A-60852, APRIL 22, 1935, 14 COMP. GEN. 775

A-60852, APRIL 22, 1935, 14 COMP. GEN. 775

TRANSPORTATION - RATES - DIVISIONS - LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION WHERE IT APPEARS THAT CARRIERS OVER LAND-GRANT-AIDED ROUTES HAVE REQUESTED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE WITH RETROACTIVE APPLICATION BASIS OF DIVISION OF RATES AND PENDING SUCH DETERMINATION THE CARRIERS ARE APPLYING DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING TEMPORARY BASES OF DIVISIONS, INTERIM SETTLEMENTS OF CARRIERS' TRANSPORTATION CLAIMS WILL BE BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF THAT ONE OF THE CONFLICTING DIVISION BASES WHICH RESULTS IN THE LOWEST NET CHARGE, PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THIS SITUATION REQUIRING THAT THERE BE A SUFFICIENT DEDUCTION FOR LAND GRANT IN SUCH SETTLEMENTS TO INSURE AGAINST EXCESS PAYMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DIVISIONS AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MAY THEREAFTER PRESCRIBE FOR RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, APRIL 22, 1935:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED MARCH 6, 1935, YOUR FILE IR-1 9277, AS FOLLOWS:

PRIOR TO THE REVISION OF CLASS RATES BETWEEN WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY AND N. AND W. TRUNK LINE TERRITORY IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION, THERE WERE VERY FEW, IF ANY, THROUGH RATES IN EFFECT AND SHIPMENTS MOVING BETWEEN THESE POINTS WERE SETTLED ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION RATE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI CROSSINGS OR CHICAGO, AND ON SHIPMENTS CONSIGNED TO THE GOVERNMENT WE DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTY IN MAKING SETTLEMENTS AS THE RATES DIVIDED AS MADE.

EFFECTIVE DEC. 3, 1931, IN ACCORDANCE WITH I.C.C. DOCKET 17000, PART 2, THERE WERE PUBLISHED THROUGH RATES BETWEEN TERRITORIES REFERRED TO, HOWEVER, THERE WERE NOT ANY PERMANENT DIVISIONS PUBLISHED DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE EASTERN LINES AND THE WESTERN LINES TO AGREE AS TO THE PROPER BASIS TO DIVIDE. IT WAS AGREED, AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE, THAT ON THE TRAFFIC MOVING EASTBOUND THE LINES EAST OF THE CONNECTIONS WITH THE WESTERN CARRIERS WERE TO RECEIVE THEIR LOCAL RATE, AND ON TRAFFIC MOVING WESTBOUND THE LINES WEST OF THE EASTERN INTERCHANGE POINT WERE TO RECEIVE THEIR LOCAL RATE. THIS BASIS WAS PUBLISHED AS A TEMPORARY BASIS IN C.F.A. D/S 285, NEW ENGLAND D/S NO. 3, AND TRUNK LINE ASSOCIATION D/S NO. 18, WHICH BEARS N. AND W. DIVISION BASIS NO. 6284.

ALL BILLS WHICH WE HAVE RENDERED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SINCE DEC. 3, 1931, ON WHICH WE USED THE TEMPORARY BASIS AS MENTIONED HEREIN, HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO US DISALLOWING CERTAIN AMOUNTS, CLAIMING THAT SINCE NO PERMANENT DIVISIONS WERE IN EFFECT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO APPLY WHICHEVER BASIS WAS MORE FAVORABLE TO THEM IN THE DEDUCTION OF LAND GRANT.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IN FIGURING THE CHEAPEST NET RATE FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAND GRANT, THIS WAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY USING THE SAME BASIS THAT WAS IN EFFECT FOR COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS. OUR FREIGHT TRAFFIC MANAGER ADVISED US THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS CORRECT AND THAT WE SHOULD INSIST ON SETTLEMENTS BEING MADE ON THAT BASIS.

UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 23D, 1935, WE ADDRESSED A LETTER TO MR. L. A. SMITH, CLAIMS REVIEWER, AND MADE REFERENCE TO HIS FILE TN-CEVW-322-C1 586559. WE RECEIVED A REPLY TO OUR COMMUNICATION FROM THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SIGNED BY MR. L. E. NOE, UNIT HEAD, UNDER HIS FILE TN- CEVW-322-C1-596559, ADVISING THAT SINCE THE SHIPMENT WAS A GOVERNMENT SHIPMENT THE LOWEST NET RATE BY THE USE OF EITHER BASIS, WHICHEVER MAKES THE LOWER, WOULD BE USED, AND THAT THE QUESTION IS NOW BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND UNTIL SAME IS RULED ON BASIS AS ABOVE WILL BE USED.

IT HAS BEEN, AND IS STILL OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT C.F.A. D/S 285 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED AS A TEMPORARY BASIS, AND WHICH BASIS IS USED AND RECOGNIZED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC, SHOULD APPLY IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

WILL YOU LET US HAVE A PROMPT REPLY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL ENTERTAIN SUPPLEMENTARY BILLS FOR THE AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ACCOUNT OF BASIS CONTENDED FOR BY YOUR DEPARTMENT?

IN DOCKET NO. 17000, PART 2 (164 I.C.C. 1), THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBED THROUGH CLASS RATES BETWEEN POINTS IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY AND POINTS IN WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY. THE RATES SO PRESCRIBED WERE PUBLISHED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE AS OF DECEMBER 3, 1931, BUT THE INTERESTED CARRIERS WERE UNABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE BASIS TO BE APPLIED IN DIVIDING SUCH RATES BETWEEN POINTS IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY AND POINTS IN WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY WEST OF THE WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND WEST AND NORTH OF THE WEST BANK OF LAKE MICHIGAN AND NORTH OF THE ILLINOIS WISCONSIN STATE LINE (EXCEPT MILWAUKEE RATE GROUP AND POINTS MILWAUKEE TO MANITOWOC, ALSO TWO RIVERS, WIS., BOTH INCLUSIVE).

UNDER DATE OF DECEMBER 5, 1931, THE CARRIERS IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION AND WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORIES FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION A PETITION REQUESTING THAT AN INVESTIGATION BE INSTITUTED AND THE JUST, REASONABLE, AND EQUITABLE DIVISIONS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 15 (6) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BE PRESCRIBED, VIA ALL RECOGNIZED GATEWAYS, OF THE INTER-TERRITORIAL JOINT RATES REQUIRED BY FINDINGS AND ORDERS IN NO. 17000, PART 2, APPLICABLE ON INTERSTATE TRAFFIC MOVING VIA ALL-RAIL ROUTES BETWEEN POINTS IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY, ON THE ONE HAND, AND POINTS IN WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY, ON THE OTHER. THE PETITION STATED THAT THE CARRIERS HAD MADE, AND WERE STILL MAKING, EARNEST EFFORTS TO REACH AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE PROPER BASIS FOR DIVIDING THE SAID JOINT INTERTERRITORIAL RATES BUT HAD BEEN UNABLE TO AGREE UPON A BASIS SATISFACTORY TO BOTH SETS OF CARRIERS, AND WERE FILING THE PETITION TO PROTECT THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS FROM, AND AS OF, THE EFFECTIVE DATE (DEC. 3, 1931) OF THE PRESCRIBED RATES. THE REQUEST WAS MADE THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, WHEN MADE, SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT AS OF THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION. IN VIEW OF THE CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE GROUPS OF CARRIERS, AND IN THE HOPE THAT A SATISFACTORY BASIS MIGHT BE AGREED UPON, THE PETITION ALSO REQUESTED THAT NO FORMAL HEARINGS BE HAD UNTIL A REQUEST THEREFOR BE MADE BY THE CARRIERS.

THEREAFTER, AT A MEETING HELD DECEMBER 22, 1931, THE GROUPS OF CARRIERS UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED THAT UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS NO CONCLUSIONS COULD BE REACHED--- EITHER FOR PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY DIVISIONS OF THE DOCKET NO. 17000, PART 2, RATES, AND THAT NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD CEASE AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BE INFORMED THAT THE AFORESAID PETITION SHOULD BE PROCEEDED WITH AND DIVISIONS PRESCRIBED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. AT THIS MEETING THE EASTERN CARRIERS ADVISED THAT PENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT DIVISIONS, THEY WOULD ADJUST ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF A RATE PRORATE BASED ON FIRST CLASS RATES TO AND FROM POINTS WHERE THE TRAFFIC WAS INTERCHANGED. THE WESTERN LINES, HOWEVER, DECIDED THAT UNTIL PERMANENT DIVISIONS WERE PRESCRIBED THEY WOULD RETAIN AT LEAST THEIR LOCAL RATES, AND IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, THE EASTERN LINES MODIFIED THEIR SUGGESTED BASIS AND DECIDED TO RETAIN THEIR LOCAL RATES FROM WESTERN LINES' INTERCHANGE POINTS. IT IS INDICATED, ALSO, THAT THE EASTERN CARRIERS HAD GIVEN NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM PARTICIPATION AS OF DECEMBER 3, 1931, IN CERTAIN ESTABLISHED DIVISIONS AND OF THEIR INTENTION TO RETAIN IN LIEU THEREOF THEIR LOCALS FROM INTERCHANGE POINTS. A FURTHER DISAGREEMENT IS EVIDENCED IN THE BASIS OF DIVIDING TRANS-MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAFFIC VIA CHICAGO, ILL., OR PEORIA, ILL. ON WESTBOUND TRAFFIC OF THIS NATURE THE WESTERN LINES PROPOSED TO RETAIN THEIR LOCALS WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TO DIVIDE THE REMAINDER ON JOINT RATE COMMITTEE PERCENTS, WHILE THE EASTERN CARRIERS PROPOSED TO RETAIN, ON EASTBOUND TRAFFIC, THEIR LOCALS EAST OF CHICAGO OR PEORIA, AND ON WESTBOUND TRAFFIC, TO ACCEPT ONLY UNDER PROTEST THE ADJUSTMENTS AS MADE BY THE WESTERN CARRIERS, THE EASTERN CARRIERS NOT CONCURRING IN THE CONTINUANCE OF THE USE OF JOINT RATE COMMITTEE PERCENTAGES IN DIVIDING REVENUE ON TRANS- MISSISSIPPI TRAFFIC THROUGH CHICAGO OR PEORIA.

THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF THESE BASES WOULD BE THAT, ON UNITED STATES PROPERTY SHIPPED BETWEEN 2 GIVEN POINTS, 1 OF WHICH IS IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY, AND THE OTHER IN WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY--- ALTHOUGH THE GROSS RATES AND CHARGES ARE THE SAME--- THE NET RATES AND CHARGES WOULD BE DIFFERENT, DEPENDENT ON THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE SHIPMENT MOVED, THE DIFFERENCE BEING SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE CARRIERS TO AGREE UPON A MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY BASIS FOR DIVIDING THE RATES. THESE CLASS RATES WERE PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION AS TO MAXIMUM REASONABLE RATES AND THE CORRESPONDING CLASS RATES APPEAR TO BE THE SAME IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY THE DIVISIONS SHOULD NOT LIKEWISE BE THE SAME IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. BECAUSE OF GRANTS OF LAND TO VARIOUS CARRIERS IN RETURN FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO HAVE ITS PROPERTY TRANSPORTED BY SUCH CARRIERS AT A REDUCED PERCENTAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL RATES, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT SUCH CARRIERS' PORTION OF JOINT REVENUE BE KNOWN IN ORDER THAT THE CORRECT CHARGES FOR SERVICES MAY BE DETERMINED. WHERE JOINT THROUGH RATES ARE PUBLISHED IT IS THE USUAL PRACTICE FOR CARRIERS PARTIES THERETO TO PUBLISH DIVISION SHEETS OR PERCENTAGE ISSUES INDICATING THE BASIS AGREES UPON BY SUCH CARRIERS TO DETERMINE THE REVENUE WHICH EACH IS TO RECEIVE. HOWEVER, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DOCKET NO. 17000, PART 2, RATES, THERE IS APPARENTLY NOT ONLY NO SUCH PUBLICATION, BUT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY CARRIERS AND THE WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY CARRIERS AS TO THE METHOD TO BE USED TO DETERMINE THE REVENUE WHICH CARRIERS IN EACH GROUP SHALL RECEIVE AS THEIR SHARE OF JOINT REVENUES ACCRUING ON AN INTERTERRITORIAL MOVEMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, EACH DELIVERING CARRIER APPARENTLY IS TAKING, ARBITRARILY, AS THE PROPORTION EAST OR WEST, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF THE INTERTERRITORIAL INTERCHANGE POINT, REVENUE BASED ON THE RATES FROM THAT JUNCTION POINT. IT IS NOT APPARENT IN WHAT MANNER PREPAID CHARGES ARE BEING DIVIDED, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT, TO BE CONSISTENT, THE CARRIER RECEIVING PAYMENT WOULD RETAIN REVENUE BASED ON THE RATE TO THE INTERTERRITORIAL INTERCHANGE POINT. ASSUMING THIS TO BE THE PRACTICE, IT DEVELOPS THAT, UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS, THERE MAY BE FOUR BASES FOR DETERMINING NET RATES ON A SHIPMENT OF UNITED STATES PROPERTY BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS VIA THE SAME ROUTE, ALTHOUGH THERE IS BUT ONE GROSS RATE.

THE REDUCTION IN CHARGES TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED WITH RESPECT TO SHIPMENTS OF ITS PROPERTY OVER LINES AIDED BY GRANTS OF LAND IS DEPENDENT UPON THE AMOUNT ACCRUING, AS COMMERCIAL CHARGES FOR THE HAUL OVER THE AIDED LINE BUT THE SITUATION WHICH APPARENTLY OBTAINS IN THE PRESENT MATTER IS THAT WHILE THE GROSS RATES AND CHARGES ARE KNOWN, OR CAPABLE OF DEFINITE DETERMINATION, THE AMOUNT ACCRUING THEREFROM TO EACH OF THE SEVERAL LINES INVOLVED, SOME OF WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN LAND-AIDED, IS IN DISPUTE AMONG THE CARRIERS, AND BY REASON THEREOF THE DEDUCTION TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE ENTITLED IS INCAPABLE OF DEFINITE DETERMINATION. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT DEMAND --- AS BETWEEN THE TWO BASES OF DIVISION FOR WHICH THE RESPECTIVE CARRIERS CONTEND--- THAT BASIS BE APPLIED WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE LOWEST NET CHARGES TO THE GOVERNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS OFFICE HAS ADOPTED THE RULE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A SHIPMENT MOVES FROM OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY TO WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY, OR VICE VERSA, THE BASIS TO BE USED TO COMPUTE THE NET CHARGE IN EACH INSTANCE IS THE BASIS RESULTING IN THE LOWEST NET RATE OR RATES TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS TO SAY THAT, IF DIVIDING THE THROUGH RATE BY ALLOWING THE LOCAL RATE BETWEEN THE INTERTERRITORIAL INTERCHANGE POINT AND THE WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY POINT AS THE WESTERN LINES' PROPORTION MAKES A LOWER NET RATE THAN WOULD BE OBTAINED BY ALLOWING THE LOCAL RATE BETWEEN THE INTERTERRITORIAL INTERCHANGE POINT AND THE OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY POINT AS THE EASTERN LINES' PROPORTION, SUCH BASIS WILL BE APPLIED. CONVERSELY, IF DIVIDING THE THROUGH RATE BY ALLOWING TO THE EASTERN LINES THE LOCAL RATE BETWEEN THE INTERTERRITORIAL INTERCHANGE POINT AND THE OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY POINT MAKES A LOWER NET RATE THAN WOULD BE OBTAINED BY ALLOWING THE WESTERN LINES THE LOCAL RATE BETWEEN THE INTERTERRITORIAL INTERCHANGE POINT AND THE POINT IN WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY SAID BASIS WILL BE USED.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT "IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR UNDERSTANDING * * * THE CHEAPEST NET RATE * * * WAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY USING THE SAME BASIS THAT WAS IN EFFECT FOR COMMERCIAL SETTLEMENTS,"IT MAY BE STATED THAT WHERE IT HAS APPEARED THAT THE SEVERAL CARRIERS WHOSE LINES COMPOSE A GIVEN LAND-GRANT-AIDED ROUTE HAVE AGREED UPON A BASIS FOR DIVIDING THE RATES ON COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC OVER THAT ROUTE, SUCH BASIS HAS BEEN APPLIED AS A GENERAL RULE IN COMPUTING THE NET RATE AVAILABLE OVER THAT ROUTE TO THE UNITED STATES. WHERE, HOWEVER, IT HAS APPEARED THAT SUCH CARRIERS HAVE NOT AGREED UPON A BASIS FOR DIVIDING THE RATES ON COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC OVER A GIVEN ROUTE BUT INSTEAD DIFFERENT BASES ARE CONTENDED FOR OR APPLIED BY DIFFERENT CARRIERS, IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES TO APPLY THAT ONE OF THE CONFLICTING BASES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE LOWEST NET CHARGE. THAT THE LATTER SITUATION EXISTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN DOCKET NO. 17000, PART 2, IS INDICATED NOT ONLY BY THE RECORD OTHERWISE, BUT BY THAT PART OF THE PRESENT SUBMISSION READING "THERE WERE NOT ANY PERMANENT DIVISIONS PUBLISHED DUE TO THE INABILITY OF THE EASTERN LINES AND THE WESTERN LINES TO AGREE AS TO THE PROPER BASIS TO DIVIDE.' ALSO, WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENT: IT WAS AGREED, AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE THAT ON THE TRAFFIC MOVING EASTBOUND THE LINES EAST OF THE CONNECTIONS WITH THE WESTERN CARRIERS WERE TO RECEIVE THEIR LOCAL RATE, AND ON TRAFFIC MOVING WESTBOUND THE LINES WEST OF THE EASTERN INTERCHANGE POINT WHERE TO RECEIVE THEIR LOCAL RATE. THIS BASIS WAS PUBLISHED AS A TEMPORARY BASIS IN C.F.A. D/S 285 * * *.

THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CARRIERS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT SUCH A BASIS SHOULD BE APPLIED EVEN TEMPORARILY. SEE, IN THIS CONNECTION, REFERENCE HEREIN TO THE MEETING HELD DECEMBER 22, 1931. THE CONTRARY, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THERE WERE TWO AGREEMENTS, TO WIT, ONE BY AND AMONG THE WESTERN CARRIERS THAT THEY WOULD RETAIN AT LEAST THEIR LOCAL RATES; AND ONE BY AND AMONG THE EASTERN CARRIERS THAT THEY LIKEWISE WOULD RETAIN THEIR LOCAL RATES. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT EITHER GROUP OF CARRIERS AGREED TO THE INTRAGROUP AGREEMENT OF THE OTHER GROUP OF CARRIERS. DIVISION SHEET NO. 285 IS CAPTIONED "JOINT DIVISION SHEET" OF THE EASTERN CARRIERS IN THE CENTRAL FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, THE TRUNK LINE ASSOCIATION, AND THE NEW ENGLAND FREIGHT ASSOCIATION SHOWING--- "MEMORANDUM OF TEMPORARY DIVISIONS, TO BE USED ONLY IN DIVIDING CHARGES RESULTING FROM CLASS RATES WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 3, 1931, AS RESULT OF I.C.C. DOCKET 15879, AS SUPPLEMENTED, AND I.C.C. DOCKET 17000, PART 2"--- AND PLAINLY INDICATES THAT THE BASES NAMED THEREIN ARE NOT BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE EASTERN CARRIERS AND WESTERN CARRIERS. (SEE ITEMS 10, 140, 150, 230, AND P. 5.) IN SHORT, DIVISION SHEET NO. 285, APPEARS TO BE IN SUBSTANCE A STATEMENT OF THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING HELD DECEMBER 22, 1931, WHEN, AS NOTED HEREINBEFORE, THE GROUPS OF CARRIERS UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED THAT UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS NO AGREEMENT COULD BE REACHED AMONG THEM--- EITHER FOR PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY DIVISIONS OF THE DOCKET NO. 17000, PART 2, RATES. IN OTHER WORDS, DIVISION SHEET NO. 285 SETS FORTH THE CONFLICTING BASES OF DIVISIONS APPLIED BY THE CARRIERS IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY AND THE CARRIERS IN WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY; IT SEEMS MANIFEST THAT SUCH DIVISIONS ARE TO BE APPLIED ONLY TEMPORARILY AT MOST, THAT IS, APPARENTLY UNTIL THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION--- AS REQUESTED IN THE PETITION FILED DECEMBER 5, 1931--- PRESCRIBES DIVISIONS OF THE DOCKET 17000, PART 2, RATES. AS THIS PETITION REQUESTED THAT THE DECISIONS WHEN MADE BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT AS OF DECEMBER 5, 1931, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE TWO GROUPS OF CARRIERS CONTEMPLATE THAT ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING BASES OF DIVISIONS ARE NOW BEING APPLIED, A FUTURE ADJUSTMENT MAY BE MADE AMONG THEM OF REVENUE WHICH HAS ACCRUED UNDER THE RATES INVOLVED, THE BASIS FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT TO BE THE DIVISIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. THIS SITUATION, PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THIS MATTER REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A SUFFICIENT DEDUCTION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THAT IS, IN THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, TO INSURE AGAINST EXCESS PAYMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DIVISIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN THE FUTURE FOR RETROACTIVE APPLICATION. THE BASIS OF SETTLEMENT APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE HEREINBEFORE SET FORTH APPEARS NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT THERE BE NO OVERPAYMENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY ENTITLED TO REDUCED RATES OVER LAND- GRANT-AIDED ROADS AND IN THE SITUATION AS IT NOW APPEARS IT IS NOT APPARENT WHAT OTHER BASIS COULD BE APPLIED WHICH WOULD AFFORD THIS NECESSARY PROTECTION OR THAT WOULD JUSTIFY MODIFICATION AT THIS TIME OF THE ACTION TAKEN HERETOFORE IN THE MATTER OF DISALLOWANCES BASED ON LAND- GRANT DEDUCTIONS SO COMPUTED.