Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

& M. R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 2 Int. Com Rep. 763, 41 Fed. 559 (1890); Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Osborne, 3 C. C. A. 347, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 257, 52 Fed. 915 (1892); Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. v. Northern P. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 718, 9 C. C. A. 409, 15 U. S. App. 479, 61 Fed. 158, affirming 4 Int. Com. Rep. 249, 51 Fed. 465 (1894); Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 26 L. R. A. 192, Int. Com. Rep. 854, 11 C. C. A. 417, 27 U. S. App. 280, 63 Fed. 775, B. & W. 277 (1894); St. Louis Drayage Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 5 Int. Com. Rep. 137, 65 Fed. 39 (1889); Allen v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 98 Fed. 16 (1899); Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 806, 3 I. C. C. 592 (1890); Re Clark, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 797, 3 I. C. C. 649 (1890); Re Joint Water & Rail Lines, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 486, 2 I. C. C. 645 (1889); Capehart v. Louisville & N. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 278, 4 I. C. C. 265 (1890); Commercial Club v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 647 (1896); New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Platt, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 323 (1897); Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transp. v. Louisville & N. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 377 (1899). For this reason one railroad can sell tickets over the road of another company only by agreement. Chicago & A. R. R. v. Pennsylvania Co., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 357, 1 I. C. C. 86 (1887).

Under the amendment of 1906, however, connecting carriers may be compelled to form a through route, and to bill and rate through.

§ 1000. Carrier may select connecting line.

A carrier which makes a through rate may select such connecting line as he pleases for the forwarding of traffic, and is not obliged to ship on by the line selected by the shipper. This was denied by the Commission in Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 9 I, C. C. Rep. 182 (1902), but was finally so held by the Supreme Court. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 536, L. Ed. Sup. Ct. 330 (1906).

, 26

This is, however, changed by the provisions of the Act of 1906, which requires the through route to be named by the carrier and the consent of the connecting lines obtained.

§ 1001. Establishment of through route by agreement,

When, however, a through route has been established by agreement of the carriers, every shipper must be allowwed the benefit of it. Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43 (1897). The carriers establishing it must be prepared to furnish suitable instrumentalities of shipment and carriage. Independent Refiners' Assoc. v. Western N. Y. & P. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 378 (1895). If any mistake is made by the first carrier in forwarding over the route that carrier is responsible. Pond-Decker Lumber Co. v. Spencer, 86 Fed. 846 (1898).

TOPIC C-PROHIBITION OF POOLING.

1002. Pooling.

Any arrangement, oral or otherwise, or combination, which has for its purpose and eventuates in the pooling of freights of different and competing railroads, comes within the inhibition of the act. The statute contemplates two methods of pooling, both of which are prohibited: First, a physical pool, which means a distribution by the carriers of property offered for transportation among different and competing railroads in proportions and on percentages previously agreed upon; and, secondly, a money pool, which is described best in the language of the statute, "to divide between them [different and competing railroads] the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof." The statute provides for the indictment not only of the carrier itself, but also of the officers individually where the carrier is a corporation, so that in such case both are indictable. In re Pooling Freights, 115 Fed. 588 (1902).

Division of territory among existing roads appears to be forbidden by the act. Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 592, 6 I. C. C. 195 (1894). But apparently an agreement between railroads for a division of territory into which each may extend branch lines is not covered by the act. Ives v. Smith, 8 N. Y. Supp. 46 (1889).

Railway companies which enter into an association to control traffic to a common market, and maintain rates higher than are reasonable, unjustly prejudicial, and preferential, if not jointly liable, are at least severally liable under this provision; and the "fines" or "penalties" imposed by the provisions of the agreement of the Southern Railway & Steamship Association on members for violation of association rules appear on the face of that agreement to be available as substitutes for payment which would be exacted under a regular pooling system, and the arrangement under which they are imposed is tantamount to a combination, contract, or agreement 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,” which are forbidden by the statute. Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 592, 6 I. C. C. 195 (1894).

The Interstate Commerce Commission has held that it is at least doubtful whether section five of the act applies to a practice whereby the trans portation of immigrants from Atlantic ports westward is divided between the carriers in agreed proportions based upon the proportion of the domestic passenger traffic done by each line, where such a practice cannot be made effective in respect to any other class of passenger business, and the immigrants are carried at domestic published rates, and the arrangements adopted by the carriers in connection with the immigration authorities of the United States have efficiently promoted the protection and greatly im

proved the treatment and comfort of immigrants. Re Transportation of Immigrants from New York, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 13 (1904).

Certain transcontinental carriers adopted as part of an agreement for a through rate from California to the East, for oranges and other citrus fruits, a rule under which the right of routing beyond its own terminal is reserved to the initial carrier as the condition of guaranteeing the through rates to the shipper. The initial carrier promised fair treatment to the connecting lines, and carried out such promise, but there was no agreement to give any specific amount of tonnage to any particular connecting line. The rule was intended to break up rebating by the connecting lines, and, in its practical operation, the actual routing was generally conceded to the shipper, and his requests to divert shipments en route were usually allowed. It was held that this was not a pooling of freights such as is forbidden by the act. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 536, 26 Sup. Ct. 330 (1906).

CHAPTER XXXII.

SCHEDULES OF RATES.

§ 1011. Provisions of the statute.

1012. Amendments of 1906.

TOPIC A

PUBLICATION OF SCHEDULE.

§ 1013. What rates must be published.

1014. Terminal and refrigerating charges.

1015. Rules and regulations.

1016. Printing and keeping open to public inspection. 1017. Posting in station.

TOPIC B-VARIATION FROM SCHEDULE.

§ 1018. Any variation forbidden.

1019. Devices to avoid the section.

1020. Rate wars.

TOPIC C-FILING OF SCHEDULES AND AGREEMENTS.

§ 1021. Purpose of the filing.

1022. Presumption of legality.

TOPIC DJOINT TARIFFS AND SCHEDULES.

§ 1023. Meaning of joint tariff.

1024. Making and filing.

1025. Whether routes must be published.

1026. Export rates.

TOPIC E-FORM OF SCHEDULES.

§ 1027. Clearness of statement.

1028. Necessary fullness of statement.

TOPIC FENFORCEMENT OF THE SECTION.

§ 1029. Invalidity of the varied rate.

§ 1011. Provisions of the statute.

Filing and posting schedules of rates, individual and joint.Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act shall file with the Commission created by this Act and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares and charges for transportation between different points on its own route and between points on its own route and points on the route of any other carrier by railroad, by pipe line or by water when a through route and joint rate have been established. If no joint rate over the 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 by any such common carrier shall plainly state the places between which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the classification of freight in force, and shall also state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, and all other charges which the Commission may require, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules or regulations which 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, and copies for the use of the public shall be kept posted in two public and conspicuous places in every depot, station, or office of such carrier where passengers or freight, respectively, are received for transportation, in such form that they shall be accessible to the public and can be conveniently inspected. The provisions of this section shall apply to all traffic, transportation, and facilities defined in this Act.

Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act receiving freight in the United States to be carried through a foreign country to any place in the United States shall also

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »