? U.S. Opln/on of the Court. Ry. Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 83; Judson on Interstate Commerce, �75-1s3. Neither the Commission nor the court had the right to ignore the relative cost of the service in determining whether the apparent discrimination was undue or unreasonable. Squire v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 3 I. C. C. R. 521. The Commission, previous to the amendment of the law in 1906, had no power to fix rates, and hence no power to estab- lish the relation between rates. Cincinnati, N. O. & T?. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Comm. Comm., 162 U.S. 184; Int?rsta? Comm. Comm. v. C., N. O. & Tex. Pac. Ry. Co., 167 U.S. 479; U.S. 145; Southern Pacific Co. v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 779. Findings of fact of the lower court, from which the con- clusion necessarily followed that respondents have ? decree in their favor, was abundadtly supported by the testimony and the law. Mr. Ed. Baxter for appellees as of recon?. Mr. Charles A. Clark for intervenor, T. M. Sinclair & Company, Limited. Mr. Frank T. Ransom for intervenor, Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha, Limited. Mr. Stephen S. Brmon and Mr. John E. Dolman filed a brief on behalf of intervenor, St. Joseph Stock Yards Company of St. Joseph, Missouri. Mr. S. A. Lynde filed a brief on behalf of appellee, The Chi- cago & Northwestern Railway Company. MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. It is unnecessary to define the full scope and meaning of the prohibition found in �of the Interstate Commerce Actor even to determine whether the language is sufficiently definite to make the duties cast on the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion ministerial, and therefore such as may legally be imposed
�
