mediate carrier charges the full local rate does not destroy the through nature of the shipment,1 nor is a through rate illegal which, when divided between carriers, gives them less than their local rate, provided that the through rate itself is not less than some one of the local rates, or unjustly discriminating against individuals or localities, or so low as to burden other business with part of the cost of the business upon which it is imposed.2 Reasons may exist for making through rates less than the sum of the local rates,3 and traffic conditions may warrant carriers in exacting a share in through rates which gives them more per mile than that which results to a connecting carrier from the division accepted by it; but in such cases carriers must give proof of the circumstances which justify the disproportionate division of a through rate.5 Although a shipper or consignee has no direct interest in the way a joint rate is divided between carriers, nor in the amount of the division received by each carrier, he is entitled, nevertheless, to inquire into such division when he complains that the joint rate is unlawful; for the amount received by the different carriers may be significant upon the reasonableness of the aggregate charge; and when an unlawful rate results from some arbitrary division exacted by one of the carriers, the Commission will find the facts. and state its conclusions with respect to such share 12. 131; 6. I. 8 3.450. 48.277. 5 6. I. or division. Such complaints, even though brought in the name of an individual, may challenge the entire schedule of rates to competing towns, and such cases, as distinguished from those involving individual grievances only, are peculiarly public in their nature, since they embrace in one proceeding the various business and industrial interests in cities and towns, as those interests may be affected by the charges of public carriers whose facilities are employed in the interchange of commerce.2 The Commission inquires primarily into the influence of a through rate taken as an entity. How the rate is made3 is only material as bearing upon the legality of the aggregate charge, and how any reduction may be accomplished is a matter for the carriers to determine among themselves. The tariff of rates should also show which carriers united in establishing the joint rates.5 In the division of joint rates each carrier may receive less than its established local rate; one may receive more and another less than full local rates; but whatever the basis of division, the essential feature of such rates is that the connecting carriers have agreed or mutually consented to carry traffic over the connecting line for a less aggregate charge than the sum of their established local rates. So-called through export rates, i.e. rates by rail plus rates by water, are not analogous to joint rates made by joint arrangements, and an "export rate may be lower than the rate on the same commodity from the same origin and bound for the same port but not for export, because it is in essence the division of a through rate.1 Not to be confused with through rates are combination rates, obtained by adding to the through rate to a certain point the local rate from that point back to the point of destination. This system prevails most widely in southern territory and is connected with the trade-centre theory. Combination rates generally bring disadvantages to the towns to which they apply and advantages to basing points; and when combination rates produce a lower rate than the tariff calls for, they enable the knowing shipper to obtain advantages over the one who has less information.3 Differential rates have been treated by the Commission chiefly in connection with export rates to competing seaports and longer routes competing for traffic to a common centre. The export-rate cases will be discussed in a later paragraph; suffice it here to call attention to the grounds upon which the Commission justified a differential export rate to Boston, via New York, as low as the rate to New York. These grounds were: (1) the greater cost of transportation to Boston; (2) the greater volume of business to and from New York; (3) the competition of the Lake, Erie Canal, and Hudson River route, as well as of the railways; (4) the geographical and commercial advantages of 18. 214. 28.277. 8 2. I. New York. However, it should also be observed that the Commission has held it neither sound in principle nor equitable in practice for railway lines to create artificial differences in market conditions by an arbitrary differential in rates, whereby the product of one section of the country is assigned to one market and the product of another section of the country to another market.2 Pooling. Section V of the act prohibits pooling. What constitutes pooling within the meaning of the statute has been decided by the courts, and will be further considered in the next chapter. Reference is here made to rulings of the Commission on contracts and agreements among railway companies other than illegal pooling contracts. An early decision,3 confirmed by a recent one,1 maintains that an intra-state railway becomes interstate when it voluntarily enters into through shipment arrangements; but shipments from within a state with the intention of reshipment beyond the state is not interstate commerce.5 The receipt successively by two or more carriers for transportation of traffic shipped under through bills for continuous carriage or shipment, and previous formal arrangement between them, is not necessary to bring such transportation under the 1 I. 24, 436. 28. 185; see also 5. 571; 7.481; 7. 612; 8. 47. 8 1. 315. 48. 531; see also 167 U. S. 642, and 162 U. S. 184. 5 1. 30. "2 terms of the law; and the successive receipt and forwarding in ordinary course of business by two or more carriers of the interstate traffic shipped under through bills for continuous carriage over their line is assent to a "" common arrangement." A railway is obliged to transport freight when the same is offered in the usual way, without any special agreement.3 Agreements among railway companies supplying a common market from competitive productive areas, which bring advantages to one such area, but disadvantages to the other, are violations of the act.1 Referring to the question of jurisdiction, it should be observed that the Commission has inIcluded in the "instrumentalities of shipment or carriage," subject to the act, a small road wholly within a state, but used for interstate traffic;5 likewise commerce between points in the same state, but passing through another state; 6 an electric railway between the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland; a bridge extending across a stream from one state into another; 8 live stock carried through different states to stock yards in a centre of this business is interstate commerce until delivery is made at such yards;9 a foreign carrier; 10 and foreign merchandise carried on a through bill of lading.11 Among the matters held not subject to its jurisdiction the Commission |