Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ABSTRACT QUESTIONS.

See "Procedure," 61-63.

ACCOUNTING.

merce commission;'' “Rates;"'"'Schedules or tariffs.''

Advance in rates resulting from effort to bring rates into conformity with Act, see "Rates," 361.

Anti-trust act, independent of commerce act, see "Anti-trust act," 3.

Carriers subject to Act, see "Carriers,"

1-38.

Carriers not subject to Act, see "Carriers," 39-55.

Charges subject to Act, see "Charges," 2. Commission, jurisdiction of, based wholly upon provisions of Act, see "Interstate commerce commission, 19-25. Construction of Act in doubtful cases, see "Appeal," 2.

[ocr errors]

Contracts in violation of Act, see "Contracts."

Demurrage charges, Act applies to, see "Demurrage charges."

Injunction to restrain violation of Act, see "Injunction.''

Mileage, excursion or commutation tickets, subject to general provisions of Act, see "Tickets," 14-47.

2.

Reconsignment charges, when subject to Act, see "Reconsignment charges. Reconsignment charges, when not subject to Act, see "Reconsignment charges," 3. Subpoena duces tecum to compel, will be Recovery of damages under Act, see

denied, see "Evidence," 6.

ACT IN RELATION TO TESTI

MONY.

Immunity afforded witness, see "Evidence," 18-21.

ACT TO REGULATE_COM-
MERCE.

1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF ACT, 1-22. IL CONSTRUCTION OF ACT, 23-31. III. WHEN ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, 32.

Bee "Anti-trust act;" "Elkins act;" "Expedition act; ' "Interstate com

"Reparation."

Refrigeration charges, subject to jurisdiction of Commission, see "Refrigeration charges.

Refusal of Commission to construe Act upon ex parte application, see "Procedure," 61-63.

Sections construed, see "Sections." Stable-car company, when subject to Act, see "Stable-car company."

Statutes in conflict with Act, see "State statutes."'

Terminal charges, when subject to jurisdiction of Commission, see "Terminal charges."

Through route, when established, becomes

subject to Act, see "Through routes."' Transportation, what transportation subject to Act and what not subject to Act, see "Transportation."

I. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF ACT.

IN GENERAL, 1-5.

CASES INVOLVING INDIRECT INJURY TO
PUBLIC, 6.

PRE-EXISTING TRANSACTIONS, 7.

WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS OR REMEDIES
EXISTING AT TIME ACT TOOK EFFECT,
8-11.

WITH RESPECT TO RIGHT OF CARRIER
ΤΟ CONTROL OR MANAGE ITS OWN

AFFAIRS, 12-14.

1003, 1014. Interstate Commerce Commis. sion v. Baltimore & O. Rd. Co., (1892) 145 U. S. 263, 276, 12 Sup. Ct. R. 844, 36 L. Ed. 699.

Cases involving indirect injury to public.

6. The provisions of the Act apply not only to cases of direct injury to particular persons, but also to cases involving indirect injury to the public.-Re Export and Domestic Rates on Grain, (1899) 8 I. C. C. R. 214.

SPECIAL CONTRACTS WITH SHIP.
PERS, 15, 16.
WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENCES BE- Preëxisting transactions.

TWEEN FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS CON-
DITIONS NOT RESULTING FROM ARBI-
TRARY ACTION OF CARRIER, 17.
WITH RESPECT TO COMPETITION, 18-21.
WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTING STATE
STATUTES OR GENERAL LAWS, 22.
In general.

1. That which the Act does not declare unlawful remains lawful if it was so before the Act was adopted.-Re Petition of Louisville & N. Rd. Co., (1887) 1 I. C. C. R. 31, 1 I. C. R. 278.

2. That which the Act does not declare unlawful remains lawful if it was so before the law was enacted, and that which it fails to forbid the carrier is left at liberty to do without permission of any one.-Brewer v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al., (1898) 4 Fed. Rep. 258, 261.

3. The Act, as construed by the courts, neither lays a tax or duty on articles exported from any state, nor gives a prefer ence to the ports of one state over those of another, within the meaning of paragraph 5 of section 9 of article 1 of the constitution.-Armour Packing Co. States, (1907) 153 Fed. Rep. 1, C. A.-.

v.

United

C.

4. The purpose of the Act is to promote and facilitate commerce by the adoption of regulations to make charges for transportation just and reasonable, and to forbid undue and unreasonable preferences or discriminations.-Texas & Pacific Ry Co.

V.

Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940.

7. The Act to Regulate Commerce held not to afford a remedy for transactions which occurred before it took effect.Ottinger v. Southern Pac. Co., (1887) 1 I. C. C. R. 144, 1 I. C. R. 607.

With respect to rights or remedies existing at time Act took effect.

8. The special remedies afforded by the Act were intended to supplement and not supplant those existing at the time of its enactment.-Tift v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., (1903) 123 Fed. Rep. 789, 792.

9. It was not intended by the Interstate Commerce Act to abbreviate the plenary jurisdiction of the Federal courts to entertain all controversies arising under an act of congress, either at law or equity, but the special remedies afforded by the Act were intended as merely supplementary to the ordinary remedies existing under the judiciary act.-Little Rock & M. Rd. Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Rd. Co. et al., (1891) 47 Fed. Rep. 771.

10. The principles of the common law are operative upon all interstate commercial transactions, except so far as those principles are modified by Congressional Call Pub. Co., (1901) 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. R. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765. Davis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (1896) 93 Wis. 470, 67 N. W. 16, 33 L. R. A. 654.

enactment.-Western Union Tel. Co. V.

11. The obligations assumed by a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce are governed by the rules of the common law, as modified by the Interstate W. Ry. Co., (1894) 62 Fed. Rep. 24; afCommerce Act.-Murray v. Chicago & N. firmed, 92 Fed. Rep. 868, 35 C. C. A. 62. With respect to right of carrier to control or manage its own affairs.

5. The principal objects of the Act were to secure just and reasonable charges for transportation; to prohibit unjust discriminations in the rendition of like service under similar circumstances and conditions; to prevent undue or unreasonable preference to persons, corporations, or 12. The Act does not divest a railroad localities; to inhibit greater compensation company of the exclusive right to control for a shorter than for a longer distance its own internal affairs.-Chicago & A. Rd. over the same line; and to abolish com- Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., (1887) 1 binations for the pooling of freight.-I. C. C. R. 86, 1 I. C. R. 357. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chi- 13. The Act does not seek to interfere eago G. W. Ry. Co., (1905) 141 Fed. Rep. with the business operations of carriers,

unless those operations contravene its provisions.-New York Produce Exchange v. Baltimore & O. Rd. Co. et al., (1898) 7 I. C. C. R. 612, 658.

natural flow of trade and commerce, but rather to secure perfect freedom of competition between carriers.-New York Produce Exchange v. baltimore & O. Rd. Co. et al., (1898) 7 I. C. C. R. 612, 682.

19. The Interstate Commerce Act is not intended to prevent competition between carriers.-Allen & Lewis v. Oregon Rd. & Nav. Co. et al., (1899) 98 Fed. Rep. 16, 22; s. c. 106 Fed. Rep. 265.

14. Within the limits of the exercise of intelligent good faith in the conduct of their business, and subject to the two leading prohibitions that their charges shall not be unjust or unreasonable, and that they shall not unjustly diseriminate so as to give undue pref20. The Act was not designed to preerence or disadvantage to persons or vent competition between different roads, traffic similarly circumstanced, the act but rather to encourage it.-Interstate to regulate commerce leaves common Commerce Commission v. Chicago G. W. earriers as they were at the common Ry. Co., (1905) 141 Fed. Rep. 1003, 1014. law, free to make special rates looking to the increase of their business, to classify their traffic, to adjust and apportion their rates so as to meet the necessities of commerce and of their own situation and relation to it, and, generally, to manage their important interests upon the same principles which are regarded as sound and adopted in other trades and pursuits.Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland Ry. Co., (1896), 74 Fed. Rep. 715, 723, 21 C. C. A. 51, 41 U. S. App. 453. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & O. Rd. Co., (1890) 43 Fed. Rep. 37, 50.

- Special contracts with shippers. 15. The Interstate Commerce Act, when it took effect, abrogated all existing contracts with common carriers for special interstate rates.-Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & M. Const. Co., (1894) 41 Neb. 374, 59 N. W. 838.

16. All special contracts or traffic arrangements between carrier and shipper are not forbidden by the Act, but only such as operate unfairly, and evidence undue favoritism toward one, or deprive another of his just rights.-Laurel Cotton Mills v. Gulf & S. I. R. Co., (1904) 84 Miss. 339, 37 So. 137, 66 L. R. A. 453. With respect to differences between financial or business conditions not resulting from arbitrary action of carrier.

ness

21. It is not the purpose of the Act to prevent competition between different carriers.-Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & O. Rd. Co., (1892) 145 U. S. 263, 276, 12 Sup. Ct. R. 844, 36 L. Ed. 699.

With respect to conflicting state statutes or general laws.

22. The provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act supersede and abrogate all conflicting state statutes and general laws. -Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Horne, (1900) 106 Tenn. 73, 59 S. W. 134; Railway Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 99, 15 Sup. Ct. R. 802, 39 L. Ed. 910.

II. CONSTRUCTION OF ACT.
IN GENERAL, 23-27.
WITH RESPECT TO COMMON-LAW RIGHTS,
28.
WITH RESPECT TO RIGHT OF CARRIER
TO MAKE CONTRACTS AND ADOPT
PROPER BUSINESS METHODS, 29.
WITH RESPECT TO TARIFF LAWS, 30.
CONSTRUCTION BY COMMISSION
WHEN SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS
READ INTO ACT, 31.
In general.

first instance to assume its own construc-
23. Every carrier has the right in the
tion of the Act.-Re Disabled Soldiers and
Sailors, (1887) 1 I. C. C. R. 28.

24. In construing the Act, each section must be read and understood in the light of every other section.-Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. New York & N. E. Rd. Co. et al., (1891) 4 I. C. C. R. 664, 678, 3 I. C. R. 493.

17. The Interstate Commerce Act is intended to prohibit arbitrary differences and inequalities in the rates and methods of doing business of the carrier, and not 25. In construing the Act, its general differences between financial and busi-purpose and the evils sought to be remeconditions resulting from other died must be considered. Furthermore, causes. Interstate Commerce Commission parts of the Act are not to be so construed v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., (1896) 73 Fed. as to defeat other important features; nor Rep. 409, 427. is such a construction to be adopted, in whole or in part, as may tend to prevent the proper enforcement of the legislative 18. It is not the purpose of the Act to purpose.-Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & St. fetter competition, nor interfere with the | P. Ry. Co., (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 545.

With respect to competition.
See Competition."

26. Where different constructions of ulars, construed, such construction should the Act are possible, that construction will be treated as read into the Act and should be adopted which will promote and facil- be followed in all strictly identical cases. itate commerce, rather than one which-New York, N. H. & H. Rd. Co. v. Interwill hamper or destroy it.-Texas & P. state Commerce Commission, (1906) 200 Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commis- U. S. 361, 26 Sup. Ct. R. 272, 50 L. Ed. sion, (1896) 162 U. S. 197, 218, 16 Sup. 515. Ct. R. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940.

III. WHEN ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE.

27. The great purpose of the Act, whilst seeking to prevent unreasonable Hepburn Act. rates, is to secure equality of rates and 32. The Interstate Commerce Act, as to destroy favoritism. To this extent the amended June 29, 1906, was approved by Act is remedial and should be so inter- the President on that date. By joint resopreted as reasonably to accomplish such lution of Congress approved on June 30, purpose.-New York, N. H. & H. Rd. Co. 1906, it was provided that the Act should V. Interstate Commerce Commission, not take effect until 60 days after its ap(1906) 200 U. S. 361, 26 Sup. Ct. R. 272, proval by the President. Held, that the 50 L. Ed. 515, affirming I. C. C. v. Chesa-Act became effective on June 29, 1906, peake & O. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. Rep. 59..

With respect to common-law rights.

and that the resolution was therefore powerless to postpone that which already had occurred on June 29.-United States v. Standard Oil Co., (1907) 148 Fed. Rep. 719, 722.

ADJUSTING RATES.

28. The Act is not to be construed as taking away common law rights existing at the date of its enactment, unless that result is imperatively required; that is, unless such preexisting rights are so repugnant to the Act that their survival would render its provisions nugatory.-Texas & See "Rates," 407-713. P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., (1907) 204 U. S. 426, 437, 27 Sup. Ct. R. 350.

ADVANCE IN RATES.

With respect to right of carrier to make See "Rates," 361-406.
contracts and adopt proper business
methods.

29. The Interstate Commerce Act is not to be so construed as to abridge or take

ADVANCEMENTS.

away the common law right of the car- For construction of switch track, repay.

rier to make contracts, and adopt proper business methods, further than its terms and recognized purposes require.-Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., (1896) 73 Fed. Rep. 409, 426.

With respect to tariff laws.

30. It was not intended by Congress that the Act should be so construed as to make it coöperate with the policy of the tariff laws.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 162 U. S. 197, 221, 16 Sup. Ct. R. 666, 40 L.

Ed. 940.

Construction by Commission-When same should be treated as read into Act. Construction by Commission, see "Discrimination," 107.

31. Where the Commission has placed a construction upon some feature of the Act, which construction has long obtained in practical execution, and has been impliedly sanctioned by the reënactment of the Act without alteration in the partic

ment of, see "Allowances,"

ADVANTAGE.

See "Preference or prejudice."

AGENTS.

6, 7.

"Criminal pros

See "Station agent.''
As parties to offenses, see
Contract between shipper and his agent
ecution," 66-70.
to secure cut rates, see "Contracts,”
25.
Denial of carload rate on less than car-
load lots combined into carload by for-
warding agent, see "Rates," 987.
General freight agent, testimony of, to
prove rates on file with Commission, see
"Schedules or tariffs," 250.

Land and immigration agents, free passes
in favor of, see "Free transportation,''
16.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

AGREEMENTS.

See Contract of shipment;" "Contracts;"'"Pooling."

ALCOHOL.

Pacific coast points, from Chicago and Missouri river common points.

1. Joint commodity rate on alcohol, all kinds, including denatured and wood alcohol, in wooden barrels and iron drums, Agreement to submit controversy to Com- of 85 cents per 100 pounds in carloads mission, see "Procedure," 55, 56. and $1.25 in less than carloads, held not Agreement with shipper that published unlawful.-Railroad Commission of Orerate is too high, see “Schedules or targon v. Chicago & A. Rd. Co. et al., (1907) iffs,'' 127. 12 I. C. C. R. 541.

Milling in transit arrangements, "Transit privileges."

[merged small][ocr errors]

Rates, agreements with shippers relating to rates, see "Schedules or tariffs, 191-221.

Rates, agreements between carriers to maintain, as bearing on question of reasonableness, see "Rates," 147-152.

AGRICULTURAL IMPLE

MENTS.

Eureka Springs, Ark., St. Louis, Mo.

1. Carload rate was 36 cents per 100 pounds. Held, that any rate in excess of that stated would be unreasonable.Cary et al. v. Eureka Springs Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 286.

Liverpool, Eng., through New Orleans to California terminals.

2. Proportion of through rate received by inland earrier for haul from New Orleans was 70 cents per 100 pounds. Established inland rate was $1.14. Held,

that inland proportion of the through rate could not lawfully be less than corresponding inland rate.-New York Bd. of Trade v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al., (1891) 4 I. C. C. R. 447, 3 I. C. R. 417; order of Commission enforced, I. C. C. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 187, 57 Fed. Rep. 948; decree of lower courts reversed, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940.

San Bernardino, Cal., from Chicago, Ill.

3. Rate on agricultural implements, as forks, hoes, rakes, shovels and spades, in earloads, of $2.21 per 100 pounds, held unlawful under section 4 of Act as compared with rate of $1.95 from same point through San Bernardino to Los Angeles. -San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 104, 3 I. C. R. 138; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 295.

[blocks in formation]

ΟΙ

Allowances to shippers, see "Rebates or Allowance of division of through rate to concessions."' logging road owned by shipper, statement of privilege in tariff, see "Schedules or tariffs,' 105.

Cartage or drayage allowance, as rebate, see "Rebates or concessions,'' 20-23. Elevator allowances, see Elevation."

Oil, allowance for leakage or evaporation, see "Discrimination, 47, 48. Preference effected by allowance from rate, see "Rates," 533. Routing agent, allowance to, as rebate, see "Rebates or concessions," 28-30. Tank cars, allowance to shipper for use of, must appear on tariff, see "Schedules or tariffs," 104. Tap-line allowances, as rebates, see "Rebates or concessions,'' 17-19. Terminal road, allowance to, as rebate, see "Rebates or concessions, 25-27.

Transit privileges, allowance of, see "Transit privileges,” 5-11. Yardage allowance, as rebate, see "Rebates or concessions,'' 16.

« ПредишнаНапред »