clause. Patterson v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 269 U. S. 1, 70 L. Ed. 131, 46 Sup. Ct. 8.

§ 433. Relief From Long-and-Short-Haul Clause.-Provided that upon application to the Commission such common carrier may in special cases, after investigation, be authorized by the Commission to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section; but in exercising the authority conferred upon it in this proviso the Commission shall not permit the establishment of any charge to or from the more distant point that is not reasonably compensatory for the service performed; and if a circuitous rail line or route is, because of such circuity, granted authority to meet the charges of a more direct line or route to or from competitive points and to maintain higher charges to or from intermediate points on its line, the authority shall not include intermediate points as to which the haul of the petitioning line or route is not longer than that of the direct line or route between the competitive points; and no such authorization shall be granted on account of merely potential water competition not actually in existence.

Second part of paragraph (1) of Section 4 of Interstate Commerce Act as amended by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 406. The former section read: Provided, however, That upon application to the Interstate Commerce Commission such common carrier may in special cases, after investigation, be authorized by the Commission to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section.

Added by Amendment of June 18, 1910. For annotations, see next preceding section.

§ 434. Changes Not Required Until Further Orders.-And provided further, That rates, fares, or charges existing at the time of the passage of this amendatory Act by virtue of

orders of the Commission or as to which application has theretofore been filed with the Commission and not yet acted upon, shall not be required to be changed by reason of the provisions of this section until the further order of or a determination by the Commission.

Last part of paragraph (1) of Section 4, Interstate Commerce Act enacted by Transportation Act, 1920. The comparable provision of the former law read: Provided further, That no rates or charges lawfully existing at the time of the passage of this amendatory Act shall be required to be changed by reason of the provisions of this section prior to the expiration of six months after the passage of this Act, nor in any case where application shall have been filed before the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of this section, until a determination of such application by the Commission.

Added by Amendment of June 18, 1910. Section quoted.Colorado Coal Traffic Ass'n v. C. & S. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 478.

§ 435. Rates Reduced by Competition with Water Routes -Not Increased When.-Wherever a carrier by railroad shall in competition with a water route or routes reduce the rates on the carriage of any species of freight to or from competitive points, it shall not be permitted to increase such rates unless after hearing by the Commission it shall be found that such proposed increase rests upon changed conditions other than the elimination of water competition.

Paragraph (2) of Section 4 Interstate Commerce Act. The only changes made in this section by Transportation Act, 1920, were to substitute "wherever" for "whenever" in first line and to omit "Interstate Commerce" before the word "Commission."

Suspension of lake navigation during winter not an "elimination of water competition."—Am. Insulated Wire & Cable Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 415, 416. Not determined whether or not section applies to rates reduced before date of amendment, although in quoting the section the word "shall" is italicized.-Pig Iron Rates from Va. to Pa., 27 I. C. C. 343, 345.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

The proviso does not apply where the reduction was made with the approval of the Commission.-Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 63 L. Ed. 772, 39 Sup. Ct. 375; Marshall Wells Hdw. Co. v. S. P. & S. Ry. Co., 53 I. C. C. 684.

§ 436. Pooling of Freights and Division of Earnings Regulated. That, except upon specific approval by order of the Commission as in this section provided, and except as provided in paragraph (16) of section 1 of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to this Act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate offense: Provided, That whenever the Commission is of opinion, after hearing upon application of any carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property subject to this Act, or upon its own initiative, that the division of their traffic. or earnings, to the extent indicated by the Commission, will be in the interest of better service to the public, or economy in operation, and will not unduly restrain competition, the Commission shall have authority by order to approve and authorize, if assented to by all the carriers involved, such division of traffic or earnings, under such rules and regulations, and for such consideration as between such carriers and upon such terms and conditions, as shall be found by the Commission to be just and reasonable in the premises.

Transportation Act, 1920, Section 407; Interstate Commerce Act, Section 5, paragraph (1). The former section read: That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights

as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate offense.

Section 5 of original Act.

The Canadian Act, Canadian Railway Law by MacMurchy & Denison, 501, is as follows:

"No company shall, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, directly or indirectly, pool its freights or tolls with the freights or tolls of any other railway company or common carrier, nor divide its earnings or any portion thereof with any other railway company or common carrier, nor enter into any contract, arrangement, agreement, or combination to effect, or which may effect, any such result, without leave therefor having been obtained from the board."

In the same volume, p. 502, referring to this Act, it is stated: "Railroad pools are not contrary to public policy in England or in Canada. Section 284 of the Railway Act, which is similar in its terms to Section 87 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, permits working or traffic agreements: See Hare v. L. & N. W. R. Co., 2 J. & H. 480, 30 L. J. Ch. 817. Two companies having the same termini, may, in order to avoid competition, come to an agreement with reference to traffic along existing routes on their lines, with a view to distribute such traffic, and the revenue derived from it, between the two companies. This case was followed in Great Western R. Co. v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 25 U. C. R. 37, and Campbell v. Northern R. W. Co., 26 Gr. 522."

Pooling between a rail carrier subject to the Act and a pipe line not subject not within prohibition of section.-Independent Refiners' Asso. v. Western New York & Penn. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 415, 4 I. C. R. 162. Fines of carriers for violating an agreement to divide traffic within section.-Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 195, 4 I. C. R. 592; order not enforced, Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. R. Co., 76 Fed. 183, 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. Ed. 243, 17 Sup. Ct. 896. A pool may be formed by agreements as to routing.-Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 9 I. C. C. 182, 206-a; order enforced, Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 132 Fed. 829; reversed, So. Pac. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330;

Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 10 I. C. C. 590. Doubtful whether a pool of passenger earnings from immigrant traffic in violation of section.-Re Transportation of Immigrants, 10 I. C. C. 13. Purpose of section to prevent restriction of competition.-Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 548, 580; order enforced, 138 Fed. 753; So. Ry. Co. v. Tift, 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. Pooling by water carriers not within section.-Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American P. Co., 13 I. C. C. 266, 274. It was not the intention of the Interstate Commerce Act to include carriers within the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.-United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso., 53 Fed. 440, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 80; affirmed, holding that combinations in restraint of trade must be unreasonable to be illegal, United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso., 58 Fed. 58, 73, 7 C. C. A. 15, 97, 24 L. R. A. 73, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 186; reversed, holding that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act applies to carriers, that all contracts in restraint of trade, whether or not such restraint is unreasonable, are illegal.United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso., 166 U. S. 290, 41 L. Ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 648. A contract between thirty-two carriers to maintain rates is not violative of section.-United States v. Joint Traffic Asso., 76 Fed. 895, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 615; affirmed, 89 Fed. 1020, 32 C. C. A. 491, 45 U. S. App. 726, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 869; reversed, holding that any contract restricting competition in interstate trade is illegal, United States v. Joint Traffic Asso., 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. Ed. 259, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 869. Any arrangement, oral or otherwise, resulting in the division of earnings of competing carriers is illegal and violates section.-Re Pooling Freights, 115 Fed. 588; followed, Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 132 Fed. 529, 839. Tonnage pool effective by initial carrier routing freight illegal.-Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 123 Fed. 597, 602, 132 Fed. 829, 137 Fed. 606; reversed, holding that practice did not constitute a pooling agreement.-So. Pac. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. Effect on rates of a combination to fix rates.-Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 138 Fed. 753, 760, 761, 762, 763; affirmed, So. Ry. Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709.