defined.-Kansas City v. K. C. V. & T. Ry. Co., 24 I. C. C. 22, 26. The Commission has a discretion under the amendment.-Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 179, 185; Crane Iron Works v. U. S., 209 Fed. 238, Op. Com. Ct. No. 55, p. 453. See Crane R. R. Co. v. P. & R. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 248; Crane Iron Works v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 17 I. C. C. 514; Truckers Transfer Co. v. C. & W. C. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 275, 277.

Section cited.-Wichita Falls System Joint Coal Rate cases, 26 I. C. C. 215, 222; St. L. & St. P. R. R. Co. v. P. & P. N. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 226, 234; Texas Cement Products Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 508, 510; Lumber Rates from Texas, 28 I. C. C. 471, 473; Rates on Lumber and Other Forest Products, 30 I. C. C. 371, 372. No connection ordered with a plant facility.-Mfgrs. Ry. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C. 93, 120. The grant of this authority contemplates the exercise of judgment.-Merchants & Mfgrs. Ass'n v. C. R. R. of N. J., 30 I. C. C. 396, 401, citing cases. The practice of the Commission stated, citing cases.-Decatur Navigation Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 281, 287. An order of the Commission made prior to the effective date of the Amendment of 1910 cannot be made effective by the courts under that amendment.-Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 230 U. S. 324, 57 L. Ed. 1501, 33 Sup. Ct. 890, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 385, reversing same-styled case, 191 Fed. 40, Opin. Com. Ct. No. 25, p. 147. See further history of this case: West End Improvement Club v. O. & C. B. St. Ry. & Bridge Co., 17 I. C. C. 239; O. & C. B. St. Ry. & Bridge Co. v. I. C. C., 179 Fed. 243. Limitation under former statute discussed. Int. Com. Com. v. N. P. R. Co., 216 U. S. 538, 54 L. Ed. 608, 30 Sup. Ct. 417. See Sec. 404, ante.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Section does not violate Fifth Amendment to Constitution. -Paducah Board of Trade v. I. C. R. Co., 43 I. C. C. 537, 540, and cases cited. No through route with street car company.— James v. W. & O. D. Ry. Co., 44 I. C. C. 570, 573, and case cited; St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 136, 62 L. Ed. 199, 38 Sup. Ct. 49.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Order of Commission establishing new express routes not invalid because no divisions prescribed.-Am. Ry. Exp. Co. v. U. S., 293 Fed. 31; reversed on other grounds, 265 U. S. 425, 68 L. Ed. 1087, 44 Sup. Ct. 560. Finding of public necessity essential to validity of order establishing new routes.-Virginian Ry. Co. v. U. S., 272 U. S. 658, 71 L. Ed. 463, 47 Sup. Ct. 222.

§ 491. Limitations on the Power to Prescribe Through Routes. In establishing any such through routes the Commission shall not (except as provided in Section 3, and except where one of the carriers is a water line), require any carrier by railroad, without its consent, to embrace in such route substantially less than the entire length of its railroad and of any intermediate railroad operated in conjunction and under a common management or control therewith, which lies between the termini of such proposed through route unless such inclusion of lines would make the through route unreasonably long as compared with another practicable through route which could otherwise be established: Provided, That in time of shortage of equipment, congestion of traffic, or other emergency declared by the Commission it may (either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once, if it so orders without answer or other formal pleadings by the interested carrier or carriers, and with or without notice, hearing, or the making or filing of a report, according as the Commission may determine) establish temporarily such through routes as in its opinion are necessary or desirable in the public interest.

Paragraph (4) of Section 15 as amended by Transportation Act, 1920. The former section, Section 401, 2d Ed., read:

And in establishing such through route the Commission shall not require any company, without its consent, to embrace in such route substantially less than the entire length of its railroad and of any intermediate railroad operated in conjunction and under a common management or control therewith which lies between the termini of such proposed through route, unless to do so would make such through route

unreasonably long as compared with another practicable through route which could otherwise be established.

Par. (4), Section 15, added by Amendment of June 18, 1910. Limitation stated.-Cincinnati & Traction Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 486, 492. The Commission must work under the limitation imposed.-Rates on Meats, 23 I. C. C. 656, 662. The law recognizes the right of the carrier to protect its own haul.-Chamber of Commerce of N. Y. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 55, 76. Limitation applied.Davis Bros. Lumber Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C.— 257, 259. This section gives the carrier no right "to exclude from points of consumption on its line manufacturers located elsewhere."—Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. T. P. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 351, 352. Route found unreasonably long.-Omaha Grain Exchange v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 553, 557; United States v. N. P. R. R. Co., 28 I. C. C. 518, 523; Hughes Creek C. Co. v. K. & M. Ry. Co., 29 I. C. C. 671, 679. Does not apply to making joint rates, through routes having been voluntarily established.-Rates on Cotton Seed and Its Products, 28 I. C. C. 219, 221; Lumber Rates Oregon & Washington to Eastern Points, 29 I. C. C. 609. Cancellation of through routes not justified.-Lumber Rate from North Pacific Coast Points, 30 I. C. C. 111. Section applied.-Cement Rates from Mason City, Iowa, 30 I. C. C. 426, 430. This limitation does not prevent ordering through routes with another carrier when such through routes have been voluntarily established with one carrier.-Pacific Nav. Co. v. S. P. Co., 31 I. C. C. 472. Carriers cannot insist on this section when they have voluntarily established one through route or when to deny a through route would continue an unjust discrimination. Decatur Nav. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 281; Pacific Nav. Co. v. S. P. Co., 31 I. C. C. 472; Eastern Shore Develop. S. S. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 32 I. C. C. 238; U. S. Button Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 32 I. C. C. 149; Penn. Co. v. U. S., 236 U. S. 351, 59 L. Ed. 616, 35 Sup. Ct. 370. Switching may be ordered for one shipper only.-Union Lime Co. v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 233 U. S. 211, 58 L. Ed. 924, 34 Sup. Ct. 522.

Carriers may cancel through routes which they could not.

have been compelled to establish.-The Ogden Gateway case, 35 I. C. C. 131.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Ogden Gateway Case, supra, followed.-Grain to Arkansas Points, 40 I. C. C. 49. Section applied.-Jackson Chamber of Commerce v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 42 I. C. C. 155; Iowa & S. W. Ry. Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 42 I. C. C. 389; Lake and Rail Cancellations, 42 I. C. C. 513, 516; Grain from Missouri Points, 43 I. C. C. 737; West Coast Lumber Mfrs. Asso. v. T. E. R. R. Co., 45 I. C. C. 227; St. Louis, S. W. R. Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 136, 62 L. Ed. 189, 38 Sup. Ct. 42.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Express company not a "carrier by railroad" within meaning of this paragraph.-U. S. v. Am. Ry. Exp. Co., 265 U. S. 425, 68 L. Ed. 1087, 44 Sup. Ct. 560. The Commission cannot prescribe as many routes for carriers by railroad as it may deem desirable; the restriction contained in this section must be observed.-U. S. v. Mo. P. R. R. Co. (Subiaco case), 278 U. S. 269, 73 L. Ed. 322, 49 Sup. Ct. 133.

§ 492. Delivery of Ordinary Live-Stock.-Transportation wholly by railroad of ordinary live-stock in car-load lots destined to or received at public stockyards shall include all necessary service of unloading and reloading en route, delivery at public stockyards of inbound shipments into suitable pens, and receipt and loading at such yards of outbound shipments, without extra charge therefor to the shipper, consignee or owner, except in cases where the unloading or reloading en route is at the request of the shipper, consignee or owner, or to try an intermediate market, or to comply with quarantine regulations. The Commission may prescribe or approve just and reasonable rules governing each of such excepted services. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the duties and liabilities of the carriers now existing by virtue of law respecting the transportation of other than ordinary live-stock, or the duty of performing service as to shipment other than those to or from public stockyards.

Paragraph (5), Section 15, added by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 418.

§ 493. Rivisions of Joint Rates May Be Prescribed by Commission. Whenever, after full hearing upon complaint or upon its own initiative, the Commission is of opinion that the divisions of joint rates, fares, or charges, applicable to the transportation of passengers or property, are or will be unjust, unreasonable, inequitable or unduly preferential or prejudicial as between the carriers parties thereto (whether agreed upon by such carriers, or any of them, or otherwise established), the Commission shall by order prescribe the just, reasonable, and equitable divisions thereof to be received by the several carriers, and in cases where the joint rate, fare, or charge was established pursuant to a finding or order of the Commission and the divisions thereof are found by it to have been unjust, unreasonable, or inequitable, or unduly preferential or prejudicial, the Commission may also by order determine what (for the period subsequent to the filing of the complaint or petition or the making of the order of investigation) would have been the just, reasonable, and equitable divisions thereof to be received by the several carriers, and require adjustment to be made in accordance therewith. In so prescribing and determining the divisions of joint rates, fares and charges, the Commission shall give due consideration, among other things, to the efficiency with which the carriers concerned are operated, the amount of revenue required to pay their respective operating expenses, taxes, and a fair return on their railway property held for and used in the service of transportation, and the importance to the public of the transportation services of such carriers; and also whether any particular participating carrier is an originating, intermediate, or delivering line, and any other fact or circumstance which would ordinarily, without regard to the mileage haul, entitle one carrier to a greater or less proportion than another carrier of the joint rate, fare or charge.

Paragraph (6) of Section 15 as amended by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 418. The former section read:

Whenever the carrier or carriers, in obedience to such order of the Commission or otherwise, in respect to joint rates, fares, or charges, shall fail to agree among themselves upon the apportionment or division thereof, the Commission may