delivered the opinion of :the court.
The Louisiana & Pinе Bluff Railway Company, a common carrier owned by the Union Sawmill Company, serves it by means of a tap line which connects its mill at Huttig, Arkansas, with the Missouri Pacific Railway at Dollar Junction. The trunk line and the tap line joined in establishing through routes and joint rates from the mill to points on the trunk line and beyond. The division or allowance givеn to the tap line out of the joint rates was large. It was held by the Interstate Commerce Commission to amоunt to a rebate to the Union Sawmill Company and to discriminate unjustly against the Wisconsin Lumber Company, an independent concern also served by the tap line. 1 After proceedings before the Commission, which extеnded over many years, its supplemental order, entered June 10, 1919, limited the division receivable by the tap line for hauling lumber from the Union Sawmills' *116 to Dollar Junction to $3 per car. 1 The Louisiana & Pine Bluff Railway Company then brought this suit in the Federal District Court for Western Arkansas against the United States to enjoin enforcement of the order and to annul the same. The bill charged that the order deprived plaintiff of property without due process of law; that it discriminated against plaintiff by denying to it the same compensation which other carriers were allowed to charge for like service; and that the Commission was without authority in law or fact to make the order complained of. The Interstate Cоmmerce Commission intervened. Answers setting forth the proceedings taken were filed; and, by consent of parties, the case was submitted for final hearing úpon the pleadings. The District Court entered a decree dismissing thе bill, and the case comes here bn appeal under the Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 220.
No claim is madе here that the division allowed is so low as to be confiscatory. No claim is made that there was lack of notice'or of opportunity to be heard before the Commission or that the proceedings before it were otherwise irregular. Nor could a claim that the order was unsupported by evidence bе insisted upon. For only a part of the evidence taken before the Commission was introduced.
Manufacturers Ry. Co.
v.
United States,
After the decision in
The Tap Line Cases,
The contention that the order is invalid ignores bоth the nature of the proceeding before the Commission and the findings upon which the' order was made. The рroceeding was one to remove unjust discrimination. The Commission’s decision is based upon a considerаtion both *118 of general conditions and of the particular situation. It finds that allowance of more than $3 а car for hauling the car from the Union Sawmill plant to Dollar Junction would result .in unjust discrimination. That the finding was suppоrted by evidence we must assume in this proceeding. And not only does plaintiff fail to show that the conclusion rеached was arbitrary; but additional findings .in the report afford abundant reason why the out-of-line haul to the scаles should not be allowed for in fixing the division. The Commission finds, 53 I. C. C. 475, 476, that: “The evidence does not show that it is necessary that the shipments be weighed by the tap line rather than by the trunk line; ” and, 40 I. C. C. 470, 471, that allowing the larger division on these facts wоuld place the plaintiff in a more advantageous position than any other tap line in that territory performing a similar service and would “ open the way in the case of many tap lines for a relocation of their track scales so as to require a long back haul, and in that way to lay a basis for divisions or allowances very materially in excess of those fixed by the Commission for the distance covered by a dirеct movement from the mill to the junction.” In other words, divisions that would operate as rebates.
Affirmed.
Notes
See The Tap Line Case, 23 I. C. C. 277; 23 I. C. C. 549; 31 I. C. C. 490; 34 I. C. C. 116; Louisiana & Pine Bluff Divisions, 40 I. C. C. 470; 53 I. C. C. 475.
By the fifth supplemental ordejsthe maximum'division-for shipments after May 31,19.19, was raised to $3.50 per car; and'a further increase to $4.50 per car was made by the sixth supplemental order. Increased Rates, 58 I. C. C. 220. Corresponding increases were made for hauls greater than three miles, These increases do not affect the legal questions involved.