[Commissioner of Internal Revenue to report expenditures for punishing violations of laws.] Punishment for violations of internal-revenue laws: For detecting and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal-revenue laws, or conniving at the same, including payments for inforination and detection of such violations, * * * dollars; and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall make a detailed statement to Congress once in each year as to how he has expended this sum, and also a detailed statement of all miscellaneous expenditures in the Bureau of Internal-Revenue for which appropriation is made in this act. [32 Stat. L. 447.] * * * seem to indicate a permanent character. The concluding part of the paragraph relates apparently only to the miscellaneous expenditures for the particular year for which appropriation is made by this act. Compilers' note, 2 Supp. R. S. 121. * * * SEC. 19. [Warrants of arrest.] Warrants of arrest for violations of internal-revenue laws may be issued by United States commissioners upon the sworn complaint of a United States district attorney, assistant United States district attorney, collector or deputy collector of internal revenue, or revenue agent or private citizen, but no such warrant of arrest shall be issued upon the sworn complaint of a private citizen unless first approved in writing by a United States district attorney. [29 Stat. L. 184.] This sec. 19 is from the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Act of May 28, 1896, ch. 252, being part of sec. 19. This section was amended by Act of March * 807 * * 2, 1901, ch. 814, 31 Stat. L. 956, but the above provisions were repeated without change. Volume III. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Act of Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 104, 809. Sec. 1. Common Carriers in Interstate Traffic Railroad and Transportation Defined Charges to Be Reasonable and Just, 809. 2. Special Rates, Rebates, etc., Prohibited, 813. 3. Undue Preferences Prohibited Equal Facilities Except in Terminals, to Connecting Lines, 816. 4. Long and Short Haul Charges Exceptions Authorized, 823. Notice of Advance and Reduc 5. Pooling Agreements Prohibited, 827. 6. Printed Schedules of Rates to Be Posted· tion Foint Rate Tariffs - Effect of Failure to Publish or File Schedules, 827. 7. Combinations to Prevent Continuous Carriage of Freight to Destination Prohibited, 832. 8. Liability to Persons Injured by Violation of Act, 833. 9. Persons Damaged May Complain to Commission, or Sue Personally 833. 10. Punishment for Violation or Evasion of the Act, 835. 11. Interstate Commerce Commission Created - Eligibility and Appointment Term of Service, etc., 837 12. Scope of Commission-Prosecution of Proceedings-Witnesses - Depositions Self-criminating Testimony, 838. 13. Petitions as to Violations of Law -Notice to Carrier of Charges Investigations, 842. 14. Written Reports of Investigations - Reports and Decisions May Be Printed and Distributed, 843 15. Notice to Carrier of Violation - Record of Compliance with Report, 843. 16. Proceedings on Refusal of Obedience to Commission - Remedies Trials Appeals Costs, 844. Fury 17. Proceedings of Commission - Rules - Quorum - Appearances - Records -Seal-Oaths and Subpoenas, 849. 18. Salaries of Commissioners, Secretary, and Employees - Offices — Witness Contents Uniform 21. (Annual Reports to Congress, see ESTIMATES, APPROPRIATIONS, AND RE PORTS, Vol. 2, p. 934), 850. 22. Free Carriage or Reduced Rates, When Allowed, 851. 24. When Law Takes Effect - Appointment of Commissioners, 852. Act of March 2, 1889, ch. 382, 852. Secs. 1-9. (Amend Sections 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22), 852. 10. Mandamus to Compel Equal Facilities to Shippers - Questions of Fact, 852. Act of Aug. 8, 1890, ch. 728, 853. Intoxicating Liquors Shipped in Original Packages Subject to State Laws, 853. Act of Feb. 11, 1893, ch. 83, 855isclosures by Witnesses in Proceedings — Refusal to Self-incriminating CROSS-REFERENCES. Annual Report of Commission to Congress, see ESTIMATES, APPROPRIATIONS, AND REPORTS, vol. 2, p. 934. Contracts in Relation to Telegraph Lines, see RAILROADS; TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE, CABLE, AND ELECTRIC LINES. Reports of Railroad Accidents, see RAILROADS. Duties of Subsidized Roads and of Commission in Respect Thereto, see RAILROADS. Preparation, Printing, and Disposal of Reports, Bulletins, etc., of Commission, see PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. Settlement of Accounts, see TREASURY DEPARTMENT. Adjustment of Differences Between Carriers and Their Employees, see LABOR. Carriers of Passengers by Sea, see CARRIERS, vol. 1, p. 718. Guano Trade, see GUANO ISLANDS, ante, p. 159. Railroad Connections, see RAILROADS. Restraints on Interstate Commerce, see TRADE UNIONS, COMBINATIONS, AND TRUSTS. Safety Appliances on Railroads, see RAILROADS. Transportation of Animals and Animal Products and Regulations for Inspection, etc., see ANIMALS, vol. 1, p. 440. Transportation of Explosives, see CARRIERS, vol. 1, p. 718. Transportation of Game Animals and Birds Killed in Violation of Local Laws, see GAME ANIMALS AND BIRDS, ante, p. 151. Transportation of Lottery Matter, see IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, ante, p. 316; LOTTERIES; POSTAL SERVICE. Transportation of Obscene Literature, etc., see IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, ante, p. 316; OBSCENITY; POSTAL SERVICE. Traffic in Opium, see FOOD AND DRUGS, ante, p. 117. Transportation and Sale of Virus, Serums, Toxins, etc., see HEALTH AND QUARANTINE, ante, p. 213. Transportation and Sale of Dairy Products, Tea, Drugs, etc., see FOOD AND DRUGS, ante, p. 117. See also RIVERS, HARBORS, AND CANALS; SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION. An act to regulate commerce. [Act of Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 104, 24 Stat. L. 379.] [SEC. 1.] [Common carriers in interstate traffic -railroad and transportation defined charges to be reasonable and just.] That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid. The term "railroad" as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a contract, agreement, or lease; and the term " transportation" shall include all instrumentalities of shipment or carriage. All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, or for the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable and just; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited and declared to be unlawful. [24 Stat. L. 379.] "The principal objects of the Interstate Commerce Act were to secure just and reasonable charges for transportation; to prohibit unjust discriminations in the rendition of like services under similar circumstances and con ditions; to prevent undue or unreasonable preferences to persons, corporations, or localities; to inhibit greater compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line; and to abolish combinations for the pooling of freights." Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1892) 145 U. S. 2634 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197; Interstate Commerce Commission r. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., (1897) 167 U. S. 510; U. S. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (1894) 65 Fed. Rep. 905; U. S. v. Hanley, (1896) 71 Fed. Rep. 673; Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Assoc., (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 803. The Act has no relation to and was not intended to reinforce the provisions of the tariff laws. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 221. The causes and reasons which led to the enactment of the Act are discussed at length in Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197. Constitutionality. The Act is a constitutional exercise by Congress of its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U. S. 448; Bullard v. Northern Pac. R. Co., (1890) 10 Mont. 168, 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 234. Construction of Act. The Act will be construed, if possible, so as to facilitate and promote commerce, and not to hamper or destroy it. Texas, etc., R. Co. r. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197. The Act applies only to matters involved in the regulation of commerce. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U. S. 448. The Act should be broadly construed. Interstate Commerce Commission v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., (1898) 85 Fed. Rep. 107. The interests of the seller, the consumer, and the carrier must all be considered in construing the Act. Interstate Commerce Commission r. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1896) 73 Fed. Rep. 409; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197; Interstate Commerce Commission V. Alabama Midland R. Co., (1897) 168 U. S. 165; Reagan r. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1894) 154 U. S. 412. Construction of English traffic acts adopted. So far as the Act adopts the provisions of the prior English railway acts, the construction given to such acts by the English courts must be adopted as incorporated into the Act. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1892) 145 U. S. 263, affirming (1890) 43 Fed. Rep. 37; McDonald v. Hovey, (1883) 110 U. S. 619; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland R. Co., (1897) 168 U. S. 144; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197; Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (C. C. A. 1896) 74 Fed. Rep. 803; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Miami Steamship Co., (C. C. A. 1898) 86 Fed. Rep. 407; Interstate Commerce Commission Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1896) 73 Fed. Rep. 409. v. But regard must be had to the dissimilarity of legislation and methods of trade and transportation prevailing in England. Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (C. C. A. 1896) 74 Fed. Rep. 832; Lindquist v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., (1901) 121 Fed. Rep. 918. Construction against carrier. The Act was not primarily intended for the benefit of the carrier. Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567. In cases of doubt, where relief is sought in the interest of the carrier, the construction will be against the carrier. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., (C. C. A. 1894) 63 Fed. Rep. 775; Kentucky, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567. But the Act will not be construed so as to abridge the common-law rights of carriers further than its terms and purposes require. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1896) 73 Fed. Rep. 409, citing Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1890) 43 Fed. Rep. 51. See also Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Osborne, (C. C. A. 1892) 52 Fed. Rep. 914. Construction as a whole. -"The intent of Congress is to be gathered from a consideration of the entire Act, and not solely from detached portions thereof, and the familiar rule of construction is to be followed, to wit, that, in determining the meaning of the words employed, the general purpose of the Act and the evils sought to be remedied must be al ways kept in mind, and, furthermore, parts of the Act are not to be so construed as to defeat other important features of the same; nor is such a construction to be given to the Act, in whole or in part, as may tend to prevent the proper enforcement of the legislative purpose.' Van Patten r. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 547. Act in part declaratory of the common law. In many of its features the Interstate Commerce Act has been held to be simply declaratory of the pre-existing common law, its office to that extent being to make such pre-existing law applicable to a commerce which otherwise would be free. U. S. v. Hanley, (1896) 71 Fed. Rep. 673, citing Interstate Commerce Commission r. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1892) 145 U. S. 263. "This Act of Congress, in so far as it inhibits carriers from the imposition of unjust and unreasonable rates, is an express adoption by the national legislature of the principles of the common law on this topic." Tift r. Southern R. Co., (1903) 123 Fed. Rep. 792. Consistent with Anti-trust Act. The above Act to regulate commerce is not inconsistent with the Anti-trust Act of July 2, 1890, as it does not confer upon competing railroad companies power to enter into a contract in restraint of trade and commerce. U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., (1897) 166 U. S. 290. Effect on state statutes. State statutes regulating the same matters as are regulated by the federal statute are void so far as they affect interstate commerce. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Peters, (1897) 15 Tex. Civ. App. 515. For a full discussion and illustration of this proposition, see Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.), vol. 17, p. 34, title Interstate Com merce. Carriers subject to Act. Only railway carriers are included in the Act. U. S. v. Morsman, (1890) 42 Fed. Rep. 448. The Act is not applicable to independent carriers by water. Er p. Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 869. Ocean carriers engaged in transportation between foreign ports and ports of entry are not subject to the provisions of the Act. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197. Where a railway company by contract with a bridge company acquires the right to use a bridge for the trains of the railway company, the railway company must be considered as the owner or operator of the bridge for the time being as to all freight transported by such company over the bridge, and as to such traffic the railway and not the bridge company is the common carrier and subject to the Act. Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567. Transfer and switching companies. Transfer and switching companies are not subject to the Act. Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. t. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567. Express carriers. Express companies not operating railway lines are not subject to the Act. Southern Indiana Express Co. r. U. S. Express Co., (1898) 88 Fed. Rep. 659, affirming (C. C. A. 1899) 92 Fed. Rep. 1022; U. S. v. Morsman, (1890) 42 Fed. Rep. 448. A railroad company conducting an express business is subject to the Act. Pacific Ex press Co. . Seibert, (1890) 44 Fed. Rep. 310; U. S. r. Morsman, (1890) 42 Fed. Rep. 448. Bridge companies. - A bridge company owning no cars and making no charge for transporting freight but merely charging toll for transferring cars of railway companies over the bridge is not subject to the Act. Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. t. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567. Stock yards companies. A stock yards company not engaged in transportation is not subject to the Act. Cotting . Kansas City Stock-Yards Co., (1897) 82 Fed. Rep. 839. Transportation wholly within one state does not fall within the scope of the Act. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U. S. 457; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. r. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 184. The mere fact that goods are intended for an ultimate destination beyond the state does not subject the initial carrier to the operation of the Act where he receives, transports, and delivers such goods wholly within the one state and has nothing to do with their transport beyond the state. Er p. Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 869; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Whitehead, (1894) 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595; New Jersey Fruit Exch. v. Central R. Co., (1888) 2 Int. Com. C. Rep. 142. The fact that the goods began their tran. sit at a point outside of the state does not alone render their carriage by the carrier within the state subject to the Act. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Whitehead, (1894) 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595. Ft. Common control, management, or arrangement. A railroad company operating between two points in the same state which carries goods from one of its termini to the other without any understanding or arrangement that it would become a link in a through line of transportation between points in different states is not engaged in interstate commerce so as to subject the company to the operation of the Act merely because freight carried began its journey at a point in another state and the initial carrier undertook to ship it to its ultimate destination. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Whitehead, (1894) 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595. Connecting carriers whose lines form a continuous line of transportation between two states are not subject to the Act where each is operated under a separate and distinct control, each making its own rates and each liable only for the carriage and delivery of the goods at the end of its own route. Er p. Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 869, holding that to render a railway and a vessel operated as connecting carriers subject to the Act they must be operated and used under a common control to which each is alike subject and by which rates are prescribed and bills of lading given for the carriage of goods over both portions of the route as one. See also Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Whitehead, (1894) 6 Tex. Civ. App. 595. Where there is no agreement on the part of the last connecting carrier for any such joint tariff as implies a reduced rate to its |