Shippers and consignees cannot depend for the lawful rate and charge upon statements, as they must be guided by the published rates themselves, and the schedules must therefore be sufficient to give the necessary information. 7 I. C. C. R.

225.

The only satisfactory method of publishing rates, 6 I. C. C. R. 488, is to definitely state the charges fixed between points clearly specified, without burdening and confusing the public with the need of making of involved calculations or with analyzing a series of statements to determine whether a particular rate has been changed since the particular tariff was issued. Thus published tariffs specifying rates upon standard articles, as vegetables shipped from Florida, should state plainly the weight or dimensions of the crate to which the rate should apply. 8 I. C. C. R. 585.

Rules or regulations which, if enforced, would result in changing or affecting rates or charges shown on 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 schedules then in effect, and such changes must be shown by printing new schedules or be plainly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time. 7 I. C. C. R. 255. As to publication and filing of rate schedules, see annual report of Commission of 1904, p. 64.

§ 238. Joint tariffs and through rates. As to both classes of rates, that is, whether over the line of a single carrier or over a continuous line operated by more than one carrier, the provision is uniform that established rates should not be increased except after ten days notice, or reduced after three days notice, and as to these two classes of rates the provisions of the law differ in no respect except one, and that is that the Commission may prescribe a measure of publicity which the carrier should be required to give of their rates and fares on such continuous route, while on the other class the requirements are specified in the law itself. Such exception does not go to the form, substance or application of the rates in any degree whatsoever; and the Commission has by order of March 23, 1889, prescribed that carriers by such continuous lines or rates should publish their joint rates as separate and

individual roads are required by law to do. See 9 I. C. C. R.

182.

Where freight passes over a continuous line or route operated by more than one company, on which no joint tariff of rates or charges have been established, the tariff of rates or charges is the same as the established local rates or charges by the several companies operating such continuous line. 5 I. C. C. R. 44, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 706.

When the rates established applying between the points within a single state are applied as part of combination rates in transportation between different states, such state rates, as well as the interstate rates with which they are combined, must be published and filed as provided by section 6. See also as to application of the section, S I. C. C. R. 316.

So passenger excursion rates are required to be published and filed. 3 I. C. C. R. 465, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 729.

239. Published joint rates must be duly authorized.The only rates, which a carrier is authorized to publish, are its own local rates, that is, to points on its own line, and such through rates, as it is authorized by agreement with any connecting carrier to combine with the rates of such carrier to points on its line. It cannot lawfully add to the duly established rates of another carrier any amount it pleases less than its own local rates, and publish and use them the same as a through rate to points on the line of another carrier without its consent. 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 through rate or through charge. There must be lawful rates upon each of the roads before there can be a lawful combination of rates. This was ruled in a case, 7 I. C. C. R. 323, where the receivers of a road connecting with the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad, published what purported to be a joint tariff of coal rates from from the point on its road to a number of destinations reached by the New York & New Haven road, whereby the complainant company received its full local charges to said destinations from the junction points with defendant's road, and the defendant accepted the remainder, which was in each instance less than the established local rate from the place of

shipment to the point of connection. The New York & New Haven road which carried coal to the same destinations by a longer route over its own rails thereby securing greater compensation than was afforded to it by coal coming to it from defendant's road, refused to unite in these rates published by the connecting carriers so unauthorized and its complaint was sustained. Commissioner Clements dissented, holding that a carrier could make and publish through rates to points on a connecting line less than its regular locals, provided the rates on its own line were duly filed and published and are themselves just and reasonable and are not in themselves unjustly discriminative against local shippers.

§ 240. Application to export and import rates.--The most serious question in the practical enforcement of section 6 has been in relation to export and import rates; that is, upon through rates, including an inland rate subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the ocean rate to a foreign port not subject to such jurisdiction. The practical difficulty arose from the fact that the ocean rates from the ports are not under the control of the Commission and are constantly varying.

In the language of the Commission in a recent decision, 10 I. C. C. R. 55, the rate varies from day to day and sometimes from hour to hour. The same kind of merchandise may be carried in the same vessel, often for the same person, at different charges for the transportation.

The Commission had held in several cases that the export and import rates should be published. 3 I. C. C. R. 137, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 553; 4 I. C. C. R. 694, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 523.

Previous to the decision of the Import Rate case, supra, 162 U. S. 197, the Commission required the publication of the inland portion received by the rail carrier. Since then it has held that where a through rate was named and a through bill of lading was issued, the inland carrier might publish either its total or through rate, or its inland portion which it received. 8 I. C. C. R. 110, 8 I. C. C. R. 214. In other words, the Commission rules that the rate for the inland carrier on an export shipment from a point in the interior must either be a joint rate to a foreign destination, or a local rate to the point of export, and that in either event the law requires the carrier

to publish the rate, leaving him to determine whether its rate is a joint or an inland rate, and to publish either as it may elect. The Commission concluded its recent exhaustive investigation upon this subject, (10 I. C. C. R. 55); by holding, first, that the act now requires the publication of the export and import tariffs in the same manner as the domestic tariffs, and under the Elkin's Act of February 19, 1903, the enforcement of the pb cation is made mandatory upon the Commission. Second, that public policy urgently required that the inland transportation of export and import commerce should be subject to the act, and that the publishing and maintaining of tariffs in most instances would impose no hardships upon the carrier, but that where it did, the only remedy was by amendment to the act, as the Commission had no power to modify the requirements of the act. And third, that the carriers should in all cases file with the Commission the rates actually made, and should give thereafter notice to the public of variations in the rate as far as possible. The Commission intimated that the proper remedy was to apply to Congress for an amendment of the act in regard to the publication of through export and import rates, and that if the act was not amended within a reasonable time, it would be their duty to enforce it.

See also discussion of this subject in the report of the Commission for 1904, page 49.

SECTION 7.

$241. Continuous carriage of freights from place of shipment to place

of destination.

242. Judicial application of section.

$241. Continuous carriage of freights from place of shipment to place of destination.-SEC. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to enter into any combination, contract or agreement, expressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination; and no break of bulk, stoppage, or interruption made by such common carrier shall prevent the carriage of freights from being and being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination, unless such break, stoppage, or interruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and without any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous carriage or to evade any of the provisions of this act.

§ 242. Judicial application of section. This section, prohibiting any combination for preventing the continuity of traffic and providing for the continuous carriage of freights from the place of shipment to the place of destination, is to be considered in connection with the provision of section 3 concerning the interchange of traffic, (supra, § 211), which has been construed as leaving the carriers free to make arangements for through traffic among themselves, there being no power in the Commission or courts to compel one railroad company to deliver cars to another. It was said by the Commission in a recent case, 10 I. C. C. R. 188, that in view of this construction of section 3 of the act, it was not clear what the seventh section was intended to accomplish, and that possibly Congress had in mind that railways might attempt to interrupt traffic at state lines, thereby depriving the traffic of the character of interstate business, and that the seventh section may have been intended to prevent this. The Commission was clear that it added nothing to the third section in support of the claim made requiring the defendant carrier to deliver its cars to another carrier.

This section has also been cited in the cases wherein the courts have been asked to protect interstate carriers against interference by unlawful combinations. See chapter IV, supra.