The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1920-08-09

Ahf hHlouAA W AHt lOuNlNE anu
unloading charges for livestock at the
Chicago s~tockyards.
.. Tn moun OF such charges, II
any. hat should be imposed upon
shippers OF livestock, or should be
absorbed by the defendants.
3. Whether the stoCkyards are the
terminals Of the Chicago Junction
railway company, and,
4. Whether the tariff arrange
ments between the Union Stock Yard
q TranStt company and the other
defendants with respect TO delivery
and handling of livestock at the stock
yards are In compliance with the act.
Further heuring was had and n
proposed report prepared by the ex-
aminer was served on the parties.
Exceptions were filed and the cases
we're orally argued before lis.
This proceeding grows out of the
Increases Oh May n, 1911, In the
charges OF the uuion Stock Yards q
IrnDslt company, hereinafter called
the StUckyur1 company for unloading
ana loading livestock at Chicago from
20 to 90 EMS per car to ~ and 90
cents respectively. The carriers
transporting livestock to and from
Chicago had borne Or absorbed the
IOriner charges, but refused to bear
or absorb the increase In the charges,
with the result hat the st~ockyards
company collected ana retained such
additional charges from the shipper.
subsequently the s~tockyard company
attempted 10 cancel its tariff naming
the unloading n loading charges
Rud make hem the subject OF an OPP
Grating arrangement between Itself
and the carr ers, but upon protest the
proposed cancellation was suspended.
In our original report we found,
among other things, that the loading
and unloading OF livestock ut the
stockyards In Chicago Ii the duty OF
the shipper, and that the stockyards
are the terminals for the receipt and
delivery OF livestock OF the railroad
utilizing them. The controversy,
chief relates to these two findings.
There are other findings that are the
subject OF exceptions and protests,
which will he considered later. II is
The contention OF the line-haul de-
PENDANTS that the question of the
duty OF the shipper 10. perform load
Ing and unloading service Is not in
volved IN the questions with respect
Ia which the cases were reopened
This contention III not tanable because
the question of whether the shipper
OF carriers are obligated to render
the service Is inextricably bound up
with The question of whether h
ttiuibtn may lhWlulg bt iHlIlbHfu ph
the. shipper. In no far as h future
IL considered this question Is con-
cludcd b! the transportation net,
1890. That act, amending section II
al the Interstate commerce act. with
certain exceptions not here material.
provides that
transportation wholly by railroad OF
ordinary livestock In carload lots des-
tined 10 or received at public stock
on rda analI tnpllI1a all naaagQuFy aar-
vice OF unloading II r%eloadlng en-
route, delivery at public stOckyards
OF inbound shipments into suitable
pens, and receipt and loading at such
yards OF outbound shipments without
extra charge therefor to the shipper.
consignee or owner.'
Since the passage OF his act the
line-haul carriers have provided for
the absorption OF the charges OF so
cents and rs cents Tor unloading and
loading livestock, respectively. pub
llshed by the s~tockyard company.
The facts In this case are not In dis
pute, For more than so years car
rlers delivering livestock at the stock
yards In Chicago have loaded and UNI
loaded livestock. and made no charge
therefor against th9. shipper. More
than 1000 cars OF livestock are fire.
Quently delivered at the .stockyards
In Chicago on a single day. II In
manifest that n the co~nsignees or
shippers undertook to unload their
Inbound shipments. or to load out
bound shipments, there would result
such confusion and congestion ut the
stockyards as seriously to Interfere
with orderly and prompt performance
of h service. Counsel for the line
haul carriers conceded at he hearing
that the shipper can not go to the
ste kyards and physically load or un-
load his livestock; but their conten-
tlon Is that he should do Il financial
w. Under [ ha regulations OF the
1Ockyurda company no shipper IN
permitted 20 perform the service, v e
e he shauld demand the right 10 do
20. The line-haul rates to Chicago,
plus q charge OF Sc for terminal or
Awitching service, have for years con-
stituted the through charge and in
cluded the delivery OF livestock 10 the
consignee II the atockyards For
The nso stated we are OF the
opinion that our finding that II Il the
duty OF the shipper to load and unload