" MISSOURI PAC. RY. 00. v. TEXAS & PAC. RY. GOL 5
souri Pacino lines. They further show that the amount of business contrib-
' uted by the Missouri Pacino lines to the Texas 8c Pacino lines is immensely
greater than that to and from the lines of petitioners. From January 1, 1886, _
to September 3, 1886, the Missouri Pacino system contributed, in all, 615,-
475,809fpounds of freight, the revenue tothe Texas 8c Pacino being $963,-
515.01; and from petitioners’ lines during the same period there were con-
tributed but 18,448,785 pounds, the revenue to the Texas & Pacino being only
$42,904.21. And respondents annex as part hereof the statements by W.
W. Finley, their general freight agent, which they believe to be correct, of
the advantages to the property under their charge of the said agreement of
Soptemberl, 1886; said statements being marked "R D" and "R E." And
respondents, therefore, show that the petitioners’ lines are not able to furnish
any such amount of business or advantageous interchange of tranio as the
Missouri Pacino lines. The amount of business properly going from respond-
ents’ lines to those of petitioners at Shreveport is small,and the business com~
ing to respondents' lines at that point from petitioners has always been
tributary, to a large extent, through other channels. As to the demand for
"so1id billing" made in the said intervening petition, respondents show that
they have expressed to petitioners a willingness to make an arrangement for
such solid billing, and are still willing to do so. '
, Eighth. Your respondents show that they have not in the premises vio-
lated any provision of the charter of the Texas da Pacino Railway Company,
nor any other provision of law governing their action. They submit that all
provisions of the charter, and of other laws which may apply, must receive
the interpretation which long-established usage and the custom of the com-
mercial _world have given them. This custom has always taken into consid-
eration the difference between transactions at wholesale and at retail, and the
difference between dealingwith large shippers and with small ones. They
aver that special arrangements w1th large shippers, under proper circum-
stances, do not amount to inequality, but promote reasonable equality. They
submit that, in theexecution of their duties for the benent of the property
under their charge, they have but exercised a legal discretion in the premises
in making such arrangements with the Missouri Pacino roads, and with the
lines of petitioners, as will, without unjust discrimination, confer the fullest
benent on the trust they represent. They submit that the arrangement
made as aforesaid with petitioners gives them lower rates than they are en-
titled to under the letter of the law. The arrangement made as aforesaid,
with the Missouri Pacino system of September 1, 1886, does not operate an
unjust discrimination or inequality, but a reasonable equality, considering
the facts above set forth. They submit that any other interpretation of the 4
statutes in question would defeat their object, and result in that unreason-
able equality which is the most noxious inequality. They aver that when-
ever the petitioners in this proceeding are ready to tender them the same
amount of business, and the same advantages of interchange, under the same
conditions as the Missouri Pacino system, they believe they will be ready to
make with them an arrangement similar to that made with said Missouri Pa-
cino system on said nrst of September.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER.
In addition to the details given in their original answer hereto, nled No-
vember 10, 1886, and reiterating said answer, they aver that respondents have
no connection with the important markets of St. Louis and Chicago except
over lines of the Missouri Pacino system; that in the important article of coal,
of which they consume about $100,000 worth annually, the same is furnished
them over Missouri Pacino lines at $1.25 per ton cheaper. freight included,
than by petitione1·s’ lines; that from Texarkana to Longview, a distance of