CONTINUOUS BRAKES FOR FREIGHT TRAINS. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 409. CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OF FREIGHTS. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R'y Co. v. Chicago and Alton R. R. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., 592. CAN NOT BE AVOIDED BY EVASION OF THE LAW.—The carriage of freights can not be prevented from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination by any means or devices intended to evade any of the provisions of the Act. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada, 89. CONTRACTS. TRACKAGE RIGHTS.-In the absence of statutory provision the rights of a railroad company under a lawful agreement for a specified use of the tracks of another railroad company are measured in respect to the track use by the terms of the contract, and the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce applied to the situation created by the contract and had no authority for a different use of the tracks. Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R'y Co., 519. CARS.-A railroad company may acquire cars by construction, by purchase, or by contract for their use, and no one has the power to compel a railroad company to select among these several modes or to contract with all comers. Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 577. See AGREEMENTS; FACILITIES OF TRAFFIC; PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE; THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS. Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 435. See UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. COST OF CARRIAGE. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada et al., 252. Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 473. Leggett v. Same, 473. Greene v. Same, 473. COTTON. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 534. AUTOMATIC FREIGHT CAR. COUPLERS. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 404. DAMAGES. See OVERCHARGE; REPARATION. DEPOSITIONS. AMENDMENT OF AOT CONCERNING, RECOMMENDED. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 432. DISCRETION. TO RE-OPEN CASE AFTER DECISION. In re Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl. vania R. R. Co., 87. See PRACTICE. DISTANCE. See REASONABLE RATES. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Rice v. Cincinnati, Washington and Baltimore R'y Co. et al., 186. ELEVATOR CHARGES. COMPLAINT OF.-A complaint against carriers subject to the Act of deductions made from the weight of wheat delivered at elevators failed to charge that the wheat was delivered for interstate transportation, or indeed for transportation anywhere. Held, that the complaint was insufficient in substance to show a violation of the Act and must be dismissed, but without prejudice. White v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al., 281. EMIGRANTS. SPECIAL TARIFF ON Movables of. Elvey v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 652. EMPLOYEES. See RAILWAY EMPLOYEES. EMPTY CARS. See CARS; RETURN LOADS. EVIDENCE. ADDITIONAL.-After decision a petition to open the case for further testimony and re-hearing should indicate the nature of the new testimony and its purpose. In re Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 87. WHAT IS SUFFICIENT.-In proceedings like these it is enough to show the rates actually charged. If there are or have been any such to certain shippers or consignees different from the published tariff rates, or the preferential facilities, if any such, furnished by the defendants to some shippers or consignees and not to others, or the comparative rates on the different commodities named in the complaints, and from and to designated points. Innumerable shipments, with all their minuteness of detail over the various lines that were made for many years before the Act to regulate commerce took effect, as well as since that date, and the names of the consignors and consignees at so many different points, through these long periods of time, seems to be immaterial. It appears to be sufficient for all the purposes of these cases to show the rates published, the rates actually charged, and the facilities furnished from and to designated points since the Act to regulate commerce went into effect, and for whatever light these may throw upon the question of the reasonableness and justness of the rates, if any, and the fairness of the facilities afforded by way of comparison, what these were for a reasonable time; for example, for a period of twelve months before the Act to regulate commerce wert into effect. Rice v. Cincinnati, Washington and Baltimore R. R. Co. et al., 136. IN PENAL AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.-Difficulties in the way of obtaining evidence of violations of the statute discussed. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 431. The settled principle that protects a man from giving compulsory evidence criminating himself is a shield under which offenses may frequently hide. The provision in the Act that the claim that testimony may tend to criminate the witness shall not excuse him from testifying, but that his evidence shall not be used against him on the trial of any criminal proceeding does not entirely meet this difficulty.-Ib. BY DEPOSITION.-Amendment of the Act in regard to the attendance of witnesses and the taking of testimony by deposition, recommended.—Ib.432. See Books, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS; CARRIERS; PRACTICE; SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM. EXPORT RATES. New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson River Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 372. See RATES; TARIFFS; TRAFFIC; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. EXPORT TRAFFIC. New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson River Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 372. See TARIFFS; TRAFFIC; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. FACILITIES OF TRAFFIC. THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES.-English legislation and the procedure thereunder, in respect to applications by carriers to be admitted to through routes and to participate in through rates stated and principles then applied explained. Little Rock and Memphis R. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, Virginia and The Act to regulate commerce was probably intended to effect similar results, but in its present form and in the absence of the necessary machinery, it is not adequate to afford the relief prayed in the petition.—Ib. Recommendations of Second Annual Report for amendment of section 3 renewed.-Ib. Kentucky and Indiana Bridge Co. v. Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. (2 I. C. C. Rep. 162) referred to and explained.—Ib. The national regulations prescribed are not in all respects co-extensive with the power of Congress, and do not provide for ordering through routes and through rates. While it is the duty of a State carrier which engages in interstate commerce to forward traffic offered from a connecting line, there is no authority under the present Act to compel the carrier to forward the traffic over a route not operated or selected by itself. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., 592. INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 395. CONTRACT FOR USE OF TRACKS.-In the absence of statutory provision the Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R'y Co., 519. TO AND FROM LOCAL STATIONS.-The duty of a railroad company operating FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Leonard v. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co., 241. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 400. FEDERAL REGULATION OF SAFETY APPLIANCES. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 400, 417. FERRY EXPENSES. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada et al., 252. FIRST SECTION.. AMENDMENT OF, RECOMMENDED. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 432. See CARRIERS; FACILITIES OF TRAFFIC; REASONABLE RATES; RELATIVE FLOUR. New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson River FOURTH SECTION. See LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE. FRAUD. IN THE SALE OF PASSENGER TICKETS. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 305. INVESTIGATION CONCERNING. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 309. WHEN UNLAWFUL. Stone & Carten v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee R'y Co., 613. FREE PASSES AND FREE TRANSPORTATION. INVESTIGATION CONCERNING. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 297. ABUSES OF. The law aims at the correction of the abuses of free transportation, and in accomplishing this general purpose some forms of free or reduced transportation that at first view might appear plausible or even unobjectionable in themselves have to fall under its general restrictions. -Ib. 300. TO FAMILIES Of SubordinatE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.-Ib. 301. GROSS ABUSES ATTENDING.-Ib. 387. WHEN LIMITED TO STATE LINES.-16. 387. FRUITS. Bishop v. Duval, receiver, etc., 128. Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc., 128. GOVERNMENT-AIDED RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINES. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 330. GRAIN. New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson River McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada et al., 252. GRAIN PRODUCTS. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada et al., 252. GROUP RATES. Stone & Carten v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee R'y Co., 613. ON COAL.-Principles relating to as stated in Rend v. Chicago and Northwestern R'y Co., 2 I. C. C. Rep. 540, and Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R. R. Co., Ib. 618, referred to. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 312. WHERE HEld. HEARINGS. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 292. INSURANCE FUNDS. FOR RAILWAY EMPLOYEES. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 424. INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 395. |