charged do not violate the law. Boston & A. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 291, 400, 500, 1 I. C. C. R. 158.

The charges made by a common carrier must be reasonable and not excessive.-Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 25 L. R. A. 674, affg. s. c. 68 Hun (N. Y.), 486, 22 N. Y. Supp. 976; Root v. L. I. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 300, 21 N E. 403, 4 L. R. A. 331n; Killmer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 100 N. Y. 395, 3 N. E. 293.

A railroad is not bound to establish commutation rates for a particular locality. State ex rel. Atwater v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 55, 2 Atl. 803.

Common carriers are bound to carry freight at reasonable charges, if freight and such charges are offered them.- Pickford v. Grand J. R. Co., 10 M. & W. (Eng.) 399.

Right of carrier to earn a profit merely incidental,- see ante, § 1, note [4].

Compensation of carriers a payment in the nature of a tax,- see ante § 1, note [5].

Right to charge as implied from rights given by charter,- see ante, § 1, note [9]

Right of carrier to exact demurrage charges,-see post, & 37, note

[26].

Right of carrier to earn reasonable return on its investment,― see post, § 49, notes [32]-[33].

How great a return on the investment should be allowed,- see post, S49, note [37].

The right to demand fare of a passenger on a railroad is neither an implied nor incidental power, and can be exercised only under authority of statute.-Johnson v. Hudson R. R. Co., 2 Sweeny (N. Y.), 298; revd. on other points, 49 N. Y. 455.

[31]

Reasonableness a question of fact.

Whether given rates violate provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act is a question of fact.- Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

[32]

Carrier may determine reasonableness in the first instance.

Power of Commission to determine as to rates,- see post, § 49, notes [6]-[12].

Carriers, under the Interstate Commerce Act, are entitled to determine for themselves what are proper rates in the first instance.National Hay Assn. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 264.

[33]

How question of reasonableness is determined.

Published rates the standard of reasonableness,- see post, § 28,

note [13].

Secrecy of a rate not the test of its lawfulness,- see post, § 31,

note [12].

Reasonableness of rate per se material in determining comparative reasonableness,- see post, § 31, note [27].

Matters to be considered in determining as to reasonableness of rates,― see also, post, § 49, notes [38]-[71].

The Interstate Commerce Commission, deeming a terminal charge of $2 per car for the transferring of cars over the tracks of the Union Stock Yards Co. to be unreasonable, ordered a reduction of such charge to $1, basing its action on the fact that the through rates of the railroads, composed of the rates for transportation on the said roads and the terminal charge, were too high.-Held, that the action of the Commission was unwarranted, as the reasonableness of each segregated rate must be determined by itself.- Decision of the U. S. Circuit Court, Eighth Circuit, June 30, 1908.

The phrase "rates reasonable in and of themselves is very likely to be misleading. It is a phrase which seems to imply that the particular rates may be considered by themselves as if they were and could be affected by no others. But it is not the theory of the Interstate Commerce Act that the reasonableness of rates can thus be separately and independently determined. On the contrary, it is assumed in the Act that persons, corporations and localities are interested, not only in the rates charged to them, but also in the rates that are charged to others; and while the Act does not require all rates to be proportional, it nevertheless makes the element of proportion an important one when the rates for any locality are to be determined. No rates can therefore be reasonable in and of themselves within the contemplation of the Interstate Commerce Act which are made regardless of proportion.Marten v. L. & N. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 581.

Every question as to the reasonableness of a rate may present itself in two aspects: first, is the rate reasonable, estimated by the cost and value of the service, and as compared with other commodities; second, is it reasonable in the absolute, regarded more nearly as a tax laid upon the people who ultimately pay that rate.- Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382.

A rate can seldom be considered “in and of itself." It must be taken almost invariably in relation to and in connection with other rates. Freight rates, both upon different commodities and between different localities, are largely interdependent, and it is the fact that they do not bear a proper relation to each other, rather than the fact that they

are absolutely too high or too low, which most often gives occasion for a complaint.- Tileston Mill Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 346.

The question of the reasonableness of rates does not always depend on the opinion of competent witnesses, but is often determined by a comparison of rates, records, etc., filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 828, 5 I. C. C. R. 161.

Burden of proving reasonableness of advances in rates,- see post, note [39].

Burden of proof in actions to recover overcharges,—see post, note [54].

Rates fixed by commission prima facie reasonable,- see ante, § 23, note [1].

Presumption of legality of rates filed and posted,- see post, § 28, note [14].

The burden of showing the unreasonableness of rates is on the complainant. Holmes v. So. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 561.

If rates are complained of as unreasonable but no discrimination is alleged, either as between different points of production tributary to the same market, or on account of disproportionate rates on different kinds of traffic similar in character and volume, the burden is on the complainant of establishing affirmatively that such charges are in themselves excessive.- Lincoln Creamery Co. v. U. Pac. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 641, 794, 5 I. S. C. C. R. 156.

[35]

Higher rates for special services.

Power of Commission to regulate charges for special services,- see post, § 49, note [12].

Cars containing shipments of grain to a certain point were at that place put on a "hold track" by the carrier awaiting the inspection of the grain, after which inspection it was the custom to reconsign the shipments not intended for local use.- Held, that the additional service in switching and holding for inspection justified a reconsignment charge of $2 per car.- Board of Trade v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. K. 200.

An additional expense incurred by a carrier in switching in and out of a warehouse, justifies an additional charge.- St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 90.

Milling in transit is a special privilege, for which additional compensation may be exacted by the carriers.- Diamond Mills v. Boston & M. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 311.

Shippers have no common law right to mill grain in transit and forward the product on the through rate from the point of origin to the ultimate destination.- Diamond Mills v. Boston & M. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 311.

A higher rate for a special service by a carrier is lawful.- Loud v. South Car. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 205, 5 I. S. C. C. R. 529.

A higher rate for a special service, such as the moving of perishable freight, should bear an equitable relation to the value of the service to the traffic, and it cannot be fixed arbitrarily by the carrier.— Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 554, 4 I. S. C. C. R. 588.

The superiority of express service over ordinary railroad freight service in the respects of speedy collection, transportation and delivery, justifies the imposing of rates reasonably higher than those imposed for ordinary freight service.- Herendeen v. U. S. Exp. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, Feb. 18, 1908.

[36]

·Rebates as evidence that rates are unnecessarily high. Granting of rebates to favored shippers is evidence that the rates rebated from are unnecessarily high.- Cook v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 81 Iowa, 551, 46 N. W. 1080, 9 L. R. A. 764.

Reasonableness of switching charges,- see post, § 27, note [14]. Reasonableness of demurrage charges,- see post, § 37, note [27]. What is the lawful charge for through transportation when no joint rate has been established, see post, § 30, note [8].

What rates are comparatively reasonable,― see post, § 31, note [66]. Where a carrier separately states its rates for transportation and its rates for icing cars, its collection of both charges when refrigeration is used is lawful, if they are reasonable and do not amount to a double charge for the same service.- Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968.

No rate can possibly be reasonable that is higher than anybody else has to pay.-U. S. v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 148 Fed. 646.

Evidence tending to show that rates between certain points are too high as compared with rates from the same initial points to other points is not sufficient to show that the first named rates are of themselves unreasonable under Inters. Com. Act, § 1.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 120 Fed. 934.

Rates to a noncompetitive point cannot be held unjust or unreasonable in themselves, and therefore unlawful, under Interstate Commerce Act, § 1, where they are made up of the rates charged to the nearest competitive point through which the shipments pass, which are low rates forced by severe competition, combined with the local rates fixed by the state railroad commission, between such point and the point of destination.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Western & A. R. Co., 93 Fed. 83, affg. s. c. 88 Fed. 186.

Where on one of two lines between the same points the rate was higher than on the other, but was subsequently reduced to the same figure, such action does not show the unreasonableness of the former higher rate. Marley v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 616.

It does not necessarily follow that a rate is unreasonable because on the same or another road the same article is hauled a greater distance from a different point of origin, at the same or a less rate.- Cannon v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 537.

An interstate rate higher than the sum of the local rates fixed by state commissions is not necessarily excessive, where the traffic is light and the financial condition of the road poor.- Brabham v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 464.

A through interstate passenger fare higher than the sum of the local state fares is not necessarily unlawful; the sole question is of the reasonableness of such through rate.- Artz v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 458.

A reasonable terminal charge for delivery of live stock at the yards in Chicago is $1.- Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 296.

That a joint rate on hay from points of production to points of consumption through East St. Louis is less than the rate into that point added to the rate out, does not establish the illegality of any of the rates involved.- St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 90.

Refrigeration charges held reasonable.- Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 590.

Deserted warehouses and depreciated values along the line of a railroad do not necessarily show that rates in question are unjustifiable.— Danville v. So. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 409.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will not necessarily reduce interstate rates to the sum of the state rates now in force by operation of state law. Savannah Bureau v. Charleston & S. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 601.

Where two routes exist between two points, the rate which may be lawfully charged is such a rate as is reasonable by the shorter and less expensive route.- Newland v. No. Pac. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 131.