merchandise, and of advances and reductions, should be made by posting in a public place at the depot of the carrier where the freight is received in the port of entry, and also where it is delivered at the place of destination in the United States. New York Board of Trade & Transp. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 417 (1890).

TOPIC B-VARIATION FROM SCHEDULE.

[See Chapter XXVIII.]

1018. Any variation forbidden,

It is an unlawful practice for a carrier to disregard the regular published tariff rates, and charge a lower rate made up of a combination of the rate from the point of shipment to a competitive point, and from such competitive point to the station of destination, where the rule is not set forth in its published tariff. Spillers & Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 364 (1899). In short, all rules or regulations which, if enforced, would result in changing or affecting rates or charges shown on the published schedules must be notified to the public for the time required by law for other rate changes. The notice should set forth the changes proposed to be made in the existing schedule, and such changes must be shown by printing new schedules, or plainly indicating it on the schedules in force. Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 255 (1897). So a practice that grain may be shipped to an intermediate station and there forwarded as a new shipment at a proportional rate lower than the local rate from that point is a variation from the local published rate and therefore illegal. Re Rates and Practices of Mobile & O. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 373 (1903).

§ 1019. Devices to avoid the section.

A device to avoid the operation of this section will be futile. Thus, any device by which a published rate for carriage of coal from the mines of the carrier, which in the case of a favored consignee was made to include the price of the coal thus sold to the consignee by the carrier and delivered to him, is of course a violation of the Act. Re Transportation of Coal and Mine Supplies, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 473 (1904). And deliveries of coal by an interstate carrier not empowered to mine and market coal by its charter or by any legislation existing at the time of the adoption of the act to regulate commerce, under a contract to sell and transport such coal at a stipu lated price, come within the requirement of that act respecting the maintenance of published rates, and its prohibitions against undue preferences and discrimination whenever. from any cause, the gross sum realized is insufficient to yield the carrier its published freight rates after deducting the purchase price of the coal and the cost of delivery, although the con

tract may not have been open to that objection when made. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361, 26 Sup. Ct. 272 (1906).

So where a railroad company (through a development company which it owned) bought grain in Kansas City, transported it to Chicago, and there sold it, the purpose being merely to transport it, and the varying profit on the transactions being the only real compensation for the carriage, this was held to be a departure from the published schedule and therefore illegal. In re Rates and Practices in the Transportation of Grain, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 33 (1897).

§ 1020. Rate wars.

Reduction of passenger rates without consent of connecting lines over which tickets are sold, and without filing schedules thereof with the Commission is violation of this section, and no necessity or compulsion is created by a war of rates which justifies disobedience of the statute. In re Passenger Tariffs and Rate Wars, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 340, 2 I. C. C. 513 (1889).

TOPIC C-FILING OF SCHEDULES AND AGREEMENTS.
[See Chapter XX.]

1021. Purpose of the filing.

The purpose of the filing is to call the attention of the Commission to a proposed change in rates; and when a schedule is filed announcing an advance of general application, for which no apparent reason exists, such action is a proper subject of investigation, and if it thereupon appears that the advance is unwarranted, the Commission should use whatever power it has to correct the injustice. In the Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Int. Com. Rep. 382 (1903). The public purpose of the posting and filing of the schedules is insisted upon by the Commission.

"It is proper to add, however, that the requirement of publication found in the law is based upon many other considerations besides that of affording information to local shippers. The necessity of establishing and maintaining a steady, uniform, open tariff rate is of paramount importance, in view of the evils which the Act to regulate commerce attempts to correct, and obviously the first and most efficient method of regulation is the requirement of constant publicity." Re Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 480, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 75 (1889).

§ 1022. Presumption of legality.

The filing of schedules of rates with the Commission, as required by statute, raises no presumption as to the legality of such rates in any pro

ceedings before the Commission. San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 138 (1890). But, as has been seen, the result of the provisions of this section is that in all dealings between shipper and carrier, whether out of court or in court, except in a proceeding before the Commission to have the rates altered, the rate so filed with the Commission must be taken as the reasonable rate. Kinnavey v. Terminal R. R. Assoc., 81 Fed. 802 (1897); Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., Fed.

TOPIC D-JOINT TARIFFS AND SCHEDULES.
[See Chapter XIX.]

1023. Meaning of joint tariff.

Two kinds or classes of routes are recognized and provided for, namely, the line of a single carrier, and a continuous line or route operated by more than one carrier, where the participating carriers establish joint rates or charges for such continuous line or route; and in respect of both classes of lines, the provision is uniform that established rates shall not be increased except after ten days' notice, nor reduced except after three days' notice. Joint through routes and rates are ordinarily the subject of agreement between the participating carriers; but when this is established, and until finally abrogated or changed, they are required by the statute to be kept open to public use. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Int. Com. Rep. 182 (1902).

Joint tariffs, in the meaning of this section, are those established by agreement and mutual consent of the several carriers, as distinguished from the mere aggregate of the separate rates of the several carriers for transportation over their respective routes. The publication by a carrier subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce, of the aggregate local rates between points on its own line and those on the line of a connecting carrier with which it has no joint tariff, is not illegal; but it cannot lawfully add to the duly established rates of another carrier any amount it pleases less than its own rate, and publish and use that sum as a through rate, without the consent of the other company, as such a through rate is not a "joint rate," for joint rates can be made only by concurrence or assent; nor is it a combination rate, for one of its component parts has no legal existence or sanction as a separate or local charge; there must be lawful rates upon each of the roads before there can be a lawful combination of rates. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Platt, 7 Int. Com. Rep. 323 (1897). A combination rate, not being a joint rate, need not be posted, and is not subject to the act. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 732 (1893).

When rates established to apply between points within a single State are applied as part of combination rates on transportation between dif

ferent States, such State rates, as well as the interstate rates with which they are combined, must be published at stations and filed with the Commission. Re Export Rates from Points East and West of Miss. River, 8 I. C. C. Rep. 185 (1899).

§ 1024. Making and filing.

Any one member of a joint combination may file copies of joint tariff for all the members. Re Filing Copies of Joint Tariff, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 76, 1 I. C. C. 225 (1887). And where one carrier files and properly publishes a joint tariff, he is not affected by the failure of other carriers properly to publish it. Virginia C. & I. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. (Va.), 37 S. E. 310 (1900). The tariff's need not be filed at a non-competing point. Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912 (1892).

A railway, stage route, and hotel association are not connecting carriers who can make and file a joint tariff. Wylie v. Northern Pac. R. R., 11 I. C. C. Rep. 145 (1905).

§ 1025. Whether routes must be published.

The Commission held that the published tariff should definitely name all the participating roads and indicate the various routes by which they undertake to afford transportation at designated rates. Theoretically, at least, it said, such a disclosure is necessary to a complete statutory joint tariff. And it was ordered that all carriers concerned should file an acceptance of the tariff. In re Form and Contents of Rate Schedules, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 267 (1894). But the Supreme Court of the United States finally held that the carrier publishing a through tariff might reserve the right to route the goods as it pleased beyond its own terminal. Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 536, 26 Sup. Ct. 330 (1906).

1026. Export rates.

Rates on export traffic must be published and filed in accordance with the provisions of this section. So-called through export rates, made by adding the ocean rate to the inland rail rates, are not analogous to railroad rates made by joint arrangement by railway carriers subject to the statute. in the sense that the total rate must be published and filed, and it is enough if the railroad carrier publishes and maintains its own rate to the seaboard; but if there is in fact such a joint arrangement that the rate is a joint rate under this section, then the entire through rate should be published, and not the inland division, which in that case might vary while the entire rate remained the same. Re Export & Domestic Rates on Grain, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 214 (1899); Kemble v. Boston & A. R. R., 8 Int. Com. Rep. 110 (1899); Re Publication & Filing of Tariffs, 10 Int. Com. Rep. 55 (1904).

TOPIC E-FORM OF SCHEDULES.

[See Chapter XVIII.]

§ 1027. Clearness of statement.

The publication of tariffs in convenient form, adequate in statement and properly authenticated, is essential to the enforcement of reasonable rates and impartial treatment. So far as possible the schedules should be simple in arrangement, ample in their disclosures, and free from ambiguity. Otherwise the opportunity is afforded for evading the law by discriminating practices and unjust exactions. Re Rate Schedules, 6 Int. Com. Rep. 267 (1894). The rate sheets must be readily intelligible to shippers and consignees. Johnston-Larimer D. G. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 568 (1896). They must be so simplified that persons of ordinary comprehension can understand them; and a notation in the tariff of one carrier, making reference to the tariff of some competing carrier, does not meet the requirement of the law that the rate charged shall be published and filed. H. B. Pitts & Son v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry., 10 Int. Com. Rep. 684 (1905). The mere designation, in a paper or circular, of the means of arriving at rates by calculation or reference to other papers, does not constitute the rate sheet required; and the reissuing by a carrier of a tariff of another line, and, by a supplement concurrently issued, limiting its use of the rates therein prescribed to such as are over a specified minimum, is reprehensible. Colorado Fuel & I. Co. v. Southern P. Co., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 488 (1895).

§ 1028. Necessary fullness of statement.

The schedules should be sufficiently full to show all that a shipper 'needs to know. Thus published tariffs specifying rates per standard crate on vegetables shipped from Florida to northern or northeastern points should state plainly the dimensions of the crate to which the rates apply. Re Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vegetables, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 585 (1900). On the other hand, where the rate sheet states that the rates are subject to an official classification filed with the Commission which specifically states in detail the rates under a form of bill of lading called uniform bill of lading, limiting the common-law liability and stating that rates on property not shipped subject to the conditions of the uniform bill are a specified percentage higher than the reduced rates under the uniform bill, the schedule was held sufficiently to inform shippers that the rates given were for carriage with limited liability. Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie & W. T. Co. (Minn.), 75 N. W. 602 (1898).