Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

"Train transportation" embraces all services in connection with shipment, including storage of goods after arrival at destination, and all participating carriers required to publish separately demurrage and other terminal charges and to adhere thereto.-Turner, Dennis & Lowry Lbr. Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 2 Fed. (2d) 291; affirmed, 271 U. S. 259, 70 L. Ed. 934, 46 Sup. Ct. 530. See also Erie R. R. Co. v. Kieser & Son Co., 215 N. Y. S. 576, 216 App. Div. 500, reversing 211 N. Y. S. 362, 125 Misc. Rep. 283. Stoppage in transitu an element of transportation; a shipper's right, not a privilege in carrier's discretion to grant or withhold.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Railroad Com'rs., 47 S. D. 395, 199 N. W. 453; writ of error dismissed, 271 U. S. 645, 70 L. Ed. 1129, 46 Sup. Ct. 485. Service of docking and undocking, running lines and furnishing fresh water to ships while dumping and trimming coal in vessels not "transportation" within meaning of Act. Sou. Transp. Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 101 I. C. C. 211.

§ 404. Duty of Carrier to Furnish Transportation and to Establish Through Routes.-It shall be the duty of every common carrier subject to this Act engaged in the transportation of passengers or property to provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates, fares, and charges applicable thereto, and to provide reasonable facilities for operating through routes and to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the operation of through routes, and providing for reasonable compensation to those entitled thereto; and in case of joint rates, fares, or charges, to establish just, reasonable, and equitable divisions thereof as between the carriers subject to this Act participating therein which shall not unduly prefer or prejudice any of such participating carriers.

Paragraph (4), Section 400, Transportation Act, 1920; Interstate Commerce Act, Section 1, paragraph (4). The former section read:

It shall be the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through

routes and just and reasonable rates applicable thereto; and to provide reasonable facilities for operating such through routes and to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the exchange, interchange, and return of cars used therein, and for the operation of such through routes, and providing for reasonable compensation to those entitled thereto.

This section is part of par. (2), Section 1, of the Act as amended by the Act of June 18, 1910. The Amendment added by Act June 29, 1906, read:

And it shall be the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates applicable thereto.

The original Act did not compel or empower the Commission to compel the establishment of through routes.-Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Penn. Co., 1 I. C. C. 86, 1 I. C. R. 357; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 1, 2 I. C. R. 454, citing English law and recommending amendments; Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock I. & P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 647, 677; Gustin v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 376. And carriers could make through routes with one road and not with others.-Capeheart v. L. & N. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 265, 3 I. C. R. 278. When through routes are established they must be kept open to public use.Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 9 I. C. C. 182, 205. Order enforced.-Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 123 Fed. 597, 132 Fed. 829. Circuit court reversed.-200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. See same case, 10 I. C. C. 590. Through route ordered established. Cattle Raisers Asso. of Texas v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 20; Birmingham Packing Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 29, 500; American National Live Stock Asso. v. Tex. & Påc. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 32; Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 364. Through routes and through rates discussed and defined.-Re Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 I. C. C. 163. Indemnity may be required of an irresponsible carrier before compelling through route and joint rate.-Enterprise Transportation Co.

v. Penn. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 326. Where a reasonable through route exists, the law does not require the Commission to establish another through route.-Loup Creek Colliery Co. v. Va. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 471; Stedman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 167; Chicago & M. Elec. R. Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 20; Cardiff Coal Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 460; Crane R. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 248. When all parties are before it, the Commission will fix through routes and joint rates. Merchants Traffic Asso. v. New York, N. H. and H. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 225. Section cited in Enterprise Fuel Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219, 221.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

See Sections 468, 496 and 497, post.

Construing the statute as it existed prior to the Amendment of 1910 with the provisions of Sec. 3 (Post, Sec. 468) and Sec. 15 (Post, Sec. 496) it was held that through routes could not be established if "reasonable and satisfactory" through routes already existed.-Enterprise Fuel Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219. This limitation taken away by Amendment of 1910.-Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 179, 185. Carriers must not discriminate in establishing through routes.-Wichita Falls System Joint Coal Rate Cases, 26 I. C. C. 215, 222; St. Louis S. & P. R. R. Co. v. P. & P. N. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 226, 234, 235. Through routes established over interurban lines (See also cases cited) -Louisville Board of Trade v. I. C. & S. T. Co., 27 I. C. C. 499. Construed in connection with a further provision of Sec. 1 (Post, Sec. 498)-Huerfano Coal Co. v. C. & S. E. R. A. Co., 28 I. C. C. 502, 505; Campbell's Creek Coal Co. v. A. A. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C. 682, 690. Limitation on power of Commission under Act 1906.-Int. Com. Com. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 216 U. S. 531, 54 L. Ed. 605, 30 Sup. Ct. 415. But the Amendment of 1910 gives the Commission a discretion.-Crane Iron Works v. U. S., 209 Fed. 238, Op. Com. Ct. No. 55, p. 453; Crane Iron Works v. P. & R. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 248; Crane Iron Works v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 17 I. C. C. 514; Truckers' Transfer Co. v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 275; and Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C. 93, 120;

Decatur Nav. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 281 and cases cited; Pacific Navigation Co. v. So. Pacific Co., 31 I. C. C. 472; Port Huron & Duluth S. S. Co. v. P. R. Co., 35 I. C. C. 475; Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. Central of New Jersey R. Co., 35 I. C. C. 488.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Railroads cannot make routes for the purpose of reserving markets to themselves.-Eastern Oreg. Lumber Producers Asso. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 316. A national system of railroads should be established.-Louisville B. of T. v. L. & N. R. Co., 40 I. C. C. 679, 689. "Through Route" defined.—Lourie Mfg. Co. v. C. N. R. Co., 42 I. C. C. 448, 450. Section violated.-Menasha Paper Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 241 U. S. 55, 60 L. Ed. 885, 36 Sup. Ct. 501. Tank cars cannot be required to be furnished.-United States v. P. R. Co., 242 U. S. 208, 61 L. Ed. 251, 37 Sup. Ct. 95. The power to require through routes may be exerted over carriers who do not with their own rails reach the terminal point.-St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 136, 62 L. Ed. 199, 38 Sup. Ct. 49.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Railroads must serve public and handle freight from connections, accommodating their service to particular needs.Routing on Coal from Western Maryland Mines, 66 I. C. C. 103. Obligations to accept articles governed by general principles of law; to reconsign, by special rules. Krauss Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Director-General, 66 I. C. C. 637. Carriers obligated to receive shipments and perform transportation service in accordance with their tariffs.-Elk Tanning Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., 78 I. C. C. 452; Miles Lbr. Co. v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 89 I. C. C. 761; Alcoholic Liquors via L. & N., 102 I. C. C. 202. "The Act does not give Commission authority to establish all the through routes it may deem necessary or desirable in public interest. The general language of paragraph (3) is limited by paragraph (4)."-U. S. v. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co. (Subiaco case), 278 U. S. 269, 73 L. Ed. 322, 49 Sup. Ct. 133. Limitation in paragraph (4) of Act does not apply

to express companies.-U. S. v. Am. Ry. Exp. Co., 265 U. S. 425, 68 L. Ed. 1087, 44 Sup. Ct. 560.

§ 405. All Transportation Charges Must Be Reasonable.All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property or in the transmission of intelligence by wire or wireless as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, shall be just and reasonable, and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service or any part thereof is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.

First part of paragraph (5), Section 1, as amended by Section 400, Transportation Act, 1920. The former section read: All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property and for the transmission of messages by telegraph, telephone or cable as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, shall be just and reasonable and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service, or any part thereof, is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.

The original Act read as follows:

"All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, or for the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable and just; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited and declared to be unlawful."

Provision applies to exceptional charges under Section 4.Re Southern Railway & Steamship Asso. (Re Petition of L. & N. R. Co.) 1 I. C. C. 57, 1 I. C. R. 278. A rate might not violate this section yet be illegal because discriminatory.— Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 230, 1 I. C. R. 627. A carrier should not make rates for the purpose of keeping a commodity on its line.-Reynolds v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 393, 1 I. C. R. 685. What must be considered in determining the reasonableness of a rate.Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 436, 1 I. C. R. 754. An intermediate local rate should not exceed the through rate plus the local back to the intermediate point.-Martin v. So. Pac. Co., 2 I. C. C. 1, 2 I. C. R.