Opin. Com. Court Nos. 50, 51, p. 229, and sustaining the Commission in Railroad Com. of Nevada v. So. Pac. Co., 21 I. C. C. 329, Spokane v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 400. Sections 2 and 3 contrasted.-Curry & Whyte v. D. & I. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C. 162, 168. Section not violated by exacting same rate on cotton packed to a different density.-American Round Bale Press Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 32 I. C. C. 458, 462.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Requirements as to shipping containers not shown here to be unlawful.-Reynolds Tob. Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 371. Different rates in tanks and barrels not unlawful.— Hubinger Bros. Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 672, but see Rice v. L. & N. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 503, 1 I C. R. 354, 376, 443, 722. Benefits incidental to a shipper's location adjacent to a station are not unlawful.-St. Louis, Mo. Terminal Regulations, 40 I. C. C. 425. Rule penalizing users of commutation tickets who violated the terms thereof unlawful.New York Commutation Fares, 42 I. C. C. 354. Difference in conditions in Norfolk and Richmond justify different switching practices.-Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. S. A. L. R. Co., 44 I. C. C. 455; Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. United States, 249 Fed. 368. Free lease of factory site unlawful.— Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Blount, 238 Fed. 292. That the carriers may violate the anti-trust laws is immaterial when considering a violation of this section.-Manufacturers R. Co. v. United States, 246 U. S. 457, 62 L. Ed. 831, 38 Sup. Ct. 383.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Agreement to give refrigerator service not contained in classification rules void.-Northwestern Fruit Exchange v. Erie R. R. Co., 248 Ill. App. 193. Allowance by carrier to one warehouse exclusively for handling shipments is rebate. -Terminal Warehouse Co. of Baltimore v. U. S., 31 Fed. (2d) 951. Contracts in violation of Interstate Commerce Act void.-Penn. R. R. Co. v. Cameron, 280 Pa. 458, 124 Atl. 638. Fact that no penalty attached under original Act against shipper for accepting rebates does not affect application of law to contracts made under subsequent amendments.—

Adams Express Co. v. Darden (C. C. A., Tenn.), 281 Fed. 61; affirmed and certiorari denied, 265 U. S. 265, 68 L. Ed. 1010, 44 Sup. Ct. 502. Unjust discrimination prohibited by Sec. 2 of the Act is in movements over same road or roads, and not over different roads or partly over same road and partly over different roads.-Bunker Hill & Sullivan M. & C. Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 129 I. C. C. 242. Absorption of switching in certain cases and failure to absorb in other like cases may violate Sec. 2.-Restriction of Kansas City Switching District, 146 I. C. C. 438. Proof insufficient to show violation of section. Chicago Merchants Asso. v. Director-General, 151 I. C. C. 21.

§ 428. Undue and Unreasonable Preference Prohibited. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect what

soever.

First paragraph of Section 3 of the original Act, unchanged by Transportation Act, 1920.

This provision substantially follows language in Section 2 of English Traffic Act of 1854, and Section 11 of the Act of 1873. The English Act provides:

Every railway company, canal company, and railway and canal company, shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving and forwarding and delivering of traffic upon and from the several railways and canals belonging to or worked by such companies respectively, and for the return of carriages, trucks, boats, and other vehicles; and no such company shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favour of any particular person or company, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, nor shall any such company subject any particular person or company, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue

or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; and every railway company and canal company, and railway and canal company having or working railways or canals which form part of a continuous line of railway or canal or railway and canal communication, or which have the terminus, station, or wharf of the one near the terminus, station, or wharf of the other, shall afford all due and reasonable facilities for receiving and forwarding all the traffic arriving by one of such railways or canals by the other, without any unreasonable delay, and without any such preference or advantage, or prejudice or disadvantage, as aforesaid, and so that no obstruction may be offered to the public desirous of using such railways or canals or railways and canals as a continuous line of communication, and so that all reasonable accommodation may, by means of the railways and canals of the several companies, be at all times afforded to the public in that behalf.

Browne & Theobald's Railway Laws, 405; Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 4, p. 76.

Religious teachers in view of Section 2 of Act may receive special reduced rates.-Re Religious Teachers, 1 I. C. C. 21. Discount may not be given large shippers.-Providence Coal Co. v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 107, 1 I. C. R. 316, 363. A carrier operating parallel lines should furnish corresponding advantages to each line.-Boards of Trade Union v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 215, 1 I. C. R. 608. Undue preference illegal although not wholly voluntary.— Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 230, 1 I. C. R. 627. Unreasonable preference illegal whether accomplished by device or directly.-Scofield v. Lake, etc., R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 90, 3 I. C. R. 841, 6 I. C. C. 455. Discrimination is legal reason to affect rates favorably to subscribing territory. -Lincoln Board of Trade v. U. P. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 147, 2 I. C. R. 95. Uniform rate on milk from all stations within two hundred miles of New York not unjust discrimination.Howell v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 272, 2 I. C. R. 162. Rule discussed for making rates between communities in accord with section.-Detroit Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 I. C. C. 315, 2 I. C. R. 199. Rates should be known and announced publicly as to all places and persons.

Re Tariffs Transcontinental Lines, 2 I. C. C. 324, 2 I. C. R. 203. Rate per ton-mile may vary with distance.-New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 375, 2 I. C. R. 289; Same v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 534, 2 I. C. R. 777. Circumstances may be so different as to justify deviations from rule of equal mileage on different branches of the same road, but burden to show such circumstances on the carrier.-Logan v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 604, 2 I. C. R. 431. Through rates not required to be made on a mileage basis.-McMorran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 252, 2 I. C. R. 604. Separation of races legal, but accommodations must be equal.-Heard v. Ga. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 111, 2 I. C. R. 508; see same case, 1 I. C. C. 428, 1 I. C. R. 719; Cozart v. So. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 226; Gaines v. Seaboard A. L. Ry., 16 I. C. C. 471. May make a reasonable difference between C. L. and L. C. L. shipments. Carload ratings should be equal, whether one or more consignors or consignees.-Thurber v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 473, 2 I. C. R. 742. Special tariffs for emigrants only illegal.Elvey v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 652, 2 I. C. R. 804. Should be no distinction between the rates and allowances on oil shipped in tank cars and in barrels.-Rice v. Western N. Y. etc., R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 131, 3 I. C. R. 162; see also 5 I. C. C. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841, 6 I. C. C. 455. Discrimination is not legalized because investments have been made under it.-Board of Trade of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 158, 3 I. C. R. 233. Mere quantity, other than a recognized unit of carriage, no reason for difference in rate.-Harvard v. Penn. Co., 4 I. C. C. 212, 3 I. C. R. 257. A differential between wheat and wheat flour long maintained may be continued. Kauffman v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 417, 3 I. C. R. 400. Rates should be relatively just both as to localities and different kinds of traffic.-Squire v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 611, 3 I. C. R. 515. Water competition when freight can move over the longer distance point justifies a less rate for the longer than the shorter haul.-James & Mayer Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 744, 3 I. C. R. 682; order not enforced, Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 925; circuit court reversed, 13 U. S. App. 720, 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700. 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. Rates on similar commodities should not greatly differ.-Michigan Box Co. v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 335. "Unreasonable," "unjust" and similar terms used in section defined.-Daniels v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 458. Excess of manufacturing cost at one point over another should not affect the relative rates.-Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 6 I. C. C. 488; order not enforced, So. Pac. Co. v. Fuel Co., 101 Fed. 779, 42 C. C. A.. 12. Terms used in section discussed and held to imply comparison.Page v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 548; see 6 I. C. C. 148, 4 I. C. R. 425; Int. Com. Com. v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 64 Fed. 723. Rates from Texas common points to Wichita higher than to Kansas City illegal.-Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 568; see also 10 I. C. C. 460, 12 I. C. C. 47, 188. Should not disregard distances and natural advantages. Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago & R. I. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 647. Blanket rate to New York on milk from towns of different distances held violative of this section though group rates based on groups reasonably arranged legal.-Milk Producers Protective Asso. v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 92, 164, and cases cited. "A city is entitled to the benefit of its location."-Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 180, 189. The law permits railroads to meet, not to extinguish, water competition.Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 224; order not enforced, 84 Fed. 258. Undue preference means preference that is appreciable and certain; contract for rates not enforced.— Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 386; see also Rhinelander Paper Co. v. N. Pac. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 633. Higher rates from New Orleans to La Grange than to points similar in size and beyond La Grange illegal.— Callaway v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 431; order enforced by Circuit Court, 102 Fed. 709; reversed in Supreme Court, Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co. (La Grange Case), 190 U. S. 273, 42 L. Ed. 1047, 23 Sup. Ct. 687. Differential held illegal. -Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 481, 511. Terminal charges constituting a violation of section.-Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Ft. W. & D. City