intentionally do so. But, however that may be, we do not think it has been done in this case. The blocks in question are not to be regarded as "wagon material, unfinished," because the process of making the marketable article into parts of wagons is not yet begun upon the marketable article. They are the unseasoned raw material on its way to the hands of the manufacturer. They must therefore be considered as properly classed with lumber, and not as they were classed by the defendant's agents in the case of the consignments in question.

This construction of the classification is strongly supported by the lumber tariff issued by defendant, and in force upon its lines. In the official classification the word "lumber is not defined, nor is any attempt made to indicate what articles are intended to be embraced in that general designation. The lumber tariff, however, enumarates a line of articles which are accepted for transportation under that general head. They include, among others, barrel shooks, box stuff, cooperage stock, heading bolts, hoops, hop poles, lath, wooden paving blocks, pickets, picture backing, shingles, stave bolts, staves, and heading, telegraph cross-arms, and telegraph poles. Applying to hub-blocks the rule of the classification, that "articles not enumerated will be classed with analogous articles," they quite easily arrange themselves with the articles above named, some of which, indeed, have reached the final stage of mauufacture. On the other hand, the articles manufactured from wood which are placed by the official classification in the fifth class were enumerated in the case of Reynolds v. Western New York & Pennsylvania R. Co., I I. C. C. Rep. 397; s. c., note, 32 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 595; and scarcely any of them can be said to be analogous to the hub-blocks in question.

Order will be entered, that the complaint is sustained, and that in any consignments to be hereafter made over its road the defendant must conform to the construction of the classification sheet above laid down.

Improper Classifications.-See Pyle v. East Tenn., etc., R. Co., 32 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 584, note 595.

"'ex

Opinion Evidence. As to opinion evidence, or the admissibility in evidence of the opinions of persons who are not of that class known as perts," see tit. "Expert and Opinion Evidence," 7 Am. & Eng. Encycl. of L.

BRADY et al

ย.

PENNSYLVANIA R. Co. et al.

(Interstate Commerce Commission, July 23, 1888.)

Interstate Commerce-Freight Rates-Connecting Lines. If railroad companies, by agreement, form their tracks into a through line and offer it to the public for continuous carriage, they cannot escape responsibility for unreasonable charges by claiming the haul is devisible according to the length of each line, but must contract for through business according to a reasonable freight rate applicable to the whole distance.

Same-Controlling Interest in Connecting Line.-The Pennsylvania R. Co. own a controlling interest in the stock of the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis R. Co., although the latter company operates its own line. The main line of the Pennsylvania R. Co. connected with the line of the Pittsburg Co., and through traffic was carried over both lines under through contracts. Held, that the Pennsylvania R. Co. could not make freight rates from points upon the line of the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis R. Co. which operated as an unjust discrimination in favor of points upon its own lines or upon other lines controlled by it in a similar man

ner.

Same--Danger of Transportation-Carriage of Oil.-If oil is carried through a city in such quantities that the charges to meet any liability of the company arising out of the danger from necessary transportation through the city is so slight when apportioned upon all the business, that it could not sensibly effect the rates which should be charged, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not consider such danger in deciding upon the reasonableness of the rates charged for the carriage of oil.

COMPLAINTS by John W. S. Brady and George T. Parkhurst, partners trading under the firm name of J. Parkhurst & Co., and John Henry Nicolai, Trading as "Eagle Oil Works" against the Pennsylvania R. Co., the Pennsylvania Co., and the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis R. Co., alleging that the freight asked by the defendant on the carriage of crude petroleum from Washington, Pennsylvania, to Baltimore, Maryland, in car-load lots is unjust and unreasonable. The case is stated in the opinion.

John Henry Keene, Jr., and Archibald Sterling for complain

ants.

James A. Logan and Bernard Carter for Pennsylvania R. Co.

John Scott for Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis R. Co.

MORRISON. These cases were heard together by consent of the parties. In their facts, reasons, and the answers of the defendants they are substantially the same. In both complaint is made of the defendants that from April Averments in 15, 1887, they exacted and demanded and concomplaints. tinued to charge the plaintiffs fifty cents per barrel of forty-five gallons each of crude petroleum from Washington, Pennsylvania, to Baltimore, Maryland, in carload lots; that, while exacting fifty cents between the places named, the defendants carry such oil to Baltimore for forty cents, from Bradford and Clarendon, Pennsylvania, and Olean, New York, about the same distance as Washington, Pennsylvania, from Baltimore; that the said charge of fifty cents is unjust and unreasonable, and to the extent of ten cents per barrel excessive, and that complainants have paid, under protest, to defendants, large sums for such unjust, unreasonable, and excessive charges, for which complainants ask reparation.

fendants.

The Pennsylvania R. Co., answering separately, denies that it was a through carrier of oil from Washington to Baltimore, and avers that it was only a carrier from Pittsburgh Answers of de to Baltimore, for which it received thirty-five cents per barrel; that the oil was carried from Washington to Pittsburgh over the lines of other companies for fifteen cents, and that the gross charge of fifty cents from Washington to Baltimore is just and reasonable, considered by itself, or as compared with the rates from Bradford, Olean, and Clarendon, because of the greater hazard in passing manufacturing plants and other buildings in Pittsburgh.

The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis R. Čo. "denies that at a period named in the bill of complaint it was engaged in the transportation of passengers and property from the State of Pennsylvania to the State of Maryland," and avers that it charged a uniform rate of fifteen cents per barrel for all oil carried from Washington to Pittsburgh, which, it avers, is a reasonable and just rate.

The Pennsylvania Co. denies that it was engaged or interested in the transportation of oil between any of the places and during the period mentioned in the complaint, and denies the averments of the complaint, so far as they relate to this defendant.

The facts are found to be that

Facts found.

1. The complainants, Parkhurst & Co., are dealers in crude and refined oil, and the complainant, Nicolai, is a refiner of oil at Baltimore, Maryland. The defendants are common carriers of passengers and freight over the lines of road owned or operated by them, which are, severally, lines of the "Pennsylvania system."

The lines of this system east of Pittsburgh are operated by the Pennsylvania R. Co.; those west of Pittsburgh by some one of the other defendants. The Pennsylvania R. Co. is owner of a majority of the capital stock and a controlling interest in the other defendant companies, each of which has a separate corporate organization.

2. The defendant companies have filed with the Commission the following:

"AGREEMENT FOR A THROUGH LINE.

The Pennsylvania R. Co., the Pennsylvania Co., the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis R. Co., and the Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburgh R. Co., common carriers, for the purpose of securing and promoting the continuous carriage. of freight within the meaning of the Act to regulate commerce, commonly known as the Interstate Commerce Law, do hereby agree that they will interchange freight traffic to be transported over the routes hereinafter specified, and that in the interchange of such traffic the routes described shall be considered continuous lines, and that the through rates. over such routes shall be made in accordance with the provisions of said Act which govern two or more carriers associated for the purpose of continuous carriage.

"They further agree that all joint tariffs over the routes. designated below shall be matters of agreement among said companies, and that when made they shall be filed with the Commission, as required by law.

"It is further agreed that the lines or routes covered by this agreement are as follows:

"Between all points on the roads of the companies named as parties to this agreement or on roads operated or controlled by any of them or on connecting roads with which any of the said parties may have or make auxiliary agreements for through lines, and between which points joint tariffs of through rates may be established by agreement of all the roads interested, it being understood that the filing with the Commission of such agreed joint tariffs shall be construed as establishing through lines between the points that may be named in such joint tariffs.

66

April 4, 1887.

"WM. STEWART,

66

General Freight Agent Pennsylvania Co.,

"P., C. & St. L. R. Co., C., St. L. & P. R. Co."

3. The complainants, Parkhurst & Co., between April 15 and July 27, 1887, and complainant, Nicolai, between April 27 and September 1, 1887, purchased crude oil at Washington, Pa., and shipped the same-part from Washington, Pa., and part from Ewings Mills Station-to Baltimore. The oil was billed through from Washington and Ewings Mills Station to Baltimore by the defendant, the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis R. Co., and carried by it in the Green Line tank cars of the Pennsylvania R. Co. over the lines it (the P., C. and St. L. R. Co.) operates to Pittsburgh, 28 miles from Ewings Mills, and 32 miles from Washington, Pa. From Pittsburgh the oil was carried to Baltimore by the Pennsylvania Ř. Co. over its own line and the line of the Northern Central R. operated by it. The oil passed over none of the lines operated by the other defendant, the Pennsylvania Co.

4. The oil was billed at fifty cents per barrel of forty-five gallons. Freight was paid on it at that rate to the agent of the N. C. R. Co. at the place of destination, and all in excess of forty cents per barrel was paid under protest. The amount so paid under protest was by Parkhurst & Co., $754.30; by Nicolai, $1,108.90. The division of the fifty cents per barrel rate was 15 cents to the defendant, the P., C. and St. L. R. Co., for the haul to Pittsburgh, and 35 cents to the Pa. R. Co. for the haul from Pittsburgh to Baltimore.

5. The defendants frequently, without success, applied for a refund of the amounts of freight paid by them, respectively, in excess of forty cents per barrel, and at various times since, as well as before April 15, 1887, sought and failed to have the rate from the Washington, Pa., oil district reduced to forty cents. These applications and negotiations were to and with the Pennsylvania R. Co. In the correspondence on these subjects put in evidence is this refusal to refund:

Copy.

THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY,

OFFICE OF THE GEN'L FR'T TRAFFIC AGENT,

PHILADELPHIA, September 26, 1887. J. H. NICOLAI, Esq., Eagle Oil Works, Baltimore, Md. DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your favor of 24th inst. covering claim for 10c. per barrel, rebate on oil shipped from Washington, Pa., and after thorough consideration, we are compelled to return the claim.

We do not think your ground well taken, and if our understanding of the Interstate Commerce Law is correct, we