1. Commerce (§ 88*) — Interstate Commerce Commission — Bowers—Orders.

Tbe Interstate Commerce Commission has power to determine the reasonableness of rates and may award reparation, and in both respects, where tbe reparation arises from' a re-establisbment of rates, its conclusions, being administrative, are final and conclusive unless tbe .commission has, in some particular material to the controversy, exceeded its prescribed functions.

[Ed, Note. — For other cases, see Commerce, Cent. Dig. §§ 139, 141; Dec. Dig. § 88.*]

2. Commerce (§ 88*) — Interstate Commerce Commission — Railroad Rates— Reparation.

Where the Interstate Commerce Commission, in readjusting freight rates, awarded reparation in certain cases involving rates on the Pacific Coast, but omitted to award reparation in another case for the reason that it involved an initial adjustment of territory or a very material readjustment of territory from points within which it was deemed proper that differentials should be allowed on shipments eastward over the coast rates, such readjustment of territory constituted a sufficient reason for the Commission’s action, which was therefore conclusive.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Commerce, Cent. Dig. §§ 139, 141; Dec. Dig. § 88.*]

8. Carriers (§ 32*) — Rates—Interstate Commerce — Discrimination.

Where an order o.f the Interstate Commerce Commission, readjusting territory and providing for additional differentials, merely awarded that Pacific Coast rates with their differentials as fixed _by the Commission continue until the new schedule from the particular zones should be-comp operative, and that the zone shippers were not entitled to the additional reparation on account of shipments made previous to the order establishing the new differentials, such order, in so far as it denied reparation, did not constitute real discrimination.

[Ed. Note.' — For other eases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 88-85; Dee. Dig. § 32.*

tVhat constitutes an unlawful preference or discrimination by a carrier under interstate commerce regulations, see note to Camble-Robinson C. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 94 C. C. A. 230.]