Note 251 — Chapter XXV · TERMINAL RAILROADS.
Reading edition
The Commission holds that the division agreed on must not be excessive (10 I. C. C. Decis. 1905, p. 385. Harvester Trust and Steel Trust Cases). But there is nothing in such granting or refusing of rate concessions that necessarily violates the interstate law, provided the little roads are common carriers for the public subject to the Act to regulate commerce. If not, the division is held unlawful (10 I. C. C. Decis., March 19, 1904, pp. 193, 505, 545, 546. Lumber).
The plea that the division is accorded to the little road because it controls the business of its routing does not explain cases of division between a private railroad that brings logs, etc., to the mill, and the railroad that takes the lumber, etc., from the mill. But through the milling-in-transit principle a division may be arranged between the common carrier by rail that brings the logs to the mill and the carrier that takes the lumber away (10 I. C. C. Decis. 194).