« ПредишнаНапред »
tention seems to be that it should be done immediately).
I. Copies (how many not stated) of its schedules of rates, fares, and charges established and published.
II. Shall promptly notify said Commission of all changes made in the same.
III. Every carrier shall also file with the Commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other common carriers in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of the Act to which it may be a party.
IV. In cases where passengers and freight pass over continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates, or fares, or charges for such continuous lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also, in like manner, be filed with said. Commission.
Publishing Joint Rates, Fares, and Charges.
Such joint rates, fares, and charges on such continuous lines so filed as aforesaid, shall be made public by the carriers-
I. When directed by the Commission, in so far as may, in the judgment of the Commission, be deemed practicable.
II. And the Commission shall from time to time prescribe the measure of publicity which shall be given to such rates, fares, and charges, or to such part of them as it may deem it practicable for such common carriers to publish, and the places in which they shall be published.
III. No common carrier, party to a joint tariff, shall be liable for the failure of any other carrier, party thereto, to observe and adhere to the rates, fares, or charges thus made and published. (Sec. 6.)
Remedies against Carrier for Refusing or Neglecting to File and Publish Schedules or Tariffs.
In addition to the penalties prescribed in the eighth, ninth, and tenth sections of this Act, if the carrier shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its schedules or tariffs of rates, fares, and charges, or any part of the same, such carrier shall be subject to a writ of MANDAMUS
I. To be issued by any Circuit Court of the United States in the judicial district wherein the principal office of said common car
rier is situated, or wherever such offence may be committed.
II. And if such common carrier be a foreign corporation, in the judicial circuit wherein such common carrier accepts traffic, and has an agent to perform such service, to compel compliance with the aforesaid provisions of this section.
III. Such writ shall issue in the name of the people of the United States at the relation of the Commissioners appointed.
IV. Failure to comply with its requirements shall be punishable as and for a contempt.
V. The Commissioners, as complainants, may also apply, in any such Circuit Court of the United States, for a WRIT OF INJUNCTION against, and to restrain such carrier from receiving or transporting property, within the places mentioned in the first section of the Act, until such common carrier shall have complied with the aforesaid provisions of this section of the Act. (Sec. 6.)
Comments on Sixth Section.
It will be observed by a careful reading of this important section of the Inter-State Commerce Act, that the most stringent provisions are made for the preparation, publication, and filing of schedules, showing the rates, fares, and
charges to be made by the carrier, for the transportation of passengers and property upon separate, or joint, or continuous roads. Not only that, but such carriers are compelled to file all joint-traffic agreements with the InterState Commerce Commission.
A failure to do all or either of these requirements subjects the offending carrier to an indictment for misdemeanor; the carrier may also be enforced to perform its duties by the writ of mandamus; and it may be restrained by injunction from transacting all of its business in the transportation of property, as mentioned in the first section of the Act, until it complies with the law.
It will also be observed that the jurisdiction. of the Circuit Courts of the United States is. enlarged for the purposes of the Act, and that a writ of mandamus may be issued against the carrier, not only in the judicial district "wherein the principal office of said common carrier is situated," but in the district wherein such offence may be committed.
If the common carrier be a foreign corporation, "in the judicial circuit wherein such common carrier accepts traffic, and has an agent to perform such service."
Reading this section in connection with the
other parts of the law, it is obvious that here-after the entire business of a carrier is in the hands of the public. The charges of the common carrier are not only fixed in advance by placing it in the power of a jury to specify what they shall be "reasonable and just,❞—but the carrier is compelled to print and publish them, with every detail, to expose its joint agreements with other roads, and to refrain from increasing its rates, no matter what the special circumstances may be, until it has given, in due form, a previous notice of ten days.
No other business or occupation has ever been subjected to such an extraordinary control and espionage. But the whole issue is narrowed down to this proposition, viz.: Does this Act, in all of its parts, and considered as a whole, constitute a regulation of commerce by Congress? If so, it is a valid act.
But if it be shown that the effect of an act is not to regulate but to destroy commerce, not to regulate but to interfere with commerce, to hamper or retard its growth, have the courts of the United States the power to interfere? Have they the power to limit the legislative control of the subject?