§ 29. Changes in schedule; notice required; *[power of commissions to allow changes on less notice].— Unless the commission otherwise orders no change shall be made in any rate, fare or charge, or joint rate, fare or charge, which shall have been filed and published by a common carrier in compliance with the requirements of this act, except after thirty days' notice to the commission and publication for thirty days as required by section twenty-eight of this act, which shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force, and the time when the changed rate, fare or charge will go into effect; and all proposed changes shall be shown by printing, filing and publishing new schedules or shall be plainly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time and kept open to public inspection. The commission, for good cause shown, may allow changes in rates without requiring the thirty days' notice and publication herein provided for, by duly filing and publishing in such manner as it may direct an order specifying the change so made and the time when it shall take effect; all such changes shall be immediately indicated upon its schedules by the common carrier. Provisions as to changes in schedules of rates filed with Interstate Commerce Commission,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 6. Forfeitures and penalties for failure to give required notice of changes in schedule,- see post, § 56. General power to regulate property devoted to public use,-see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22]. Power of the state to regulate the mode of operation of railroads,— see ante, § 1, note [2]. Exemptions from public control,-see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. General rules of statutory construction,- see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40]. Purpose of acts regulating railroads,-see ante, § 1, note [32]. What constitutes a railroad or street railroad,- see ante, § 2, note [8]. Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15]. Meaning of term "rate"- see ante, § 26, note [26]. Where laundry soap in less than carload lots had been placed in the fourth class in the first classification made under the Interstate Commerce Act, and had been voluntarily maintained there by the de * Words in brackets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed. fendant carriers for more than thirteen years, they were not justified in reclassifying such freight so it would pay 20 per cent. less than third class rates, without changing the carload classification, on the mere claim that the prior classification had been too low to pay the cost of transportation in less than carload lots, where the reclassification was not general and made no attempt proximately to apportion. the cost of the service equally among the different articles of traffic as between carloads and less than carloads.- Interst. Com. Commission v. H. & D. R. Co., 146 Fed. 559; affd. 206 U. S. 142, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 648 A carrier has a right, at common law, to make reasonable regulations as to the manner and form in which it will receive goods for shipment, and to change or modify such regulations from time to time, upon reasonable notice.- Harp v. Choctaw O. & G. R. Co., 125 Fed. 445. All advances in freight rates, and full data as to such advances, should be promptly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission.Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382. Changes in rules and regulations which would affect the aggregate rate, must be shown by printing new schedules or indicating them upon the schedules posted at the time.- Suffern, H. & Co. v. Ind., D. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 255. Only wilful failure to file and post notices of an advance in rates, etc., can make the carrier liable to a criminal action.- Railroad Commission of Florida v. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 414, 688, 5 I. C. C. R. 13. Reducing passenger rates without filing schedules thereof, and without the consent of the connecting lines over which the tickets are sold, violates Interst. Com. Act, § 6.- In re Passenger Tariffs & Rate Wars, 2 Inters. Com. R. 340, 2 I. C. C. R. 513. A railroad, at common law, may change its classification of freight and passengers at its pleasure.- Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Parks, 18 Ill. 460. State may require carriers to submit their schedules of rates, etc., in advance to a commission.-Stone v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 62 Miss. 607. § 30. Concurrence in joint tariffs; *[filing of all] contracts, agreements or arrangements between any carriers.— 1. The names of the several carriers which are parties to any joint tariff shall be specified therein, and each of the parties thereto, other than the one filing the same, shall file with the commission such evidence of concurrence therein or acceptance thereof as may be required or approved by the commission; and where such evidence of concurrence or acceptance is filed, it shall not be necessary for the carriers filing the same also to file copies of the tariffs in which they are named as parties. 2. Every common carrier shall file with the commission sworn copies of every contract, agreement or arrangement with any other common carrier or common carriers relating in any way to the transportation of passengers, property or freight. Similar provisions of Interstate Commerce Act,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 6. Power of Commission to require special reports and information from carriers,- see generally, post, § 46. Power of Commission to order joint tariffs and through routes,― see post, § 49. Power of the state to regulate carriers' way of doing business,- see ante, § 1, note [2]. Exemptions from public control,- see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. General rules of statutory construction,- see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40]. Purpose of acts regulating railroads,- see ante, § 1, note [32]. What constitutes a railroad or street railroad,- see ante, § 2, note [8]. Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15]. Receiving interstate shipments from connecting carrier makes a railroad wholly within a state engaged in interstate commerce,see ante, § 25, note [7]. Provisions of Act applicable to through routes as well as single lines, see ante, § 26, note [25]. Discriminations in joint through rates,- see post, § 31, notes [67][77]. What constitutes a through shipment,- see post, § 31, note [72]. Duty of carriers establishing joint rate to charge the published rate, see post, § 33, note [1]. Long and short haul section applies to through routes,- see post, § 36, note [2]. Liability of carriers on through shipments,- see post, § 38, notes [14]-[15]. Division of joint rates,- see post, § 49, note [29]. Words in brackets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed. [1] Power of railroads to establish through routes and joint rates. Power of Commission to order through routes and through rates,see post, § 49, note [24]. Supervision of Commission over through routes and rates,- see post, § 49, note [28]. Railroad corporations, unless forbidden by their charters, have power to contract for shipments the entire distance over any connecting lines. -Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258. A railroad is not authorized, by Interst. Com. Act, § 6, to form through routes and joint rates with a stage company and hotel association at Yellowstone Park.- Wylie v. No. Pac. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 145. There is no reason why a railroad, owned by one of its principal shippers, should not make joint rates, file joint tariffs, and agree upon joint divisions as other railroads do.- Re Division of Joint Rates, 10 Inters. Com. R. 385. Contracts made by railroads with connecting carriers to provide through transportation, are within their incidental powers, if not restricted by their charters, and are commendable, if made with the bona fide purpose of regulating and facilitating traffic in a reasonable and just manner. If intended as, or amounting to, a traffic arrangement creating an authorized monopoly, they are against public policy, and void.- Stewart v. Erie & W. Trans. Co., 17 Minn. 372. The right of connecting carriers to make contracts for through rates, is incident to their powers unless prohibited by their charters.— Munhall v. Pa. R. Co., 92 Pa. 150. 66 [2] Through routes" and "through rates" defined. What are connecting lines,- see post, § 35, note [18]. 99 66 What constitutes a through route," through rate," and "continuous carriage" discussed and defined.— Inters. Com. Commission v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 56 Fed. 925. A through route is a continuous line of railway formed by an arrangement, express or implied, between connecting carriers.- In the Matter of Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 Inters. Com. R. 190. A through route is a new unit, and therefore the rate for every service over it is a unit, even though it be divided between the several carriers arranging themselves into the through route. Through carriage implies a through rate and this is equally true whether the through rate be published as a whole by the joint action of the connecting carriers, or, in the absence of a joint arrangement, be published in portions by the several carriers. The route being one, a charge for a service over it is a charge for a single service, all the terms of which must be fixed at one and the same time; that is, at the time the initial carrier enters into the engagement for the service. The rate is either a joint through rate made by arrangement by the parties to the through route, or it is a combination through rate consisting of the "separately established through rates, fares and charges applied to the through transportation." This sum, however, is a single rate for a single service, and a contract for through transportation is a contract for transportation at the through rate, whether jointly or separately established, in force at the time the shipment is billed. In the Matter of Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 Inters. Com. R. 190. There may be through routes without joint rates. A joint rate is simply a through rate, every part of which has been made by express agreement between the carriers making the through route. A joint rate is a rate over a through route, but it is not the only through rate recognized by the Interstate Commerce Act and the decisions. In the Matter of Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 Inters. Com. R. 190. The use of the adjective "joint" as applied to tariffs, etc., implies that it is the result of agreement or mutual consent.- New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Platt, 7 Inters. Com. R. 323. A rate fixed by legislative authority for a shipment over more than one road is a joint rate, though the order in form fixes the part which each road shall charge.- State v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 90 Iowa, 594, 58 N. W. 1060. [3] When agreement with shipper for through transportation exists. The receipt of goods marked for a place beyond the terminus of the carrier's route does not import an agreement to carry them to their final destination.- Root v. Gt. Western R. Co., 45 N. Y. 524, revg. s. c. 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 199. Acceptance of goods marked to a destination beyond a carrier's line is prima facie a contract for through transportation.- Erie R. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 Ill. 239. A contract between a shipper and a carrier construed not to provide for transportation beyond terminus.- Dunbar v. Port Royal & A. R. Co., 36 S. C. 110, 15 S. E. 357. [4] When through route and through rates exist. Trough routes a matter of contract,- see post, § 35, note [13.]. That a shipper whose goods had to pass over several roads to reach their destination, made its contract solely with one company, is proof of an arrangement between the carriers for a continuous carriage.— U. S. v. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 305. |