVA TVNOILMOdOUd HIIA NOILOANNOO NI ONILNOD

(OORT UIEgy 0) POfqng) SUAAWAN ALNOA AO NOLLVNVIdxXa

EF i nO jd win oo a og a oes oxy ‘gu. oon son s1et2189 10470

| See: Sree oth pa er |

tee Yi Rh usin tetis |

? pare

| TENPLATPUT 43TH BOT,eMTO UT posLIOyyNY syU}Od ‘ous era ATWO es oh

| OMILnOmw ts” |

°c i tae

[fol. 594b]

“uo|saruutog sosounuor) opegeaoquy [°° ¢1***

Noounsvodect vesiag tosmeny freeones

“ATOATIOCT Neomets OR

OLLVNV1dXa | GORBAeIQqY

——

§ oF vd oes ‘suopyeyserqqs 19;1389 pO BoRVUETEXE 504

MOLLVIAZEGEY 40 NOLLVMV1dXa

zag “yum “wuednn ah 4 os

AMM “TCA CTEM STTCA ! & .

"(1SI801 “O'W) °9D Sunnquyiqg P eBv10yg qzodeues], Bs

§ MOLLOES MI SHLVA ONISVE HLIM NOLLOANMOO MI ONTLAOE - anon |

RSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

“Sse, (OP 6561 JO Suse. Ul S28 S18uU UMO'"S

$uo;329efoud ayy *S38, (OP Ly6| uy suo; 3>efosd sea}6 e24N0¢S

* S161 YBnosy, Se2e25 per;UN O42 U; Spues, emODUY,, ‘93N21)ISU; YoseEesey P10jUBISy

4€ 94i‘8 6in 7296'S 996 ‘£ zSi‘t

9€ 1S8*t Sz 9SS‘€ 1Sq*Z Li9

zl sé 66 “29 4 z6g‘9t = Leg*6t «SEBS

"9 «= S6‘SZ -» 0s Of2‘9y 90°92 8 ggg'd

“OIET-G561 wlei 4860 BSel-Omel SET (GSE (GBT

eseeiouy %

62 L9S 90S tril

Te £97 624 06€ zit

S 19€ 100‘¢ L6z‘2 1$9

S ae 2 ee ieee

“LOE 6S5y‘Ee$ zis‘ezs zgt‘ss

bei S61

Lei‘z “Le 892

1Z9 O1z‘I $19 “si

€16‘tt S66 °€ ezi‘t

o9z ‘St trnS‘S SrS ‘1

‘$261 YBnosyy Se3e3¢ periuN e432 Uy Spusr, UO; JeYNdOYg,, ‘93N7]3SU;] YOsBESeYy PsOjuvis,

1 1sz‘€ 79 ese'z. GLEZtséMEL‘L

wzti«ES:L'Z 29 69/‘1 17S‘ 1 060‘!

b zE—s«9690Z gzl 4id‘St = 98S‘0L ©=—_- 06 *9

S gz 001 ‘9z 60l 6Ef‘0z 9gh*hl ~—s-: EEL"

“Olet-051 1 OleT 4860 ET -OHT eT (GEC a (iT.

eseoiouj % eseoiou) %

"L561 - s9queseg

Z1S‘SzS$ “SSE zen‘ise$ €lLy‘Szz$ zzS‘sels

(suoi, (jw) SHOsUT [SUSSISG

9OL‘Oni$ 92n‘Hl$ Len‘nz$

uo76u; yseq

u06ei9

#14103 118)

3880) 319190d

$0283¢ pe2jUN

uo 76u) yseq

u06039

@141051 (89

3880) 3915190d

SO38IS per!Un

@1U105 1 189

3$@0) 2131304

$02825 pe2;uN

0961 ‘4yoveN

uo76u ; ysem

uo06ei9

#1410311 89

3S@80Q 313190g

$9382S pez!un

(000) UST TETAAST

* pe zes) pu!

PA *SMSue) O42 JO Neeing wosy Seles [1e70y £656) ‘3sNGny ‘,,sseujsng yuesinZ yO ABA

=1NS,, ‘SD}wOUdsZ SSe@eUujsng JO 921550 ‘Sd20NMIOD 4O QUewIIeEdeg ‘Ss “ff WO1y ewODU;

[@uo0sseg {,,U01IENZ}¢ SwODU; We, OYy),, ‘S2;AI195 Bu; IeHIeW ‘esN2{ND!46y 40

quewjsedeg «Ss *f WOsjy S3Idjejey yse) wiey ‘$340de: Snsue) 943 4O NBeINg wos;

Bujsunjoeynuey Aq peppy enjeq ‘pe ec;pu; SseeA pus se2e2S ey} 103 $310de,

‘snsue) 942 JO Neeing ‘edJ19uMIDD 3O JUewWIIedeg “Ss “f WOIZ UO!IeINdOg :Sedz1NOS

$2835 pue sseeA 103 $310de:

*ppe you Aew $1 @303 OS ‘pepuno.s seinBi3 iy °S3LON

6in*€ 02 ‘Z

699 uo26u; ysem

"ee get ‘z ogS‘t Zt uobein

92S Qy6'6i oS6‘Or egi‘e @1U105 1 (89

€64 S0S‘SZ 9 Omd‘Ht «= 662“ 3S@O) 315198

“LLE OL€*o0z$ GHe*szi$ zHO‘zHS $9383¢ per;uN

“Beei-etel «= BSS orer bter (suor ttm) SSeS Tretey

eseaiouy xX .

7. , ‘ 10 > Fe a we Sg

BEST COPY

AVAILABLE

458

2 une

2. 191

ie)

| *

8 &

a g

< S61 U

: : “$*M [8204

JO uUsdJ0q

faa)

wo1j UO!13ONpoOsd wnujwn)e

6561 -0%61

eseesou|

que ds0g

0°6£I

z9S‘€

0/6

(9561)

Z00‘11

954°¢

94S °L

6561

+, JOOCIBSA S(BIOUJHW,, ‘SOUIW JO NeesNg

152

9°l

288

*40}203U} JO JUeWIIedeG °S “| PUB YOOGPURY Se21NOSeYy Us9ISEM ‘O3NZ/3SU) Yoseesey PsojuersS

$M} 39NpO1g dos - Sojseumngs jenuuy,, ‘92;A195 bu) 364104

‘eanginod;4by yO Juew{sedeg *s “f wWosy UO! JONpOud ei dde pue yeoym ‘sejses ,,As3SNPUy 404

$22@4,, Wosy dind poom *,,9H61-66Z1 ‘°S “MN 942 UL YO! Z>NpOsg Jequin’y,, ‘e4n3{no146y 40 Juew

-340d0qg °S ‘f} pue ,,AsISNpuy 4Oy SI>e4,, ‘SNSUSD O42 4O NBeINg ‘edJeuNMIO) 4O quowj3edeg *S ‘fn

- WO4y UOLIONpOsd seqwny :se2uN0g -‘ppe you Aew $1/@303 OS pepuNos $s0in6;43 ewos :°S310N

WLol :

uo76u ; ysem

uobe19

(suo 900) Gnuyuniy

WLOlL

uo26u1 ysem

uo06ei9

(suoa 000) se{ddy

WiLol

uo bu; ysem

uoc6ei0

(S1eysng voy; {yw) Feoyn

WLOL

uo bu; yse~

uobeso

(S¥02 000) ding poom

WLOL

uo36u;yseq

uo6es0

(3005

pseog volt | sw) Tequny

"6561 404%

SIdjedey yseQ we,

Buyanjoesnuewy Aq peppy enjea

Berore THE IwrerstaTE ComMMERCE CoMMISSION

(fol. 598]

‘opiissye@ Guypnjo

wy ¢ e siodd @ @10pu06 dj yopoom ‘2;opuoh 1103 1993S ‘3214 PeoYy

‘itt aka wus ae SO yes 3 ee ip oane [PAS{-1 31 : pore (nsu sapn {out -

"S4@9 KOG HP@1 UOLSS;WwSUBI. Pus JEped| ONE ee eee re ah pl io

. e u @2}AJOS gM U! S4J@D P ) -

vom me 7S ct 101) et UJ9YINOS JO2EMOP! | PUG UJOYIION

OJUeWRIDeS SOepPN) cu} *$403@30d0 19430 02 pesee| 3nq peuMo Sje> sozesebisjes Sepnioxg - vj

HIE %1 ru peddjnbe jejoeds yee14 (2301 JO %

£69 992 rl 47 peddinbz 40430

6S1‘t LOv gd $7 peddinbz 10)4934}

z7S9' I L99 661 peddinbg je;2eds (e301

zz 779909 27Hge's 196‘ T7 saeg e301 230014 49 346s014

Blt 6$2 ‘Ol trh9‘6 19Z°6 34053@ 9A}3DE42 *Sqi 00D *49M0g 9A! IOW

S5ET-HSET rn << TI : woud ABE

eseouou, %

*93919U09 pue seqwi3 sepniouy 77

42430 [Ly UL pepniouy 17

001 ool 001

“A - g 49430 LIV

l Ol 91 42qu}) pezeesjun

1Z ze 9£ Joquj] pe ee.)

61 8 - 77 4290 3se11e9

64 Lh Jt [9035

t € V/ 23019U0)

:u013e9141SSse19 Aq

3003, [@ous| [2303 jO QUedveg :sebpiig

"230 ‘;eaes6 yueq ‘,enes6 peysnsd sepnjouy 17 |

2 oF 17 20430

s¢ €€ 92 yOOy peysnsy

bs iz Sl - Beis

S :sour;juiew ut; @edA Aq Juedseg 3 4se11eg

Ss ool 001 ool

8 ig * 94 {2303 yO eueys e se pelessqun Y

E €6 ZL 4S 12302 jO eueys e se poejzees, Y%

SOI)

St SE Al JO}Aeey

4O "Qi SLL Utes UL Soyyw yes, %

y At %L9 %1S Jo} Aeoy ;

YO "Gt Zit L1@4 Uy So_yw yea, Y&

*11ey

0961 SS6l 0561 JusuSAoIdu|

ANV1d NOLLIVIYOdSNVYL JIZIIVd NYZLSIA 3HL

WESTERN PACIFIC

LEGEND

wumms THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD & BRANCHES

rea} WESTERN PACIFIC SUBSIDIARY LINES

‘* Scala Mites

‘

OVERSIZE PAGE SEE NEXT FRAME

FOR REMAINDER OF PAGE

Beroas THe Iwrerstate Commerce CoMMISSION

WESTERN PACIFIC

s Senge

TIDEWATER SOUTHERN

In’ ERCHANGE POINTS

CALIFORNIA

LEGEND

umme THE WESTEPN PACIFIC RAILROAD & BRANCHES

re} WESTERN PACIFIC SUBSIDIARY LINES

Scate i Mites

a rR sae AwER tT :

[fol. 602]

Berore rue Lwrersrate Commerce ComMIssion

Seattle

Exursrr No. 23

NORTHBOUND

Southerp Pacific Schedules

8:00 am Day 1 12:01 am Day 1

12:30 om Day 3 6:30 am Day 2

me a bg

3:30 pa 3:15 pa 3:00 pm Day 3

10:30 pa 10:00 pa 8:00 pm Day 3

SME (Daily) POE (Daily except Pri. Su

11:15 pa Day 0 10:35 pa Day 0

5:00 pm Day 2 6250 pm Day 1

2 _ @ @

10:30 pia 10:15 pa 8:30 pm Day 1

5:30 am 6:00 am 3:30 am ~=s:zDay 2

INSIDE GATEWAY SCHEDULES

S03 (Daily) EXP ~ Mon., Tues. and Fridey_

3:00 am Day 1 10:00 pm Day 0

3:00 pm Day 3 7:35 pm Day 2

5:30 pm. Day 3 10:30 pm Day 2

10:00 pm Day 3 1:30 am Day 3

$0 (Das7) EXP - Tuesday, Vednesda

9:00 pm Day 0 7:00 am Day 1

3:00 pm Day 2 7335 pm Day 2

5:30 pm Day 2 10:30 pm Day 2

10:00 pm Day 2 1:30 am Day 3

Berore THE Interstate Commerce ComMISSION

Exuzsit No. 24

2:00 am Day 1 11:00 pm Day O

Day 1 5:30 am Day 1

5:00 pm Day 1

8:45 pm Day 2

11:30 aw Day 3

Taside Gatevey

@u8_(Dai.iy)

2:00 am Day 1

5:00 am Day 1

11:00 am Day 1

8:00 pm Day 5

1:00 pm Day 4

CAL (Dadiy)

1200 pa Day 1

4:30 pm Day 1

8:00 pm Day 1

6:00 pm Day 3

1:00 pm Day 4

fai

fen

Fioi

Rui

rot

Fez

ior

ale} stale] ela] al ela

a] £1 sla] el ala] ela] si

Bava <i wet 6705

' *3uQ ‘OM TAwOdg G2 wIO1 UO

®OUs GONNOd 000°OS MNMININ ‘SiN2D GO 40 Jive

ve 7

BANU VIGHIG Bil ViA TWVII Wy BIVU eNO IVNIGHOD. 1820)

= ONY -

Puree Sues PRG A, aS Se

Tex

—

STARPACER

12:014(1)

San Francisco

, Oakland

, Brooklyn 6330A(2)

‘Angeles to Brooklyn — 30*30"

n Francisco to Brooklyn

nd to Brooklyn

, Albina UP #681 2:15P(2

Seattle UP #681 8:00P(2

UP #198-CBx ees tg

to sated

‘ Baker 80 #00"

UP #691 seta

(fol. 607 ]

co nem ae mae Cras RMS

Berore THE Interstate Commerce ComMMISSION

Exuisit No. 28

NORTHBOUND FREIGHT TRAIN SCHEDULES

SOUTHERN PACIFIC - UNION PACIFIC AND BIEBER ROUTE

AND ELAPSED TIMES =~

NOP OVE-RPS

8320a(1)

? 11:00P(0)

11315P(0)

11:30a(3) 5:00P(2)

51'30" isioio

UP #691 8:30R(2) UF

UP #691 330A UP #691 = 3s 30a(3)

¥ 98-CBX11:00P(3) UP #19S-Cex 11 00P(2)

ean oe pokes UP #298 8:00P(3

ad ore UP #IDS_~—Ss 8 :00a(4

arg 521308

524158

84'00" 69*008

68145"

- 96100"

8100"

80145"

10:35P(0)

6:50P(1)

20°15"

a ee

UP #198-C&x 11 00P(1)

UP #298 8:00P(2

UP #IDS) = $ :00a(3

4525"

45'25"

57'25"

11 :30a(3)

62'30"

ein. soem

Some saat)

95 '00"

107 *00*

[fol. 608]

NORTHBOUND FREIGHT TRAIN SCHEDULES

SOUTHERN PACIFIC — UNION PACIFIC AND BIEBER ROUTE

AND ELAPSED TIMES

"Bieber" Route SwG "Bieber" Route "Bieber*Route NCK

Via Portland No Connection

Direct Union Pacific Direct Union Pacific Direct Portland

y, los Angeles 3:00A(1) 33:00 (1) 10:00P (0) 10:00P(0) 5:30aA(1)

, San Francisco 7:00P(1) 7:00P(1) 4:00a4(1) 4:00A(1) 11:00P(1)

Oakland 10:00P(1) 10:00P(1) 7:00A(1) 7:00 (1) 12:014(2)

. Portland 5 330P(3) 5:30P(3) 10:30P(2) 10:30P(2)

ee Angeles to Portland 6230" 62130" 48130" 48130"

“sn Francisco to Portland 46'30" 46130" 4230" 42130"

feakland to Portland 43'30" 43 '30 39'30" 39'30"

ly, Albina o> 2 2158 (4) UP #681 2:15P(3

r, Seattle 10:00P(3) UP #681 8:00P(4 1:30A(3) UP #681 8:00P(4

ly. Albina UP #198 * 11:00P(4) UP #198* 11 :00P(3

. Spokane 10:00a(4) UP #298 $:00P(5 10:00a(3) PW #298 8:00P(4 10:00a(5)

“Bir, Baker UP #IDS_—- 8:00 (6 UP #IDs_~ = 8:00a(5

os Angeles to Seattle 67'00" 89100" 51130" 70 '00"

Bien Francisco to Seattle 51'00" 7300" 45'30" 644008

Pekland to Seattle 48'00" 70*00" 42'30* 61'00"

Bios Angeles to Spokane 7900" 113 "00" 6000" 94,00" 100 130"

fn Francisco to Spokane 63 '00" 9700" 54°00" 88100" 8300"

yfftukland to Spokane 60 "00" 94,'00" 51'00" 85 '00" 81159"

“ios Angeles to Baker | 125 100" 106 '00"

“Tin Francisco to Baker 109'00" 100 '00"

‘Pikland to Baker 106 '00" 97'00"

ther to Oakland

tker to San Francisco

ker to Los Angeles

to Oakland

to San Francisco

to Los Angeles

[fol. 609]

Berore

SOUTHBOUND FREIGHT TRAIN SCHEDULES

SOUTHERN PACIFIC - UNION PACIFIC AND BIEBER ROUTE

AND ELAPSED TIMES

UNION PACIFIC UNION PACIFIC UNION PACIFIC NIC

Drag : | Drag

And #151 #151 #690 #692 And #151 #151 #690

6:00P(0) : pee

11:00P(1) 11:00P(1

11:00P(0 ye

11:00P(1 11:00P(1

11:00P(0) 4,:00a(1 11:00F

7 en 5:30A(1) 1:00P(1 5230A

SOUTHERN ‘PACIFIC \

ADV.

BAS PNL PCW ADV. PIL =e SiW-CS TFC SFC CaL

5:00A(1) 5;00A(1) 8:50a(1) 5:00P(1) 5:00P(1) 12:01a(1) 43:30P(1)

4:45P(2) 5:05A(2) 8325P(2 8 :00P(3)

10:30P(2) 11:30P(2

4:00P(3) 11:30a(3) 6:30a(2) 1:00P(4)

70945" 59'05" Th 45" 74," 00" 74," 008

76' 30" 77 30"

94 oo" 89! 30" 60! 30" gi! 0o# 91! 0o*

65'45" 54°05" 69'45"

71°30" 72°30"

89! oo" 84! 30" 55! 30"

42°05" 45'45" 88"

48'30" 91'0

7T2' 30® 113! ¢

40' 20"

43°30"

55130" 50! 30"

OVERSIZE PAGE SEE NEXT FRAME

FOR REMAINDER OF PAGE

(fol. 609] |

Berore THE Iwrerstate ComMMERCE CoMMISSION :

SOUSNOUD FREIONT TRAIN SOMMDGLES 47°

SOUTHERN PACIFIC - UNION PACIFIC AND BIEBER HOUTE Exner No. 29

AND ELAPSED TIMES

UNION PACIFIC

: and #151 #151 #690 #692 CaL Gus SP-OCM GN-Gus

6:00P(0

11:00R(1

11:00P 3 6:50a(1) 6:50a(1)

S) 11;:00P(1

11:00P(0) 4:00a(1 : a ah 1:00P(0) 2:00a(1)

5:30A(1) | 1:00P(1 ee 5330a(1 1:00P(1

ema a

: ADV. PIL «= SM-CS_-—s TC SHC CaL Gus

4330P(1 5:00a(2

; f oo zone oo sizortss 3200 4:00P(2) oe) 8:00P(3 gon}

11:30P(2 6:00P 7:00P(2) 6:00P(3 9:00P(3) 63

12:30a(3) 6:30a(2) 1:00P(4) 4:00P(5) 1:00P(3) 4:00P(4 4:00P(4) 43:00P

D5" 7h' 45" 74," 00" 74," 00®

77' 30"

89" 30" 60' 30" 91100" 91' 00"

Ds® 69'45" 61' 10" 56' 10°

72" 30" 62' 10" 59' 10"

45°45" 8800" 83008 51°00" 61'00"

48' 30" 91'00" 86' 00" 54°90" 64'00"

113' 00" 108" 00" — 72°00" 86'00*"

40' 20"

43°30"

fe re (%2

a Bzvore rue IwrerstaT:. Commence Commission

Exuzrr 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

between Representative Points on the

Northern Pacific Railway C,mpany and San

Francisco and Los Angeles, California.

From

San Francisco, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Sai; Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cale. ¢,

Bend, Ore.

Wishran,

Vancouver, Washs:

San Francisco, Cal.

Portland, Ore,

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishranm, Wash,

Vancouver, Wash.

San Francisco, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, ore.

Wishram, Wash,

Vancouver, Wash.

San Francisco, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal,

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Hoquiam, Wash.

Bieber, Cai.

Portland, Ore.

Hoquiam, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Cre.

Wishram, Wash.

vancouver, Wash.

Hoquiam, Wash.

Portland, Ore-

Shelton, Wash.

dieber, da2.

Portland, Ore.

Shelton, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram. Wash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Shelton, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Seattle, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Seattle, Wash.

Bieber . Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash,

Vancouver, Wash.

Seattle, Wash.

Portland, Ore,

Bremerton, Wash.

Fleber, Cal,

Fortland, Ore.

Rremerton, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Pend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash,

Vancouver, Wash.

Bremerton, Wash.

ale

1039

1070

1050

1055

portland, Ore.

Wash,

Cal.

ae ”

Vancouver, Wash,

Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Everett, Wash,

Bieber, Cal.

Portlaad, Ore,

Everett, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash,

Vancouver, Wash.

Everett, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Bellingham, Wash.

Bieber, Cal,

Portlend, Ore.

Bellingham, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Vash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Bellingham, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Yakima, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Yakima, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Yakima, Wash,

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Yakima, Wash.

Portland. Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash,

Bieber, Cal,

Fortland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash,

-2=

2 Cox = Z@nOoz x= = ZnaCg= =@zagt =z

325 e* aa opt es 325 535 38 og2 8s S25 5% od Sai 325 5% |p

2 a

hese pe bee lekway hese late bez lseuge ieee kee exes lees kee E

1179

1159

1106

1275

£76

(fol. 615]

From

San Francisco,

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

San Francisco ’

Portland, Ore.

San Franciseo,

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

San Francisco,

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

San Francisco,

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco,

Portlamd, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

San Francisco,

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco,

Bieber, Cal,

Bend, Ore.

hwishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

San Francisco,

Portland, Ore.

San Francisco,

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

San Francisco,

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Cre.

Cal.

Cale

Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Walla Walle, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Walla Walla, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Walla Walla, Wash.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Walla Walla, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pendleton, Ore.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Pendleton, Ore.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Pendleton, Ore.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Vash.

Pasco, Wash.

Pendleton, Ore.

Portland, Ores

Athena, Ore.

Portland, Ore.

Fasco, Wash.

“Kthena, Ore.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Athena, Ore.

WP 39

GK 236

OT 152

SRS 125

OT 152

S&S 125

YP 64

WP 391;

re koh

WP 39h,

GN 236

oT 152

SKS 125

YP _)

SP 719

S&S 233.35

YP 6

uP 39h

or u9u

YP W435

Cal.

, Cal.

Cal.

y Cale

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Athena, Ore.

Portland, Ore.

Spokane, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Spokane, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Riparia, Wash.

Lewiston, Ida.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Riparia, Wash.

Lewiston, Ida.

Bieber, Cal.

Fortland, Ore.

Riparia, Wash.

Lewiston, Ida.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash,

Riparia, Wash.

Lewiston, Ida,

955

3 leswes Nes lege ke leks

LSb

478

[fol. 617]

From

los Angeles, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Los Angeles, Cal.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cals

Portland, Ore.

Los Angeles, Cal.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal,

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Vancouver » Wash.

los Angeles, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

los Angeles, Cal.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

los Angeles, Cal.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Los Angeles, Cal.

Fortland, Ore.

los Angeles, Cal,

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Hoquiam, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

. Bieber, Cal.

fortland, Ore.

Hoquiam, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore. .

Wishram, Wash. —

Vancouver, Wash.

Hoquiam, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Shelton, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore,

Shelton, Wash.

Stockton, Cal,

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Shelton, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Seattle, Wash.

Stockton, Cal. —

Bieber, Cal,

Fortland, Ore.

Seattle, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Vancouver, Wash.

Seattle, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Bremerton, “ash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Bremerton, Wash.

—ts

- Bremerton, Wash.

Fortland, Ore,

Everett, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Everett, Wagh.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash,

Vancouver, Vash.

Everett, Wash.

Portland, Ore, .

Bellingham, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Bellingham, Wash.

Stockton, Cal,

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Vancouver, Wash,

Bellingham, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Yakima, Wash,

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Yakima, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Fortland, Ore.

Yakima, Wash.

issee lee bt anuee bese bE lesuese ewe EE ke

1507

1383

los Angeles, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

los Angeles, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

los Angeles, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

los angeles, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Steckton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Washes

Yakima, Wash.

Fortland, Cre.

Pasco 5 Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cale

Portlam, Ore.

Pasco, Washe

Stockton, Cal.

_ Bieber, Cal.

Berd, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Walla Walla, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Walla Walla, Wash.

Stockton, Cale

Bieber, Cal.

Fortland, Ore.

Walla Walla, Wash»

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Walla Walla, Wash.

fortland, Ore.

Pendleton, Ore.

Portland, Orc.

Pasco, Wash.

Fendleton, Ore.

Stockton, Cal,

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Pendleton, Ore.

Stockton, Cal,

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore. ‘

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Pendleton, Ore.

Portland, Ore.

Athena, Ore,

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash,

Athera, Ore.

Stockton, Cal. :

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

‘Athena, Ore,

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Bend, Ore,

Wishran, Wash.

fthena, Ore.

Portland, Ore.

Spokane, Wash.

Portland, Ore.

Pasco, Wash.

Spokane, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Portland, Ore.

Spokane, Wash.

Stockton, Cal.

Bieber, Cal.

Berd, Ore.

Wishram, Wash.

Pasco, Wash.

Spokane, Wash.

leiweee bee lee’ 8 lunes kee eed ee hiwase less

1753

175

1643

1475

482

[fol, 621] coe

los Angeles, Cal,. Portland, Ore, SP 1092...

, Ore. Riparia, Wash, NP 45u

Riparia, Wash. Lewiston, Ida. Cam.P, _ 72

los. 2: » Cal. Portland, Ore. SP 1092

Pasco, Wash. SF&S 231...

Pasco, Wash. Riparia, Wash. NP feee ON

Riparia, Wash. Lewiston, Ida. CameP, 72

Ios Angeles, Cal,.. Cal. AT&SF 516 .

9 Cal. Bieber, Cal, WP 30—«

Bieber, Cal. » Ore. oy a

Portland; Ore. Riparia, Wash. FP Us.

Riparia, Wash. Lewiston, Ida, Cam, P, ai? iw

los «ngeles, Cal, Stockton, Cal. AMSF 516.

Bieber, Cal. WP 300.

Bieber, Cal. . Bernd, Ore. it J 236

Bend, Ore. ~ Wishram, W oT 152

Wash. Pasco, Wash, S&S 125.

Pasco, Wash. Riparia,; Wash, YP 67

Riparia, Wash. Lewistor, Ida. Cam.P, _ 72

of tions

Cam. Pe * Camas Prairie Railroad Company

a a ee

NP Oo LES

Ore. Oregon

oT “Oregon Trunk Railway Company

SP - Southern Pacific Company |

( Spokaney Portland & Seattle Railway Company

WP “Restore Pacific Railroad Company

ee Ice i-6710

WP - 1500=1 Tec 9759

oT 97-K -. Ic 732

sP ~ h20-D - Ic

S&S - .685-K wee 732

WP ~~ 39-6 Ivc 490

‘483

ffol. 622] [S00 ts}

BerorRE THE IwrerstaTe CoMMERCE Commssio

Exuzir No. 33

aw 5 + Pe | ar es ' . Pra 4 8 *3 Y' 4 Ld

Portland, Oregon to San Francisco, Californ:

3? Row t Ral ii

5° Route vic ~

Be:

ima

tee ee

§ eke eae

bis

e: sae oe

9 e ae

tS. _

4 &

eee

ine

ene,

4h ae

hey eit

er G

3 >

pees

ed «& |

. i

“7

| -

=| a

ST LS

“4 a

, -

Pi alk

” ty

Hes.

Sib >

r i:

she

fee's a am

as ee

- [fol. 624)

iit

es ‘

4 ae

age

i ; 3

aes

‘ Riya

*. PN

4) am . eal i

is Re ge a9 eg

wh e35 sail

ivi nageeaqel

ep iW

ix prasaeaah

BF ikesssssmie: |

i SELETAEE

ee eRRGREARA

ioe wet

ye PRR REE

> : if ¥

vs te ee ee ee 4 e

TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS - FORTLAND, OREGON TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

; >

: ar ghers

PACIFIC ROUTE VIA DAVIS - OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA ;

SOUTHERN » CALIFORNIA ;

pa t

“ fok 680) : ;

3 fli saesacae,

A by yegena.

J ie Fang. 8,

t ibp hegagaeg y

He 293 eae qe 7

| me

- Qregon Trunk; WP - Western Pacific

mye Senelen ~ Bieber to Portola, California; 2/- Mngine District - Portola to

ee i 52 ae ee

S+ Barge 880 47,0% 8,793

=“

HH AH eA Aw Oe

: ’

hor

ey.

- i

. a a

yy .< &

tr ‘

; "

, *s

3 Lh ee en ee en ee |

“

sdshiasalt

' hi y ite i

rie datuldil

GH - Great Northern; SPS - Spokane, Portland & Seattle; OF

10, Total Portland « San Praneieeo

V-

Notes:

' ri ‘| % 1

te |

4 r %

| oo

Bf i. 32)

4 igh

ib Rex e939 88

a eee Le

g fue 8 TRE RSA a

1 of 17

| TRANSFORTATION CONDITIONS - SAN FRANCISOO, CALIFORNIA 70 JORTLAND, OREGON

| SOUTHERN PAGIPIC ROUTE VIA OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA - DAVIS, CALDVOROIzA

ie aeoy,Gaky

; | ive ($e R895

: tld

fi ix eneaene ad gi

"ote: 3/ = Engine District - aaa

eed Og -

(fol. 635)

wir te

queTeaynbg

oy.

dB ttaeaeas

Prat

(coremcan te fam) RATT “BEN EA SN EN

invent saaemieel i car

exeeqs LT Jo CT 20005 -

“it a yo Somme Rg IR

8 & 2S && & & &

+ li At y

+ potinlel Te

Sheet 15 of 17 sheets

she

Bigks

pepe ° 35

9j0es 3,959 5,078.

Beh,» MO, 50

4 | 4a. iS a —

Ta ee ey

; 2

; » ¥

; 2

fs Po Te!

. me

_. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS - FORTIAND, ORBOON TO LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

ee ee a ee ee

mit

{fol 639}

tiie. reenter

UEC LEE SEEELE.

od Geqaanggees %

aph ZEGRKRERTRES .

abecesannearaa

Sheet 17 of 17 sheets

TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS - LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 10 PORTLAND, ORE -

- $3

WaT Lyte .

« 4 “ey

1943

195

1946

1958

= 1959

» 1960

BSE FEE APE ENE GEE BEE ptt

MBesinee Mor %

865,061,000

1,127,606, 000

1,982,667, 0m

000

1,941,477,000

882 , 530,000

" Yieak hos,

{fol. 642]

BerorE THE InTERSTATE CoMMERCE COMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

Barrer or CoMPLAINANTS TO THE Hearine ExamMiIner—

Dated and Served July 6, 1961

Due Date: July 10, 1961.

{fol. 643] FF. Why Rates Were Not Sought Via Wishram:

Northern Pacific has attempted, in part, to justify its

mlawful ‘practices at the Portland Gateway by asserting

that a more logical routing for “Inside Gateway” traffic

to and from defendants’ points east of the Cascades would

be via Wishram. Surely, that defendant realizes that had

an attempt been made to establish rates via that route on

(fol. 644] traffic to or from points east of the Cascades, it

would have vigorously asserted that relief should be con-

fined to the point where the discrimination actually occurs,

ie, Portland.

As neither Northern Pacific nor Southern Pacific serve

Wishram a Section 3(4) complaint would be difficult to

sustain. This complaint attempts to terminate the unlaw-

fol practices against connecting carriers reaching a single

gateway. A Section 1(4) complaint via Wishram would

bring forth the claim that such rates via Wishram would

short haul defendants.

(fol. 645) Requested Findings

It is respectfully requested that upon the record herein

made, the Commission find substantially as follows:

1, Complainants and the lines constituting the “Inside

Gateway” are connecting lines, as is Southern Pacific Com-

es i)

Rha

504

pany, with defendants Northern Pacific and Union Pacific

at Portland, Oregon.

2. The conditions affecting the handling by defendant,

of traffic moved through the Portland Gateway are m.

terially and substantially the same whether the traffic jy

moved to that gateway by Southern Pacific or the “Insid

Gateway”.

3. Defendants have practiced unlawful discriminatio,

against complainants by failing and refusing to join with

them and their connections in the establishment of joint

through rail rates vie Portland, Oregon, on the same ley¢):

as have been established by those defendants with Southen

Pacific Company, except in very limited cases.

4. That Southern Pacific Company is complainants’ prin.

cipal competitor and defendants’ unlawful practices have

caused complainants irreparable damage.

5. Defendants have failed to provide all reasonable,

proper and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic

_ between them and complainants, and have failed to make

[fol. 646] the necessary and proper arrangements to assure

that traffic received, forwarded or handled in connection

with complainants is treated in essentially the same manner

as traffic received, forwarded or handled in connection with

Southern Pacific Company, with very limited exceptions,

such as the movement of cast iron pipe.

6. Defendants’ failures and refusals as aforesaid con.

stitute violations of Section 3(4) Part I of the Interstate

Commerce Act.

7. That such practices should be ordered to cease and

desist upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from the

effective date of an order of the Commission in this pro-

ceeding.

8. That such actions similarly vesult in a failure to

provide reasonable routes, rates, facilities and services

505

all in further violation of Section 1(4) Part I Interstate

Commerce Act.

9, That such reasonable routes, rates and facilities as

will assure the “Inside Gateway” an opportunity to pro-

yide service upon the same level and under the same con-

ditions as is now available to the Southern Pacific Com-

pany, should be ordered established upon the expiration

of thirty (30) days from the effective date of an order

of the Commission in this proceeding.

10. That this proceeding be kept open for the purpose

[fol. 647] of allowing the parties, within a reasonable time,

to establish just and reasonable divisions by mutual agree-

ment, failing in which the proceeding shall be reopened for

the limited purpose of the establishment of such just and

reasonable divisions by the Commission.

11. Further, complainants request such other findings

and orders as the Commission deems just, meet and neces-

sary to eliminate the unlawful conditions herein complained

of.

Respectfully submitted,

Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran-

cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants.

{fol.647a] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

(fol. 648]

Berore THE InrerstaTe ComMERCE COMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

CompLaAINANTS’ Repiy to Exceptions or NortHern Pactrio

Ramway Company, Union Pactric Ramzoapn Company

anp Sovurnern Paciric Company—Dated and Served

October 6, 1961

506

({fol. 649] At no stage of the proceedings has it been the

intention of complainants to show the existence of.

routes since such a showing has hardly been necessary ty

sustain the relief sought. If defendants treated all com.

[fol. 650] plainants’ traffic the way they do the cast iro,

pipe (these rates were published after a shipper complain;

was filed, but before it was heard), there would have bee

no need to file this complaint. The existence of throng)

routes and rates on cast iron pipe does prove some very

germane issues—primarily that important traffic does move

without trouble over the Inside Gateway to and throng)

Portland in conjunction with defendants. Whether or not

this establishes the fact of through routes has not con.

cerned complainants. We will not be led down a diver.

sionary path away from the basic issues here pertinent,

The issue is whether the principal competitor of com.

plainants is being given unlawful favored treatment. It is

answered affirmatively by the Examiner. The finding is

amply supported in the record.

Reply to “Exception No. 2”

We surely agree with the cases cited as witness com.

plainants’ brief (p. 13 thereof). It is truly difficult to read

into the language of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. US.

284 U.S. 288 anything other than a positive finding that

you need not physically connect with the discriminating

line in order to qualify as a connecting line under the

language of the statute.

The Supreme Court has in effect said that the lines which

[fol. 651] are to be classified as “connecting lines” are not

only those that have a direct physical connection with the

defendant but also include those carriers making up 6

through route which does connect with the defendamt.

Surely there is no doubt that the Western Pacific is part

of a through route (Santa Fe, Western Pacific, Great North-

ern) which through route does connect with Northern

Pacific at Portland. Complainants do not believe that it

507

ig necessary, or even proper, to speculate on the Supreme

Court’s intention regarding the terms employed, as the

Court makes it manifestly clear that it intended no such

restrictive interpretation as urged by defendants.

In discussing the purpose and design of the language

employed and at issue in this case, the Court stated, in

part:

“In order to preserve, among other things, the ex-

isting and possible through routes via the Clinchfield

on railroads other than the Atlantic Coast Lime and

the Louisville & Nashville the Commission, in author-

izing the lease, made it subject to five conditions which

the lessees accepted.” (p. 291) (Emphasis ours).

It is in those conditions that the term “connecting lines”

was used, and their definition was determined in connec-

tion with the objective outlined by the Court, namely, to

preserve not only the then existing but also to preserve

possible future through routes. That clear objective would

be impossible under defendants’ interpretation of connect-

[fol. 652] ing lines. The strained and unnatural interpreta-

tion urged by defendants is without merit and if adopted

will render section 3(4) inoperative and unworkable except

in the fewest possible circumstances.

* « o a * om 7

(fol. 653] Secretary’s certificate to following transcript

(omitted in printing).

508

[fol. 654]

Berore THE INTERSTATE CoMMERCE COMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

Tue Western Pacrric Ramroap Company, et al.

Camas Prarnre Rarroap Company, et al.

Transcript of hearing—December 14, 1961

Hearing Room “B”,

Interstate Commerce Commission,

Washington, D. C.

The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument

before The Commission, by Division No. 2, at 10 o’clock am

Present: Commissioners Freas (Presiding), Goff and

Herring.

(fol. 655]

STATEMENT oF COMMISSIONER F'REas and CoLLoQuy

Wirth Mr. Treanor

Commr. Freas: In spite of the fact that there is a physi-

cal connection and that as you said, the cars would be

handled that way, if the shipper should request it, I under-

stand that you are not at least not emphatically contending

that there is any through route today? What, in your opin-

ion, constitutes or what determines whether there is a

through route or not?

Mr. Treanor: I think basically the question of whether

or not there is a through route would be wholly dependent

upon the physical ability to handle the car and the stated

willingness of the carriers involved at both ends to establish

such a route and to handle the traffic in that manner.

509

I have not emphatically, as you say, Mr. Commissioner,

~ eontended there is a through route here because I don’t

think there are any through routes in existence today,

except on the cast iron pipe and of course on livestock or

the class rated commodities which are not moving any

traffic.

{fol. 656] ‘The cast iron pipe moves in substantial quan-

tity. I don’t know whether the fact that we have through

routes well established on cast iron pipe, a substantial

movement, a condition that has existed over ten years,

would justify my saying to this Commission, “there defi-

nitely are in effect through routes for all purposes.”

Commr. Freas: I lost myself in your argument. You

say on the one hand the facilities are available, if a shipper

for-reasons-of its own wanted to use them, the carriers

stand ready and willing to transport the traffic, but still

you say there are no through routes.

As I follow that, that would boil down then to the point

of whether or not the carriers considered it through route

and nothing more, is that right?

Mr. Treanor: I think it goes beyond that. I think there

has to be a holding out to the public. There has to be a—

Commr. Freas: I understand there is a holding out if

the public is willing to pay the combination rates.

Mr. Treanor: Certainly for my purposes, from the West-

ern Pacific’s, I would like to be able to say in all candor

to you there are through rates and routes here.

(fol. 657] Commr. Freas: One further question on just

what you are asking.

The Examiner in the opening paragraph of his recom-

mended report says that you are alleging violations as a

result of the failure of through routes and divisions.

According to your complaint, I believe you are asking

for through routes, through rates and divisions in the event

that they are not voluntarily disposed of between the

parties. So the Examiner’s statement is not quite complete,

is it?

510

_Mr. Treanor: No, sir, to that extent it would not be

I think he was trying to paraphrase it. We did not feg

he had materially mis-stated anything there. We do ask

that you keep this proceeding open in the event that we

are unable to agree on divisions.

Of course, he should have added the fact that we were

seeking the through rate which is the key.

Commr. Freas: The question of divisions is not reached

now.

(fol. 658]. Mr. Treanor: No, sir. I would like to make the

point that we feel there is no service required of these

defendants in connection with the traffic that they would

take from the inside gateway that they won’t have to per.

form:in connection with the traffic that comes from the

Southern Pacific. If there is any difference, any cirenity

at all involved in this proceeding, it is on the segment of

route which comes up with Southern Pacific on the one hand

versus the inside gateway on the other.

The inside gateway is slightly longer than the Souther

Pacific route into Portland. North of Portland there is no

difference in the distances that are involved.

* oe * * * * *

[fol. 659]

BerorkE THE INTERSTATE CoMMERCE CoMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

CoMPLAINANTS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE Rr-

PoRT AND Oxper or Division 2—Dated and Served At-

‘gust 27, 1962

Due Date: September 1, 1962

+ * o & it = €

[fol. 660] Conclusion

* a « e + + e

1. Complainants and the lines constituting the “Inside

Gateway” are connecting lines, as is Southern Pacific

511

Company, with defendants Northern Pacific and Union

Pacific at Portland, Oregon.

The conditions affecting the handling by defendants of

traffic moved through the Portland Gateway are ma-

terially and substantially the same whether the traffic

is moved to that gateway by Southern Pacific or the

“Inside Gateway”.

- Defendants have practiced unlawful discrimination

against complainants by failing and refusing to join

with them and their connections in the establishment

of a general line of joint through rail rates via Portland,

Oregon, on the same level as have been established by

those defendants with Southern Pacific Company.

. That Southern Pacific Company is complainants’ prin-

cipal competitor and defendants’ unlawful practices

have caused complainants irreparable damage.

. Defendants have failed, except in limited circumstances,

to provide all reasonable, proper and equal facilities

for the interchange of traffic between them and com-

plainants, and have failed to make the necessary and

proper arrangements to assure that traffic received,

forwarded, or handled in connection with complainants

is treated in essentially the same manner as traffic re-

[fol. 661] ceived, forwarded, or handled in connection

with Southern Pacific Company.

. Defendants’ failures and refusals as aforesaid, consti-

tute violations of Section 3 (4) Part I of the Interstate

Commerce Act.

. That such practices should be ordered to cease and

' desist upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from the

effective date of an order of the Commission in this

proceeding.

Further, complainants request such other findings and

orders as the Commission deems just, meet and neces-

512

sary to eliminate the unlawful conditions herein com,

plained of.

* * +. - * * +

Respectfully submitted,

Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran.

cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants,

(fol. 662] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing),

[fol. 666]

Berore THE InrerstaTz ComMERCE CoMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

ComPLaInants’ PetiTIon ror FurTHER HEARING FOR Purpose

or Intropucine Newty DEVELOPED Evivence—December

28, 1962

Statement

This is a complaint proceeding. Oral Hearings were

held May 8th through May 10, 1961 inclusive; Briefs were

filed and the Examiner’s Report and Recommended Order

thereafter served. Subsequent to filing Exceptions and

Replies, thereto, the parties were heard in Oral Argument

(fol. 667] on December 14, 1961. The Report and Order of

Division 2 reversing Hearing Examiner Wright was served

August 2, 1962. Petition for Reconsideration by complain-

ants has ‘been filed and replied to and is presently pending

before the Commission.

The Western Pacific, and its subsidiary lines, herein-

after referred to collectively as “complainant” herein re-

quests Further Limited Hearing, under the modified pro-

cedure, for the purpose of introducing newly developed

evidence as hereinafter described.

513

Evidence to Be Introduced

In the event the Commission should grant further hear-

ing for the limited purpose of permitting the introduction

of newly developed evidence, Petitioner would present the

following :

1. That, subsequent to receipt of the Report and Order

of Division 2 herein, Western Pacific launched a cam-

paign to inform its interested shippers of the necessity

of requesting, by formal application to the carriers’

rate bureaus, the voluntary publication of rates via

Bieber on a level competitive with Southern Pacific

via Portland.

(fol. 668]

2. That, as of the date of the preparation of this Peti-

tion, fifty (50) individual such requests have actually

been filed and docketed with the Pacific Southcoast

Freight Bureau and the North Pacific Coast Freight

Bureau; that an additional number of such requests

have actually been filed but not yet docketed; that

even more such requests are being prepared and that

by the date of hearing, if such be granted, will have

been either actually docketed or filed for docketing;

that the above identified rate bureaus are the proper

rate legislative bodies for such filings.

. That, such formal requests are from all types of in-

dustries on the West Coast including the largest and

some of the smallest; that rates have been requested

upon all major commodities including, but not limited

to, canned goods, iron and steel articles, lumber and

lumber products, paper and paper articles, plaster,

plaster board, gypsum, furniture, tin cans, rice, al-

falfa, cotton seed, grain, feeds, flour, dried peas and

[fol. 669] beans, dried fruits, butter, boats, scrap alu-

minum, Lignin liquor, acoustical materials and asphalt

tile; that one request has been made on behalf of a

traffic association that includes, within its member-

514

ship, approximately 150 individual shippers ang

others, yet this is counted as only one request,

4. That, the response to Petitioners’ campaign to induce

shippers to take affirmative action through the rate

bureaus has been overwhelming and without prece.

dent in the recallable history of such rate bureaus,

5. That, as of the date of preparing this Petition, the

defendant lines have failed to take favorable action

with regard to any of these docketed matters; that

Petitioner expects to prove that such condition will

be existing on the date of further hearing, if granted,

no matter how far off such date may be.

6. That, the formal requests which have been made to

the rate bureaus have been made in good faith and

in response to the open invitation of the defendant

(fol. 670] lines to, in the future, satisfy all legitimate

and reasonable requests; that such requests as filed,

are legitimate and reasonable and have been justified

by the shippers.

This evidence will not be cumulative, and was not pre.

viously adduced because it was not in existence until nov.

In fact, until receipt of the Report and Order of Division 2

on the 2nd day of August 1962, it was the opinion of Peti-

tioner that the question of whether the shippers had en-

tered formal requests for competitive rates was immaterial

to the issues in this proceeding, namely, whether the dis-

criminatory practices of defendants were unlawful.

Argument in Support of Petition

Petitioner frankly states herein that it continues to

adhere to the view that, under the allegation of discrim-

ination in violation of Section 3 (4), the question of whether

there have been any formal shipper requests for the pub-

lication of these rates is at least of questionable materiality.

Apparently, this view was shared by Hearing Examiner

515

Wright in his Report and Recommended Order served

herein. However, defendants continued to press this ques-

tion in subsequent pleadings and in Oral Argument where

(fol. 671] the Northern Pacific stated:

“Our company, the Northern Pacific, has had only one

request from a shipper in the last six years for the

publication of joint rates via the routes here sought.

This complaint has been satisfied and the testimony

in this record is uncontroverted that we will satisfy

all of such legitimate and reasonable requests brought

in the future.” (TR 500)

Apparently it was given some weight by the Commission,

as indicated at Sheets 13 and 23 of the Report and Order

of Division 2 herein.

This question, therefore, apparently played a material

part in the ultimate conclusions set forth therein, and it is

respectfully submitted that this newly developed evidence

is most relevant, pertinent and material to the ultimate

determination of the vitally important issues presented

herein.

Request for Modified Procedure Handling

It is submitted that the nature of this evidence is such

that it is susceptible of submission under the Modified

Procedure and accordingly, it is respectfully requested

that, should Further Hearing be granted for the limited

purpose of introducing the evidence above referred to, it

be assigned for such handling in the interest of all parties.

(fol. 672] Respectfully submitted,

Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran-

cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants.

(fol. 673] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

516

[fol. 674]

Berore THE Interstate CoMMERCE COMMISSION

Service Date

January 24, 193

At a Session of the Interstate Commerce Commission,

Division 2, acting as an Appellate Division, held at it,

office in Washington, D. C.

No. 33679

WEstTERN Paciric Rarroap Company et al.

Camas Prarrie Rarroap Company et al.

Oxrper—Entered January 18, 1963

Upon consideration of the record in the above-entitled

proceeding, petition, filed August 29, 1962, of complainants

for reconsideration of the report and order of Division 2,

dated July 26, 1962, together with a request that the matter

herein be declared to be of general transportation im-

portance, and of replies thereto of intervener, Southem

Pacific Company, defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Com.

pany, and defendants, Northern Pacific Railway Company,

Camas Prairie Railroad Company, and Walla Walla Valley

Railway Company, filed October 12, 15, and 18, 1962, re.

spectively ;

It appearing, That pursuant to Rule 1.101la(4) of the

General Rules of Practice the request for the aforesaid

declaration is premature:

It is ordered, That the said petition for reconsideration

be, and it is hereby, denied for the reason that sufficient

grounds have not been presented to warrant granting the

action sought.

By the Commission, Division 2, acting as an Appellate

Division.

Harold D. McCoy, Secretary.

(Seal)

(fol. 676)

BeErorE THE InTERSTATE CoMMERCE COMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

{Title omitted]

CompLainants’ Petition ror WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS OF

Rue 1.101(e) or THE Commussion’s GENERAL RULES OF

Practice—January 19, 1963

Statement

Comes now The Western Pacific Railroad Company,

Sacramento Northern Railway and Tidewater Southern

Railway Company, complainants, hereinafter referred to

collectively as “Western Pacific”, and files this request for

a waiver of the provisions of Rule 1.101 (e) of the Com-

mission’s General Rules of Practice.

(fol. 677] Secretary McCoy, under letter date of January

ll, 1963, has refused to accept complainants’ Petition for

Farther Hearing of December 28, 1962 on the grounds it

was not accompanied by a request for such waiver of Rule

1.101(e). This request is made to correct that deficiency in

the December 28, 1962 Petition.

Basis for Request

Western Pacific believes that inasmuch as this proceed-

ing is still pending for final decision by the Commission

it has the obligation and duty of calling to the Commis-

sion’s attention all newly developed evidence relating to the

facts relied upon by Division 2 in reaching the decision

which is here under consideration.

Division 2, in its Order served August 2, 1962, stated

in part:

“The defendants stress that these shippers have been

aware of the lack of joint rates and through routes

through Bieber for the last 31 years and have not sub-

mitted a written request to the defendants for relief.

518

However, some verbal requests have been made. In the

last six years only one shipper requested the Northen

Pacific to establish joint rates through Bieber, anj

that request was handled to the satisfaction of th

shipper.”

and ae

(fol. 678] “Nothing of record, however, indicates tha

the existing through routes and joint rates are inade.

quate to meet the needs of the shipping public. In fae

the failure of the shipper witnesses to initiate in the

last 31 years a determined campaign to persuade the

defendants of the necessity of establishing throng)

routes between points on the complainants’ lines jy

California and points on the defendants’ lines in the

Northwest, is at least some indication of the adequacy

of the existing routes. The expression ‘in the public

interest’ means more than a mere desire on the part of

shippers for something that would merely be con

venient or desirable for them. This desire must he

weighed against the effect on other carriers and the

general public. On the basis of this record, we cannot

find that the public interest would be served by re.

quiring the establishment of joint rates and through

_ routes which are substantially slower and costlier than

the present routes.”

The evidence which Western Pacific now proposes to

introduce is directly related to that issue. As shown in the

attached Petition for Further Hearing, it was not, and

could not have been, developed prior to the present date.

This evidence was not in existence either at the time of

the hearing or within 30 days after receipt of the Commis-

sion’s Order of August 2, 1962.

Western Pacific believes that the Commission, having

relied upon a specific condition existing at the time the

record was made, must be advised as to the present status

of the facts on that very same issue. It would be an in-

[fol. 679] excusable waste of the Commission’s time, as

well as that of the parties litigant, to force Westem

519

Pacific to file a new complaint based upon new facts when

this matter is not yet closed. The filing of a new complaint,

with all of its attendant expense and inconvenience, can

he avoided by the simple expedient of accepting this Peti-

tion for Further Hearing and allowing the submission of

the evidence under Modified Procedure as requested. _

Wherefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid need-

ess further proceedings herein, in order to bring this per-

tinent evidence to the attention of the Commission we re-

spectfully request that the provisions of Rule 1.101(e) be

waived. To facilitate further handling of this matter I am

submitting at this time complainants’ Petition for Further

Hearing so that in the event it is accepted for filing it may

be promptly submitted to the Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran-

cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants.

(fol.680] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

(fol. 682]

BErorE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

Tue WesTERN Paciric Rarroap Company, et al.,

Complainants,

vs.

Camas Praraiz RR. Co., et al., Defendants.

Perrrion Pursuant To Rue 1.101(a) (4) Genera Rvuizs

or Practice Szexine a Finpine Tat an Issue or Gen-

ERAL TRANSPORTATION ImporTANCE Is InvoLtvep—Filed

January 30, 1963

520

Jurisdictional Statement

This Petition is filed by The Western Pacific Railroad

Company, and its subsidiary lines, hereinafter referred ty

collectively as “Western Pacific”. It is timely filed ag th

Order of Division 2 denying Western Pacific’s Petition for

Reconsideration, was served January 24, 1963, and such

Order, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1. 101 (a) (3) of

the Commission’s General Rules of Practice is administra.

tively final.

Western Pacific’s Petition for waiver of the provisions of

Rule 1.101(e) and Petition for Further Hearing for Pu.

pose of Introducing Newly Developed Evidence filed Jan.

uary 21, 1963, and as yet not acted upon, does not come

within the purview of the precise provisions of Rule 110

(a) (4), and hence its pendency does not affect the filing

of this Petition.

[fol. 683] Arguments Reserved

As required by the rules, this Petition is directed only

to the contention that this is a case involving a matter of

general transportation importance. Failure to reassert the

errors heretofore alleged to be reflected in Division %s

Orders (served August 2, 1962 and January 24, 1963) does

not constitute a waiver or abandonment thereof.

Basis for Relief Sought

Division 2’s decision is the first ruling of the Commis.

sion or the Federal Court system, which holds that a car-

rier must either physically connect with, or already par-

ticipate in through routes with, the discriminating carrier

in order to enjoy the protection afforded by Section 3 (4)

of Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Such a conclusion is directly contrary to the decision of

the United Statés Supreme Court in Chicago, Indianapolis

é Louisville Ry. Co., et al. v. U. S., 270 U.S. 287, where the

Court held, in part:

521

“Jt is argued that . . . where there is no direct physical

connection with the railroad alleged to be discrim-

inated against, and no joint service is being rendered

by the .. . (defendants) with the South Shore, there

can not, in law, be unjust discrimination. ...”

“Direct physical connection with the carrier subjected

to prejudice is not an essential.”

(fol. 684] “Unjust discrimination may exist in law, as

well as in fact, although the injury is inflicted by a

railroad which has no such direct connection.” (Pages

292-293.)

At no stage of this proceeding has Division 2 acknowl-

edged the existence of, let alone distinguished, this decision

which has been repeatedly called to its attention. It is

dear that this decision serves to prescribe the limits of the

language of Congress, and must directly and forcefully

affect rail carriers in every section of the country. It is,

in practical effect, a land mark decision which drastically

limits the scope of the firm Congressional mandate against

the creation and perpetuation of discriminatory practices

and strangulating monopolies in the common carrier field.

In such circumstances, this case far transcends the serious

question of whether Western Pacific is being unjustly and

uwlawfully treated and is a matter of National concern.

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that it be found that

this proceeding does involve an issue of general transporta-

tion importance and thus, with regard to all of its aspects

and issues, is worthy of, and does require, the attention

and decision of the Full Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran-

cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants.

(fol. 685] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

522

[fol. 687]

BEFoRE THE INTERSTATE CoMMERCE COMMISSION

L.C.C. Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

Repty or Derenpants NortHern Pacrric Rarway Cox.

PaNy, Camas Prarrre Rartroap Company anp Way

Watta Vatizy Ramway Company To Comparnanny

Petition ror Watver or Rute 1.101(e) ann Perm;

ror FurtHer Heartnc—Filed February 10, 1963

Preliminary Statement

Complainant, The Western Pacific Railroad Company,

together with its short-line subsidiaries, hereinafter re.

ferred to as “Western Pacific” or “complainant,” asserts in

its petitions for waiver of provisions of Rule 1.101(e) and

further hearing that this proceeding should be reopened to

receive allegedly newly developed evidence consisting of

[fol. 688] stimulated formal requests by certain shippers

for rates on particular commodities via Bieber, California

and the Portland gateway between points in California, on

the one hand, and points in Oregon, Washington and Idaho

on the other.

Following the receipt of the adverse report and order of

Division 2 on August 2, 1962, plaintiff, on August 29, filed

a petition for reconsideration which was denied by the

Commission on January 18, 1963. At the same time, com.

plainant launched a vigorous campaign up and down the

Pacific Coast to induce shippers to file requests with the

appropriate carrier rate bureaus for joint through rates

via Bieber, California. Coraplainant now asserts that such

belatedly manufactured evidence constitutes recently dis

covered evidence requiring your Commission to waive Rule

1.101(e) as requested in complainant’s first petition and |

grant complainant a further hearing for purposes of in

troducing such newly discovered evidence as requested in

the second petition.

ARGUMENT

Good Cause Not Shown for Waiver of Rule 1.101(e)

The decision of Division 2 in this proceeding was served

on August 2, 1962. Complainant’s petition for reconsidera-

fio was not served until January 21, 1963, almost six

months after the Commission’s order and almost five

months after the time for filing such a petition had expired.

(fol. 689] Rule 1.101(e) requires that petitions for rehear-

ing, reargument and reconsideration be filed within 30 days

after the date of service of a decision or order, “except for

good cause shown.” Complainant is obviously aware of

this sound rule as evidenced by the fact that on August 29,

1962, it filed a 33-page petition for reconsideration which

yas replied to by the defendants, carefully considered by

the Commission, and denied by Division 2, acting as an ap-

pllate division, on January 18, 1963, the same date com-

plainant mailed the two petitions here in question.

In its petition for waiver of Rule 1.101(e), complainant

endeavors to meet the salutary requirement of “good cause”

by asserting that the alleged evidence which it has now

manufactured “was not and could not have been, devéloped

prior to the present date.” (Petition for Waiver of Rule,

p.3). This is the sole reason proffered by complainant in

justification of its failure to comply with the Commission’s

30-day rule.

Complainant’s proposed evidence consists of alleged for-

mal requests by shippers for the publication of certain

tates via Bieber, California, and the Portland gateway

which resulted from the campaign initiated by complainant

subsequent to its receipt of the Commission’s order of Au-

gust 2, 1962.

Such proposed evidence clearly cannot be characterized

as newly discovered evidence. It is merely evidence created

(fol. 690] by the complainant subsequent to the receipt of

the adverse report and finally brought to the attention of

the Commission almost six months thereafter.

524

If such a campaign as complainant has belatedly initiaty

has produced evidence which is material and relevant

the issues here presented, which defendants do not

no reason is shown why such a campaign could not hay

been initiated prior to the filing of the complaint herein o

at least, prior to the hearing. Manifestly, complainant hy

not met the requiremen: of Rule 1.101(e)—that good cany

be shown for the extremely late filing of this petition. Wy

submit that no cause has been shown, let alone good cang.

Due to the complainant’s failure to show good cause for

waiver of the rule in question, its petition for waiver of th

rule must be denied.

II.

Complainant’s Request for Further Hearing Not Justified

Assuming arguendo that complainant’s petition secking

waiver of Rule 1.101(e) is granted, defendants submit that

complainant’s petition seeking a further hearing should ke

denied because of its patent failure to meet the twofold re

quirement of Rule 1.101(b), namely, that such evidence not

be cumulative and that an explanation be given showing

why such evidence was not previously adduced.

(fol. 691] The evidence in question, consisting of requests

by certain shippers for publication of rates on certain com.

modities through Bieber, California, via the Portland gate.

way, produced as a result of complainant’s intensive soliti-

tation campaign initiated subsequent to the receipt of the

Commission’s report and order of August 2, 1962, is clearly

cumulative.

Complainant initially alleged that defendants had vio

lated both Sections 1(4) and 3(4) of the Act and sought an

affirmative order from the Commission requiring the estab-

lishment of through routes and joint rates through Bieber,

California, via the Portland gateway between the points

involved. However, complainant finally abandoned its See-

tion 1(4) allegation in its petition of August 29 for recon-

sideration of the report and order of Division 2 and we can,

therefore, assume that complainant agrees with the report

525

and order of Division 2, that there is no public need for the

sought routes and rates. Thus, the sole basis for complain-

ant’s petition for reconsideration which was denied by the

Commission in its order of January 18, 1963, was an al-

leged violation of Section 3(4) of the Act.

In a futile effort to establish public need for the sought

routes and joint rates, complainant presented the testi-

mony of 15 shipper witnesses. It is readily apparent that

the further evidence which complainant now proposes to

adduce would be cumulative of that already presented at

(fol. 692] the hearing in support of the Section 1(4) allega-

tion which complainant has since abandoned. Such evidence

yould add nothing to the record and hence would be merely

cumulative of evidence already of record.

With respect to the second requirement of Rule 1.101

(b), namely, an explanation of why such evidence had not

been previously adduced, complainant has offered no ex-

planation as to why evidence which it now seeks to intro-

duee was not developed at an earlier date. Complainant

frankly admits that the evidence is a result of an intensive

campaign launched subsequent to the receipt of the Com-

mision’s report and order of August 2, 1962. No reason is

given as to why such a campaign could not have been

initiated prior to the hearing here in question. Obviously,

complainant has failed to meet the second requirements

of Rule 1.101(b).

The additional evidence which complainant now seeks to

introduce is not relevant to the alleged Section 3(4) viola-

tion, The shipper testimony which complainant introduced

at the hearing was presented in support of its Section 1(4)

allegation in the expectation that it would establish the

public need for the routes sought. The Division carefully

considered such testimony and found it wanting. Complain-

ant, by abandoning its Section 1(4) allegation in its peti-

tion for reconsideration now concurs with the Commission

that public need does not require the establishment of the

routes and rates here involved. Obviously, such additional

(fol. 693] evidence would, in no way, support the essential

526

requirements of a Section 3(4) violation. Clearly, guq

evidence is not relevant to such a charge, as complainan;

virtually concedes in its petition for rehearing (p. 5),

___ However, even assuming that complainant’s PToposed

evidence is not cumulative and could not have been prey).

ously produced and is relevant and material to the

Section 3(4) violation, it should still not be considered

Such requests will be promptly and fully considered by

both the North Pacific Coast Freight Bureau and the Py

cific South Coast Freight Bureau. We can assume tha

these rate bureaus will fully and carefully consider thes

inspired requests in accordance with their established pro.

cedures. Until they have fully considered these requests, it

would be premature to even speculate as to the final a.

tion that they will take.

Complainant, by conceding in its petition for reconsider.

tion an absence of public need for the routes which it inj.

tially sought pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Act, admits

that the proposed evidence, even if adduced, would not

and should not alter the ratio decidendi of the Division’:

report and order. Further, if this proceeding were re.

opened for the receipt of such evidence, it could not and

should not be handled under modified procedure.

The granting of the instant petition would simply e-

courage protracted litigation to the detriment of all par.

(fol. 694] ties and the overriding public interest. Obvi-

ously, if parties are entitled to a further hearing at any

time without showing good and substantial cause why the

Commission’s rules should be waived as well as good and

substantial cause for the rehearing itself, “there would be

little hope that the administrative process could ever be

consummated in an order that would not be subject to re.

opening.” I.C.C, v. Jersey City, 322 U. S. 503, 514 (1944).

Conclusion

Complainant apparently concedes that its belatedly

manufactured evidence is not really material to a Section

3(4) proceeding. Notwithstanding this fact, it seeks to re

527

open this proceeding for a further hearing solely to pro-

duce such evidence. We submit that complainant has wholly

failed to show good cause for waiver of the Commission’s

30-day rule for filing of such a petition as well as sufficient

eguse to warrant the reopening of this proceeding for a

further hearing and that, therefore, both petitions should

be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Earl F. Requa, Frank S. Farrell.

Due Date: February 11, 1963.

(fol. 695] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

(fol. 697]

BerorkE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

LC.C. Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

Rerty or Derenpant, Union Paciric Ramroap Company,

To CoMPLAINANT’s Petrrion ror Warver oF Rute 1.101(e)

anp Petition ror FurtHer Hearinc—Filed February

11, 1963

Comes now Union Pacific Railroad Company, defendant,

and submits this reply to the complainant’s petition for

waiver of Rule 1.101(e) of the Commission’s General Rules

of Practice and also to the complainant’s petition for fur-

ther hearing.

Chronological Statement of the Case

The Western Pacific Railroad Company, and its wholly

owned subsidiaries, filed a complaint on February 10, 1961,

charging defendants, Union Pacific Railroad Company and

Northern Pacific Railway Company, and their subsidiaries,

with violations of Sections 1(4) and 3(4) of the Interstate

Commerce Act. After the issues were joined by appro-

priate pleadings, including intervention of Southern Pg.

cific Company, the complaint was heard before Examine

J. F. Wright in San Francisco, California, May 8-10, 196,

(fol. 698] Briefs were filed by the parties. on. J

1961, and on August 10, 1961, the Examiner served his

report and recommended order finding a violation of Se.

tion 3(4) of the Act. The defendants, Union Pacific ana

Northern Pacific, and intervenor, Southern Pacific, filed

exceptions to the Examiner’s proposed report and, after

reply by the complainant, the Commission, Division 2, ing

report dated July 26, 1962, and served August 2, 199

found that there was no violation of the Interstate Com.

merce Act and ordered the complaint dismissed.

The complainant thereupon petitioned for reconsiders.

tion of the report and order of Division 2, replies were

filed by the opposing parties, and on January 18, 1963, the

petition for reconsideration was denied. There remain for

disposition by the Commission the complainant's petition

for waiver of Rule 1.101(e), the petition for further hear.

ing and the petition seeking a finding that an issue of

general transportation importance is involved.

I. Petitioner Has Not Shown Good Cause for

Waiver of Rule 1.101(e).

This rule of the Commission’s General Rules of Prac

tice provides that any petition seeking a change in a deci-

sion or order of the Commission, whether for reconsidera-

tion, reargument, rehearing, further hearing, or otherwise,

must be filed within 30 days after the date of service of the

decision or order, except for good cause shown and upon

leave granted.

Since the complainant is seeking a change in the order of

Division 2, which was served August 2, 1962, by requesting

(fol. 699] a further hearing, it has the burden of explaining

why the petition was filed almost six months after the

Commission order and almost five months after the time

for filing the petition had expired. Its burden is par-

ticularly heavy in view of the fact that complainant had

eal

no difficulty in filing its petition for reconsideration within

the prescribed period.

In support of its request for a waiver of the time re-

¢ the Western Pacific alleges that the evidence it

now proposes to introduce “was not, and could not have

been, developed prior to the present date” (p. 3, Petition

for Waiver of Rule). No other reason, or good cause, is

advanced to explain the failure to comply with the Com-

mission’s time requirement.

The proposed evidence is described in the petition for

farther hearing as constituting a number of formal shipper

requests for publication of rates filed with the Pacific South

Coast Freight Bureau and the North Pacific Coast Freight

Bureau. The complainant characterizes these occurrences

as “newly developed evidence” stating that the rate ap-

plications were instigated by the Western Pacific as a

result of a campaign undertaken by it after service of the

Commission’s order of August 2, 1962. There is no reason

why evidence of this nature could not have been developed

at the inception of this proceeding, if the complainant had

considered it of any materiality.

This is not newly discovered evidence. It is evidence

manufactured by the Western Pacific after receipt of a

(fol. 700] report adverse to it and now brought to the atten-

tion of the Commission almost six months after the report.

The rule requiring that petitions seeking a change in a

Commission order be filed within 30 days of service of

the order is designed to bring some degree of finality to

Commission proceedings. Its admirable purpose is frus-

trated if a party to a proceeding can bide its time, evaluate

an adverse Commission report, wait out the period for

reconsideration or rehearing and then request waiver of

the time-for-filing rule by arguing that evidence newly

created by it should be considered by the Commission.

The Western Pacific has not presented sufficient good

cause to justify a waiver of Rule 1.101(e) and its petition

for waiver of the rule should be denied.

530

II. Petitioner Has Not Justified Its Request fora —

Further Hearing.

If the Commission should waive Rule 1.101(e) and per.

mit filing of Western Pacific’s petition for further hearing

it should deny the petition since there is no justification

for a further hearing.

Rule 1.101(b) provides:

“When in a petition filed under this section op.

portunity is sought to introduce evidence, the eyj.

dence to be adduced must be stated briefly, snch

evidence must not appear to be cumulative, and ex.

planation must be given why such evidence was not

previously adduced.”

The evidence the Western Pacific seeks to introduce fills

none of the requirements of the rule—it is essentially cn-

(fol. 701] mulative; it could have been adduced previously

and it is not material to the issues raised in this proceeding,

Even if the proposed evidence were introduced it would

not be sufficient to bring about any change in the Commis.

sion’s decision.

It is self-evident that the proposed evidence could have

been adduced previously. The Western Pacific acknowledges

that the formal shipper rate requests that have been filed

with the Pacific South Coast and North Pacific Coast

Freight Bureaus are the result of its agitation. The same

activity could have been undertaken by the Western Pacific

at the time it filed its complaint. It is strangely contra

dictory for the complainant to assert that it considers the

proposed evidence of “questionable materiality” (p. 5, Peti-

tion for Further Hearing). This defendant is in agreement

with complainant’s evaluation of the proposed evidence, but

this does not alter the complainant’s obligation to develop

and introduce at the appropriate time the evidence it in-

tends to rely upon to establish its allegations.

The evidence is truly cumulative in that it reflects nothing

more than shipper requests for rates over the Bieber route

between California and the Pacific Northwest. Evidence

531

that a certain number of formal rate applications have been

filed will add nothing to the testimony of shippers already

in the record, The complainant has expressed satisfaction

with the quantity and caliber of shipper support it has

received, having characterized the 16 shipper witnesses as

being traffic and executive representatives of some of the

(fol. 702] most important industries in the Pacific North-

west (p. 36, Complainant’s Reply to Exceptions). Proof

that these same shippers and others like them have sub-

mitted rate applications to the appropriate rail rate bureaus

would be merely cumulative of the evidence already on the

record.

The evidence proposed to be introduced is both imma-

terial and irrelevant. While these words are often used

interchangeably, “immaterial” denotes evidence offered to

prove a proposition not in issue, while “irrelevant” denotes

evidence which does not logically tend to establish any

material proposition (Hansson v. Catalytic Construction

Company, 127 A.2d 431, 434; 43 N. J. Super. 23).

(a) The fact that certain shippers have filed formal

applications for rates over the Bieber route is imma-

terial to the determination of a Section 3(4) violation.

This section of the Act pertains to discrimination be-

tween carriers, and the unavailability of a full line of

joint rates over the Bieber route has already been es-

tablished in the record.

(b) Even if evidence of shipper desire for rates over

the Bieber route were material to resolution of a Sec-

tion 3(4) issue the evidence proposed to be introduced

is not relevant. The fact that a shipper rate applica-

tion has been filed with a railroad rate bureau is not

persuasive of an actual public need for the rate or for

prescription of the route over which the rate would

(fol. 703] apply. The rate applications will be decided

by the rate bureaus under normal procedures and there

can be no assumption that meritorious proposals will

be denied. Mr. A. J. Stilling, Freight Traffic Manager

of Union Pacific Railroad Company, has testified that

the Union Pacific intends to continue its past poliey of

giving serious consideration to the publication of joint

rates over the Bieber route where there is a proved

need for them in the public interest (R. 296).

It is actually misleading for the complainant to imply

that the defendants have contended that the absence of

formal shipper requests for publication of rates over the

Bieber route is material to the determination of the See.

tion 3(4) issue (pp. 5, 6, Complainant’s Petition for Farther

Hearing). These allegations are based upon a statement op

oral argument and to certain references to shipper rate

applications in the report and order of Division 2, bot

relating to the Section 1(4) issue (Tr. 499, 500 and shs, 13,

23, Report and Order of Division 2).

At the outset of the Discussion and Conclusions sectioy

of the report, Division 2 observed that “The complainants

rely primarily on the alleged violation of section 3(4) 0

the act.” (sh. 19) This is undisputed. Although the Westem

Pacific initially alleged violations of Sections 1(4) and 3(4)

of the Act in its complaint, little emphasis was placed on the

[fol. 704] Section 1(4) issue and the gradual de-emphasis

of this allegation ripened into outright abandonment fol.

lowing the report and order of Division 2.

Section 3(4), insofar as it is material to this case, pro-

vides that carriers shall not discriminate in their rates,

fares and charges between connecting lines. The Commis.

sion discussed the elements of a Section 3(4) violation and

_culminated with the finding that the carriers are not con-

necting lines and that the evidence did not establish th:

similarity of circumstances and conditions which justify

equality of treatment (sh. 22). In its ultimate conclusion

the Commission found that the refusal of the defendan’

to establish through routes and joint rates as requested by

the complainant was not shown to be unjust and unreason-

able nor to result in discrimination in violation of Section

3(4) of the Act (sh. 24). In its discussion of the Section 3(4)

issue the Commission did not mention formal shipper rate

533

applications or the existence of shipper support for the

prescription of new rates and routes via Bieber.

However, the Commission observed that while the com-

plainants have indicated a willingness to rely alone on the

alleged violation of Section 3(4) they also alleged other

violations and request the prescription of through routes

and joint rates over the route sought (sh. 22), Accordingly

the Commission proceeded to consider the evidence material

to Section 1(4) and discussed at length the shipper evi-

dence introduced by the complainant (shs. 9-13). In this

connection the Division mentioned and considered the proof

(fol. 705] of formal shipper rate applications. After full

consideration of the evidence going to Section 1(4) and

dealing also with the implementing provisions of the Act,

Sections 15(3) and 15(4), the Commission concluded that

the establishment of through routes and joint rates in con-

nection with the complainants through Bieber and Port-

land was not shown to be necessary or desirable in the

Section 3(4) case

issues the proposed evidence of formal shipper rate ap-

ications is plainly not material and the Western Pacific

cannot be prejudiced by a denial of its request for a further

In one of its early decisions, in Whiteland Canning Co.

v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 23 1.C.C. 92, the Commission

made some sensible comments on the subject of rehearings,

and those observations remain sound enough for applica-

tion here.

“The petition does not show how the above evidence,

if introduced, would alter the conclusion already

it indicate any reason for

accorded carriers must show as ground for a reheari

that the evidence which they now offer either could

not or ought not to have been introduced upon the fip4

hearing, and also that this evidence, if introd

[fol. 706] would probably lead to a reversal of our pre.

vious conclusion. It is no hardship to require carriers

in the trial of their cases before this Commission t

observe to a very moderate degree the same rules whieh

would obtain in a trial at law. Whenever this Commis.

sion is convinced that its order works substantial jp.

justice it will unhesitatingly set aside that order, but

we cannot continually retry these cases upon the mere

statement of the carrier that it desires to introduee

some further testimony and believes that the decision

of the Commission is wrong.” (p. 94)

See also National Radiator Corp. v. Pennsylvania R. Co,

203 I.C.C. 172, 173.

Ill. Granting Petitioner’s Request for a Further

Hearing Will Encourage Protracted Litiga-

tion Before the Commission.

The Western Pacific framed the issues in its complaint

to its own satisfaction, received a full hearing and accepted

a favorable Examiner’s report. After receipt of an adverse

Commission decision the complainant then initiated a cam-

paign designed to persuade shippers to file formal rate ap-

plications before rail rate bureaus and thus created the

evidence it now seeks to have admitted in this proceeding,

While this defendant recognizes and endorses the Com-

mission obligation to develop a complete record in proceed-

ings before it, the interests of administrative justice are not

served if tactics such as this are rewarded. Parties before

the Commission will find it expedient to hold back the

submission of borderline evidence—especially if that evi-

dence may cut both for and against the party—gamble on

a favorable outcome, and then proceed to patch up its case

(fol. 707] by the generation of additional evidence to be

submitted at a further bearing if the final Commission

decision goes against it.

535

An allegation of prejudice by denial of its petition would

receive little sympathy from the courts under these cir-

cumstances. In an opinion liberally supported by decisions

of the Supreme Court, the Federal district court in Ilimois

Cent. R. Co. v. United States, 101 F. Supp. 317, declared :

“Though the order substantially reduced the carriers’

revenues, we do not consider the merits of the appli-

cation for rehearing, as we think the carriers’ lack of

diligence in bringing this matter to the Commission’s

attention deprived them of any equity to complain of

the refusal of their petition. They sat silent and took

the chance of a favorable decision on the record as

made. They should not be permitted to reopen the

ease for the introduction of evidence long available and

susceptible of production months before the Commis-

sion acted. The denial of a rehearing, in view of this

delay, was not such an abuse of discretion as would

warrant setting aside the order.’” (p. 326)

Conclusion

The record is closed and with denial of complainant’s

petition for reconsideration the Commission has spoken

with administrative finality. The complainant has not

shown good cause for waiver of the Commission’s time-for-

filing requirement nor has it shown sufficient justification

for an order reopening this proceeding for further hearing.

[fol. 708] The petition for waiver of Rule 1.101(e) and the

petition for further hearing should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

H. E. Roos, John J. Burchell, William P. Higgins,

Attorneys for Union Pacific Railroad Company,

Defendant.

Due Date: February 11, 1963.

1416 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska.

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

536

(fol. 710]

Berore THE Interstate Commerce CoMMISSION

Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

Repuy or InTERvENER SouTHERN Pactric Company To (Cow.

PLAINANTS’ PETITION FoR Watver or Ruzz 1.101(e) am

Petition For Furtner Heartnc—Filed February 1j,

1963

Comes now intervener Southern Pacific Company and re.

plies to complainants’ petition for waiver of Rule 1.101(e)

of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s General Rules

of Practice and to complainants’ petition for further

hearing.

Preliminary Statement

This proceeding was commenced on February 10, 1961,

with the filing of a complaint by Western Pacific Railroad

Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, charging that

Union Pacific Railroad Company and Northern Pacific

Railway Company had violated sections 1(4) and 3(4) of

the Interstate Commerce Act. Hearings were held in San

Francisco, Calif., from May 8 to 10, 1961. Briefs were

thereafter filed, and on August 10, 1961, the examiner's

recommended report and order was served. Said report

[fol. 711] and order recommended that the Commission

find a violation of section 3(4) of the Act. Thereafter ex-

ceptions to said proposed report were taken and replies

were made. Division 2 of the Commission, in a report and

order served August 2, 1962, found no violation of the

Interstate Commerce Act and ordered the complaint dis-

missed. Complainants filed a petition for reconsideration

of the report and order of Division 2, and, after replies

were filed by defendants and intervener Southern Pacific

Company, said petition for reconsideration was denied on

January 18, 1963. Complainants have now filed a petition

537

for waiver of the provisions of Rule 1.101(e) of the Com-

mission’s General Rules of Practice so that they may file

a petition for further hearing.

Complainants’ Petition for Waiver of the Provisions

of Rule 1.101(e) of the Commission’s General Rules

of Practice Should Be Denied

Rule 1.101(e) of the General Rules of Practice requires

that, except for good cause shown and upon leave granted,

petitions (in this case for further hearing) must be filed

within thirty days after the date of service of a decision

or order. In this proceeding said thirty-day period expired

on September 4, 1962, five months ago. As a showing for

good cause, complainants claim that there is “newly de-

veloped evidence” and that this evidence was not and could

not have been developed prior to the present date (Petn.

for Waiver of Rule 1.101(e), p. 3). The evidence that com-

plainants allude to is the filing and docketing with Pacific

South Coast Freight Bureau and North Pacific Coast

Freight Bureau of requests for voluntary publication of

{fol. 712] rates via the Bieber route on a level competitive

with Southern Pacific via Portland. Complainants also al-

lege that more such requests are being prepared and will

be docketed or filed for docketing in the near future.

Complainants’ characterization of this evidence as “newly

developed” is directly refuted by their own statement that

Western Pacific lawnched the campaign to have these re-

quests filed (Petn. for Further Hearing, p. 2). Under these

circumstances, it is not “newly developed evidence”; it is

newly manufactured evidence. If newly manufactured evi-

dence is to constitute a showing of good cause under Rule

1.101(e), it will mean that litigants in Interstate Com-

merce Commission proceedings will wait until after ser-

vice of a decision or order and then proceed to manufac-

ture evidence to bolster or complete their case. It is sub-

mitted that such a result is not desirable, and indeed would

only serve to prolong already lengthy Commission pro-

538

Complainants have failed to show good cause, and their

petition for waiver of the provisions of Rule 1.101(e) of

the Commission’s General Rules of Practice should he

denied.

Complainants’ Petition for Further Hearing

Should Be Denied

If the Commission should waive the provisions\of Rule

1.101(e) and allow complainants to file their pétition for

further hearing, said petition should be denied because

complainants have failed to make a proper showing under

Rule 1.101(b). Rule 1.101(b) states:

(fol. 713] ‘When in a petition filed under this section

opportunity is sought to introduce evidence, the evi-

dence to be adduced must be stated briefly, such evi-

dence must not appear to be cumulative, and explana.

tion must be given why such evidence was not previ-

ously adduced.”

1. Complainants have not explained why such

evidence was not previously adduced.

Complainants have completely failed to make any show.

ing as to why the evidence they now seek to introduce could

not have been obtained prior to or during the hearings in

this case. Complainants freely admit that they alone are

responsible for the launching of a campaign to have these

formal requests filed and they make no explanation as to

why it was not available at an earlier date, except the

bland statement that “it was not in existence until now”

(etn. for Further Hearing, p. 5). As the court stated in

United States v. Northern Pac. Ry., 288 U.S. 490, 494

(1933) :

“Though the order substantially reduced the car-

riers’ revenues, we do not consider the merits of the

application for rehearing, as we think the carriers’

lack of diligence in bringing this matter to the Com-

mission’s attention deprived them of any equity to

539

complain of the refusal of their petition. They sat

silent and took the chance of a favorable decision on

the record as made. They should not be permitted to

reopen the case for the introduction of evidence long

available and susceptible of production months before

the Commission acted.” (Emphasis added.)

So, also, in Goss v. Director General, 58 1.C.C. 169, 173

(1920) the Commission said :

“In its brief on exceptions complainants request

that the case be reopened for the purpose of enabling

evidence to be presented as to the reasonableness of

the Auburn rates via the Lackawanna-New York Cen-

tral Lines. Ample opportunity was given complainants

to present such evidence when the record in this case

was made, and the request is therefore denied.”

(fol. 714] It is submitted that complainants have utterly

failed to explain why such evidence was not previously

adduced.

2, The evidence sought to be introduced is

cumulative and immaterial to the issues

Complainants have previously called a number of ship-

pers to testify upon the record. Intervener Southern Pa-

cific Company fails to see how proof by these same ship-

pers or by other shippers that they have submitted rate

applications to rail bureaus would add anything to the

record as already developed. To the contrary, such addi-

tional evidence would be merely cumulative. As was stated

in Public Service Comm’n of Nevada v. Southern Pac. Co.,

21 L.C.C. 567, 568 (1935) :

“ .. On exceptions intervener seeks further hear-

ing to enable it to renew and amplify its evidence to

show the highly profitable character of the rates as-

sailed. There is no showing that the nature and pur-

pose of the evidence to be adduced is not merely cumu-

lative, and the request is denied.”

‘540

Furthermore, complainants, in their petition for regg.

sideration, have stated at page 25 that “The section 1(4)

allegations have been abandoned”; yet complainants noy

seek a further hearing to introduce “newly developed” ey;

dence which is material only to a violation of section 1(4)

Even complainants agree that in connection with a viol,

tion of section 3(4) the question of whether there have hea

formal shipper requests for the publication of rates ig x

least of questionable materiality (Petn. for Further Hear.

ing, p. 5).

Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the ey).

dence proposed to be introduced at a further hearing js

[fol. 715] cumulative and is immaterial to a violation of

section 3(4).

The language of the Commission in Cattle Raisers Assn,

v. Chicago, B. d Q. R.R., 12 1.C.C. 6 (1906), is appropriate

to this proceeding. In that case the Commission said:

“.. We feel that when an order has been made the

ease before this Commission should be treated as closed,

and that it ought not to be opened except upon a shov.

ing that some wrong or injustice has been or will be

effected.”

Complainants have failed to show that under Rule 1.101

(b) they are entitled to a further hearing.

Complainants’ Request for Modified-

Procedure Handling

Intervener Southern Pacific Company objects to com

plainants’ request that further hearings take place by way

of modified procedure.

Conclusion

Complainants have failed to show good cause for the

waiver of Rule 1.101(e); nor have complainants shown

sufficient justification for an order directing a further hear-.

ing in this proceeding. Complainants’ petition for waiver

541

of Rule 1.101(e) and complainants’ petition for further

hearing should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Thormund A. Miller, Charles W. Burkett, Jr.,

W. Harney Wilson, Attorneys for Intervener,

Southern Pacific Company.

San Francisco, Calif., February 8, 1963.

[fol. 716] Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).

(fol. 717]

Berore THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Service Date

February 20, 1963

At a General Session of the Interstate Commerce Com-

mission, held at its office in Washington, D. C.

No. 33679

Wesreen Pactric Ramzoap Company et al.,

Camas Prarie Rarrzoap Company et al.

OrpEr—February 14, 1963

Upon consideration of the record in the above-entitled

proceeding, the report and order of the Commission, Divi-

sion 2, decided July 26, 1962, and petition, filed January 30,

1963, of complainants seeking a finding that an issue of

general transportation importance is involved herein; and

for good cause :

lt is ordered, That the petition be, and it is hereby,

granted, and that this proceeding is hereby designated as

542

one involving an issue of general transportation impor.

tance.

It is further ordered, That petitions for reconsideration

in this proceeding may be filed within 30 days after th

date of service of this order and replies thereto within 9

days after the final date for filing such petitions.

By the Commission.

Harold D. McCoy, Secretary,

(Seal)

[fol. 719]

Berore THe Inrerstate Commerce Commission

Docket No. 33679

[Title omitted]

Compiarnants’ Petition To THE F'utt Commission ror Re

CONSIDERATION OF THE Report AND OrpeR or Dtvisiox ?

AnD CompLarnants’ Request ror Orat Arcument Bp.

FORE THE F'utL Commission—Served March 19, 1963

Walter G. Treanor, 526 Mission Street, San Fran.

cisco 5, California, Attorney for Complainants,

Due Date: March 22, 1963.

[{fol. 720] Statement of Position

The primary question to be determined at the outset,

however, is whether Western is a “connecting line” as that

term is used in Section 3 (4). Such a term was, and is, in.

tended to have full application to those carriers who are

an integral part of a through route initially authorized, and

at all times operated for all practical effects as a single

line of railroad. Such a route is the Bieber route which

.does have a physical connection with defendants. Thus,

even a finding that physical connection is necessary in

order to invoke the provisions of Section 3 (4) must result

in the further finding that Western Pacific fully meets that

irement.

The Examiner properly held that, all of the facilities

which have been used by defendants in the handling of cast

iron pipe (moved in substantial quantities over the Bieber

route through Portland to its connection with defendants)

are the same facilities that would be utilized should the

Bieber route be opened commercially to all other classes of

traffic moving to points on the lines of defendants.* Thus,

while the through rates on pipe thus established are appar-

ently not broad enough under the doctrine of the Thomp-

son*® case to make the action of defendants in establishing

such rates a general holding out to the public under other

sections of the Act (a point not disputed by complainants

who are here trying to remedy that problem), they do dem-

onstrate the absolute and complete feasibility of the Bieber

(fol. 721] route’s ability to provide a fully satisfactory

operation in conjunction with defendants.

* ° * * * * .

(fol. 722] The economic benefits inherent in opening these

routes to a full utilization can perhaps be best visualized

by a brief recitation of a representative situation existent

uder the present system. A shipper at Seattle, Washing-

ton, can physically move his cars over the Bieber route in

conjunction with Great Northern, Union Pacific or North-

em Pacific. He can economically route a car over the Bie-

ber Gateway only if neither Union Pacific nor Northern

Pacific is shown in the routing.

(fol. 722a]

Western Pacific Is a “Connecting Line” Entitled to Invoke

the Provisions of Section 3 (4)

* * a o + * *

_-_-_--_—_—-

* Sheet 5 of Hearing Examiner Wright’s Report.

** Thompson v. United States, 343 U.S. 549.

544

[fol. 723] It is clear that except for a very limited ling

of commodities, defendants have refused to establish

through routes and rates with Western Pacific. This ig,

situation Western Pacific desires to remedy through this

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.