the sum of $60.27 for the transportation of a carload of scrap iron on or about July 17, 1914, from West Chester to Ivy Hill, which charge was alleged to be unreasonable and excessive and upon which the Commission was asked to order reparation. From the testimony it appeared that the respondent shipped the carload of scrap iron in question from West Chester to Ivy Hill and was charged at the rate of $1.80 per gross ton. At the time the shipment moved there was no commodity rate on scrap iron between West Chester and Ivy Hill and the transportation was therefore charged at the class rate applicable. Some time. later, on or about December 1, 1914, the carrier intended to establish a commodity rate between the points mentioned, of ninety-five cents per ton of 2240 pounds, but by mistake issued the rate to Ivy Rock. That rate, plus five per centum, was finally established to Ivy Hill on or about September 1, 1915. From the testimony presented at the hearing, the Commission is of the opinion that the rate on scrap iron from West Chester to Ivy Hill should not exceed the rate on the same commodity from West Chester to Chelten Avenue or from West Chester to North Philadelphia. These rates at the time the shipment moved were eighty-five cents per gross ton and the Commission finds and determines that the rate upon scrap iron in carload lots from West Chester to Ivy Hill is and was excessive and unreasonable insomuch as it exceeded the rates upon the same commodity to these stations. An order will therefore be issued directing the carrier to establish, by proper tariff filed to become effective on or be fore February 1st, 1917, a rate on scrap iron in carload lots from West Chester to Ivy Hill not to exceed eighty-nine cents per gross ton, being the rate above mentioned plus five per centum. The Commission also finds and determines that the complainant herein, in consequence of the unjust and unreasonable collections above mentioned, has been damaged in the amount of $31.81, being the difference upon the shipment under consideration between the just and reasonable rate of eighty-five cents per ton and the rate of $1.80 per ton collected by the car rier and an order for reparation in this amount will be issued. ORDER This matter being before The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania upon complaint and answer on file and having been duly heard and submitted by the parties and the Commission having on the date hereof made and filed of record its report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which report is hereby approved and made a part hereof: Now, to-wit, December 20th, 1916, the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Company is ordered to establish by proper tariff publication, to become effective on or before February 1st, 1917, on five days' notice to the public and the Commission, a rate on scrap iron in carload lots from West Chester to Ivy Hill not to exceed eighty-nine cents per gross ton: And it is further ordered that said Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Company pay to Morris Weil's Sons as damages actually sustained by reason of the charges of said carrier, the sum of $31.81, within ten days of the date of service of this order. By the Commission, WM. D. B. AINEY, LEHIGH VALLEY R. R. CO., ET AL vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Complaint and petition of Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., et al. to rescind administrative ruling No. 9, making one way passenger tickets valid for use in either direction. COMPLAINT DOCKET NO. 549. Report and Order of the Commission. By the Commission: On July 22d, 1915, The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made an administrative ruling (No. 9), as follows: Where the passenger fare is the same in either direction between two stations, and where the round-trip fare is the sum of the two one-way fares, the convenience of the travelling public would be increased by having tickets for transportation between such stations valid in either direction instead of in one direction only, as is the practice generally at this time. Railroad companies are hereby required, except as to the coupon form of tickets, to provide, effective not later than September 1, 1915, that such tickets shall be valid in either direction. Necessary corrections to tariffs may be issued on one day's notice to the public and this Commission, which tariffs and supplements must contain the following note immediately below the effective date: "Issued by order of The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in Administrative Ruling No. 9, of July 22, 1915." Against this ruling the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and other companies operating in Pennsylvania filed petitions in the nature of protests praying that the ruling be rescinded, and alleging among other things: The said order is not reasonable and is not in con- Said order is in violation of Article III, Section 1. Said order is in violation of Article III, Section 1, The said order is in violation of the charter rights That there was no evidence before the Commission justifying the making of the order in question. Compliance with said order of said Commission will cause a reduction in the revenues of the said Railroad Company, amounts to a taking of its private property without authority of law and without any compensation therefor, in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. At the hearings had upon these petitions, evidence was offered by the petitioners tending to show operating difficulties in the way of the enforcement of this ruling, and that there was no public demand for or public convenience to be served by it. At these hearings no evidence was presented in contradiction of the testimony of the petitioning complainants. In the circumstances, without passing upon the questions of law presented, or the reasonableness of the rule, leaving these questions for future determination if and when further consideration of them is required, the Commission is of the opinion, under all the evidence presently before it, that Administrative Ruling No. 9 should be rescinded. ORDER. This matter being before The Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on the petition of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, et al. on file, and having been duly heard and submitted and full investigation of the matters and things having been had, as will more fully appear in the accompanying report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which report is hereby approved and made a part hereof: Now, to-wit. October 20, 1916, it is ordered: That Administrative Ruling No. 9 be, and the same is hereby rescinded. By the Commission, WM. D. B. AINEY, Chairman. JAMES A. WHITCOMB vs. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY. Rates Contracts fixing rates-Charging of rate higher than that filed-Reparation. The complainant entered into a contract with respondent company under the terms of which he paid $72.00 more for electric service rendered at 408 Wood St., Pittsburgh, Pa., from July 1, 1914, to April 1, 1916, than he would have paid if the schedule of rates filed by respondent had been applied to his service. As a set-off the respondent alleged that it furnished service to complainant at 407 Fourth Ave. and 708 Smithfield Street, under contracts which provided for a rate lower than the one filed. Held: 1. The respondent should refund to the complainant the sum of $72.00. The rate filed and posted by the respondent company and applied to its other consumers, is the rate applicable to the complainant. 2. The undercharge alleged by the respondent is not a proper subject of inquiry in the present complaint which concerns only the rate charged on the property at 408 Wood St. Complaint Docket No. 630. REPORT AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. ALCORN, Commissioner: The complainant alleges that the respondent has overcharged him for electric light from July 1, 1914, to April 1, 1916 the sum of $110.67. The complainant carries on business as the Baltimore Dairy Lunch and one of his places was at 408 Wood street in the city of Pittsburgh, county of Allegheny, Pennsylvania. He claims that he was charged the said sum in excess of what should have been charged him for the lighting of the premises at 408 Wood street. In answer to this complaint, the respondent avers that the said complainant entered into a contract March 19, 1913, with the respondent for one year for the supply of electric current at |