when the circumstances and conditions will fairly admit of it the charges to all points for a like service should be made relatively equal. If, therefore, this defendant were to so arrange its tariffs as to give the least important station on its line rates as favorable as it allowed to the most important, there would in its doing so be nothing out of harmony with the Law. The result might for a time be prejudicial to competitive points, but the carrier cannot be blamed for a consequence which the Law favors; and there can be no doubt that the Law favors Reidsville. and Goldsboro' having rates as low as are given to Danville or to Richmond when the circumstances and conditions are such as to render it practicable. There is nothing, therefore, in the giving of such rates which the law will discountenance, much less punish." 13 13 Cooley, Commissioner, in Crews v. Richmond & D. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 703, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 401 (1888). PART I. EXAMINATION OF AMERICAN LEGISLATION. CHAPTER XXVI. HISTORY OF STATUTORY REGULATION. TOPIC A—LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND SINCE 1830. § 871. Carriers' limitation of liability before 1830. 872. The Carriers' Act of 1830. 873. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854. 874. The Railway and Canal Commission. TOPIC B-LEGISLATION IN AMERICAN STATES. § 875. Early railway charters in the United States. 876. Granger legislation. 877. Railroad Commissions. 878. Regulations against discrimination. TOPIC C-FEDERAL LEGISLATION SINCE 1887. 879. The Interstate Commerce Act. 880. The Elkins Act of 1903. TOPIC D-INTERPRETATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 881. The long and short haul clause. 882. The fixing of rates. 883. Through routes. TOPIC E-THE RATE REGULATION ACT OF 1906. § 884. Occasion for the act. 885. Extension of scope of the Interstate Commerce Act. 886. Private switches. 887. Private car lines. 888. Dealing by railroads in commodities. 889. Rate fixing and court review. 890. Through routes and rates. TOPIC A LEGISLATION IN ENGLAND SINCE 1830. § 871. Carriers' limitation of liability before 1830. The practice of the carriers of escaping full liability for goods carried became established at a very early date. The hint for this was given by Lord Coke in his report of Southcote's case.1 In a note to that case he pointed out the desirability of bailees' making a special acceptance of goods to hold as their own in order to escape the absolute liability which, as he believed, all bailees underwent. His view as to the absolute liability of all bailees was soon modified by the courts, but carriers continued under this liability, and indeed the stringent nature of their obligation was increased by the decision of the Court of the King's Bench in the case of Forward v. Pittard.2 In order to escape this excessive obligation, carriers came more and more to limit their liability by special acceptance. This was usually effected by the giving of notice to shippers that the carrier would not be responsible under certain circumstances, or to the full extent of the value of the goods carried. These notices were usually posted in the shipping office, and were often contained in advertisements in newspapers. The courts allowed the practice and permitted the carriers thus to limit their liability. Eventually the carriers attempted so great a limitation of their liability that shippers were really left without protection, and it became necessary to correct the evil by legislation. This was the occasion of the first English statute. 872. The Carriers' Act of 1830. The Carriers' Act of 1830 applied to all carriers by land. Its most important provision forbade the limitation of liability by public notice, permitting, however, the carrier to make special 14 Coke, 83b (1601). 21 T. R. 27 (1785). |