shall be made of some particular rate or rates being charged, or, if without formal complaint, the commission receives information or has reason to believe that such rate or rates are being charged, then the investigation is to go on in relation to those particular rates. We cannot for one moment believe that under such language as is contained in the section the commission is clothed with jurisdiction, either upon complaint or upon its own information, to enter upon a general investigation of every rate upon every class of commodities carried by all the roads of the State from or to all points therein, and make a general tariff of rates throughout the State, such as has been made in this case. No such power was given to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati &c. Railway Co., 167 U. S. 479, supra. As the express power was not given in so many words to the commission, this court held that it could not be implied.

The so-called complaints in this case, above mentioned, are, as we construe the statute, entirely too general to raise any objection to a specific rate. Guenther, in his petition, in substance, alleged "that all local freight rates to and from all local points in the State of Kentucky, as fixed and charged by all' railroads on all classes of freight, are excessive, discriminatory and extortionate." The lumber companies, which were permitted to intervene, made, substantially, the same complaint (with an addition as to lumber, ties and logs), and the attorneys appearing in behalf of the State of Kentucky joined in the general complaint of Guenther. If complaint were necessary to enable the commission to make rates, the allegations in the complaint of Guenther were mere sweeping generalities, and were in no sense whatever a fair or honest compliance with the statute. The commission itself, in order to act, must have had some information or had some reasons to believe that certain rates were extortionate, and it could not, under this statute, enter upon a general attack upon all the rates of all the companies throughout the State and make an order such as this in question. Such action is, in our judgment, founded upon a total

misconstruction of the statute and an assumption on the part of the commission of a right and power to do that which the statute itself gives it no authority whatever to do.

And again, the section provides that if the commission should determine that the company had been guilty of extortion, it must, instead of the extortionate rate, make and fix a reasonable and just rate which the company may charge for its service thereafter rendered. This language is not apt by which to confer power to establish a schedule of rates applicable in all cases to all commodities and on all roads, and on the contrary it strengthens the view that no such general jurisdiction to establish rates in all cases for all roads throughout the State by a general tariff was in the contemplation of the framers of the statute.

It may also be stated that if the statute was really intended to give the commission power to make a general schedule of rates, we should expect to find, almost necessarily, a right to increase as well as to reduce those rates in some instances, in order to produce an equality, where, otherwise, great inequalities might exist as a result of the putting the general schedule of reductions in force. Here is a case where the schedule of rates was reduced from twenty to twenty-five per cent upon an average. Some of the rates not touched might require increase in order to make the whole schedule fair and reasonable, and yet the commission could not make the increase over the amount theretofore collected by the company. This seems to us to be a very strong argument in favor of the view that the legislature never intended to and did not in fact give such a power to establish general maximum rates, but confined it to one or two or a few specified rates, which might be reduced upon complaint, and where there might be a real investigation of all the problems involved in the propriety of the reduction in a few distinct and separate cases. A sufficient investigation of the whole series of rates on all the roads in the State by one commission is almost an impossibility, and an attempt to do so would prove a failure, and would, in all probability, result in gross injustice

to the roads. The statute, it will be remembered, gives no power to the commission to fix rates, unless it has already determined that the rates complained of, or which it has investigated upon its own information, are extortionate after hearing the parties, and then it fixes the rates at a just and reasonable amount. If no extortion is found in any particular rate there can be no fixing of rates in that particular. And yet that particular rate might require increase in order to make the whole schedule just, fair and reasonable. A general power to fix rates under such limitations cannot be supposed to have been within the intent of the legislature. The difference between the fixing of one rate, or a few upon specific complaint or information, and the adoption of a general scheme of rates applicable in all cases to all the roads, is vast and important. In the one case it can be fairly accomplished, while in the other the chances of injustice and great inequalities are infinite and almost certain to occur.

We do not say that under this statute, as we construe it, there must be a separate proceeding or complaint for each separate rate. A complaint, or a proceeding on information by the commission itself, in regard to any road, may include more than the rate on one commodity or more than one rate, but there must be some specific complaint or information in regard to each rate to be investigated, and there can be, under this statute, no such wholesale complaint, which by its looseness and its generalities can be made applicable to every rate in operation on a railroad, or upon several or all of the railroads of the State. If the legislature intended to give such an universal and allprevailing power it is not too much to say that the language used in giving it should be so plain as not to permit of doubt as to the legislative intent.

The appellants contend that in any event the order made by the commission December 7, 1905, regarding rates on lumber, logs and cross ties, to and from all points in the State, ought to stand as reasonable and proper. The complaint made by the lumber dealers in their petition to intervene in the Guenther

proceeding adopted the language of that petition as to all rates upon all commodities upon all roads throughout the State, and then added a specific complaint as to the logs, &c. While the whole proceeding as to all rates was pending before the commission it took up as part of it, the question of the reasonableness of all the rates on lumber to and from all points in the State. This proceeding is, therefore, but a part of the whole proceeding involving an investigation as to every rate on all commodities on every road throughout the State, and we do not think it a case where a particular rate on a specific commodity, applicable all through the State upon all roads, should be separated from the general order, when the specific order was made after the general complaint was filed and is itself a general order, and was made by the commission in the exercise of an assumed power claimed to be given by the statute, which claim we hold was totally unfounded. We therefore think that in this particular case the order as to lumber rates must fall with the rest of the assumed jurisdiction of the commission.

There is nothing in our decision in McChord v. L. & N. R. R., 183 U. S. 483, which affects the question discussed in this opinion.

We are of opinion that under the statute the commission had no authority to make a general tariff of rates, and the final decree of the Circuit Court is for that reason

Affirmed.

SILER et al., AS RAILROAD COMMISSION, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

SAME v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN

KENTUCKY.

SAME v. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

Nos. 522, 523, 524. Argued February 24, 25, 26, 1909.-Decided April 5, 1909.

Decided on authority of Siler v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, ante, p. 175.

THESE cases involved the same questions as were involved in the preceding case and were argued simultaneously therewith.1

Mr. C. C. McChord and Mr. Robert H. Winn, with whom Mr. James Breathitt, Attorney General of Kentucky, was on the brief, for the appellants.

Mr. Henry L. Stone for appellee in No. 521.

Mr. E. F. Trabue, with whom Mr. John C. Doolan and Mr. Jacob M. Dickinson were on the brief, for appellee in No. 522.

Mr. Alexander Pope Humphrey submitted a brief for appellee in No. 523.

Mr. John Galvin, with whom Mr. Edward Colston was on the brief, for appellee in No. 524.

1 For abstracts of arguments see, ante, p. 183.