In re Express Rates, Practices, Accounts, and Revenues, 24 I. C. C. 380. Express carriers should establish a rule providing for the return or forwarding of shipments by railroad, for which service a reasonable charge should be made.-In re Express Rates, Practices, Accounts, and Revenues, 24 I. C. C. 380.

745. Disposition of fractions.-Rule stated for disposition of fractions of 1 cent in computing increased express rates. In re Express Rates, Practices, Accounts, and Revenues, 35 I. C. C. 3; Express Rates, 1920, 58 I. C. C. 281, 58 I. C. C. 707.

XII. PASSENGER, BAGGAGE, AND SLEEPING CAR

Passenger Fares

See note 207 under this paragraph, Value of service, as to passengers; note 208, as to sleeping-car service; and note 209, sleeping-car surcharge, to railroad carrier.

Volume of traffic, as affecting passenger fares, note 33, under this paragraph.

Regulations as to transportation of passengers, note 15, sec. 1 (6), this title.

Tickets and receipts, notes 710-720, sec. 1 (6).

Applicability of fourth section to passenger fares, note 33, sec. 4 (1), this title.

760. In general.-The general rule as to passenger fares must be the same as to freight rates in determining the reasonableness of through rates which exceed the aggregate of intermediates.-Kurtz v. Pennsylvania Co., 16 I. C. C. 410.

If carriers maintain through passenger fares made up of the sums of locals they should use the lowest local available, especially when the higher local includes privileges not directly pertaining to the transportation and of which the through passenger does not care to avail himself.-United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 470.

The commission does not subscribe to the proposition that where freight rates are producing, on the property devoted to freight service, the rate of return which has been fixed as fair, it can as a matter of law authorize no increases in such rates to correct deficiencies in aggregate earnings growing out of inability of passenger business to meet its full share of revenue burden. Freight and passenger service are both essential and both may be subject to reasonable rates and charges to produce the fair aggregate return authorized by law even though thereby a higher rate of return may be exacted from the one than from the other.--Revenues in Western District, 113 I. C. C. 3.

Long-haul through passenger business is more desirable and can be carried at lower rates than strictly local business.-Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau, of Salt Lake City v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 218.

When unreasonable passenger rates are ordered to be reduced the sparsity of population is hardly a controlling inquiry; the question is the volume of passenger business the lines handle and under what circumstances.-Commercial Club, Traffic Bureau, of Salt Lake City v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 218.

It is customary and usual upon very short hauls, where traffic is very light, to charge higher rates for freight as well as passenger service per mile than in case of long roads which have a large volume of business, and there are many grounds upon which it can be justified.-Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v.

New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 195.

Volume of traffic is considered in fixing passenger fares.-Merchants & Mfrs. Assn. of Baltimore v. Atlantic City R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 129.

761. Special forms of fares, in general. See Reduced rates, generally, sec. 22 (1), this title; Caretakers, note 15, sec. 1 (7), this title.

Mileage, excursion, and communtation passenger tickets are issued for different purposes and the price for each is determined on special considerations. The charge made for one kind does not determine the admissible charge for either of the others.Associated Wholesale Grocers of St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 156.

763. - Certificate plan.-Tariffs of special reduced return-trip fares on the certificate plan in connection with a convention, conditioned upon the presentation of a certain number of certificates, do not permit the use of such reduced fares for return unless the requisite number of certificates are presented, although more than the required number of persons attended the convention. The usual and convenient way of determining whether or not the required number is in attendance is by requiring the presentation of certificates. The carrier must adopt some such plan to assure itself that it is complying with its tariff provisions and with the law.-National Assn. of Letter Carriers v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 6.

764. Commutation rates. See Commutation tickets, note 14, sec. 22 (1), this title.

When a carrier has undertaken a definite and regular commutation service, it is the power as well as the duty of the commission under this paragraph to examine into the reasonableness of the charges exacted.--Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428. 27 I. C. C. 549.

or

The provision of sec. 22 of this title that nothing therein shall apply to "the issuance of mileage, excursion, commutation passenger tickets,” while fully authorizing the issuance of such tickets, does not relieve the carriers as to rates charged from the requirements of reasonableness and impartiality.-Larrison v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 147; Field v. Southern Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 298; Eschner v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 60; In re Mileage, Excursion, and Commutation Tickets, 23 I. C. C. 95; Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 27 I. C. C. 549.

In fixing reasonable fares for commutation traffic elements other than cost, which determine reasonableness, must not be glossed over. Value of the service to the habitual traveler, if often vaguely conceived, is none the less a real factor; and fares tending to put the use of the railroads beyond the reach of the average commuter of a particular region or which might tend to compel, on a large scale, changes of residence, or which tend to disrupt community life of those dependent upon this service, must be viewed in the light of the carrier's obligation as a common carrier designed for community service.-Commutation Fares to and from Washington, D. C., 33 I. C. C. 428.

765. Excursion. See Excursion tickets, note 12, sec. 22. (1), this title.

The requirement of this paragraph that all rates must be reasonable, has no real application to excursion fares. Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428. Compare In re Passenger Tariffs, 2 I. C. C. 649.

Fares for ordinary movement of passengers are not properly to be compared with fares provided for these excursion parties in view of the substantially different conditions attached. Carnegie Board of Trade v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 28 I. C. C. 122.

766. Extra-fare trains.-The practice of requiring some excess fare on trains making unusual speed is customary.-Harrington v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., Unreported A-227.

767. Limited tickets.-See Carriers may fix rates, terms, and conditions, and discontinue sale, note 20, sec. 22 (1), this title.

Whether the ticket upon which he travels be for one month or three months neither alters the value of the service to the commuter nor the cost to the carrier.-Commutation Fares to and from Washington, D. C., 33 I. C. C. 428.

768. Mileage and scrip books.See sec. 22 (2) and (3), this title, Interchangeable mileage tickets to be required by commission; penalty.

The requirement of this paragraph that all rates must be reasonable has, It seems, no real application to mileage books; and, though an exceptional case might require a different conclusion, a carrier ordinarily may refuse to continue to issue mileage tickets lower than its normal fares.-Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428. (Editorial comment: Decided prior to enactment of sec. 22 (2) and (3) of this title.)

Mileage, excursion, and commutation passenger tickets are issued for different purposes, and the price for each kind is determined on special considerations. The charge made for one does not determine the admissible charge for either of the others.-Associated Wholesale Grocers of St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 156.

772. Through fares. See Comparison of through vs. local rates, note 270. 773.

Workmen's rates.-See Carrier's contracts, note 6, sec. 1 (7), this title.

An intrastate special train service for workmen employed at a mine which furnished the principal tonnage for the carrier, at a flat rate per month, which apparently at least covers the cost of operation with possibly a little more, does not impose any burden upon interstate commerce.Excess Income of St. Louis & O'Fallon Ry. Co., 124 I. C. C. 3.

An agreement providing for free transportation for workmen, materials, and supplies required by complainant for the performance of a construction contract can only be enforced by the courts.-McArthur Bros. Co. V. El Paso & S. W. Co., 34 I. C. C. 30.

779. Disposition of fractions.Rule stated for disposition of fractions of 1 cent in computing passenger fares.-Western Passenger Fares, 37 I C. C. 1; Increased Rates, 1920, 58 I. C. C. 220, modified, Authority to Increase Rates, 58 I. C. C. 302.

Baggage

See Baggage, notes 737-745, and Baggage regulations on ticket, note 716, sec. 1 (6), this title.

Carrier's duty to provide baggagecar service for perishables, sec. 1 (4), this title, note 27.

785. Free transportation of passenger's effects.—The free transportation of a limited amount of baggage

is an incident of, and is included within, the passenger-fare contract.Ellison-White Chautauqua System of Portland, Oreg., v. Director General, 68 I. C. C. 492.

Except when competition necessitates absorption, a reasonable amount is usually added to through fares to cover transfer of a passenger and his baggage.-Burford v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 182.

786. Excess baggage.-There is no necessary relation between passenger fares and charges for excess baggage.-National Baggage Committee v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 32 I. C. C. 152.

The minimum charge on excess baggage should cover both excess weight and excess dimensions when the combined extra charges for both do not exceed the minimum charge.-Regulations Restricting the Dimensions of Baggage, 26 I. C. C. 292.

787. Property carried in baggage cars.-Rates on cream in cans, for transportation in baggage cars in passenger trains are not comparable with express rates on milk and cream since the express rates include terminal service not characteristic of milk and cream movement.-South Mississippi Dairymen's Assn. V. Illinois Central R. Co., 44 I. C. C. 297; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 85 I. C. C. 377.

Merely because cream is handled on through and local trains which carry express and baggage cars and are manned by crews which would be necessary in any event, cream traffic should not be considered as so much surplus transportation" and accorded lower rates.-Mutual Creamery Co. v. American Ry. Exp. Co., 132 I. C. C. 207.

66

Proposed cancellation of special newspaper rates on illustrated newspaper supplements shipped in baggage cars on passenger trains prior to publication, leaving in effect higher firstclass freight or express rates, not justified. Withdrawal of the present service and rates would necessitate re

sort to the express service as the only kind that would appear adequate, and the higher rates that would then be applicable are not to be sanctioned on this traffic. Rates on Illustrated Newspaper Supplements, 74 I. C. C. 336.

Baggage-car service for newspapers is different from any other freight or passenger service rendered by railroads in several important characteristics, and for this reason many ordinary tests used in determining reasonable rates for transportation services, such as comparisons with rates on other commodities for corresponding distances, can not be employed.---Newspapers in Baggage Cars, 104 I. C. C. 527.

The characteristics surrounding transportation of newspapers in baggage cars are so varied as to weights and revenue per shipment, length of hauls, volume of tonnage, and methods of handling and diffusion, that it is impracticable to attempt to determine reasonableness of a flat charge by allocations of costs of transportation.Newspaper in Baggage Cars, 104 I. C. C. 527.

Sleeping Cars

790. Generally. See also note 208, Value of service; sleeping-car service under this paragraph.

Surcharge, to railroad carrier, note 209, under this paragraph.

Sleeping-car companies not in statutory rule of rate making, sec. 15a (1), this title.

The charge for the upper berth should be distinctly less than for the lower.-Loftus V. Pullman Co., 18 I. C. C. 135, 20 I. C. C. 21.

B. TRANSMISSION OF INTELLI

GENCE

See Preliminary, note 150, Telegraph and telephone communications as included in interstate commerce.

Carriers subject to the act, telegraph, telephone, and cable companies included, note 110, sec. 1 (1), this title.

Telephone and telegraph companies as common carriers, note 23, sec. 1 (3). Telephone and telegraph facilities at stations, as included in "transportation," note 52, sec. 1 (3).

Regulations as to transmission of intelligence, Extension of credit, note 17, sec. 1 (6).

Application of fourth section to transmission systems, note 21, sec. 4 (1).

XIII. TELEPHONE

See Preceding cross references. 800. In general. By the amendatory act of June 18, 1910, telephone and telegraph companies were declared to be common carriers and the commission was given jurisdiction and control over their interstate rates and practices, as well as the rules, regulations, conditions, and restrictions affecting their interstate rates.-Huntington Engineering Co. v. Chesapeake & F. Teleph. Co., 112 I. C. C. 377.

801. Toll service.-Toll service is more costly to perform than local service. Malone v. New York Teleph. Co., 40 I. C. C. 185.

The act expressly authorizes reasonable classification of telephone messages and charges, and as toll service differs substantially from local service it may reasonably be rated higher. The single fact that the charge for toll calls was more than for local calls is not enough to prove that the through rate charged was unreasonable.-Malone v. New York Teleph. Co., 40 I. C. C. 185.

802. Local service.-See note 801 under this paragraph.

803. Joint rates.-Through calls at combination rates require fewer terminal services than separate calls under rates combined, and combination through rates that include charges for terminal service not performed are unreasonable. Malone V. New York Teleph. Co., 40 I. C. C. 185.

XIV. TELEGRAPH

See cross references under B, Transmission of intelligence, supra.

810. In general.-Congress has so far occupied the entire field of the interstate business of telegraph companies by enacting provisions respecting interstate telegraph rates as to exclude State action invalidating a contract limiting the liability of a telegraph company for error in sending an unrepeated interstate message to the refunding of the price paid for the transmission of the message.— Postal Teleg.-Cable Co. V. WarrenGodwin Lbr. Co., 251 U. S. 27, 64 L. ed. 118, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 69.

While sec. 6 of this title does not require telegraph and telephone companies to publish and file their charges for interstate transmission of messages, other sections require that such charges shall be just and reasonable, and neither unduly preferential nor unduly prejudicial.-Private Wire Contracts, 50 I. C. C. 731.

A State statute relating to attorney's fees had no application to an action for damages resulting from a failure to deliver money by telegraph from one State to another and to a nonadjacent foreign country.-Basila v. Western Union Teleg. Co., 24 Fed. (2d) 569.

Receivers of telegrams are bound by the terms and conditions on the back of the telegram blank used by the sender.-Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Czizek, 264 U. S. 281, 68 L. ed. 682, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 328.

A provision on a telegraph blank that the company will not be liable for negligence unless the claim is presented within 60 days after the message is filed for transmission does not apply literally to a case where, through the company's fault, the injured person does not know of the message until the 60 days have passed.-Western Union Teleg. Co. v. Czizek, 264 U. S. 281, 68 L. ed. 682, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 328.

811. Basis for charges.-The basing of charges for private-wire service upon the wholesale theory is not just and reasonable.-Private Wire Contracts, 50 I. C. C. 731.