termining applications under this statute were stated in Application of Southern Pacific Co. in re Operation of Steamship Company.64

§ 251. The Commission's Duty with Reference to Schedule of Rates. It is the duty of all common carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act to file with the Commission, print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation both on their own line and over other lines, pipe lines and water connections with which they have established a through route and joint rates. Changes in these schedules cannot be made without thirty days' notice; but the Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, allow changes upon less than the notice herein provided, or modify the requirements of this section in respect to publishing, posting, and filing tariffs, either in particular instances or by a general order applicable to special or peculiar circumstances or conditions. The Commission may determine and prescribe the form in which the schedules required by this section to be kept open to public inspection shall be prepared and arranged, and may change the form from time to time as shall be found expedient.

Under the power given with respect to the schedules of rates to be charged by common carriers, the Commission issues administrative orders from time to time.

Carriers are prohibited from engaging or participating in interstate transportation "unless the rates, fares, and charges have been filed and published" as provided by the

statute.

The Commission has power to reject tariffs under certain conditions, and those so rejected are void.

65

Tariff provisions relating to interchangeable mileage tickets must likewise be published.66

64 Sec. 446. See also Application S. P. Co. re Operation S. S. Co., 32 I. C. C. 692. S. P. Co. Ownership of Oil Steamers, 34 I. C. C. 377; Steamer Lines on Chesapeake Bay, 35 I. C. C. 692; and see, post, Section 444 and annotations.

65 Sec. 6 of Act; Secs. 455, 457, post; Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 I. C. C. 507, 509. 66 Sec. 22 of Act; Sec. 619, post.

Discrimination was one of the evils most complained of prior to the original Act to Regulate Commerce and since, and that Act and the supplemental and amendatory Acts have been framed to afford, among other things, an effective means for reducing the wrongs resulting from unjust discrimination. and undue preference. One of the means of effectuating this purpose is that of placing upon all carriers the positive duty of establishing, filing and publishing schedules of reasonable rates with uniform application and of definite meaning, and of maintaining and collecting such rates so long as they remain unaltered in the manner provided by law.67

Where the tariff shows no joint through rate, carriers parties to a through bill of lading must collect the sum of the local rates shown by the local tariffs.68

Where an agent of a carrier gives a shipper a rate less than that prescribed in the legally-filed tariff, the shipper must nevertheless pay the full tariff rate," and a rate in a bill of lading less than the tariff rate will not relieve a shipper from paying the tariff rate, the shipment being interstate, although the statute of the state in which the bill of lading was issued made it illegal to collect a higher rate than was in the bill of lading specified.70 That a schedule of rates has been duly filed will not prevent the Commission from declaring such rates unreasonable and awarding reparation for the amount charged and collected in excess of what was a reasonable rate."1

67 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 51 L. Ed. 553, 27 Sup. Ct. 350; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700, 5 I. C. R. 391, 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. Ed. 243, 17 Sup. Ct. 896.

68 United States v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 212 U. S. 509, 53 L. Ed. 629, 29 Sup. Ct. 313.

69 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. Ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct. 628; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 441, 57 L. Ed. 290, 33 Sup. Ct. 176; Kansas City Sou. Ry. Co. v. Albers Com. Co.,

223 U. S. 573, 56 L. Ed. 556, 32 Sup. Ct. 316; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 500, 53 L. Ed. 624, 29 Sup. Ct. 309; but the Act of 1910 provides a penalty for misquoting a rate, Sec. 190, ante, Secs. 253, 260 and 459, post.

70 Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. 802; Spratlin v. St. L. & S. W. Ry. Co., 76 Ark. 82, 88 S. W. 836; St. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Carden, 34 S. W. (Tex.) 145.

71 Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. R. 199, 204.

Transportation Act, 1920,72 requires common carriers "by water in foreign commerce whose vessels are registered under the laws of the United States" to file certain schedules and authorizes the Commission to make "rules and regulations with respect thereto."

§ 252. Bills of Lading.—In a comprehensive and able opinion, Mr. Commissioner Wooley, in announcing the judgment of the Commission, after quoting parts of Sections 12, and 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act, said:73 "Thus the Commission has power and authority under the Act to determine the reasonableness of rules, regulations, and practices of the carriers, and to require them to cease and desist from the enforcement of rules and regulations, and the continuance of practices, found to be unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, or unduly prejudicial. And herein lies the Commission's power to lay hands upon the 'issuance, form and substance' of bills of lading. The act specifically requires carriers subject thereto to issue bills of lading. The Commission has undoubted authority to enforce this requirement in a proper proceeding. It can require carriers to file with it the rules and regulations which they write into their bills of lading. It can, by due process, require that uniform rules and regulations be adopted by carriers subject to its jurisdiction. It can determine whether such are, in and of themselves, or as interpreted in the practices of the carriers, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and, if otherwise, condemn them and prescribe reasonable rules and regulations, in which event the carriers must obey."

It is believed that this conclusion is sound, although a District Court of the United States has held otherwise.74 The issue was taken to the Supreme Court, but was not decided because that court held that such issue was rendered moot by the Transportation Act, 1920.75

The statute penalizing the forgery of interstate and foreign

72 Transportation Act, Sec. 441; Int. Com. Act, Sec. 25, paragraphs (1) to (5); Sections 622 to 626, post. 73 Bills of Lading, 52 I. C. C. 671, 686.

74 Alaska S. S. Co. V. United States, 259 Fed. 713.

75 United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U. S. 113, 64 L. Ed. 808, 40 Sup. Ct. 448.

bills of lading confers no jurisdiction on the Commission, but the decision holding that such statute is constitutional supports the contention that Congress could, as it did in sections of the Interstate Commerce Act referred to above, commit authority to the Commission to regulate the form of such contracts.76

The Commission, in the Bills of Lading case, held that under the Cummins Amendment, which in this respect is unchanged by the Transportation Act, 1920, the shipper's measure of recovery for loss or damage to his freight is based on the value of the property at the point where the contract requires its delivery. That such is the law has been held by a District and Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States" and the Supreme Court, by refusing an application for writ of certiorari, approved the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

§ 253. Damages. In addition to the public penalties prescribed by the Act, a carrier is liable to any person or persons injured by its violation of the Act for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation, together with a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of recovery. The only damages recoverable under this Act by application to the Commission are damages for a violation of the provisions thereof; consequently, the Commission has no jurisdiction to award damages for breach of contract by a carrier. The Commission has no jurisdiction to award damages against a shipper, nor can a carrier set off a claim for undercharges or other damages against the claim of a shipper for reparation.78

76 United States v. Ferger, 250 U. S 199, 207, 63 L. Ed. 609, 612, 39 Sup. Ct. 445, 447.

77 Note 73, ante, and McCaullDinsmore Company v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 252 Fed. 664; Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 260 Fed. 835, 171 C. C. A. 561; affirmed 253 U. S. 97, 64 L. Ed. 801, 40 Sup. Ct. 504.

78 Lanning-Harris C. & G. Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 37, 38; Falls & Co. v. Chicago, Rock

Island & P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 269, 273; Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 85, 4 I. C. R. 385; Carstens Packing Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 17 I. C. C. 125; Blume & Co. v. Wells-Fargo & Co., 15 I. C. C. 53; damage caused by delay; Shiel & Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 210, breach of contract; LaSalle & B. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 610; General Electric Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 237, breach of con

The language of the statute is broad and makes the carrier liable for damages sustained in any case where such carrier does or causes to be done any act, matter, or thing, prohibited or declared unlawful by the statute. Such liability exists when there is a failure to do any act, matter, or thing, required by the law.79

The foregoing right stated in section 8 of the Act in so far as it permits a recovery of damages for an unlawful charge was not created by the section, although some uncertainty as to the full extent of the right was removed by the statute. In England it had been held that a shipper paying a reasonable rate could not recover damages because of a discriminatory rate favoring another,80 but in this country the weight of authority was the other way. The statute removed any doubt which might have existed on the subject.81 The amount of recovery is stated in the statue to be the "full amount of damages sustained," which is not different from the common law measure of damages in cases where damages are recoverable. "The right to recover," as said by the Supreme Court, "is limited to the pecuniary loss suffered and proved."82

§ 254. Damages-Power of the Commission to Make Award of. Any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common carrier subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act may make complaint to the Commission83 by petition which shall briefly state the facts. After service of complaint and hearing, it shall be the duty of the Commis

tract; Colorado Fuel Co. v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 491, 493; Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 41 I. C. C. 39, 40; Pacific Creamery Co. v. Sou. Pac. Co., 42 I. C. C. 93, 100; Trexler Lumber Co. v. Sou. Ry. Co., 42 I. C. C. 719; Galloway Co. v. G. B. & W. R. Co., 48 I. C. C. 455, 456; Wilson v. P. R. Co., 50 I. C. C. 571, who liable for under charges; Pittwood v. N. P. Ry. Co., 51 I. C. C. 535.

79 Sec. 8 of the Act; Sec. 473, post. 80 Great Western R. Co. v. Sutton L. R., 4 H. L. 238, 38 L. J. Exch. N.

S. 177, 22 L. T. N. S. 43, 18 Week.
Ref. 92.

81 Parsons v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 167 U. S. 447, 42 L. Ed. 231, 17 Sup. Ct. 887; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. International Coal Mining Co., 230 T. S. 184, 57 L. Ed. 1446, 33 Sup. Ct. 893.

82 Cases noted supra and KnudsenFerguson Fruit Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 149 Fed. 973, 79 C. C. A. 483; St. Louis, S. W. R. Co. v. Lewellen, 192 Fed. 540.

83 Sec. 9 of Act; Sec. 474, post. 84 Sec. 13 of Act; Sec. 483, post.