such tariff is a compliance with the law. It would not seem impossible to have the tariffs show on their face the routes over which the rates named are available. Until this is done the information intended by the statute does not seem to be given. (Letter of Commissioner Walker, December 17, 1888.)

RETROACTIVE NOTICE.

A retroactive notice interpreting a tariff that has been issued, and attempting to give it antecedent effect, is wholly inoperative. (Letter of Commissioner Schoonmaker, January 24, 1889.)

THROUGH RATES.

Information of the making of joint through rates should be filed with the Commission, and all carriers uniting therein should be shown. It is not necessary that the through rate be filed by more than one carrier in the line, though all are under an obligation to see that it is filed. (Letter of Chairman Cooley, December 20, 1888.)

A JOINT TARIFF OF RATES OR CHARGES MUST SHOW ON ITS FACE WHAT CARRIERS UNITE IN ESTABLISHING SUCH JOINT TARIFF.

[Extract from the decision of the Commission in the case of Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. The Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co., and the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co.]

The Texas and Pacific Railway Company had issued, published, and filed with the Commission tariffs of rates on sugar, of which the following are copies:

Rate of transportation.-Issued February 11, 1889.-Effective February 21, 1889.

From New Orleans, La., to

Kansas City, Mo.; Atchison, Kans.; Leavenworth, Kans.; St. Joseph, Mo.; Plattsmouth, Nebr.; Nebraska City, Nebr.; Omaha, Nebr.; Council Bluffs, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebr.; Falls City, Nebr.

ON SUGAR.-In C. L., 24,000 lbs. and over, 30 cents per 100 lbs.

Rates to stations on the K. C. F. S. and M. R. R. and K. C. C. and S. Ry. will not exceed the rate shown above.

Transfers over the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers are included in above rate.

The above-named rate will prevail via lines above designated by letters A, B, C, D, E, and F only.

Revokes N. O. T. A. 961, corrected, and all other conflicting rates.

D. B. Morey, G. F. A., I. C. R. R., New
Orleans, La.

Theo. Welch, G. F. A., L. and N. R. R.,
Montgomery, Ala.

E. W. How, G. F. A., L. N. O. and T. Ry.,
Memphis, Tenn.

H. S. Depew, T. M., M. and O. R. R., St.
Louis, Mo.

For further information apply to

R. X. Ryan, G. F. A., Q. and C. Route,
Cincinnati, Ohio.

E. H. Hinton, G. F. A., T. and P. Ry.,
Dallas, Tex.

J. G. Schriever, T. M., So. Pac. Co., New
Orleans.

J. G. Morey, C. A., I. C. R. R.; D. C. Roberts, G. A., L. and N. R. R.; R. F. Reynolds, C. A., L. N. O. and T. Ry.; R. C. Perkins, G. A., M. and O. R. R.; A. F. Barnett, D. F. A., Q. and C. Route; H. C. Reese, C. A., T. and P. Ry.; C. W. Bein, A. G. F. A., So, Pac, Co., New Orleans, La,

The Texas and Pacific Railway and the Cromwell Pacific Through Line.

Neither the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company nor the Missouri Pacific Railway Company was a party to the said tariff N. O. T. A. 1157, issued by said Texas and Pacific and other companies February 11, 1889, or to the supplement thereto effective February 21, 1889.

Said association, including the Texas and Pacific Railway Company had published a rate of 30 cents to Kansas City and Missouri River points, and the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Company, by one of its supplemental sheets, dated July 16, 1889, announced the Kansas City rate as extended over its line to Humboldt. The Texas and Pacific refused its assent to such extension, and the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Company on August 5, 1889, canceled its supplement.

At the time of trial the complainants had not been advised of this cancellation, and their counsel, assuming said supplement to be in effect, stated to the Commission that the Kansas City rate having been made applicable to Humboldt the purpose of the complaint had been in the main accomplished, but asked on behalf of complainants an order requiring defendants thereafter to maintain the same rate on sugar to Humboldt as that maintained to Kansas City and to refund excessive charges claimed.

In their brief on behalf of one of the defendants, counsel insist "nothing can be clearer than that in the absence of a joint rate agreed upon by carriers a reasonable rate is the sum of reasonable local rates." This position of counsel that joint tariffs of rates or charges are matters of agreement between carriers is in accordance with the action of both defendants as shown in the publication and cancellation of its supplemental rate-sheet by one on the refusal of the other to join in the rate named in such sheets.

A joint tariff of rates or charges must show on its face what carriers unite in establishing such joint tariff, and for this purpose the words "and connections are insufficient, if in fact they are effective for any purpose on the rate-sheet N. O. T. A. 1157, naming only initial carriers.

The publication of said "N. O. T. A. 1157 joint freight tariff" by the New Orleans Traffic Association on behalf of the Texas and Pacific and other railway companies, none of them having a line to Missouri River points, and to which "joint freight tariff" neither the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company nor the Missouri Pacific Railway Company was a party, did not establish as provided by section 6 of the act to regulate commerce a joint tariff of rates and charges on a continuous line from New Orleans to such Missouri River points over the roads of said association or any one of them in connection with any other road or roads over which freight might pass from New Orleans to such points.

No joint tariff of rates or charges having been established in accordance with the statute on the continuous line operated by said several companies, the sum of the local rates was the only rate over said continuous line from New Orleans to Kansas City which had been published and filed in conformity with the statute.

Whatever liability or obligation the Texas and Pacific Company may have incurred as the result of issuing said rate-sheets and shipping and billing sugar through from New Orleans to Kansas City at less than the sum of the local rates of all the companies operating the through line, the local rate, which was 65 cents on that part of the line of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas and 15 cents on that part of the line of the Missouri Pacific over which the sugar passed in its through carriage to Kansas City, was the only rate or charge which had been legally published and filed at which such thorough freight could pass over the lines of these companies respectively.

APPENDIX D.

PETITIONS AND ANSWERS IN CASES BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION IN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS FOR THE

ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDERS.

271

PETITIONS AND ANSWERS IN CASES BROUGHT BY THE COMMIS

SION IN UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDERS.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

In equity.-No. 283..

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION vs. THE ATCHISON, TOpeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company, The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, The Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company, The California Central Railway Company, The California Southern Railroad Company, The Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railway Company, The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, The St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, The Southern California Railroad Company.

To the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting in equity within and for the district of California:

Your petitioner, The Interstate Commerce Commission, which was created and established and now exists under and by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, as amended by an act approved March 2, 1889, and as amended by an act approved February 10, 1891, humbly complaining, showeth unto your honors, that the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company is a corporation created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas, having its principal office at the city of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts; that the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company is a corporation created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States, having its principal office in the city of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts; that the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company is a corporation created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Nebraska, having its principal office at the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois; that the California Central Railway Company is a corporation created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, having its principal office in the city of Los Angeles, in the State of California; that the California Southern Railroad Company is a corporation created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, having its principal office at the city of Los Angeles, in the State of California; that the said last two mentioned corporations subsequent to the filing of the petition of the San Bernardino Board of Trade as hereinafter set forth, were consolidated and constituted into a new corporation organized, created, chartered, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as the Southern California Railroad Company, which last-mentioned corporation claims to have some interest in the subject-matter of this suit, having its principal office at Los Angeles aforesaid; that the Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railway Company is a corporation created,

S. Mis. 31-18

273