meaning of section.-Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago & Burlington R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 132, 1 I. C. R. 329. Commission may not compel agents of one road to sell tickets over another. -Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 86, 1 I. C. R. 357. A bridge company having the powers of a common carrier bound by section.-Kentucky, etc., Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 162, 2 I. C. R. 102; order not enforced, 37 Fed. 567. Carriers may make through routes and joint rates with some river boats and refuse to do so with others.-Capehart v. L. & N. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 265, 3 I. C. R. 278. A carrier cannot refuse to interchange traffic with another carrier because that other is interested in a competing line. New York & N. Ry. Co. v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 702, 3 I. C. R. 542; suit to enforce order not dismissed, 50 Fed. 867. Section construed and held not to give Commission power to order loaded cars delivered to a connecting carrier.-R. R.. Com. of Ky. v. L. & N. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 173, 187. To enforce through routes and joint rates on behalf of connecting carriers is not to take the use of terminal facilities.-Cardiff Coal Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 460. This statute a shippers provision and indicates the "open gateway policy" of the Act. Rahway Valley R. Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 191, 194. Sections quoted.-Enterprise Fuel Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 218, 221. Does not require the forming of new connections or establishment of new stations. -Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 621, 630. Courts cannot compel a through route and joint rate.—Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 41 Fed. 559. A carrier may prefer its own line to that of a rival.-Little Rock, etc. R. Co. v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. Co., 47 Fed. 771. Must not only receive freight from a connection, but must also grant reasonable and equal facilities for such connection.-New York & N. Ry. Co. v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 50 Fed. 867, 870. A railroad is not required to take a connecting carrier's cars when it can transport the freight in its own cars.-Oregon Short Line, etc., Ry. Co. v. N. Pac. R. Co., 51 Fed. 465; affirmed, 61 Fed. 158, 9 C. C. A. 409. May enjoin a conspiracy to refuse

to make connections.-Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Penn. Co., 54 Fed. 730, 746, 17 L. R. A. 387, 5 I. C. R. 545, 22 U. S. App. 561; Ex parte Lennon, 64 Fed. 320, 22 U. S. App. 561, 166 U. S. 548, 41 L. Ed. 1110, 17 Sup. Ct. 658. Not required to permit boats of a competitor to land at wharf.-Ilwaco Ry. Co. & Nav. Co. v. Oregon Short Line, etc., Ry. Co., 57 Fed. 673, 6 C. C. A. 495, reversing 51 Fed. 611. Nor to permit use of its own tracks.-Little Rock, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. 400; affirmed, 63 Fed. 775, 11 C. C. A. 417, 26 L. R. A. 192. Common carrier may make an exclusive contract with a drayage company.-St. Louis Drayage Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 65 Fed. 39. Or with another carrier. Prescott & A. C. R. Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 73 Fed. 438. Cannot charge more to transmit freight received from one carrier than from another.-Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522. Carrier may demand prepayment of freight from one connecting carrier and not from another.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 Fed. 407, 30 C. C. A. 142; Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. United States Exp. Co., 88 Fed. 659. It is the duty of a common carrier to furnish reasonable facilities for unloading and caring for live-stock; to do this by contracting with one person to the exclusion of others does not violate this section.-Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 117, 118, 55 C. C. A. 63, citing A. T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 Sup. Ct. 185; Express Cases, Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. So. Express Co., 117 U. S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 791, 6 Sup. Ct. 542; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 115 U. S. 587, 29 L. Ed. 499, 6 Sup. Ct. 194; Pac. R. Co. v. Washington ex rel. Dustin, 142 U. S. 492, 35 L. Ed. 1092, 12 Sup. Ct. 283. The case and the doctrine of Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 55 C. C. A. 63, affirmed. Same case, 192 U. S. 568, 48 L. Ed. 565, 24 Sup. Ct. 339. Also assuming, without deciding, that injunction the proper remedy against discrimination, at p. 570. Duties of carrier to furnish facilities to shipper discussed at length with reference to furnishing cars to ship coal.-United States v. B. & O. R. Co., 165 Fed. 113.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909. Purpose of this and cognate sections is that every shipping point shall be connected with every other shipping point.

Enterprise Fuel Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219, 221. "Give the use of tracks and terminal facilities" discussed.Merchants & Manufacturers Ass'n v. P. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 474, 476. Construed with Section 1 (Ante, Section 404) and Sec. 15 (Post, 496).-Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 179, 185; Railroad Com. of Ark. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C. 293, 295; St. L. S. & P. R. R. Co. v. P. & P. U. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 226, 234. Effect given by Commission to words "Give the use of tracks," etc. -Morris Iron Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 240, 244; B. R. & P. R. Ry. Co. v. P. R. Co., 29 I. C. C. 114, 118; Seattle Chamber of Commerce v. G. N. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 683, 690; Pac. Nav. Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 31 I. C. C. 472, 480. When a carrier switches to one connecting carrier to require like switching to another connecting carrier does not take the use of tracks contrary to the provisions of the section.-Penn. Co. v. U. S., 236 U. S. 351, 59 L. Ed. 616, 35 Sup. Ct. 370.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Railroads should be one national system.-Louisville B. of Trade v. L. & N. R. Co., 40 I. C. C. 679, 689. Limitations of former section applied.-Iowa & S. W. Ry. Co. v. C., B. & Q. R. Co., 42 I. C. C. 389. Denial of use of team tracks criticised. Tulsa Traffic Asso. v. St. Louis, S. F. Ry. Co., 49 I. C. C. 644, 647. Patented articles given less consideration than a non-patented article.-Pneumatic Scales Corp. v. A. & R. R. Co., 51 I. C. C. 686. Some hackmen may be excluded from depots and others admitted.-Skaggs v. K. C. Ter. Ry. Co., 233 Fed. 827. Two joint owners of terminal switching tracks may exclude a third railroad from using such tracks.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. United States, 242 U. S. 60, 61 L. Ed. 153, 37 Sup. Ct. 61. Compare United States v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 235 U. S. 314, 59 L. Ed. 245, 35 Sup. Ct. 113; Penn. Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 351, 59 L. Ed. 616, 35 Sup. Ct. 370, P. U. R. 1915B 261; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. United States, 238 U. S. 1 59 L. Ed. 1177, 35 Sup. Ct.

696. Mr. Justice Holmes said the 238 U. S. 1, 19, case "grazed but did [not] hit" the 242 U. S. 60 case.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Statute supersedes state legislation in so far as it affects connections between carriers to serve needs of interstate commerce. People ex rel. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 233 N. Y. 113, 135 N. E. 195, reversing 195 App. Div. 426, 187 N. Y. S. 24. Interchange with electric line by steam railroad similar to interchange with other steam roads. -U. S. v. New River Co., 265 U. S. 533, 68 L. Ed. 1165, 44 Sup. Ct. 610. See also C., I. & L. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 270 U. S. 287, 70 L. Ed. 590, 46 Sup. Ct. 226. Commission may establish through routes and rates in connection with barge line.—U. S. War Department v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 92 I. C. C. 528.

§ 431. Joint Use of Terminal Facilities May Be Required. -If the Commission finds it to be in the public interest and to be practicable, without substantially impairing the ability of a carrier owning or entitled to the enjoyment of terminal facilities to handle its own business, it shall have power to require the use of any such terminal facilities, including main-line track or tracks for a reasonable distance outside. of such terminal, of any carrier, by another carrier or other carriers, on such terms and for such compensation as the carriers affected may agree upon, or, in the event of a failure to agree, as the Commission may fix as just and reasonable for the use so required, to be ascertained on the principle controlling compensation in condemnation proceedings. Such compensation shall be paid or adequately secured before the enjoyment of the use may be commenced. If under this paragraph the use of such terminal facilities of any carrier is required to be given to another carrier or other carriers, and the carrier whose terminal facilities are required to be so used is not satisfied with the terms fixed for such use, or if the amount of compensation so fixed is not duly and promptly paid, the carrier whose terminal facilities have thus been required to be given to another carrier or other carriers shall be entitled to recover, by suit or action against such other carrier or carriers, proper damages for any injuries sustained

by it as the result of compliance with such requirements or just compensation for such use or both as the case may be.

Paragraph (4) of Section 3 of Interstate Commerce Act added by Section 405 of Transportation Act, 1920. See Section 417, ante.

§ 432. Rule as to Long and Short Hauls.—That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any greater compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this Act, but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this Act to charge or receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance.

Part of paragraph (1), Section 4, of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 406. The former section read:

That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any greater compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this Act; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this Act to charge or receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance.

Section 4 of the Act as amended by the Act of June 18, 1910. The section as originally passed and as it remained until the Amendment of 1910 read: That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances