In fixing reasonable rates on such articles as food products,• the operating expenses, bonded debt, fixed charges, dividends on the stock and other necessary expenses are all to be considered, but the claim that any particular rate is to be measured by these as a fixed standard, below which the rate cannot lawfully be reduced, is subject to some qualifications, one of which is that these obligations must be actual and in good faith ; & I. Bridge Co. v. R.. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289 ; nor, on the other hand, can these rates be so limited that the shipper may, in all cases, realize actual cost of production; In re Alleged Ex cessive Freight Rates & Charges on Food Products, 3 I. C. Rep. 93; id., 4 I. C. C. R. 48 ; in the carriage of great staples which supply an enormous business, and which in market value and actual cost of transporta tion are among the cheapest articles 9f com merce, rates yielding only moderate profit to the carrier are both necessary and justifi able; id.
The fact that one company controls par allel lines affords no warrant for giving superior advantages to the patrons of one line and denying similar advantages tp those of the other line; Boards of Trade Union v. R. Co., 1 I. C. Rep. 608.
A •carrier cannot give a railroad company a lower rate on the same commodity than it gives to others; Interstate Commerce Commission v. R. Co., 225 U. S. 326, 32 Sup. Ct. 742, 56 L. Ed. 1107, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 504.
Ordinarily no adequate reason exists for a difference in rates for a solid carload of one kind of freight from one consignor and a like carload from the same point to the same destination consisting of freight from more than one consignor to one consignee, etc., and such difference is not justified by the difference in the cost of handling; Thur ber v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 742.
The carrier cannot look beyond the trans portation to the ownership of the shipment as the basis for determining the applicability of its rates, and the rules of the official classifications, providing that carriers should collect a greater compensation for carload shipments when made by forwarding agents of different shippers, were unjustly discrim inatory and unreasonable; Interstate Com merce Commission v. R. Co., 220 U. S. 235, 31 Sup. Ct. 392, 55 L. Ed. 448.
The expense of carrying fruit, etc., from Jersey City, the railroad terminal, to New York, may be added to the rate charged to the latter place; Truck Farmers' Ass'n v. R. Co., 6 I. C. Rep. 295. As to the effect of free cartage at terminals, see Interstate Commerce Commission v. R. Co., 167 U. S.
633, 17 Sup. Ct. 986, 42 L. Ed. 306.
Party-rate tickets are not commutation tickets, and when party rates are lower than the fare for single passengers they are il legal ; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v, R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 729. A sale of mileage tick ets to commercial travellers, and a refusal to sell to other passengers except at a higher rate, is unjust discrimination within the act; and the fact that the former release the car rier from liability, or that they may influ ence business in favor of the road, does not justify such discrimination; Larrison v. R. Co., 1 I. C. Rep. 369. The placing of pas senger tickets in the hands of ticket brokers to be disposed of at reduced rates, under the pretence of paying a commission, is a viola tion of the act; In re Passenger Tariffs & Rate Wars, 2 I. C. Rep. 340. A passenger rate war in which rates are repeatedly re duced by carriers without filing tariffs or reducing intermediate rates, is unlawful; id.; granting free transportation to city offi cials is unjust discrimination within the act; Harvey v. R. Co., 3 I. C. Rep. 793.
Where the established rate for single pas sengers is three cents a mile, it is not ful to issue what are termed "party-rate tickets" for not less than ten persons, at two cents a mile, which is less than the es tablished rate for single passengers, where such tickets are offered to the public ly ; Interstate Commerce Commission v. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 844, 36 L. Ed.1 699. See In re Passenger Tariffs, 2 I. C. Rep. 445, where the Commission held that party rates and passenger carload rates lower than for single passengers are illegal.
The provision that nothing in the act shall apply "to the issuance of mileage passenger tickets" applies only to the issuing of such tickets; the terms upon which they are is sued must be in accordance with the general provisions of the act; Larrison v. R. Co., 1 I. C. Rep. 369.
If a reduction in passenger rates be made between competing points, the rates must also be reduced between intermediate points ; In re Passenger Tariffs & Rate Wars, 2 I. C. Rep. 340.
The possibility of competition arising at a particuldr point does not render freight rates to that point, though higher than those to a longer haul to a point where competition prevails, obnoxious to the act, against a greater charge for a shorter than for longer haul under substantially similar circum stances; Int. Com. Corn. v. R. Co., 190 U. S. 273, 23 Sup. Ct. 687, 47 L. Ed. 1047.