upr000330 58

i . w . a . - 3 . considerable difference of opinion exists among railroad attornays. It is lay opinion that where a railroad company grants certain rights ©r privileges to one connecting corflp any, as to the interchange o f business, it is compelled by the provisions o f the law to grant the same-rights and privileges to a ll other connecting companies upon the same class of business. It is further s f opinion that the Interstate Conmerce Commission has the power to compel a railroad company to afford a ll reasonable and proper fa c ilitie s for the .interchange of tra ffic between its line and any connecting line, and that it lias the power to compel a railroad company to give a ll connecting companies equal fa c ilitie s for the interchange of tra ffic. The result contemplated by your question might also in proper instances be arrived at by the Interstate Co m roe Cornelias ion com­pelling the establishment of a through route and joint rate under the authority conferred upon it by the law so to do. % The answer to 1 last above appears to apply to this. 3. The power of the Commission to establish through routes and join t rates appears to bo qualified only by the provision that "no re&sombi® or satisfactory through route exists", and the instance cited in the second sentence of your question involves a question of fact upon which I cm unable to express an opinion. To the third sentence of your question my reply is : Tss, i f the agreements referred to relate to interstate tra ffic.