The relative fairness of a rate is not de termined alone by its being low. Low rates to one place may not be just if still lower rates are given to another place; In re Chi cago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 137. The legitimate interests of carrying com panies, as well as of traders and shippers, should be considered in determining the law fulness of rates under the act. Ocean compe tition may constitute a dissimilar condition, and conditions which exist beyond the sea board of the United States can be legitimate ly regarded for the purpose of justifying a difference in rates charged by railroads be tween import and domestic traffic; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commis sion, 5 I. C. Rep. 405; id., 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940; City of Spokane v. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 376.
Trade centres are not, as a matter of right, entitled to have more favorable rates than the smaller towns for which they form distributive centres ; and carriers may give the smaller places rates as favorable as the larger ones ; when the rates are impartial in themselves as ,between large and small towns, the fact that one large centre may have an advantage over another in the busi ness of the small places does not make out a case of undue preference. Impartial rates are not rendered illegal by their effect upon the business of localities ; Martin v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 32; that rates should be fixed in inverse proportion to the natural advantages of competing towns with the view of equal izing "commercial conditions" is at variance with justice; Eau Claire Board of Trade v. R. Co., 4 I. C. Rep. 65; Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. R. Co., 7 id. 180. A through rate does not unjustly discriminate against an intermediate point because less propor tionally than the rate from such point to the common destination ; Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 393.
A railroad company is under special obli gation to give reasonable rates for its local business. It may accept business from other carriers on through rates which, when divid ed between them, will give to any one of them for its division less than its own local rates; Lippman & Co. v. IL Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 414.
Through transportation over connecting lines is favored by the act, and the rate is correctly adjusted upon the distance through, and not upon the shorter distances over, the several lines ; Coxe Brothers & Co. v. R. Co., 3 I. C. Rep. 460. While the question of dis tance is important in establishing rates, it is not an absolute and unconditional right from which a departure may not be justified by other considerations. The public benefits, the greater volume of business warranting lower rates to all, and the force of competi tion may furnish reasons that outweigh a claim of right founded merely on geograph ical considerations ; Imperial Coal Co. v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 436. See McMorran v. R. Co., id. 604.
When rates are on their face dispropor tionate or relatively unequal, the burden is on the carrier to justify them ; McMorran v.
R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 604. At any hearing in volving a rate increased after Jan. 1, 1910, or sought to be increased after this act, the burden of proving that the increase is just and reasonable is on the carrier.
In determining rates on a short local line, where the cost of service is great, owing to steep grades, sparse population, and light traffic, such circumstances should have much' controlling weight. This rule was applied where a road existing under such conditions was charged with unjust rates in transport ing oil, as compared with the cost of piping it to the same point; Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 298.
Ordinarily there is no better measure of railroad service in carrying goods than dis tance, though it is not always controlling. And where the rates for carrying freight from a certain territory over one road are considerably greater than the rates charged by another road from neighboring territory to the same place, the higher rates will be held excessive ; James & Abbott v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 609. Greater compensation in the aggregate for the shorter, than for the long er, haul over a direct line is unlawful ; Cor dele Machine Shop v. R. Co., 6 I. C. Rep. 361.
Mileage, while a circumstance to be con sidered with the conditions• in fixing rates, is by no means controlling or the most im portant; Interstate Commerce Commission v. R. Co., 5 I. C. Rep. 656 (C. C., M. D. of Tenn.).
A through rate is not necessarily reason able because it does not exceed the aggre gate of two reasonable local rates ; Minne apolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U.
S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. 900, 46 L. Ed. 1151.
There may be cases in which a carrier legitimately engaged in serving some ter ritory is compelled by some new and aggres sive competition to reduce normal and rea sonable rates, to retain business on its line, and where corresponding reductions at points not affected, or less affected, by such compe tition, might be unreasonable. But when a carrier voluntarily enters a field of competi tion where, by reason of a disadvantageous route, or the rigor of the competitive condi tions, remunerative rates cannot be charged, and its service to a portion of its patrons is unprofitable, it accepts the legal obligation that its service shall be impartial to all who sustain similar relations to the traffic, and for whom the service itself is not substan Aally dissimilar ; Manufacturers & Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. R. Co., 3 I. C. Rep. 115. Where there has been a consolidation of com peting lines that have formerly served the same territory in competitive traffic to the same market, the consolidated lines cannot deprive the public of fair competition, nor give oppressive discrimination with a view to its own interest; Rice, Robinson & Withe rop v. R. Co., 3 I. C. Rep. 162.