after hearing make a supplemental order prescribing the just and reasonable proportion of such joint rate to be received by each carrier party thereto, which order shall take effect as a part of the original order.

Last part of paragraph (1) of Section 15 as added by Act of June 29, 1906.

Before the amended Act Commission had no authority to compel carriers to make joint rates.-Re Application of F. W. Clark, 3 I. C. C. 649, 2 I. C. R. 797; Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 647, 677; Fred G. Clark Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 558; Re Alleged Unlawful Discrimination Against Enterprise Transportation Co., 11 I. C. C. 587; Ky. & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 559; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, 915, 3 C. C. A. 347; Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. So. Express Co. (Express cases), 117 U. S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 791, 6 Sup. Ct. 542, 628; So. Pac. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 553, 50 L. Ed. 585, 593, 20 Sup. Ct. 330. Under the Hepburn law, in fixing a division of joint rates between carriers, all circumstances should be considered and such divisions should not be on a mileage or other fixed basis.Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 364.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

The power to prescribe divisions is a continuing power.— Rates on Lumber and Other Forest Products, 30 I. C. C. 371, 372. The power exercised.-People's Fuel Co. v. Grand T. W. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 657; Coal Rates from Oak Hills, Colo., 35 I. C. C. 456; Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 26 I. C. C. 508, 510. Dispute over divisions no justification for increasing rates.-New Mexico Coal Rates, 28 I. C. C. 328; Missouri River Illinois Wheat & Flour Rates, 27 I. C. C. 286; Advances on Ground Iron Ore, 26 I. C. C. 675. Divisions established without previously fixing joint rates.Louisville Board of Trade v. I. C. & S. Traction Co., 34 I. C. C. 640. The words "or otherwise" would seem to make clear the power of the Commission in all cases of a dispute over divisions.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915. Divisions prescribed.-Port Huron & D. S. S. Co. v. P. R. Co., 40 I. C. C. 335. The text, supra, ending notes of 2d Ed. of this book followed and former decisions overruled.-Morgantown & Kingwood Divisions, 49 I. C. C. 540. For an interesting discussion of divisions to industrial roads, see National Tube Company v. L. T. R. Co., 55 I. C. C. 469, and the comprehensive dissenting opinion in the same case of Mr. Commissioner Eastman, 56 I. C. C. 272, citing numerous cases. Powers of Commission sustained.-O'Keefe v. United States, 240 U. S. 294, 60 L. Ed. 651, 36 Sup. Ct. 313.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Under Transportation Act of 1920 the Commission may, in prescribing divisions, take into consideration the financial necessities of weak carriers.-New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184, 67 L. Ed. 605, 43 Sup. Ct. 270. Commission's power to order retroactive adjustment of divisions limited to divisions of joint rates prescribed by Commission; when joint rates are voluntarily established by carriers, Commission's jurisdiction over divisions limited to future only; considerations affecting divisions announced.-C. & O. Ry. Co. v. A. C. R. R. Co., 153 I. C. C. 511.

§ 494. Right to Suspend Proposed Increases in Rates.Whenever there shall be filed with the Commission any schedule stating a new individual or joint rate, fare, or charge, or any new individual or joint classification, or any new individual or joint regulation or practice affecting any rate, fare, or charge, the Commission shall have, and it is hereby given, authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once, and if it so orders without answer or other formal pleading by the interested carrier or carriers, but upon reasonable notice, to enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice; and pending such hearing and the decision thereon the Commission, upon filing with such schedule and delivering to the carrier or carriers affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension, may from time to time suspend the operation of

such schedule and defer the use of such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice, but not for a longer period than seven months beyond the time when it would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice goes into effect, the Commission may make such order with reference thereto as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after it had become effective. If the proceeding has not been concluded and an order made within the period of suspension, the proposed change of rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice shall go into effect at the end of such period, but, in case of a proposed increased rate or charge for or in respect to the transportation of property, the Commission may by order require the interested carrier or carriers to keep accurate account in detail of all amounts received by reason of such increase, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts are paid, and upon completion of the hearing and decision may by further order require the interested carrier or carriers to refund, with interest, to the persons in whose behalf such amounts were paid such portion of such increased rates or charges as by its decision shall be found not justified.

First part of paragraph (7) of Section 15 as amended by Transportation Act, 1920, Section 418, and as amended by Act approved March 4, 1927.

The Hoke Smith Amendment approved August 9, 1917, Comp. Stat. 1919, Sec. 8583 read: Provided, further, until January first, nineteen hundred and twenty, no increased rate, fare or charge, or classification shall be filed except after approval thereof has been secured from the Commission. Such approval may, in the discretion of the Commission, be given without formal hearing, and in such case shall not affect any subsequent proceeding relative to such rate, fare, charge, or classification. Stat. 551. 40 Stat. 272.)

(24 Stat. 384.

(24 Stat. 384. 34 Stat. 589. 36 This Amendment was not continued by 1920 Act. The former statute read:

Whenever there shall be filed with the Commission any schedule stating a new individual or joint rate, fare, or charge, or any new individual or joint classification, or any new individual or joint regulation or practice affecting any

rate, fare, or charge, the Commission shall have, and it is hereby given, authority, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, at once, and if it so orders, without answer or other formal pleading by the interested carrier or carriers, but upon reasonable notice, to enter upon a hearing concerning the propriety of such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice; and pending such hearing and the decision thereon the Commission upon filing with such schedule and delivering to the carrier or carriers affected thereby a statement in writing of its reasons for such suspension may suspend the operation of such schedule and defer the use of such fare, rate, charge, classification, regulation, or practice, but not for a longer period than one hundred and twenty days beyond the time when such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice would otherwise go into effect; and after full hearing, whether completed before or after the rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice goes into effect, the Commission may make such order in reference to such rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice as would be proper in a proceeding initiated after the rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice had become effective: Provided, That if any such hearing cannot be concluded within the period of suspension, as above stated, the Interstate Commerce Commission may, in its discretion, extend the time of suspension for a further period not exceeding six months.

This is a new provision enacted by the Amendment of June 18, 1910, being part of par. (2), Section 15. The meaning of the section discussed.-Advances in Rates, Eastern case, 20 I. C. C. 243, 247, 248; Advances in Rates, Western case, 20 I. C. C. 307, 310-314. No power to suspend a rate already effective. Rates on Lumber by V. S. & P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 16. "Propriety" of an advance considered.-Advances in Rates on Grain, 21 I. C. C. 22, 24; Wickwire Steel & Wire Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C. 415, 420; Coal Rates from Oak Hills, Colo., 30 I. C. C. 505, 508. The Commission has the power to suspend reductions in rates in any case where such suspension will operate to prevent an apparent discrimination.-Suspension of Rates on Packing House Products, 21 I. C. C. 68, 70; Coal Rates from Oak Hills, Colo., 30 I. C. C. 505, 508. In the last-named case it was held

that rates decreased are new rates. Relative adjustment of rates considered.-Rates on Cement from Md. to Va., 24 I. C. C. 290; Rates on Barley from California, 24 I. C. C. 664, 669; In re Advance in Class and Commodity Rates, 25 I. C. C. 401; In re Advance in Class Rates, 25 I. C. C. 268; In re Advances on Furniture, 25 I. C. C. 299; Wharton Steel Co. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 25 I. C. C. 303; In re Advances on Oil, 25 I. C. C. 349; In re Advances Knitting Factory Products, 25 I. C. C. 634; In re Advances on Manganese Ore, 25 I. C. C. 663; Philadelphia Veneer & Lumber Co. v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 25 I. C. C. 653; Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C. 645; In re Advance on Hay, 25 I. C. C. 680; Taylor v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C. 613; Wichita Board of Trade v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C. 625; Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C. 141; In re Advances on Live Stock, 25 I. C. C. 63; In re Advances on Hops, 25 I. C. C. 16; Superior Commercial Club v. G. N. Ry. Co., 25 I. C. C. 342. But when the proposed increase does not change the adjustment the relation not determined.-Grain Rates in C. F. A. Territory, 28 I. C. C. 549, 557. Proposed rates may be suspended when they create unlawful discrimination.-Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C. 415, 420. The Commission held to have power to cancel a tariff which "affected a practice and a rate."-A. T. & S. F. R. Co. v. U. S., "Precooling Case," 232 U. S. 199, 58 L. Ed. 568, 34 Sup. Ct. 291, affirming same-styled case, 204 Fed. 647, Op. Com. Ct. No. 41, p. 627. For report of the Commission see Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C. 106; Suspension Regulations Relating to Precooling, 23 I. C. C. 267. The "propriety" of a rate is in issue where proposed increased rates are under investigation.-Wickwire case, supra, and Transcontinental Commodity Rates, 32 I. C. C. 449. Whether the existence of lower intrastate rates should be a sufficient reason to refuse increased rates otherwise just and reasonable is an unsettled question; the practice of the Commission has been to presume that state rates will be adjusted and if not the question should properly be determined on a formal complaint.-Rates on Poultry in Western Trunk Line Territory, 32 I. C. C. 380; Five Per Cent case, 31 I. C. C. 355; Corp. Com. of Okla. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 31 I. C. C.