must be reasonable.-Re Divisions of Joint Rates and Other Allowances to Terminal Roads, 10 I. C. C. 385. Where "tap line" not a common carrier, allowance illegal.-Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 505, 506. May make the charge on a minimum of 100 pounds at the rate taken by the particular commodity.-Wrigley v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 412. "Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions" defined and held that joint through rates less than the sum of the locals must be open to all.-Capital City Gas Co. v. Central Vermont, etc., R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 104. Circumstances and conditions substantially dissimilar.-City Gas. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 371, 379. Cotton packed by the round bale process not entitled to a different rate than that packed in square bales.Planters Compress Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 382. A reconsignment rate may be higher than the carrier's proportion of the through rate.-St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 486, 496; Same v. M. & O. R. Co., id. 101. There should be uniformity in the relation of rates on commodities differently packed.-Cannon v. M. & O. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 537. Carrier cannot charge more for transferring freight brought from another line than for that originating on its own line.-Blackwell Milling & Elevator Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 23; Ponca City Milling Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I C. C. 26. Party-rate tickets must be open to all.-Re Party Rate Ticket, 12 I. C. C. 95. A carload of freight though owned by different persons and known as "bulked shipments," when under one bill of lading entitled to the regular carload rate.-California Commercial Asso. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 14 I. C. C. 422; Export Shipping Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 437. Order not enforced.Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 166 Fed. 499. Section 2 in effect prohibits free passes except for the classes mentioned in Section 22.-Ex parte Koehler, 31 Fed. 315, 12 Sawy. 466; Re Charge to Grand Jury, 66 Fed. 146. Unless pass is used no crime is committed.-United States v. Mathews, 68 Fed. 880. Contract for rates based upon the amount of shipments void.-Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 31 Fed. 652. (Reversed, but this question not discussed.-Tozer v. United States, 52 Fed. 917); John Hays & Co. v. Penn. Co., 12 Fed. 309. Followed, citing

English cases.-Int. Com. Com. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. 187, 190; Kinsley v. Buffalo, N. Y. & P. R. Co., 37 Fed. 181; United States v. Tozer, 39 Fed. 369, 904. Only unjust, undue or unreasonable discrimination forbidden.-Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 624. See 2 I. C. C. 162, 2 I. C. R. 102. Not unlawful for carrier to compress cotton en route when privilege open to all.-Cowan v. Bond, 39 Fed. 54. Not discriminative to decline to use a particular live-stock car.-United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 40 Fed. 101. Party-rate tickets at less rate than for a single ticket legal.-Int. Com. Com. v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37, 46; affirmed, 145 U. S. 263, 36 L. Ed. 699, 12 Sup. Ct. 844. May make a difference in rates for limited and unlimited tickets.-United States v. Eagan, 47 Fed. 112. Illegal to charge less on freight from Liverpool than from New York, New Orleans, etc., to San Francisco.-Int. Com. Com. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. 187; affirmed, 57 Fed. 948, 6 C. C. A. 653, 20 U. S. App. 1, 4 I. C. R. 408; reversed, Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 40 L. Ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. 666. That cotton reached Mobile by boat is no reason for charging more on a shipment to New Orleans than was charged on cotton brought to Mobile by other carriers.-Bigbee & Warrior Rivers Packet Co. v. Mobile & Ohio R. Co., 60 Fed. 545. Rebate to one not a crime unless refused to others.-United States v. Hanley, 71 Fed. 672. No rigid theoretical rules can be adopted to determine the question of discrimination.-Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409. Cannot charge full local rate on freight delivered to one carrier, when the proportion of the through rate is charged to another.-Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522. Purpose of section discussed.— Int. Com. Com. v. Alabama M. Ry. Co., 74 Fed. 715, 21 C. C. A. 51, 41 U. S. App. 453, 5 I. C. R. 685, affirming 69 Fed. 227; affirmed, 168 U. S. 144, 42 L. Ed. 414, 18 Sup. Ct. 45. Cartage is separated from the general charges referred to in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Act.-Detroit, etc., Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 74 Fed. 803, 815, 21 C. C. A. 103, 43 U. S. App. 308, reversing 57 Fed. 1005, 4 I. C. R. 722; affirmed, 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. 986. What should be stated in a petition to recover damages for discrimination.— Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Asso. of St. Louis, 81 Fed. 802.

Section deals with preferences between shippers and not between localities.-Int. Com. Com. v. Western & A. R. Co., 88 Fed. 186; affirmed, 93 Fed. 83, 35 C. C. A. 217, 181 U. S. 29, 45 L. Ed. 729, 21 Sup. Ct. 512, refusing to enforce order in Railroad Com. of Ga. v. Clyde Line S. S. Co., 5 I. C. C. 324, 4 I. C. R. 120. Mere offer of discrimination not an offense. -Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Rainey, 112 Fed. 487, refusing motion for new trial. See 99 Fed. 596. Carriers not required to give same rate to forwarding agents as to owners of carload freight.-Lundquist v. Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co., 121 Fed. 915; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 166 Fed. 499; contra under English and Canadian Act.-Packed Parcels Case, Great W. R. W. Co. v. Sutton L. R., 4 H. L. 226, MacMurchy & Denison's Canadian Ry. Law 496. Cannot discriminate in favor of government in rates to its soldiers.— United States v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 127 Fed. 785, 62 C. C. A. 465. A carrier may in good faith buy a commodity and transport it at less than the regular rate.-Int. Com. Com. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 59; affirmed same case, but this proposition disapproved, 200 U. S. 361, 50 L. Ed. 515, 26 Sup. Ct. 272. Classification must be without discrimination.—Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co., 146 Fed. 559; affirmed, Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 142, 51 L. Ed. 995, 27 Sup. Ct. 648. Reconsignment rate is violation of section.-St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 149 Fed. 609; affirmed, So. Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co., 153 Fed. 728,-C. C. A.-; reversed, 214 U. S. 297, 53 L. Ed. 1004, 29 Sup. Ct. 678. "Discrimination" defined.-United States v. Wells Fargo Ex. Co., 161 Fed. 606. Discrimination illegal at common law.Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. Ed. 291, 4 Sup. Ct. 185. Service for local haul not the same as for through haul covering the local as well as additional haul.-Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 117 U. S. 355, 29 L. Ed. 920, 6 Sup. Ct. 772. The discrimination must be unjust, undue or unreasonable, though a rate reasonable under Section 1 may violate Sections 2 and 3.-Int. Com. Com. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 36 L. Ed. 699, 12 Sup. Ct. 844, affirming 43 Fed. 37. Carriers not released from liability to innocent parties to a bill of lading because a rebate is allowed.-Merchants Cotton

Compress and Storage Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 151 U. S. 368, 38 L. Ed. 195, 206, 14 Sup. Ct. 367. Ocean competition may make a different circumstance; section discussed; statement made that it was modeled on section 90, English Act of 1845, and English cases cited.-Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 213, 219, 222, 224, 225, 40 L. Ed. 940, 945, 947, 948, 949, 16 Sup. Ct. 666; reversing 57 Fed. 948, 6 C. C. A. 653, 20 U. S. App. 1, 4 I. C. R. 408. Prior to the Act to Regulate Commerce recovery could not be had for discrimination unless the charge was unreasonable.Parsons v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 167 U. S. 447, 42 L. Ed. 231, 17 Sup. Ct. 887. Allowance of cartage to one and not to all violates section.-Wight v. United States, 167 U. S. 512, 42 L. Ed. 258, 17 Sup. Ct. 822. "Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions" refers to matter of carriage and does not include competition.-id. While this is true of Section 2, it is not true of Section 4.-Int. Com. Com. v. Alabama M. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 42 L. Ed. 414, 18 Sup. Ct. 45; East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 181 U. S. 1, 45 L. Ed. 719, 21 Sup. Ct. 516; Int. Com. Com. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 181 U. S. 29, 45 L. Ed. 729, 21 Sup. Ct. 512. See as to effect of free cartage on Section 4.-Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 11 Sup. Ct. 986. Carriers cannot escape from provisions of section by electing to be a dealer in commodities shipped.— New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 361, 391, 392, 50 L. Ed. 515, 521, 26 Sup. Ct. 272. Commission has power to order carriers to cease from violating Act by discriminating between persons or localities.-Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 142, 51 L. Ed. 995, 27 Sup. Ct. 648.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

May not discriminate in favor of school children.-Commutation Tickets to School Children, 17 I. C. C. 144; but see Int. Ry. Co. v. Mass., 207 U. S. 79, 52 L. Ed. 111, 28 Sup. Ct. 26. No different rate on returned shipment except where shipment refused by consignee.-Reduced Rates on Returned Shipments, 19 I. C. C. 409, 416. Not violated by contract with only one auction company.-Southwestern Produce Distributor v. W. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 458. Ownership not a reason for dif

ferent application of rates.-California Commercial Ass'n v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 21 I. C. C. 300, citing cases. Section directed against "preferential charges."-Commutation Rate case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 431. Cited in discussing demurrage charges. Demurrage Charges in State of California, 25 I. C. C. 314, 323. Section applies to shipment "over the same line, the same distance, under the same circumstances of carriage."-Import Rates on Manganese Ore, 25 I. C. C. 633, 688, citing Int. Com. Com. v. B. & O. R. Co., 225 U. S. 326, 56 L. Ed. 1107, 32 Sup. Ct. 742; Wight v. U. S., 167 U. S. 512, 518, 42 L. Ed. 258, 17 Sup. Ct. 822. Discrimination not made by the defendant carrier, but by other carrier.-Coke Producers Ass'n v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 125, 144, citing Ashland Fire Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 115, 120; Indiana Steel & Wire Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 155, Railroad Com. of Tenn. v. A. A. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 418. Section discussed and "like" construed.-Board of Trade of Chicago v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 530, 534. Difference in switching charges, traffic moving from point of origin violates section.-Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 552. Section does not limit Elkins Act.-Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. U. S., 210 Fed. 735, 127 C. C. A. 285, affirming U. S. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 194 Fed. 234, and same question Sunday Creek Co. v. United States, 210 Fed. 747, 127 C. C. A. 285. Violation to pay bonus for erecting plant at particular place.-U. S. v. Union Stock & Transit Co., 226 U. S. 286, 57 L. Ed. 226, 33 Sup. Ct. 83, modifying same-styled case, 192 Fed. 330, Opin. Com. Ct. No. 15, p. 189. Allowance "for transfer" does not violate.American Sugar Refining Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 207 Fed. 733, 125 C. C. A. 251, reversing same-styled case, 200 Fed. 652. Rebate from published tariff for haul from mine violates.-Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 57 L. Ed. 1472, 33 Sup. Ct. 916, modifying judgment in same-styled case, 183 Fed. 908. Forwarding agent a person within meaning of section.-Int. Com. Com. v. D. L. & W. Ry. Co., 220 U. S. 235, 55 L. Ed. 448, 31 Sup. Ct. 392. Section referred to in its application to the long and short haul clause.-U. S. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Inter-mountain case, 234 U. S. 476, 58 L. Ed. 1408, 34 Sup. Ct. 986, reversing the Com. Ct. in A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 191 Fed. 856,