was in force; and, being informed of the correct rate before the shipment, on advice of the carrier the shipper allowed the shipment to go forward on the carrier's agreeing to apply for authority to make the refund. The commission said that to grant the refund in such a case would do away with the published tariff altogether.

Claims of reparation are determined upon the principle of knowledge which the shipper is conclusively presumed to have as to the published rates. In case of through routing it has been held that a carrier is criminally responsible under the Elkins Act (see infra, § 422), for failure to observe a through rate with which it participates although it filed no written agreement therein. In such cases the shipper could not be conclusively charged with knowledge of the parties to the through route and rate.

§ 310. Status of carriers as shippers or consignees.-A very considerable volume of the interstate railroad traffic of the country is that of shipments for railroads themselves who may be shippers or consignees. The commission has had occasion in several cases to consider the status of a carrier, which is a shipper or consignee as well as a transporter and the duty and responsibility of other carriers in routing such shipments, and the commission has expressed its view in Rule 225 Conference Rulings Bulletin No. 5 (1909):

"In answer to inquiries the commission expresses the opinion, that under the law a carrier, or a person or corporation operating a railroad or other transportation line, may not, as a shipper over the lines of another carrier, be given any preference in the application of tariff rates on interstate shipments, but it may lawfully and properly take advantage of legal tariff joint rates applying to a convenient junction or other point on its own line, provided such shipments are consigned through to such point from point of origin and are, in good faith sent to such billed destination. In other words, one carrier shipping its fuel, material, or other supplies over the lines of another carrier must pay the legal tariff rates applicable to the same commodities shipped by an individual, but when a carrier is the consignee of a shipment of its own property which moves under a joint rate and is to participate in the haul of same via its own line, routing instructions of consignor to a specified junction point on the line of consignee carrier must be observed. There may be some instances, such as the movement of needed fuel, in which,

in order to keep the trains or boats moving, such traffic could temporarily be given preference in movement without creating unjust or unwarranted discrimination.

"Where stock in one carrier company is owned by another carrier company, but both maintain separate organizations and report separately to the commission, they may not lawfully carry property free for each other."

For applications of these rulings in cases of misrouting claims against the initial carrier in shipment of property where carrier was the consignee, see 21 I. C. C. R. p. 280, where reparation was awarded for damages resulting from misrouting shipment of lumber. In 21 I. C. C. R. 270, the commission condemned the practice of applying a portion of a joint rate from the point of origin to the point of destination, to-wit, that portion from the point of origin to the junction point, for the use of a particular shipper which is not published for the benefit at large nor filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission under section 6. But the commission said that nothing therein was to be construed as denying the carriers themselves the benefits of through rates on company material according to lawfully published tariffs. In another case, 21 I. C. C. R. 290, it was said that a carrier was liable for damages resulting from a disregard of a shipper's specific routing instructions, even though it sends a shipment via a route taking a lower rate to the originally billed destination, and that it was no part of the carrier's duty to speculate upon the reasons which actuated such instructions and assume that they do not express the shipper's desire. See also 21 I. C. C. R. 270.

§ 311. What is included in schedules.-The section provides for the publication, not only of the charges for carriage, but for a separate statement of terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges and all other charges which the commission may require, all privileges and facilities granted or allowed, or any rules and regulations which in any wise change, affect or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates, fares, and charges, or the value of the service rendered to the shipper or consignee.

In the Grand Haven Cartage Case, supra, the supreme court said, quoting the opinion of the commission, that cartage was in general a terminal expense, and was not in general assumed

by the carrier. That it was informed by the report of the conmission for 1889 that there were many railroad companies throughout the country which furnished cartage at their stations, but that in no instance did the rate sheets or schedules contain anything to that effect. At that time the statute made no such requirement. The court suggested that it was proper for the commission to include the cartage, if furnished, as one of the terminal charges. The commission acted upon the suggestion (see 7 I. C. C. Rep. 592; 8 I. C. C. Rep. 560), and made a general order February 8, 1898, requiring a statement of cartage and other terminal services. For the views of the commission on this subject, see also 10 I. C. C. Rep. 352, and 9 I. C. C. Rep. 1.

As to the requirement of the separate publication of terminal charges, see also Interstate Commerce Commission v. Stickney, supra, § 153, where it was held by the supreme court that terminal charges for the delivery of live stock at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago, must be separately stated in tariff schedules. See also decision of the circuit court of appeals, seventh circuit, Walker v. Keenan, supra, where it was held that a railroad could post a schedule for a separate terminal charge of a fixed sum for a car for delivery to the stock yards where located off its own lines.

The requirement of separate schedules is also illustrated in Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Hamberger, et al., 155 Fed. 849 (1907), circuit court of Va., where it was held that the failure to insert in the schedule a limitation of non-transferability of passenger tickets, made such a provision in the ticket void, and hence the railroad could not thereafter maintain a suit to enjoin the transfer of the ticket.

§ 312 (237). What is sufficient publication and filing.Schedules of joint tariffs required to be filed with the commission need not be duplicated by each company which unite in making them. 1 I. C. C. R. 225, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 598. The receipt of a written statement from each company acknowledging the authority for filing the tariff on its behalf is sufficient. The posting of notices in a railroad station, that all rates are on file in the office of the station agent and may be examined on application to the agent, is not sufficient. 7 I. C. C. R. 43. 9 I. C. C. R. 221.

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. 255.

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.

§ 313 (238). Joint tariffs and through rates.-An important change made by the amendment of 1906 was the requirement in the same publication of a joint rate as of separate rates. Prior to this the publication of joint rates had been regulated by orders of the commission, which, by order of March 23, 1889, prescribed that the carriers should publish their joint rates as separate individual roads were required by law to do. See 9 I. C. C. R. 182.

In 1907 (see 12 I. C. C. R. 164) the commission had a hearing at the request of various shippers and railroads with reference to the construction of this amendment of 1906, and particularly with reference to the matter of through rates, which should govern shipments over more than one railroad where no joint rate had been made. (See also report of 1907, p. 75).

The commission ruled that when a through route has been formed, the rate charged is a through rate and the shipment will move upon the rate existing at the time it is billed by the initial carrier. Any increase or decrease made in the through rate after

the date of shipment, is not applicable to such through shipment. A through route is a continuous line of railway formed by an arrangement, express or implied, between connecting carriers. A through bill of lading is conclusive evidence of the existence of a through route, under the principle established in the Social Circle Case, 162 U. S. 184, supra; L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 650, supra. A through route must have a through rate for every service that it offers. If a through rate is established notice must be given to the world of such arrangement by publication. If no through rate is established over a through route the sum of the locals will make up the rate. 5 I. C. C. R. 44, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 706.

As to jurisdiction of commission, under amendments of 1906 and 1910 to establish through routes without consent of carriers, see infra, section 15 of act.

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, 8 I. C. C. R. 316.

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

§ 314 (129). Responsibility for through rates.-When railroad companies make a through and continuous line and offer it for the use of the public, the commission has ruled that they cannot rid themselves of responsibility for unjust charges by breaking the haul in two and calling themselves carrier of the separate ends of their through line. Through and continuous lines imply through rates, which must be reasonable rates, and suitable instrumentalities of shipment and carriage. 6 I. C. C. R. 378. The commission, in 2 I. C. C. R. 131 and 2 Int. Com. Rep. 78, applied this principle to the Pennsylvania railroad company, which operated a part of a through line and owns a controlling interest in the capital stock of a connecting line, the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis, and the commission ruled that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company could not free itself of the responsibility for the through rates by hiding behind the corporation of the other company as a separate carrier.

The carrier however does not assume responsibility for rates