the corresponding local rate, but it has not said that such proportional rate must be, or in every case should be, less.86 On through traffic to a given interior point, the proportional rate from the river crossing is usually higher than local rate from the river to that point. Proportional rate applying to through traffic may well be lower than the corresponding local rate.88 There is no substantial difference between a "reshipping" rate and what is known as a "proportional" rate.89 The Commission is insistent that proportionals must be open to all under the same conditions. And proportionals should apply through all breaking points similarly situated. Low proportionals do not justify unreasonable locals; there is no recognized relation between proportionals and corresponding locals. It all depends upon the traffic conditions through the territory; but proportional rate should not be limited to traffic from particular places.93

§ 881. Export rates.

92

Export rates should be applied only to actual through movement, not to the case where the shipper takes possession and rebills.94 Export or import rates must be open to all to combine with the rates of all ocean carriers.95 There is no discrimination, because defendant maintains a low inland proportional rate on imported sugar.96 In one proceeding a lower rate upon export grain during period of navigation was suggested but not re

86 Interior Iowa Cities, 28 I. C. C. 64.

87 Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 364.

88 Baltimore Chamber of Commerce v. B. & O. R. R., 22 I. C. C. R. 596.

89 Bascom Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 354.

90 Henderson Elevator Co. v. Illinois Central R. R., 17 I. C. C. 573.

91 Board of Trade of Winston

Salem v. Norfolk & W., 16 I. C. C. 12.

92 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 504. 93 Bayou City Rice Mills v. T. & W. O. R. R., 18 I. C. C. 490.

94 Re Transportation of Wools, 23 I. C. C. 151.

95 Allman v. Adams Express Co., 14 I. C. C. 340.

96 In re Rates, etc., of the Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co., 22 I. C. C. R. 558.

in regard to the practice of "floating cotton," the essential transportation feature of which was carrying the cotton to a compress, receiving it again in the compressed state, and transporting it to destination at the through rate in force from the point of origin.80 It was held that the carrier may, as part of a contract for through shipment, allow the cotton to be stopped off for the purpose of grading and compression; but the privilege enters into and becomes part of the service covered by the rate, and should be specified in the published tariffs.81 The Commission said in substance that this cotton is in no possible construction at the compress point for any other purpose than a temporary one in transit; and that although an indispensable element in every through shipment would seem to be a contract for such through service, an agreement between the parties at the inception of the carriage that the freight was to go to some destination beyond to be designated later was enough.82

§ 880. Proportional rates.

A proportional rate is a part or remainder of a through rate, and as such must be taken in its relation to the whole rate.83 Recently the Commission has held the withdrawal of proportional rates from upper Mississippi River crossings while leaving them in effect from lower crossing not to be justified.84 To a certain extent the Commission recognizes the propriety of proportional rates, which differ from corresponding local rates, and has acted upon those rates when established by the carrier.85 It has said that a proportional rate, applying on through traffic might well be less than

80 See Re Rates & Practices of Mobile & O. R. R., 9 I. C. C. 373.

81 See the general discussion of all these matters in the Transit Case, 25 I. C. C. 130.

82 The same matters were discussed in the Transit Case, 26 I. C. C. 204.

83 Boney & Harper Milling Co. v. A. C. L. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 383.

81 Grain Rates in C. F. A. Territory, 28 I. C. C. 549.

85 Southwestern Shippers Traffic Ass'n v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 570.

the corresponding local rate, but it has not said that such proportional rate must be, or in every case should be, less.86 On through traffic to a given interior point, the proportional rate from the river crossing is usually higher than local rate from the river to that point.87 Proportional rate applying to through traffic may well be lower than the corresponding local rate.88 There is no substantial difference between a "reshipping" rate and what is known as a "proportional" rate.89 The Commission is insistent that proportionals must be open to all under the same conditions. And proportionals should apply through all breaking points similarly situated." Low proportionals do not justify unreasonable locals; 91 there is no recognized relation between proportionals and corresponding locals. It all depends upon the traffic conditions through the territory; 92 but proportional rate should not be limited to traffic from particular places.93

§ 881. Export rates.

Export rates should be applied only to actual through movement, not to the case where the shipper takes possession and rebills.94 Export or import rates must be open to all to combine with the rates of all ocean carriers.95 There is no discrimination, because defendant maintains a low inland proportional rate on imported sugar.96 In one proceeding a lower rate upon export grain during period of navigation was suggested but not re

64.

86 Interior Iowa Cities, 28 I. C. C.

87 Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 364.

88 Baltimore Chamber of Commerce v. B. & O. R. R., 22 I. C. C. R. 596.

89 Bascom Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 354.

90 Henderson Elevator Co. v. Illinois Central R. R., 17 I. C. C. 573.

91 Board of Trade of Winston

Salem v. Norfolk & W., 16 I. C. C. 12. 92 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 504. 93 Bayou City Rice Mills v. T. & W. O. R. R., 18 I. C. C. 490.

94 Re Transportation of Wools, 23 I. C. C. 151.

95 Allman v. Adams Express Co., 14 I. C. C. 340.

96 In re Rates, etc., of the Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co., 22 I. C. C. R. 558.

quired, the present rate being apparently low.97 An inland proportional higher than an export rate will generally be condemned.98 It is unlawful to make differing export rates, depending upon differing destinations.99 Carriers should quote open port proportional; then they may make through rates for foreign carriage on such basis as they please without coming within Act.1 It is improper to exact more for export traffic than for domestic consumption. Thus where cereal goes to ship as grain it pays grain export rate, if as flour it pays flour.3

2

Topic C. Facilities for Interchange of Business

§ 882. Physical connections at common law.

4

Those who have provided certain facilities in order to serve were at common law under no obligation to go beyond the service they have professed and substantially extend their existing facilities so as to make physical connection with another service. To require this under the Act as it originally provided was thought to be outside the theory of the restriction of obligation to the profession made. In a leading Federal case in refusing to order a railroad company to make connections with a switching company, the court said: "Neither this nor any other provision of law requires of the common carrier of interstate commerce the duty of either forming new connections or of establishing new stations for the reception and delivery of freight. The Act to Regulate Commerce deals with

97 Board of Trade of Chicago v. A. C. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 504.

98 St. Regis Paper Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., Unrep. op.

99 New Orleans Board of Trade v.

I. C. R. R., 23 I. C. C. 465.

1 Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 13 I. C. C. 266.

2 Newark Machine Co. v. P. C. C. & St. L., 16 I. C. C. 29.

3 Hecker-Jones-Jewell Milling Co.

5

v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 14 I. C. C. 356.

4 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.

See particularly Wisconsin, M. & P. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. ed. 194, 21 Sup. Ct. 115.

• International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 99 Tex. 332, 89 S. W. 961.

such common carriers as it finds them, and leaves to them full discretion as to what extensions they will make of their lines, the connections they may form, and the yards and depots they may choose to establish."

§ 883. Discrimination between connecting lines.

8

Though not expressly contained in this clause of the Act it is nevertheless to be understood that discrimination is not forbidden unless it is undue or unreasonable. Thus in making contracts for through transportation of passengers, the initial carrier may lawfully prefer a road going through to the point of destination to one going only part of the way, an arrangement with which would necessitate further arrangements to reach the desired point. A combination of independent carriers by which one is to prefer the other to another connecting line outside of the combination does not justify discrimination between the connecting lines.9 But a railroad company operating steamers in connection with its railroad as a single line was not held guilty of a discrimination against another carrier, within the prohibition of this section of the Act, by refusing to allow a rival steamboat company to land its boats at a wharf used by it solely for connecting its railroad and boats, where there is no regular public station at such wharf, but the general station is at a little distance and ample facilities there exist. 10 The Act contemplates independent carriers, capable of mutual relations; there must, therefore, be at least two other carriers besides the offending one. Both companies must be independent of the railroad charged with discrimination, and both must

7 Rutland R. R. Co. v. Bellows Falls & S. R. St. Ry. Co., 73 Vt. 20, 50 Atl. 636.

8 Little Rock & M. R. R. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. R., 47 Fed. 771, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 261.

9 New York & N. Ry. v. New York

& N. E. R. R., 50 Fed. 867, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 116.

10 Ilwaco R. & Nav. Co. v. Oregon S. L. & U. N. Ry., 57 Fed. 673, 6 C. C. A. 495, 5 Int. Com. Rep. 627.