[3] Public control.

General power to regulate property devoted to public use,- see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22].

Exemptions from public control,-see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15]. Whether an order requiring the delivery of cars on a siding imposes a burden on interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [15].

An order of the North Carolina Corporation Commission requiring a railroad to deliver cars from another state to the consignee on a private siding beyond its own right of way, is void. Whether such an order would be valid, if applied only to state business, not decided.- McNeill v. So. R. Co., 202 U. S. 543, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 722.

A state may require all coal carrying roads therein to make switch connections with all mines within its borders.— Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 438.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no direct power to order a carrier to put in sidetrack connections, or to prescribe the terms of their construction.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 438.

[4] Conditions to furnishing sidetrack facilities.

A carrier cannot, as a condition to installing a sidetrack, require the shipper to sign an agreement that the siding shall never be used for carrying on coal business.- Barden v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 222.

The refusal of a carrier to switch cars to plaintiff's side track without advance payment of demurrage charges is unlawful, even where plaintiff had refused to pay such charges on cars previously delivered to him without prepayment.-Macloon v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 452, 711, 5 I. C. C. R. 84.

In contracting to install a side track for a shipper, a railroad may exempt itself from liability for loss from fire resulting from its own negligence, inasmuch as in installing such switch it is not acting as a common carrier, but may make such terms as the parties can agree upon.-Mann v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 135 Mich. 210, 97 N. W. 721.

While a railway may impose reasonable conditions upon persons asking trackage for warehouses for the transportation of grain, they must be the same for all, and are a proper subject of investigation by the state commission.- Farwell F. W. Assn. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co., 55 Minn. 8, 56 N. W. 248.

[5] Matters to be considered in determining whether switch connections will be ordered.

Inasmuch as sidings are frequently, if not generally, located within the corporate limits of cities or towns, in determining whether or not

such a connection will be ordered, the Interstate Commerce Commission must respect and give full consideration to the power and authority of the municipal officers, as well as the rights of the owners of adjoining and neighboring property.- Barden v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 222.

If a switch connection is within the power of a state commission to order, it may take into account the benefit to both interstate and state traffic in determining the necessity therefor.- Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co., 71 Minn. 514, 74 N. W. 893.

[6] Objections to installing of switches.

The Corporation Commission of North Carolina, in pursuance to powers delegated to it, ordered the establishment of a switch of certain length.— Held, that the fact that the installing of such a switch would increase the hazard of operating the road, is not a sufficient objection.— North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 140 N. C. 239, 52 S. E. 941.

[7] Refusal to install may constitute undue prejudice.

Denial of switch connections may constitute undue prejudice.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 438.

[8] Remedy of shipper.

Where a carrier permits a mine owner to build a side track connecting the mine with the main tracks, and continues for eight years to furnish cars to haul coal from the mine over its line, such side track must be considered a part of its line and if it disconnects such side track, mandamus will lie to compel its restoration.- Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Suffern, 129 Ill. 274, 21 N. E. 824.

If switching service be wrongfully stopped as to a shipper, he may have mandamus for its restoration, although he might have a remedy from the railroad commissioners.- Larrabee Flour Mills Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72.

[9] Discontinuance of switches.

When a carrier erects a public side-track at which it receives and delivers goods for transportation, it in a sense makes to the public an open promise to receive goods there, and the carrier must give notice before discontinuing the same.— - Durden v. So. R. Co., Ga. S. E. 299.

[10] Switches as part of railroad.

58

Connecting a spur track with and making it a part of a railroad system, and devoting it to the purposes of traffic, makes it no longer a

private track, but subject to regulation by the state commission.- State v. Willmar & S. F. R. Co., 88 Minn. 448, 93 N. W. 112.

[11] Permit to construct a switch in a public street.

In permitting a street railway corporation to lay and maintain in a public street a proposed switch to connect its lines with an express company's warehouse, to enable the latter company to use the former's lines, a city does not appropriate the street to a private use.— Dulaney v. United R. & Elec. Co., 104 Md. 423, 65 Atl. 45.

[12] Rights of public in sidetrack.

Sidetracks from a railroad to granite yards near by are not mere private ways; the public has a beneficial use in such tracks.-Barre R. Co. v. Montpelier & W. R. Co., 61 Vt. 1, 17 Atl. 923, 4 L. R. A. 785n.

[13] Receiving and delivering property at private switches. Discriminations in receiving and delivering livestock on switches,— see post, § 32, note [26].

Duty of carriers to furnish cars on sidings,- see post, § 37, note [4]. A common carrier cannot be required to receive freight on or along a private switch, but its duty in that regard is confined to its own depots and shipping or receiving points.- Bedford-Bowling Green S. Co. v. Oman, 134 Fed. 441; affd. 134 Fed. 64.

Persons who have no property rights in a private switch over another's land cannot compel the latter to permit the railroad to receive and ship their freight over the switch to the railroad's own track.— BedfordBowling Green S. Co. v. Oman, 134 Fed. 441; affd. 134 Fed. 64.

The Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., at its Chicago depot, had no facilities for the loading and unloading of cattle, but it maintained a track connecting with the tracks of the Union Stock Yards & Transit Co., and it was customary to deliver cattle consigned to Chicago at the said stock yards. The railroad published and charged in addition to its regular Chicago rate, a terminal charge on shipments delivered at the Union Stock Yards. The complainant, who had for many years engaged in buying, selling and shipping live stock at the Union Stock Yards, insisted that inasmuch as the railroad provided no facilities for the unloading and handling of cattle at its depot, the delivery station at the stock yards must be deemed the railroad's Chicago station, and that goods consigned to Chicago must be delivered there without the additional terminal charge.-Held, that this contention was untenable.- Walker v. Keenan, 73 Fed. 755, revg. s. c. 64 Fed. 992; distinguishing Covington Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 461.

[14] Switching charges.

Facts showing discrimination in switching charges,- see post, § 31, note [66].

An extra charge of $2.00 per car in addition to the published rates cannot be justified by a statute providing that a railroad may charge a shipper the actual cost of maintaining and operating a sidetrack, it appearing that the charge was made without reference to the actual cost of maintenance and operation.- Ohio Coal Co. v. Whitcomb, 123 Fed. 359; certiorari denied, 191 U. S. 567, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 841. It is a serious question whether, when property has been put in a car with the intent of shipping it outside of the state, it has not already commenced its interstate journey, so that regulation of switching charges for it is an interference with interstate commerce.— Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Becker, 35 Fed. 866, 1 L. R. A. 744n.

The switching of cars by carrier is a local service. The charge for it is not a part of the through rate but purely a terminal charge, and may be regulated by a state commission.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849.

§ 28. Tariff schedules; publication; *[powers of commissions as to form of schedules].- Every common carrier shall file with the commission having jurisdiction and shall print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing the rates, fares and charges for the transportation of passengers and property within the state between each point upon its route and all other points thereon; and between each point upon its route and all points upon every route leased, operated or controlled by it; and between each point on its route or upon any route leased, operated or controlled by it and all points upon the route of any other common carrier, whenever a through route and joint rate shall have been established or ordered between any two such points. If no joint rate over a through route has been established, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print and keep open to public inspection, as aforesaid, the separately established rates, fares and charges applied to the through transportation. The schedules printed as aforesaid shall plainly state the places between which property and passengers will be carried, and shall also contain the classification of passengers, freight or property in force, and shall also state separately all terminal charges, storage charges,

Words in brackets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed.

icing charges, and all other charges which the commission may require to be stated, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed, and any rules or regulations which may in any wise change, affect or determine any part, or the aggregate of, such aforesaid rates, fares and charges, or the value of the service rendered to the passenger, shipper or consignee. Such schedules shall be plainly printed in large type; copies thereof for the use of the public shall be kept posted in two public and conspicuous places in every depot, station and office of every common carrier where passengers or property are received for transportation, in such manner as to be readily accessible to and conveniently inspected by the public. The form of every such schedule shall be prescribed by the commission and shall conform as nearly as possible to the form of schedule required by the interstate commerce commission under the act of Congress, entitled: "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, as amended by act approved June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, and other amendments thereto. Where any similar schedule is required by law to be filed with both commissions they shall agree upon an identical form for such schedule. The commission shall have power, from time to time, in its discretion, to determine and prescribe by order such changes in the form of such schedules as may be found expedient.

Court proceedings to compel compliance with published interstate tariffs, see Elkins Act, § 3.

For parallel provisions of Interstate Commerce Act,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 6.

Rates fixed in published schedules shall be charged, see ante, § 26, post, § 33.

Notice required for changes in published schedules,- see post, § 29. Filing of evidence of concurrence of the various carriers in a joint tariff,- see post, § 30.

False classification prohibited,- see post, § 34.

Duty of carrier to afford facilities for interchange of traffic between connecting lines,- see post, § 35.

Power of Commission to regulate terminal, demurrage, icing, and storage charges,- see post, §§ 37, 49.

Power of Commission to establish through routes and joint rates,see post, § 49.

Forfeitures and penalties for failure to file and publish schedules as provided, see post, § 56.