carriage, but services rendered in receiving and delivering property as well. Phelps v. Texas & P. Ry., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 363, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 36 (1894). The schedule should state, among other terminal charges, the rules and regulations, if any, of the carrier in relation to storage. Pennsylvania Millers' State Assoc. v. Philadelphia & R. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 531 (1900); Blackman v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 352 (1904). If free storage facilities are allowed, the schedule should so state. American Warehousemen's Assoc. v. Illinois Central R. R., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 556 (1898). So when charges for refrigeration are applied in the transportation of perishable freight, such charges should be published and adhered to as all other charges for transportation are published and observed. Re Transportation of Fruit, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 360 (1904); Blackman v. Southern Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 352 (1904); In re Charges for Transportation & Refrigeration, 11 I. C. C. Rep. 129 (1905).

§ 1015. Rules and regulations.

Rules or regulations in any wise changing, affecting, or determining any part of the aggregate of a carrier's rates, fares, or charges must be shown separately upon the posted schedules. Any such rules or regulations promulgated in circulars issued independently of such schedules are not lawfully in force. Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 255 (1897). The rates charged for the diversion of cars must be published. American Warehousemen's Assoc. v. Illinois Central R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 556 (1898).

If stop-over privileges are granted for any purpose, all the facts and circumstances connected therewith should be clearly stated in the published tariff, so that the public generally may enjoy their benefits. Mobile & O. Ry., In re Rates and Practices of, 9 I. C. C. Rep. 373 (1902). So where cotton is allowed a stop-off privilege for the purpose of grading and compressing, this forms part of the service covered by the rate, and should be specified in the published tariffs. Re Alleged Unlawful Rates, 8 I. C. C. Rep. 121 (1899). Treating the transportation of the log to the mill by one line, and the transportation of the lumber from the mill by another line, as a through shipment, involves the right to mill in transit; and when that privilege is granted, the tariff should show upon its face that the transportation covers carriage of the log to and the lumber from the mill; and the division allowed to the carrier of the log should be named in all cases. Central Yellow Pine Assoc. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry., 10 Int. Com. Rep. 193 (1904). So rules prescribing maximum and minimum carload weights must be posted. Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 255 (1897).

In Spillers v. Louisville & N. R. R., 8 Int. Com. Rep. 364 (1899), it appeared that defendant instructed its agents to disregard the regular published tariff rates and to charge a lower combination rate. It also had this rule of applying combination rates when less than tariff rates were in

force at other stations on its line. Instructions to that effect were issued in a separate printed circular, and did not appear, nor were they referred to in any way, upon its regular published tariffs. It was held that this practice is unlawful, and that, to be in compliance with the act, any rule which operates to alter, modify, or change established rates must be fully and clearly set forth upon the published tariffs of rates and charges to be affected thereby.

It would seem, however, that the carrier need not post such regulations as are usual and notorious. It was for instance held by the Supreme Court that the privilege of free cartage at a certain station, which had been openly and notoriously granted for many years and was well known to all who would have occasion to rely on it, need not be posted; though it might be within the power of the Commission to order such posting. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry., 167 U. S. 633, 17 Sup. Ct. 986 (1897).

§ 1016. Printing and keeping open to public inspection.

These provisions are not complied with by posting a notice stating that tariffs may be inspected upon application to the carrier's agent; Paxton Tie Co. v. Detroit S. R. R., 10 Int. Com. Rep. 422 (1905); even though the expedient is adopted because the schedules have been repeatedly torn down. Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 43 (1897).

1017. Posting in station.

Posting a notice in a station or depot that the tariff sheets of the railroad company may be found in some other place is not a compliance with this provision. Johnson v. Chicago, S. P., M. & O. Ry., 9 Int. Com. Rep. 221 (1902).

A rate may be an established one, so that an offence could be committed by charging less than the rate, even though the rate has not been posted as required by this section. United States v. Howell, 56 Fed. 21 (1892). Nor is the rate, when posted, such a matter of public knowledge that ordinary shippers can be charged with knowledge of it. Mobile & O. Ry. v. Dismukes (Ala.), 10 So. 289 (1891). But on the other hand, if the rate is duly published and called to the attention of shippers or consignees, they cannot depend for the lawful rate or charge upon what may be quoted by the carrier's agent, but must be guided by the published rate sheets themselves. Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 255 (1897). Local rates when applied to interstate business must be published. Re Export Rates from Points East and West of Miss. River, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 185 (1899). See, also, as to posting the notices, Rea v. Mobile & O. Ry., 7 Int. Com. Rep. 43 (1897).

The publication of inland joint tariffs for the transportation of foreign

merchandise, and of advances and reductions, should be made by posting in a public place at the depot of the carrier where the freight is received in the port of entry, and also where it is delivered at the place of destination in the United States. New York Board of Trade & Transp. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 417 (1890).

TOPIC B-VARIATION FROM SCHEDULE.

[See Chapter XXVIII.]

1018. Any variation forbidden,

It is an unlawful practice for a carrier to disregard the regular published tariff rates, and charge a lower rate made up of a combination of the rate from the point of shipment to a competitive point, and from such competitive point to the station of destination, where the rule is not set forth in its published tariff. Spillers & Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 364 (1899). In short, all rules or regulations which, if enforced, would result in changing or affecting rates or charges shown on the published schedules must be notified to the public for the time required by law for other rate changes. The notice should set forth the changes proposed to be made in the existing schedule, and such changes must be shown by printing new schedules, or plainly indicating it on the schedules in force. Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 255 (1897). So a practice that grain may be shipped to an intermediate station and there forwarded as a new shipment at a proportional rate lower than the local rate from that point is a variation from the local published rate and therefore illegal. Re Rates and Practices of Mobile & O. Ry., 9 I. C. C. Rep. 373 (1903).

§ 1019. Devices to avoid the section.

A device to avoid the operation of this section will be futile. Thus, any device by which a published rate for carriage of coal from the mines of the carrier, which in the case of a favored consignee was made to include the price of the coal thus sold to the consignee by the carrier and delivered to him, is of course a violation of the Act. Re Transportation of Coal and Mine Supplies, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 473 (1904). And deliveries of coal by an interstate carrier not empowered to mine and market coal by its charter or by any legislation existing at the time of the adoption of the act to regulate commerce, under a contract to sell and transport such coal at a stipu lated price, come within the requirement of that act respecting the maintenance of published rates, and its prohibitions against undue preferences and discrimination whenever. from any cause, the gross sum realized is insufficient to yield the carrier its published freight rates after deducting the purchase price of the coal and the cost of delivery, although the con

tract may not have been open to that objection when made. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361, 26 Sup. Ct. 272 (1906).

So where a railroad company (through a development company which it owned) bought grain in Kansas City, transported it to Chicago, and there sold it, the purpose being merely to transport it, and the varying profit on the transactions being the only real compensation for the carriage, this was held to be a departure from the published schedule and therefore illegal. In re Rates and Practices in the Transportation of Grain, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 33 (1897).

§ 1020. Rate wars.

Reduction of passenger rates without consent of connecting lines over which tickets are sold, and without filing schedules thereof with the Commission is violation of this section, and no necessity or compulsion is created by a war of rates which justifies disobedience of the statute. In re Passenger Tariffs and Rate Wars, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 340, 2 I. C. C. 513 (1889).

TOPIC C-FILING OF SCHEDULES AND AGREEMENTS.
[See Chapter XX.]

1021. Purpose of the filing.

The purpose of the filing is to call the attention of the Commission to a proposed change in rates; and when a schedule is filed announcing an advance of general application, for which no apparent reason exists, such action is a proper subject of investigation, and if it thereupon appears that the advance is unwarranted, the Commission should use whatever power it has to correct the injustice. In the Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Int. Com. Rep. 382 (1903). The public purpose of the posting and filing of the schedules is insisted upon by the Commission.

"It is proper to add, however, that the requirement of publication found in the law is based upon many other considerations besides that of affording information to local shippers. The necessity of establishing and maintaining a steady, uniform, open tariff rate is of paramount importance, in view of the evils which the Act to regulate commerce attempts to correct, and obviously the first and most efficient method of regulation is the requirement of constant publicity." Re Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 480, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 75 (1889).

§ 1022. Presumption of legality.

The filing of schedules of rates with the Commission, as required by statute, raises no presumption as to the legality of such rates in any pro

ceedings before the Commission. San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 138 (1890). But, as has been seen, the result of the provisions of this section is that in all dealings between shipper and carrier, whether out of court or in court, except in a proceeding before the Commission to have the rates altered, the rate so filed with the Commission must be taken as the reasonable rate. Kinnavey v. Terminal R. R. Assoc., 81 Fed. 802 (1897); Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & S. P. Ry., Fed.

TOPIC D-JOINT TARIFFS AND SCHEDULES.
[See Chapter XIX.]

1023. Meaning of joint tariff.

Two kinds or classes of routes are recognized and provided for, namely, the line of a single carrier, and a continuous line or route operated by more than one carrier, where the participating carriers establish joint rates or charges for such continuous line or route; and in respect of both classes of lines, the provision is uniform that established rates shall not be increased except after ten days' notice, nor reduced except after three days' notice. Joint through routes and rates are ordinarily the subject of agreement between the participating carriers; but when this is established, and until finally abrogated or changed, they are required by the statute to be kept open to public use. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Int. Com. Rep. 182 (1902).

Joint tariffs, in the meaning of this section, are those established by agreement and mutual consent of the several carriers, as distinguished from the mere aggregate of the separate rates of the several carriers for transportation over their respective routes. The publication by a carrier subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce, of the aggregate local rates between points on its own line and those on the line of a connecting carrier with which it has no joint tariff, is not illegal; but it cannot lawfully add to the duly established rates of another carrier any amount it pleases less than its own rate, and publish and use that sum as a through rate, without the consent of the other company, as such a through rate is not a "joint rate," for joint rates can be made only by concurrence or assent; nor is it a combination rate, for one of its component parts has no legal existence or sanction as a separate or local charge; there must be lawful rates upon each of the roads before there can be a lawful combination of rates. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. v. Platt, 7 Int. Com. Rep. 323 (1897). A combination rate, not being a joint rate, need not be posted, and is not subject to the act. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 732 (1893).

When rates established to apply between points within a single State are applied as part of combination rates on transportation between dif