532, 540, 541; Rates on Beer and Other Malt Products, 31 I. C. C. 544; Dissenting Opin. Western Advance Rate case, 35 I. C. C. 668, et seq. Seemingly applying a contrary principle, see Class Rates Between Stations in La., 33 I. C. C. 302; Western Advance Rate Case, 1915, 35 I. C. C. 497; Live Stock Rates from Colo., 35 I. C. C. 682. Powers of Commission in investigation and suspension proceedings discussed.-Lignite Coal from North Dakota, 126 I. C. C. 243. As a prerequisite to Commission's approval of rates under Sec. 1 in suspension proceedings, only necessary for carriers to show rates are within the limits of reasonableness.-Federated Metals Corp. v. C. R. R. of N. J., 126 I. C. C. 703.

§ 495. Burden of Proof to Justify Rates Increased After Jan. 1, 1910.-At any hearing involving a rate, fare, or charge increased after January 1, 1910, or of a rate, fare, or charge sought to be increased after the passage of this Act, the burden of proof to show that the increased rate, fare, or charge, or proposed increased rate, fare, or charge, is just and reasonable shall be upon the carrier, and the Commission shall give to the hearing and decision of such questions preference over all other questions pending before it and decide the same as speedily as possible.

Last part of paragraph (7) of Section 15 as amended by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 418. The former section

read:

At any hearing involving a rate increased after January first, nineteen hundred and ten, or of a rate sought to be increased after the passage of this Act, the burden of proof to show that the increased rate or proposed increased rate is just and reasonable shall be upon the common carrier, and the Commission shall give to the hearing and decision of such questions preference over all other questions pending before it and decide the same as speedily as possible.

Part of paragraph (2) of Section 15, added by Amendment of June 18, 1910.

Prior to this Amendment the Commission had held with more or less definiteness that a rate long in existence was presumed to be reasonable, Sec. 109, ante. This Amendment is discussed by the Commission in Advance in Rates-Eastern

case, 20 I. C. C. 243; Advances in Rates-Western case, 20 I. C. C. 307, 314, 315, 316. At p. 315 of the report in the last named proceeding the Commission held that "burden of proof" did not have the same technical meaning given the phrase in the courts of law, and the Commission said: "In accepting this theory, therefore, it is not within belief that Congress intended by the language now under consideration to convert this Commission into a tribunal which should merely determine as between two sides the preponderance of evidence and base its decisions upon technical and somewhat archaic rules of evidence." "The railroad must assume to prove to this Commission that the new and the increased rates are within the words of description and limitation used in the Act; that is, that they are just and reasonable. And to say that they must prove this is to say that they must satisfy our minds of this fact."

General adjustment left to the carrier when rates proposed to be increased were cancelled.-Advances in Rates on Grain, 21 I. C. C. 22, 35. When no testimony is offered burden not met.-Rates for Transportation of Locomotives, 21 I. C. C. 103, 111. Proof of increased cost of transportation should be directed to the particular transportation affected by the proposed increase.-Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 222, 226. Advance of commodity rate under claim that such rate was not properly proportioned to all rates considered.--U. S. Leather Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 323, 325. Cancellation of a through rate, leaving a combination of locals higher than the through rate, puts the burden on the carrier. -Rates on Lumber and Other Forest Products, 21 I. C. C. 455; Suspensions of Advances on Soft Coal, 23 I. C. C. 518, 519. Burden on carrier to justify increased carload minimum.— Advance in Rates on Potatoes, 23 I. C. C. 69. Statement made that admission of complainant relieved defendant of burden of proof.-Wisconsin State Millers' Assn. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 494, 495. Refusal of one carrier to accept for a through haul less than its full locals fails to meet the burden of proof.-Advance in Rates on Cement from Md. to Va., 24 I. C. C. 290, 291. Discriminatory increased charges cancelled. Switching Ice in Chicago, 24 I. C. C. 660. That an advance is of not "great consequence" does not relieve from the statute.-Rates on Corn, Oats and Other Feed, 25

I. C. C. 46. The burden of proof applies to the total charges and the separately stated charges which make the total.— Pacific Fuel & Supply Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 24. Notwithstanding the statute, parties who obtain a suspension of rates should present facts to the Commission.-Commodity Rates Between Missouri River Points, 28 I. C. C. 265, 267. "Statements of earnings per ton-mile and suggestions of increased general operating expenses" not sufficient.-Kansas-Iowa Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C. 285, 287. Existing contracts for lower rates will not prevent an increase in rates.-Rates on Carload Stone, 29 I. C. C. 136. The theory of equalization of rates not sufficient here.-Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C. 415, 419. Statute discussed.-Five Per Cent Case, 31 I. C. C. 351, 448. That a commodity usually takes a class rate justifies increasing the rate to the class basis. Rates on Beer and Other Malt Products, 31 I. C. C. 544. Not applied when rates were increased to the point where they normally had been.-Corp. Com. of Okla. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 31 I. C. C. 532, 535, 536. Here the charge was increased and the burden of proof was on the carriers.Empire Coke Co. v. B. & S. R. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 573, 582. Cases discussed.-East J. R. Co. v. C. R. R. of N. J., 36 I. C. C. 146.

Merely correcting fourth section violations does not meet burden. LaFayette Chamber of Commerce v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 619. General permission to increase rates is not an approval of any particular rate.-Globe Soap Co. v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 40 I. C. C. 121, 123. General statement of increased costs does not meet the burden. Kaw River Sand & Material Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 42 I. C. C. 504, 508. Statute does not apply to initial rates, says the Commission.-Bay State Milling Company v. Transit Corp., 43 I. C. C. 338; Cotton from New Orleans, 49 I. C. C. 751, 753. Provision applied.-Manufacturers' R. Co. v. United States, 246 U. S. 457, 62 L. Ed. 831, 38 Sup. Ct. 383. Burden of proof under this section discussed and meaning explained. -Grain and Products to Arkansas, 128 I. C. C. 29; Western Paper Makers Chem. Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 128 I. C. C. 244; Republic Creosoting Co. v. A. G. S. R. R. Co., 128 I. C. C. 547; Am. Fruit & Veg. Shippers' Asso. v. Am. Ry. Exp. Co., 128 I. C. C. 651.

§ 496. Shippers May Designate Routing. In all cases where at the time of delivery of property to any railroad corporation being a common carrier, for transportation subject to the provisions of this Act to any point of destination, between which and the point of such delivery for shipment two or more through routes and through rates shall have been established as in this Act provided to which through routes and through rates such carrier is a party, the person, firm, or corporation making such shipment, subject to such reasonable exceptions and regulations as the Interstate Commerce Commission shall from time to time prescribe, shall have the right to designate in writing by which of such through routes such property shall be transported to destination, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the initial carrier to route said property and issue a through bill of lading therefor as so directed, and to transport said property over its own line or lines and deliver the same to a connecting line or lines according to such through route, and it shall be the duty of each of said connecting carriers to receive said property and transport it over the said line or lines and deliver the same to the next succeeding carrier or consignee according to the routing instructions in said bill of lading: Provided, however, That the shipper shall in all instances have the right to determine, where competing lines of railroad constitute portions of a through line or route, over which of said competing lines so constituting a portion of said through line or route his freight shall be transported.

Par. (5), Section 15, added by the Amendment of June 18, 1910, paragraph (8) as numbered by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 419.

Ruling under prior law stated, and holding that tariff provisions cannot exempt the carrier from the duty imposed by this law. Weyl-Zuckerman & Co. v. C. M. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 493, 495. When shipper's instructions are not complete it is the duty of carriers to seek further instructions. Bruner Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 40 I. C. C. 549, 551; Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co. v. T. F. Ry. Co., 42 I. C. C. 421, 422. Duty stated. -Wistar, Underhill & Nixon v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 43 I. C. C. 254, 256. Where carrier's agent made out bill of lading showing routing and shipper signed it, held that routing was that

of the carrier and not of the shipper on showing that shipper was unversed in legal technicalities and unaware of effect of such routing.-Allied Contractors v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 152 I. C. C. 386.

§ 497. Reciprocal Duties of Carriers as to Routing.Whenever property is diverted or delivered by one carrier to another carrier contrary to routing instructions in the bill of lading, unless such diversion or delivery is in compliance with a lawful order, rule, or regulation of the Commission, such carriers shall in a suit or action in any court of competent jurisdiction, be jointly and severally liable to the carrier thus deprived of its right to participate in the haul of the property, for the total amount of the rate or charge it would have received had it participated in the haul of the property. The carrier to which the property is thus diverted shall not be liable in such suit or action if it can show, the burden of proof being upon it, that before carrying the property it had no notice, by bill of lading, waybill or otherwise, of the routing instructions. In any judgment which may be rendered the plaintiff shall be allowed to recover against the defendant a reasonable attorney's fee to be taxed in the case.

Paragraph (9), Section 15, added by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 420.

§ 498. Rule as to Non-Routed Traffic. With respect to traffic not routed by the shipper, the Commission may, whenever the public interest and a fair distribution of the traffic require, direct the route which such traffic shall take after it arrives at the terminus of one carrier or at a junction point with another carrier, and is to be there delivered to another carrier.

Paragraph (10), Section 15, added by Section 420 of the Transportation Act, 1920.

§ 499. Unlawful to Give or Receive Information Relative to Shipments.-It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act, or any officer, agent, or employee of such common carrier, or for any other person or corporation lawfully authorized by such common carrier to