to be done by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission by petition, which shall briefly state the facts; whereupon a statement of the [charges] complaint thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint, or to answer the same in writing, within a reasonable time, to be specified by the Commission. If such common carrier within the time specified shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, the [said] common carrier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation of law thus complained of. If such carrier or carriers shall not satisfy the complaint within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.

Section 13 of the original Act as amended by the Act of June 18, 1910. The words in black-faced type were added by the amendment. The words in brackets were in the original Act and omitted from the Amendment.

Complaint of a violation of the Act should be made and not a mere request for a construction of the law.-Re Petition of Order of Railway Conductors, 1 I. C. C. 8, 1 I. C. R. 18; Penn. Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 223, 2 I. C. R. 603. When no overt act in violation of the law is charged, complaint will be dismissed.-Holbrook v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 102, 1 I. C. R. 323. No replication to answer required.-Powers and Procedure of the Commission, 1 I. C. C. 223, 1 I. C. R. 408, 410; Oregon Short Line v. N. Pac. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 264, 2 I. C. R. 639. Vermont State Grange could intervene and complain against charges on eastbound freight, though original complaint referred only to west-bound freight.-Boston & A. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 158, 1 I. C. R. 500, 571. Where answer denies complaint and complainant fails to appear, complaint dismissed. Jackson v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co., 1 I. C. R. 599. New grievances cannot be set up in an amendment.-Riddle, Dean & Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 372, 1 I. C. R.

701; Delaware State Grange v. New York, P. & N. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 309, 2 I. C. R. 187. Rule as to rehearings stated by Judge Cooley.-Riddle, Dean & Co. v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 490, 1 I. C. R. 773. Case not decided on a theory, neither in the complaint nor the evidence.-Martin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 25, 2 I. C. R. 32. Sufficient to make initial carrier a party when complaining against a classification. Any party at interest may be heard without formal intervention.-Hurlburt v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 122, 2 I. C. R. 81. Decision of the Commission applies to the facts of the particular case.-Re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates, 2 I. C. C. 365, 2 I. C. R. 245. After a case closed, an application from one not a party for a rehearing will not be granted.-Re Petition of Produce Exchange of Toledo, 2 I. C. C. 588, 2 I. C. R. 412. Commission may investigate and deal with violations of the law without formal complaint. Re Investigation of Acts of Grand Trunk Ry., 3 I. C. C. 89, 2 I. C. R. 496; Re Alleged Excessive Rates on Food Products, 4 I. C. C. 48, 116, 3 I. C. R. 90, 151. What a petition for rehearing should show.-Myers v. Penn. Co., 2 I. C. C. 573, 2 I. C. R. 403, 544. Must allege that the violation complained of occurred with reference to an interstate shipment. White v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 281, 2 I. C. R. 641. When a complaint is filed by a state railroad commission, it will not be dismissed because such commission is thereafter abolished.-Railroad Commission of Florida v. Savannah, Fla. & W. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 13, 3 I. C. R. 688. Complaint may be filed against a receiver of a carrier engaged in interstate commerce.-Railroad Commission of Georgia, Trammell et al. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 5 I. C. C. 324, 4 I. C. R. 120. Commission will take proof on complaint that carrier has not answered.-Tecumseh Celery Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & M. Ry. Co., 5 I. C. C. 663, 4 I. C. R. 318. Different ground of an objection to a rate may be urged in a second complaint.Schumacher Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 61, 4 I. C. R. 373, 384. Notwithstanding complainant may have violated the law, Commission will act on complaint for benefit of public.-Page v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 148, 548, 4 I. C. R. 525. Long after complaint decided will not reopen for purpose of acting on application for reparation.-Rice, R. & W. v. W. N. Y. & Penn. R.

Co., 6 I. C. C. 455. Cannot authoritatively determine what is not in issue by pleadings.-Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 647. An association may bring complaint, and defendants not entitled to dismissal because there is no direct damage to complainant.Milk Producers Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 92, 163. Shippers claim submitted by the carrier treated as a formal case.-Roth v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C. 602. Commission clearly has the right to award damages. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 83. One a party to a case may amend and claim reparation.-Id., 105. Complaints against unreasonable rates are in behalf of the public, and complainants need not enter with "clean hands."-Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 548, 578; order enforced, 138 Fed. 753, 123 Fed. 789; affirmed, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. Parties may present a written statement of facts and obtain the opinion of the Commission thereon.-Re Freight Rates Between Memphis and Points in Arkansas, 11 I. C. C. 180. Cases decided before Amendment of June 29, 1906, reopened after that Amendment for further hearing.-Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 1. But not when complainant had waited for about a year before trying to enforce an order which the carriers disobeyed. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 6, 507. Complaints must be presented with reasonable diligence.-Producer's Pipe Line Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 186. Reparation asked informally after hearing closes not considered.-Dallas Freight Bureau v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 223. Testimony alone of a person having no interest in or personal knowledge of the rate complained of insufficient to sustain a complaint.-Dallas Freight Bureau v. Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 427. The Commission, being an administrative body, is unencumbered by technicalities.-Missouri & Kan. Shippers' Asso. v. Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 483. Each case must be disposed of on its own facts, and no general rule will be made that through rates must not exceed the sum of the locals.-Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 498. What is an "association" within meaning of section. Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R.

Co., 13 I. C. C. 118. A complaint for reparation by a voluntary association must name the members and specify and describe the shipments with reasonable particularity, but see the facts of the case.-Mo. & Kan. Shippers' Asso. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 411. Amendment not allowed to graft on an application for through routes and joint rates a claim for reparation.-La Salle & Bureau Co. R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 610. Not necessary in complaint for reparation to allege protest.-Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 329; Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 195; Nollenberger v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 595, 596. This section shows a legislative intention to divorce proceedings before the Commission of all technicalities.-Washer Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 147, 153. Cited, arguing the power to award reparation for past shipments.-Arkansas Fuel Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95, 98. This section prescribed procedure before Commission.-Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409, 414. An action for mandamus under Section 23 will not preclude a shipper filing a complaint under Section 13.-Merchants Coal Co. v. Fairmont Coal Co., 160 Fed. 769. When a complaint is filed with the Commission, it must, if complaint presents matter within the purview of the Act, investigate regardless of whether or not the complainant may suffer direct damage from the act complained of.-Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. 1005, 4 I. C. R. 722; reversed on other grounds, Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 74 Fed. 803, 21 C. C. A. 103, 43 U. S. App. 308; Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, Com. v. Ry., 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. 986. See also Int. Com. Com. v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 39, 48 L. Ed. 860, 867, 24 Sup. Ct. 563. See opinion circuit judge in Int. Com. Com. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 123 Fed. 969.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

Construing the section with Sections 8, 9, 14 and 16 of the Act, held the Commission may award damages for an excessive and unreasonable rate.-Arkansas Fuel Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95, 98; Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co., dissenting opinion, 19 I. C. C. 356, 382. A complaint is an appeal to the government.-Advances in

Rates, Western Case, 20 I. C. C. 307, 315. Procedure liberal, but carriers should have notice of what is claimed.-United States Leather Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 323, 324; Augusta & Savannah Steamboat Co. v. O. S. S. Co., 26 I. C. C. 380, 382; Eastern Wheel Mfrs. Co. v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 370, 372. Findings under complaint bind only the carrier defendant thereto.-Fels & Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 483, 486. This and cognate sections guarantee a full hearing preliminary to issuing an order.-Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C. 415, 424, citing Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 57 L. Ed. 431, 33 Sup. Ct. 185, reversing Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 195 Fed. 541, Opin. Com. Ct. No. 4, p. 325, 375. For further history of the case, see New Orleans Board of Trade v. L. & N. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 231; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 184 Fed. 118. What complaint should show.— Stuarts Draft Milling Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 3 I. C. C. 623. The Commission has power to investigate the true situation with respect to all matters properly affecting the questions involved. So. Ry. Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 465, Opin. Com. Ct. No. 82, p. 603. Commission's findings "supported by substantial, though conflicting, evidence" are conclusive on the courts.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. U. S., 238 U. S. 1, 59 L. Ed. 1177, 35 Sup. Ct. 696.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Section cited.-Car Supply Investigation, 42 I. C. C. 657, 672. Shippers not parties to proceedings before the Commission cannot sue to set aside its orders; they have ample remedy under this section to file complaints.-United States v. Merchants & M. Traffic Asso., 242 U. S. 178, 61 L. Ed. 233, 37 Sup. Ct. 24. Section cited.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Tie Co., 242 U. S. 288, 61 L. Ed. 305, 37 Sup. Ct. 120.

§ 484. Commission May on Its Own Motion Institute Investigations. Said Commission shall, in like manner and with the same authority and powers, investigate any complaint forwarded by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any state or territory at the request of such commissioner or commission, and the Interstate Commerce Commission shall have full authority and power at any time.