CHAPTER XXXI, INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC AND POOLING AGREEMENTS. § 991. Provisions of the statute. 992. Amendments of 1906. TOPIC A REASONABLE FACILITIES FOR INTERCHANGE. § 993. Extent of application of the provision. 994. Carriage through in same car. 995. Continuous carriage. 996. Discrimination between connecting lines. 997. Discrimination in furnishing optional facilities. 998. Use of tracks or terminal facilities. TOPIC B-THROUGH ROUTING AND RATING. § 999. Carriers not compelled to route, bill or rate through. 1000. Carrier may select connecting line. 1001. Establishment of through route by agreement. 1002. Pooling. TOPIC C-PROHIBITION OF POOLING. § 991. Provisions of the statute. Facilities for interchange of traffic: discrimination between connecting lines: use of tracks and terminal facilities.—Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several lines and those connecting therewith, and shall not discriminate in their rates and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in like business. [Interstate Commerce Act, section 3.] Duty to establish through routes and rates.-It shall be the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of this Act-to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates applicable thereto. [Act of June 29, 1906, section 1.] Routes specified in schedule: consent of connecting carriers. -The names of the several carriers which are parties to any joint tariff shall be specified therein, and each of the parties thereto, other than the one filing the same, shall file with the Commission such evidence of concurrence therein or acceptance thereof as may be required or approved by the Commission, and where such evidence of concurrence or acceptance is filed it shall not be necessary for the carriers filing the same to also file copies of the tariffs in which they are named as parties. [Act of June 29, 1906, section 2.] Joint routes and rates ordered by Commission.-The Commission may also, after hearing on a complaint, establish through routes and joint rates as the maximum to be charged and prescribe the division of such rates as hereinbefore provided, and the terms and conditions under which such through routes shall be operated, when that may be necessary to give effect to any provision of this Act, and the carriers complained. of have refused or neglected to voluntarily establish such through routes and joint rates, provided no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists, and this provision shall apply when one of the connecting carriers is a water line. [Interstate Commerce Act, section 15, as amended by Act of June 29, 1906, section 4.] Through billing, liability for loss on connecting line.-Any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one State to a point. in another State shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed: Provided, that nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law. The common carrier, railroad, or transportation company issuing such receipt or bill of lading shall be entitled to recover from the common carrier, railroad, or transportation company on whose line the loss, damage, or injury shall have been sustained the amount of such loss, damage, or injury as it may be required to pay to the owners of such property, as may be evidenced by any receipt, judgment, or transcript thereof. [Interstate Commerce Act, section 20, as amended by the Act of June 29, 1906, section 7.] Through carriage.-Sec. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, expressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination; and no break of bulk, stoppage, or interruption made by such common carrier shall prevent the carriage of freights from being and being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination, unless such break, stoppage or interruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and without any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous carriage or to evade any of the provisions of this Act. Pooling. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to enter into a contract, agree ment, 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 offence. [Interstate Commerce Act, section 5.] 992. Amendments of 1906. The provisions for compulsory through routing, rating and billing are The anti-pooling section of the original act is unchanged by the new new. act. TOPIC AREASONABLE FACILITIES FOR INTERCHANGE. [These matters are discussed in Chapter XXV.] 8993. Extent of application of the provision. What are reasonable facilities for an interchange of business between connecting railroad companies, within the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act, depends upon the state of the traffic and the business; and the question is to be determined by what is considered reasonable by the public, and what is required to conveniently transact the business. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. v. Northern P. R. R., 51 Fed. 465, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 205 (1892). Facilities may be denied in any manner, as by an unreasonable arrangement of time schedules. New York & N. Ry. v. New York & N. E. R. R., 50 Fed. 867, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 116 (1892). The provisions of the section apply not merely to the carriers themselves, but with equal force to their officers and employees. Therefore the act is violated by employees who by concerted action strike in order to avoid receiving cars from a connecting carrier. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 746, 5 Int. Com. Rep. 545 (1891), appeal dismissed, Ex parte Lemon, 150 U. S. 393, 37 L. Ed. 1120, 14 Sup. Ct. 123 (1893). The intervention between two railroads of a terminal system owned by an independent company will not prevent the roads from being connecting lines, within the meaning of the section. Oregon Short Line v. Northern Pac. R. R., 51 Fed. 465, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 205 (1892). 994. Carriage through in same car. Whether a railroad is compelled by its duty to afford reasonable facilities for interchange of traffic to receive a carload of freight from a connecting road and carry it through without breaking bulk is not altogether clear on the authorities. In Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry., 34 Fed. 481 (1888), it was held that a boycotted road could compel a connecting road to do so, in spite of a threatened strike of its employees. In Oregon Short Line v. Northern Pacific R. R., 51 Fed. 465, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 205, and on appeal 61 Fed. 158, 9 C. C. A. 409, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 718 (1894), on the other hand it was held that this could not be done. Judge Thayer in Little Rock & M. R. R. v. St. Louis S. W. Ry., 63 Fed. 775, 11 C. C. A. 417, B. & W. 277 (1894), the qualification stated by Mr. Justice Field in the Oregon Short Line case was emphasized. "The third section of the Interstate Commerce Act does not require an interstate carrier to receive freight in the cars in which it is tendered by a connecting carrier, and to transport it in such cars, paying a mileage rate thereon, when it has cars of its own that are available for the service, and the freight will not be injured by transfer." This moderate statement represents the condition of the authorities. The question is settled by the amendment of 1906 by which through routing is required. 995. Continuous carriage. Contracts by a railroad company with other companies for the establishment of through routes and through rates for the continuous carriage of interstate traffic do not violate section 7 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, prohibiting a combination to prevent the carriage of freight from being continuous. Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R., 37 Fed. 571, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 351, 2 L. R. A. 289 (1888). Nor is it prevented by a refusal of the connecting carrier to take the goods at the valuation agreed on by the first carrier. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 48 L. Ed. 268, 24 Sup. Ct. 132 (1903). § 996. Discrimination between connecting lines. Though not expressly contained in this clause of the act it is nevertheless to be understood that discrimination is not forbidden unless it is undue or unreasonable. Thus in making contracts for through transportation of passengers, the initial carrier may lawfully prefer a road going through to the point of destination to one going only part of the way, an arrangement with which would necessitate further arrangements to reach the desired point. Little Rock & M. R. R. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. R., 47 Fed. 771, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 261 (1891). A combination of independent carriers by which one is to prefer the other to another connecting line outside of the combination does not justify discrimination between the connecting lines. New York & N. Ry. v. New York & N. E. R. R., 50 Fed. 867, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 116 (1892); Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 592, 6 I. C. C. 195 (1894). But a railroad may prefer itself to a rival, even a connecting rival. So a railroad company op |