each twenty-four hours or major part thereof that the same has not been moved forward as required by this section, and the sum due on account of any such forfeiture may be deducted from the freight charges following any such shipment."

We are of the opinion that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this claim; that if the plaintiff is entitled to recover it would be by an action in court. The claim is in the nature of a penalty, and not for loss or damage to freight at the hands of the carriers.

It is therefore ordered that the complaint filed in this case be dismissed without prejudice.

INDEX

ABANDONED PROPERTY.

Valuation of, see VALUATION, 49, 50.

ABANDONMENT.

Of service, see SERVICE, 22.

ACCESSORIES.

Rule requiring consumers to pay for accessories for water service,
see SERVICE, 32, 33.

ACCOUNTS.

Review of judgment refusing mandamus requiring carriers to per-
mit inspection of, see APPEAL AND REVIEW, 2, 3.

Power of Interstate Commerce Commission to inspect accounts of
carriers, see INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 1-3.
Comparison of, in fixing return, see RETURN, 1.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.

As working capital, see VALUATION, 41.

ACCRUED DEPRECIATION.

See DEPRECIATION, 2, 15-17.

ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

As purpose of security issues, see SECURITY ISSUES, 6-20.
Valuation of property as dependent upon methods of acquisition,
see VALUATION, 10.

ACT OF GOD.

Failure to fulfil contract obligation as, question for court, see
COMMISSIONS, 3.

ADDITIONAL CHARGE.

For failure to pay promptly, see SERVICE, 78, 79.

ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS.

As purpose of security issues, see SECURITY ISSUES, 8, 9.

ADEQUACY.

Adequate service as condition precedent to return on investment, see
SERVICE, 49.

Electric service, see SERVICE, 26.

ADEQUACY-continued.

Street car service, see SERVICE, 49–56.
Telephone service, see SERVICE, 38.

ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION.
What constitutes, see COMMISSIONS, 2.

ADVANCE PAYMENT.

See SERVICE, 68.

Refund of, see REPARATION, 5, 6.

ADVANTAGE.

What constitutes undue or unreasonable, as question of law or fact,
see TRIAL, 1.

AGREEMENT.

Duty of purchaser of interurban railways to carry out agreement of
builder as to service, see INTERURBAN RAILROAD.

ALLOCATION.

See APPORTIONMENT.

ALTERATIONS.

As purpose of security issues, see SECURITY ISSUES, 8.

AMORTIZATION.

Of expenses, see RETURN, 7.

AMOUNT.

Allowed for current depreciation, see DEPRECIATION, 3-14.

Of rates, see RATES.

Of return, see RETURN.

Of security issues, see SECURITY ISSUES, 21-26.

Telephone operating expenses as dependent upon amount of traffic,
see APPORTIONMENT, 4.

APARTMENT HOUSES.

Electric rates for, see RATES, 35.

APPEAL AND REVIEW.

1. An order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which does not
contravene any constitutional limitation, and is within the constitu-
tional and statutory authority of that body, and is not unsupported by
testimony, cannot be set aside by the courts, as it is only the exercise
of an authority which the law vests in the Commission. Pennsylvania
Co. v. United States (U. S.) 261.

2. An order of a Federal district court, properly refusing to grant
in the broad terms prayed for in the petition and the motion for the
writ, a writ of mandamus sought by the United States under the act of
February 4, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 386, chap. 104), § 20, as amended by

APPEAL AND REVIEW-continued.

the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, Comp. Stat.
1913, § 8563), requiring carriers to permit the inspection and examina-
tion of accounts, reports, and memoranda, by special agents of the In-
terstate Commerce Commission, should not be reversed by the Federal
Supreme Court so as to permit a grant of relief within the limits which
the statute permits, where the petition was dismissed by the court be-
low without prejudice, so that a new proceeding may be started, asking
for such inspection as the law allows. United States ex rel. McReynolds
v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (U. S.) 247.

Mode of review.

3. Writ of error, not appeal, is the proper mode of reviewing a judg-
ment of a Federal district court refusing a writ of mandamus which
the United States undertook to obtain under the authority of the act
of February 4, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 386, chap. 104), § 20, as amended
by the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, Comp. Stat.
1913, § 8563), requiring carriers to permit inspection and examina-
tion of their accounts, reports, and memoranda by special agents of the
Interstate Commerce Commission. United States ex rel. McReynolds
v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (U. S.) 247.

APPLIANCES.

Allowance for money invested in, as working capital, see VALUA-
TION, 44.

APPLICATION.

Notice of application for franchise, see PROCedure, 2.

APPORTIONMENT.

1. In case of a single utility, 1–9.

a. In general, 1.

b. Costs and expenses, 2-7.

c. Earnings and revenues, 8.

d. Values, 9.

II. In case of joint enterprise, 10–19.
a. Costs and expenses, 10-18.

b. Earnings and revenues, 19.

I. In case of a single utility.

a. In general.

For rate-making purposes, of investment and expenses where busi-
ness is undeveloped, see RATES, 47.

1. The determination of the propriety of intrastate passenger fares
in any fundamentally accurate fashion requires the subdivision of the
total intrastate investment, earnings, and expenses, and a proper appor-
tionment of the same to passenger traffic, as distinguished from freight,
mail, and express traffic. Railroad Passenger Rate Case (Mass.) 362.

APPORTIONMENT-continued.

b. Costs and expenses.

2. The manner in which expenses are divided between management
and other accounts is not so very material to the public, but the total
cost of service must be maintained within reasonable limits.
worth v. Omro Electric Light Co. (Wis.) 1.

Water.

Charles-

3. The expenses chargeable to output must be assessed against the
amount of pumpage for which revenue may be reasonably expected,
water unaccounted for by reason of unknown or unavoidable leakage
being eliminated. Beloit v. Beloit Water, Gas & Electric Co. (Wis.)
1005.

Telephones.

4. In apportioning telephone central office expense between city and
rural-service subscribers, consideration must be given to the fact that
operating expenses are largely governed by the amount of traffic, and
not altogether by the number of subscribers served. Re Mt. Carmel
Teleph. Co. (Ill.) 645.

Railroads.

5. Some of the most important items of operating expense do not
allot themselves between freight and passenger traffic, but can only
be apportioned upon some arbitrary basis. Railroad Passenger Rate
Case (Mass.) 362.

6. Operating expense per train mile was assumed to be more than
twice as great for freight service as for passenger service, where it ap-
peared that the average revenue per revenue train mile for freight traffic
was $4.30 and the average revenue per revenue train mile for passenger
traffic was $1.91, although it was recognized that upon any accurate
analysis of operating expenses, such results would be extremely im-
probable. Railroad Passenger Rate Case (Mass.) 362.

7. Freight traffic should not be made to bear a portion of the
expense which is properly incidental to passenger traffic, but each
branch of the service should contribute the proper share of the cost of
operation and of return upon the property devoted to the public use.
Railroad Passenger Rate Case (Mass.) 362.

c. Earnings and revenues.

8. Earnings which cannot be readily separated between freight and
passenger traffic are so small comparatively that they may be appor-
tioned on the basis of those receipts which can be actually separated,
without materially affecting the accuracy of the final result. Railroad
Passenger Rate Case (Mass.) 362.

d. Values.

9. Property devoted to the production and distribution of electricity,
to steam heating, and to the operation of a street railway, the service