that the Act expressly provides that in case of proceedings brought to reform rates for the failure, there shall be no dismissal of the complaint by reason of a showing of no damage to the complainant by present conditions. § 1116. Presumptions from voluntary continuance. Voluntary continuance of a given rate for a long time by a carrier, while not conclusive, creates a presumption that the rate is reasonable. The presumption is in the nature of an admission by the carrier, and therefore exists only in a case where the carrier alters a long-existing rate by raising it. If, on the other hand, the carrier voluntarily reduces a rate, in the absence of evidence of another reason for the reduction, it will be presumed that the former rate was unreasonably high. This presumption, however, being based on an admission of the carrier, is confined to cases where the prior rate was established and continued by the voluntary act of the carrier; it does not attach in a case where such rates have been established by carriers in compliance with the decision and order of the Commission." A presumption of fact may be raised by the disproportion of two rates upon comparison. So where there is a great disproportion between two rates on the same road, or on different parts of the same line, there is a presumption against the reasonableness of the higher rate. 10 So where certain rates were artificially enhanced by a traffic association for the purpose of carrying out an agreed division of territory between railroads, the rates were presumably unreasonable.11 In the same way 7 Re Export & Domestic Rates, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 214; Holmes v. Southern R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 561; National Hav. Ass'n v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264. 8 Holmes v. Southern R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 561. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 440. 10 Samuels v. Louisville & N. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 420; Troy Board of Trade v. Alabama Midland Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 1; James v. Canadian Pac. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 274, 5 I. C. C. 612; Rea v. Mobile & O. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43. 11 Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 195. disproportion between rates on similar commodities will lead to a presumption against the higher rate. So where grain and grain products are classified alike, they are presumptively entitled to equal rates; and if a difference is made by a carrier, it assumes the burden of sustaining it by satisfactory evidence.12 Any presumption, from long maintenance, that rate was sufficiently high may be weakened by showing that past rate was induced by competition. 13 There is no presumption of law that rate condemned as unreasonable or reduced by carrier, was unreasonable for any particular period in past.14 § 1117. Admissions by making changes. In the case of a competitive rate, however, long maintenance is not conclusive evidence that it was sufficiently high.15 But, even so, there is a certain presumption that rates largely the product of competition are reasonable rates. 16 Reduction to meet competitive rate via short line, is not an admission of unreasonableness of former rate." And as has been seen, voluntary reduction is not of itself evidence of unreasonableness of former rates. 18 And the maintenance of rate for eight years is a strong admission against carrier that higher rate would be unreasonable, unless explained. 19 The existence of a lower rate in the somewhat remote past does not necessarily prove anything of value in ascertaining the reasonableness of a rate existing to-day.20 The long maintenance of an 12 McMorran v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604, 3 I. C. C. 252. 13 Audley Hill & Co. v. S. Ry., 20 I. C. C. R. 225; Commercial Club of Omaha v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C. 631. 14 Anadarko Cotton Oil Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 20 I. C. C. R. 43; Riverside Mills v. G. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 423. 15 Audley Hill & Co. v. S. Ry., I. C. C. 225. 20 16 In re Advances in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243. 17 American Cigar Co. v. P. & R. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 81; Georgia-Carolina Brick Co. v. S. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 148. 18 Carstens Packing Co. v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C. 165; Maxwell v. W. F. & N. W. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 197. 19 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C. 149. 20 Enterprise Manufacturing Co. v. Ga. R. R., 12 I. C. C. 130. that the Act expressly provides that in case of proceedings brought to reform rates for the failure, there shall be no dismissal of the complaint by reason of a showing of no damage to the complainant by present conditions. § 1116. Presumptions from voluntary continuance. Voluntary continuance of a given rate for a long time by a carrier, while not conclusive, creates a presumption that the rate is reasonable. The presumption is in the nature of an admission by the carrier, and therefore exists only in a case where the carrier alters a long-existing rate by raising it. If, on the other hand, the carrier voluntarily reduces a rate, in the absence of evidence of another reason for the reduction, it will be presumed that the former rate was unreasonably high. This presumption, however, being based on an admission of the carrier, is confined to cases where the prior rate was established and continued by the voluntary act of the carrier; it does not attach in a case where such rates have been established by carriers in compliance with the decision and order of the Commission. A presumption of fact may be raised by the disproportion of two rates upon comparison. So where there is a great disproportion between two rates on the same road, or on different parts of the same line, there is a presumption against the reasonableness of the higher rate. 10 So where certain rates were artificially enhanced by a traffic association for the purpose of carrying out an agreed division of territory between railroads, the rates were presumably unreasonable. 9 7 Re Export & Domestic Rates, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 214; Holmes v. Southern R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 561; National Hav. Ass'n v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 264. 8 Holmes v. Southern R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 561. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. R., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 440. In the same way 10 Samuels v. Louisville & N. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 420; Troy Board of Trade v. Alabama Midland Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 1; James v. Canadian Pac. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 274, 5 I. C. C. 612; Rea v. Mobile & O. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 43. 11 Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 195. disproportion between rates on similar commodities will lead to a presumption against the higher rate. So where grain and grain products are classified alike, they are presumptively entitled to equal rates; and if a difference is made by a carrier, it assumes the burden of sustaining it by satisfactory evidence.12 Any presumption, from long maintenance, that rate was sufficiently high may be weakened by showing that past rate was induced by competition. 13 There is no presumption of law that rate condemned as unreasonable or reduced by carrier, was unreasonable for any particular period in past. 14 § 1117. Admissions by making changes. 17 In the case of a competitive rate, however, long maintenance is not conclusive evidence that it was sufficiently high.15 But, even so, there is a certain presumption that rates largely the product of competition are reasonable rates. 16 Reduction to meet competitive rate via short line, is not an admission of unreasonableness of former rate. And as has been seen, voluntary reduction is not of itself evidence of unreasonableness of former rates.1 18 And the maintenance of rate for eight years is a strong admission against carrier that higher rate would be unreasonable, unless explained. 19 The existence of a lower rate in the somewhat remote past does not necessarily prove anything of value in ascertaining the reasonableness of a rate existing to-day.20 The long maintenance of an 12 McMorran v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604, 3 I. C. C. 252. 13 Audley Hill & Co. v. S. Ry., 20 I. C. C. R. 225; Commercial Club of Omaha v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C. 631. 14 Anadarko Cotton Oil Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 20 I. C. C. R. 43; Riverside Mills v. G. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 423. 15 Audley Hill & Co. v. S. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 225. 16 In re Advances in Rates, Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243. 17 American Cigar Co. v. P. & R. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 81; Georgia-Carolina Brick Co. v. S. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 148. 18 Carstens Packing Co. v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C. 165; Maxwell v. W. F. & N. W. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 197. 19 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C. 149. 20 Enterprise Manufacturing Co. v. Ga. R. R., 12 I. C. C. 130. adjustment of rates on different branches of a road will be held to be practically an admission by the carrier that the relation is a fair one.21 Where a reduction is made to comply with an order of the Commission, such reduction cannot be regarded as an admission that the former rate was unreasonable.22 The fact that a certain sum for a transit service is fixed upon as the charge throughout the country raises the presumption that this rate covers not only the cost of reconsignment service, but a reasonable profit as well.23 Thus the fact that throughout substantially the entire country malt is carried at the same rate as barley creates a strong impression that such rate is compensatory.24 An admission by parties in interest may relieve a carrier of burden of going forward with evidence.25 While a stipulation of the parties may be accepted by the Commission, inasmuch as the Commission is charged with the enforcement of lawful rates, it cannot at all times accept the views of the parties as to what in fact is the lawful rate between given points on a specified commodity.26 § 1118. Privilege against self-crimination. A witness is protected by the constitutional provision from being compelled to disclose the circumstances of his offense, or the sources from which or the means by which evidence of its commission, or of his connection with it, may be obtained or made effectual for his conviction. A statutory enactment must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to which a criminating question relates, in order to supplant the constitutional privilege of a person to refuse to be a witness 21 Clearfield Lumber Co. v. C. & O. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 211. 22 Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 222. 23 Detroit Traffic Ass'n v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 257. 24 Texas Brewing Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 171. 25 Wisconsin State Millers' Ass'n v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 23 I. C. C. 494. 26 Germain Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 22. |