THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES.-Continued. The national regulations prescribed are not in all respects coextensive with the power of Congress, and do not provide for ordering through routes and through rates. While it is the duty of a State carrier which engages in interstate commerce to forward traffic offered from a connecting line, there is no authority under the present act to compel the carrier to forward the traffic over a route not operated or selected by itself. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company. Through rates and through billing are matters of agreement among carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and, as was decided in the case of The Little Rock and Memphis and Railroad Company v. The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company (2 Inters. Com. Rep., 454, 3 I. C. C., Rep., 1), the Commission has no power under the statute to compel them against their consent to enter into arrangements for through rates and for through billing. Capehart & Smith v. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. An aggregate through rate is itself an entirety, although made up of agreed percentages, proportions, or divisions, as the case may be, of the entire rate among the several carriers; and where the rail carrier makes a through rate from a point on a navigable river with a steamboat line, and refuses to make such through rate with another steamboat, the Commission can not compel the rail carrier to receive freight from or deliver it to the steamboat with which it has refused to make a through rate or to do through billing upon the prepayment of charges for an estimated proportion of the through rate equal in amount to that which the rail carrier receives from the steamboat line with which it has an arrangement for through rates and through billing. (Ib.) The common carriers named and referred to in the last clause of section 3 of the act to regulate commerce are such alone as are subject to the provisions of that statute. (Ib.) Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. CONTRACT FOR USE OF TRACKS.-In the absence of statutory provision the rights of a railroad company under a lawful agreement for a specified use of the tracks of another railroad company are measured in respect to the track use by the terms of the contract, and the provisions of the act to regulate commerce apply to the situation created by the contract and add no authority for a different use of the tracks. Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company. TO AND FROM LOCAL STATIONS.-The duty of a railroad company operating its own road or a road that it controls to serve the local stations on its line does not apply to a company that has only a running privilege for through trains to reach points on its own line over a part of the road of another company which it does not control. In such a case the company is not required to disregard the conditions of its agreement, and does not violate the provisions of the act to regulate commerce by not receiving and discharging traffic on the tracks of the proprietary company, the sufficiency of the local service rendered by the latter not being questioned. (Ib.) See Carriers. EXTRAORDINARY FACILITIES AND RIGHTS OF WAY GIVEN TO PRIVATE LIVESTOCK CARS.—(Ib.) See Through Routes and Through Rates; Preference or Advantage; Traffic. FAVOR IN TRANSPORTATION. TO SHIPPERS OVER ONE DIVISION OF A CONSOLIDATED LINE. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. TO COAL COMPANY, THE CAPITAL STOCK OF WHICH IS OWNED BY CARRIER.— Coxe Brothers and Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Com pany. TO OWNERS OF LIVE STOCK CARS. Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company et al. FEDERAL AUTHORITY. See Interstate Commerce. FINDINGS OF FACT BY COMMISSION. PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE IN UNITED STATES COURTS.— In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food CORRECTION AFTER REHEARING. ERROR IN. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE REASONABLE RATES. Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. See Judicial and Administrative Questions. FIXED CHARGES. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food See Reasonable Rates. FLOUR. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com- In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food King & Co. v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad FOOD PRODUCTS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food FOREIGN MERCHANDISE. New York Board of Trade and Transportation Company et al. v. FOURTH SECTION. See Long and Short Haul Clause; Act to Regulate Commerce. FREE CARTAGE OF FREIGHT. INVESTIGATION CONCERNING. Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. WHEN UNLAWFUL. Stone & Carten v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway See Long and Short Haul Clause; Unjust Discrimination. FREIGHT. See Traffic; Continuous Carriage of Freights. FRUITS. Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New Eng- GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION. See Location. GOVERNMENT AIDED RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINES. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. GROUP RATES. Stone & Carten v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Rail- ON COAL.-Principles relating to, as stated in Rend v. Chicago and North-Western HEARING. WHEN PRECLUDED BY CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. WHEN NOT PRECLUDED BY CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. (Ib.) See Practice; Evidence. HOGS AND HOG PRODUCTS. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Rail road Company et al. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. IMPORT TRAFFIC. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. INSTRUMENTALITIES OF SHIPMENT OR CARRIAGE. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl- Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com- Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC. Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. See Facilities of Traffic; Traffic. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. WHAT IS NOT.-Where the transportation is from one point to another in the same State it is not interstate traffic, even though it be intended to be taken up by another carrier and delivered in another State. In re Missouri and Illinois Railroad Tie and Lumber Company v. The Cape Girardeau and Southwestern Railway Company. Traffic originating in the State of New Jersey and destined to the city of New York, but delivered by the defendant to the consignees at Jersey City in New Jersey, upon which rates of defendant are made not to New York but to Jersey City, is not interstate so far as defendants conduct it, and the Commission has no jurisdiction over their rates. New Jersey Fruit Exchange v. Central Railroad Company of WHAT CONSTITUTES.-Commerce between points in the same State, but which in being carried from one place to another passes through another State, is interstate commerce, and subject to regulation by the provisions of the act to regulate commerce. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New Eng- James & Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company et al. A railroad company chartered by the State of Tennessee owns a short road wholly within that State, but has never owned any rolling stock or operated its roads; the road was used and operated as a means of conducting interstate traffic in coal by other companies owning connecting interstate roads. Held, That the shorter road thus used is one of the WHAT CONSTITUTES.-Continued. facilities and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and the carriers using it are subject to the provisions of the act to regulate commerce. Heck & Petree v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company. In respect to such traffic the duties of such carriers to the public are the same without regard to the ownership or corporate control-the authority or means of its construction. (Ib.) As one of the instrumentalities of shipment or carriage it must be accessible to all interstate shippers on equal and reasonable terms. The public can not be deprived of this right by the separate or joint action of the carriers, and they can not be permitted to use them for the purposes of discrimination between mine owners on its line. (Ib.) An averment that the respondents were interstate common carriers subject to the act to regulate commerce was not of itself sufficient to warrant an inference, under a motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, that wheat delivered at an elevator of the respondents was for interstate com merce. White v. The Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. TRANSPORTATION TO ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY.-The provisions of the act to regulate commerce apply to foreign as well as domestic common carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from a place in the United States to a place in an adjacent foreign country. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. REGULATION OF, BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.-The grant to the Federal Government of the power to regulate interstate commerce is full and complete, and can not be narrowed or encroached upon by State authority, either directly or indirectly. Leonard & Chappell v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. The provisions of the act to regulate commerce, construed in the light of the principles that apply to interstate commerce as enunciated by the courts of the United States, must be understood as intended to regulate all the commerce subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, including the agents and instrumentalities employed and the commodities carried, with only the limitations found in the act itself. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company. The proviso in the first section that the provisions of the act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, as to the receiving, delivery, 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, that is, by continuous carriage or shipment, only excludes from regulation the purely internal commerce of a State, that which is confined within its limits, which originates and ends in the same State. (Ib.) REGULATION OF.-The fact that by the action of certain State commissions a car is permitted to be loaded by the shipper at discretion without the car-lot rate being affected thereby is not a reason for adopting the like rule in interstate traffic if that course is found not to be most just and politic. Leonard v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. |