out of any funds not otherwise appropriated. Any carrier complying with any such order or direction for preference or priority herein authorized shall be exempt from any and all provisions in existing law imposing civil or criminal pains, penalties, obligations, or liabilities upon carriers by reason of giving preference or priority in compliance with such order or direction.

Paragraph (24) of Section 1 of Interstate Commerce Act as numbered by Section 403 of Transportation Act, 1920, being taken from Act of August 10, 1917.

§ 427. Definition and Prohibition of Unjust Discrimination. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property or the transmission of intelligence, subject to the provisions of this Act, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation or transmission of a like kind of traffic or message under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful.

Section 2 of Interstate Commerce Act.

The Transportation Act, 1920, changed the original Act by inserting where they appear above the words "or the transmission of intelligence" and the words "or transmission" and "or messages" otherwise the section is as enacted in 1887.

Modeled on § 90 English Act, 1845.-The Laws of Railway, by Browne & Theobald, 312, 313; Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 4, p. 74; Railroad Commissioners of Georgia v. Clyde Steamship Co., 5 I. C. C. 324, 4 I. C. R. 121, 140. The English Act is as follows:

"And whereas it is expedient that the company should be enabled to vary the tolls upon the railway so as to ac

commodate them to the circumstances of the traffic but that such power of varying should not be used for the purpose of prejudicing or favoring particular parties or for the purpose of collusively or unfairly creating a monopoly either in the hands of the company or of particular parties; it shall be unlawful, therefore, for the company, subject to the provisions and limitations herein and in the special Act contained from time to time to alter or vary the tolls by the special Act authorized to be taken, either upon the whole or upon any particular portions of the railway, as they shall think fit; provided, that all such tolls be at all times charged equally to all persons, and after the same rate, whether per ton per mile, or otherwise, in respect of all passengers, and of all goods or carriages of the same description, and conveyed or propelled by a like carriage or engine, passing only over the same portion of the line of railway under the same circumstances; and no reduction or advance in any such tolls shall be made either directly or indirectly in favor of or against any particular company or person traveling upon or using the railway.'

Not violated by failure to allow same mileage to private car companies as to connecting carriers.-Burton Stock Car Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 132, 1 I. C. R. 329. Discrimination to allow large shippers a discount.-Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & W. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 107, 1 I. C. R. 316, 363. Mileage rates must be open to all.-Larrison v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 147, 1 I. C. C. 369. Uniform and general regulations not illegal though more favorable to than to other localities.-Crews v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 401, 1 I. C. R. 703, 712. Excursion rates legal.-Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 156, 1 I. C. R. 321, 393. Low rates settlers' ticket must be open to all classes.-Smith v. N. P. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 208, 1 I. C. R. 611; Elvey v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 652, 2 I. C. R. 804. Rates not unreasonably high may be illegal because discriminatory.-Raymond v. Chi., M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 230, 1 I. C. R. 474, 627. "Substantially similar circumstances and conditions" defined.-Business Men's Asso. v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 52, 2 I. C. R. 41. Shipment of oil in barrels and in tanks

should be at same rate.-Rice v. L. & N. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 503, 1 I. C. R. 354, 376, 443, 722; Schofield v. Lake, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. R. 593, 2 I. C. R. 90, 2 I. C. R. 67; Rice v. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 131, 2 I C. R. 298, 499; 3 id. 162; Price v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841; Independent Refiners Asso. v. Penn. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 52, 4 I. C. R. 162, 369, 5 I. C. C. 415, 2 I. C. R. 294, 296, 4 I. C. R. 162. May classify immigrants for special rates.Savery v. New York Cent. etc., R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 338, 1 I. C. R. 695, 2 I. C. R. 210. Free transportation to obtain the influence of the holder in getting business illegal. Slater v. N. Pac. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 359, 2 I. C. R. 32, 243. Mines in the same general territory may be grouped and take the same rate.-Rend v. Chi. & N. W. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 793, 812, 2 I. C. R. 540, 2 I. C. R. 313; Coxe v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 535, 2 I. C. R. 195, 3 id. 460. Rates must be relatively fair in substance and in fact.-Detroit Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 315; 1 I. C. R. 699, 701, 2 I. C. R. 199. A carrier's percentage of a through rate may be less than the local charge for the same haul.Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 533, 1 I. C. R. 774, 792, 2 I. C. R. 393; Lippman v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 584, 2 I. C. R. 414; New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 534, 2 I. C. R. 460, 777; New York, New Haven, etc., R. Co. v. Platt, 7 I. C. C. 323. Mileage, excursion and commutation tickets must be offered impartially to all.-Re Passenger Tariffs, 2 I. C. C. 649, 2 I. C. R. 445. Export rates ten cents per hundred less than the local rates held illegal.-New York Produce Exchange v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 137, 2 I. C. R. 13, 28, 553. See Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 5 I. C. R. 405, 40 L. Ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. 666. Through rates are not required to be made on a mileage basis.-McMorran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 252, 2 I. C. R. 14, 19, 604. A through rate may be less than the sum of the locals. -Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co. v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 450, 2 I. C. R. 581, 721. See also § 407, supra. Party rates less than individual rates illegal.-Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 465, 2 I. C. R. 579, 720. Commission not sustained by courts.-Int. Com. Com. v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37, 3 I. C. R. 192, 145 U.

S. 263, 36 L. Ed. 699, 4 I. C. R. 92, 12 Sup Ct. 844. Carriers may make exclusive contracts for sleeping cars.-Worcester Excursion Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 577, 1 I. C. R. 811, 2 id. 12, 792. Mere quantity of shipments not alone sufficient to affect classification.-4 I. C. C. 212, 2 I. C. R. 625, 3 id. 257. Imported goods are not entitled to any preference rate from the port of entry to destination over domestic goods.New York Board of Trade, etc. v. Penn. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 477, 2 I. C. R. 660, 734, 755, 800, 3 id. 417. See Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 40 L. Ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. 66, 5 I. C. R. 405. Classification may not be used to effect discrimination.-Coxe v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 535, 2 I. C. R. 195, 229, 3 id. 460. Discrimination to transport, free, officials and persons of eminence.-Re Carriage of Persons Free, 3 I. C. R. 612, 686, 717; Harvey v. L. & N. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 153, 2 I. C. R. 662, 3 id. 793. Hypothetical weights must not be used to discriminate.-Rice v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841. Section compared with English Act.-Railroad Com. of Ga., Trammell et al. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 5 I. C. C. 324, 4 I. C. R. 120, 140. Order not enforced.-Int. Com. Com. v. Western & A. R. Co., 88 Fed. 186, 93 Fed. 83, 35 C. C. A. 226, 181 U. S. 29, 45 L. Ed. 729, 21 Sup. Ct. 512. Lower rates on coal to special manufacturers illegal; rates should not vary at different seasons of the year.-Re Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Coal by L. & N. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 446, 4 I. C. R. 157. Illegal to discriminate in the privileges relating to delivery of freight.-Phelps v. Texas & Pac. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 36, 4 I. C. R. 44, 104, 363. Not illegal to make a different rate on freight moving in opposite directions over the same line; business motive of shipper cannot be considered.— Duncan v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co. et al., Duncan v. So. Pac. Co. et al., 6 I. C. C. 85, 3 I. C. R. 256, 4 I. C. R. 385; MacLoon v. Boston & M. R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 642. May make excursion rates different at different times.-Cator v. So. Pac. Co., 6 I. C. C. 113, 4 I. C. R. 397. A carrier cannot legally use a development company in which it holds all the stock to purchase and ship commodities, charging nothing therefor.-Re Alleged Unlawful Rates and Practices in Transportation of Grain, 7 I. C. C. 33. Common ownership of a carrier company and a land company will not prevent the land company from buying

tickets from the carrier at full prices and selling them to guests of its hotel at half price.-Wilson v. Rock Creek, etc., R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 83. Different rate by cwt. on train loads and carloads discriminatory.-Paine v. Lehigh Valley, etc., R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 218. Reshipping at remainder of a through rate illegal. Re Alleged Unlawful Rates and Practices in the Transportation of Grain and Grain Products, 7 I. C. C. 240; Re Rates and Practices of the M. & O. R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 373; Cannon Falls, etc., Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 650. See question suggested but not decided.Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago & R. I. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 647; Duncan et al. v. N. C. & St. L. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 590. Cannot divide rates with wagon carriers.-Cary v. Eureka Springs R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 286. Terminal charges need not be exacted on all products alike nor at all markets.— Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 513, 5-a. Commission's order not enforced.-98 Fed. 173, 103 id. 249, 43 C. C. A. 209, 186 U. S. 320, 46 L. Ed. 1182, 22 Sup. Ct. 824. Storage charges as well as other rules and regulations must not be discriminatory.-American Warehousemen's Asso. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 556. Goods exported may move to ports at a less rate than those consumed at the port.-Kemble v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 8 I. C. C. 110. A difference in the rates on private cars may exist when the use thereof is different.-Carr v. N. Pac. R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 1. The rule that as distance increases the rate per ton-mile shall decrease is not required by the statute and is subject to exceptions and qualifications.-Hilton Lumber Co. v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 17. To entitle a shipper to a carload rating, the shipment should be from one consignor to one consignee under one bill of lading, but where the consignee is the owner, it is immaterial whether his title was obtained from one or more persons. Whether a carrier can deny carload rate to forwarding agent not decided.Buckeye Buggy Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 620; Bell Co. v. Baltimore, etc., R., 9 I. C. C. 632. "Tap line" divisions or a division of a through rate to a short line, such line being a common carrier, is legal.-Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg S. & P. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 193. See, also, Re Transportation of Salt, 10 I. C. C. 148. Ownership of the terminal or "tap line" immaterial, but the division