for reply brief, 10 days after the date fixed for defendants or interveners. Briefs not filed and served on or before the dates fixed therefor will not be received unless a special order therefor is made by the Commission. All briefs must be filed with the secretary and be accompanied by notice, showing service upon the adverse parties, and 15 copies of each brief shall be furnished for the use of the Commission, unless otherwise ordered. Applications for extension of time in which to file briefs shall be by petition, in writing, stating the facts on which the application rests, which must be filed with the Commission at least five days before the time for filing such brief.

Oral argument will be had only as ordered by the Commission. Applications therefor must be made at the hearing or in writing within 10 days after the completion of proof.

XV
REHEARINGS

Applications for reopening a case after final submission, or for rehearing after decision, must be by petition stating specifically the grounds relied upon; such petition must be served by the party filing same upon the opposing counsel who appeared at the hearing or on brief.

If such application be to reopen the case for further evidence, the nature and purpose of such evidence must be briefly stated, and the same must not be merely cumulative. If the application be for a rehearing, the petition must specify the matters claimed to be erroneously decided, with a brief statement of the alleged errors. If any order of the Commission is sought to be reversed, changed, or modified on account of facts and circumstances arising subsequent to the hearing, or of consequences resulting from compliance therewith, the matters relied upon by the applicant must be fully set forth. At least 10 copies of all such applications must be filed.

XVI

TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY

One copy of the testimony will be furnished by the Commission for the use of the complainant and one copy for the use of the defendant, without charge. If two or more complainants or defendants have appeared at the hearing, such complainants or defendants must designate to whom the copy for their use shall be delivered.

In proceedings instituted by the Commission on its own motion, including proceedings involving the suspension of tariffs, no free copies of testimony will be furnished.

XVII

COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS

An order having been issued, the defendant or defendants named therein must promptly notify the secretary of the Commission on or before the date upon which such order becomes effective, whether or not compliance has been made therewith. If a change in rates is required, the notification to the secre tary must be given in addition to the filing of proper tariffs.

XVIII

APPLICATION BY CARRIERS UNDER PROVISO CLAUSE OF FOURTH SECTION

Any common carrier may apply to the Commission, under the proviso clause of the fourth section, for authority to charge for the transportation of like kind of property less for a longer than for a shorter distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance or for authority to charge more as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates subject to the act. Such application shall be by verified petition, which shall specify the places and traffic involved, the rates charged on such traffic for the shorter and longer distances, the carriers other than the petitioner which may be interested in the traffic, the character of the hardship claimed to exist, and the extent of the relief sought by the petitioner. Upon the filing of such a petition, the Commission will take such action as the circumstances of the case seem to require.

XIX
SUSPENSIONS

Suspensions of rates under section 15 of the act to regulate commerce will not ordinarily be made unless request in writing therefor is made at least 10 days before the time fixed in the tariff for such rates to take effect. Requests for suspension must indicate the schedule affected by its I. C. C. number and give specific reference to the parts thereof complained against, together with a statement of the grounds thereof.

XX

INFORMATION TO PARTIES

The Secretary of the Commission will, upon request, advise any party as to the form of complaint, answer, or other paper necessary to be filed in the

case.

XXI

ADDRESS OF THE COMMISSION

All communications to the Commission must be addressed to Washington, D. C., unless otherwise specifically directed.

APPENDIX H

FORMS OF PROCEDURE

[See generally Chapters XXIII and XXIV, supra]

These forms may be used in cases to which they are applicable, with such alterations as the circumstances may render necessary

The complaint of the above-named complainant respectfully shows:

I. That (complainant should here state occupation and place of business, also whether it is a corporation, firm, or partnership, and if a firm or partnership, the individual names of the parties composing the same should be given).

II. That the defendant (defendants) above named is a common carrier (are common carriers) engaged in the transportation of passengers and property, wholly by railroad (partly by railroad and partly by water), between points in the State of and points in the State of , and as such common carrier (carriers) is (are) subject to the provisions of the act to regulate commerce approved February 4, 1887, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

III. That (state in this and subsequent paragraphs, to be numbered numerically, the matter or matters intended to be complained of, naming every rate, rule, regulation, or practice whose lawfulness is challenged, and also each point of origin and point of destination between which the rates complained of are applied).

[Following this a paragraph or paragraphs should be inserted alleging that by reason of the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs complainant (complainants) has (have) been subjected to the payment of rates of transportation which were when exacted, and still are, unjust and unreasonable in violation of section 1 of the act to regulate commerce, or unduly discriminatory in violation of sections 2, 3, or 4 thereof.]

Wherefore complainant prays that defendants may be severally required to answer the charges herein; that after due hearing and investigation an order be made commanding said defendants and each of them to cease and desist from the aforesaid violation of said act to regulate commerce, and establish and put in force and apply as maxima in future to the transportation of between the shipping and destination points named in paragraph

hereof, in lieu of the rates named in said paragraph, such other rates as the Commis

sion may deem reasonable and just (and also pay to complainants by way of reparation for the unlawful charges hereinbefore described the sum of

or such other sum as, in view of the evidence to be adduced herein, the Commission may consider complainant entitled to), and that such other and further order or orders be made as the Commission may consider proper in the premises and complainant's cause may appear to require. Dated at

19-.

The above-named defendant, for answer to the complaint in this proceeding, respectfully states:

1. (Here follow the usual admissions, denials, and averments, answering the complaint paragraph by paragraph.)

Wherefore the defendant prays that the complaint in this proceeding be dismissed.

To the Honorable Interstate Commerce Commissioners:

(I.) Your petitioners complain of the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company and respectfully represent: That on the 13th day of June, A. D. 1887, your petitioners shipped from the City of Colfax, in the Territory of Washington, to the City of Portland, in the State of Oregon, two car loads of wheat, to wit: 122 sacks of wheat of the weight of 20,000 pounds on one car, and 230 sacks of wheat of the weight of 30,000 pounds on the other car. That the said two car loads of wheat were loaded on said cars at your petitioners' sole expense, and were delivered to said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company for transportation to Portland, Oregon, as aforesaid, on said 30th day of June, A. D. 1887. That the distance from the said City of Colfax, in Washington Territory, to Portland, Oregon, does not exceed 320 miles. That the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company, against the protests of your petitioners, have charged your petitioners for transporting the said two car loads of wheat the said 320 miles, the full sum of $175, or at the rate of $7 for each ton of 2000 pounds.

(II.) Your petitioners further aver that it is stated in the annual report of the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company for 1886, that the total cost of all property of every description owned by said Company, including ocean

steamers, river and sound boats, barges and wharves, is $32,924,433.72; while its net income from railroad earnings alone was, as appears by the same report, $2,256,589.78, or 6 8-10 per cent. on the whole nominal investment of that Company, without counting its earnings from other sources. That during the same year that Company transported over its railroad lines 123,413,669 tons of freight and merchandise, and that the average price it received for transporting merchandise from Portland, Oregon, to Colfax, Washington Territory, was in excess of $30 per ton.

(III.) Your petitioners further allege that the rates recommended by the railroad commissioners of the State of Oregon, for the transportation of wheat from points in the State of Oregon, equi-distant from said Portland, Oregon, with the City of Colfax, in Washington Territory, and reached by the line of the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company, is $4 per ton, or $3 per ton less than the said Company has charged your petitioners.

(IV.) Your petitioners further allege that the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company has agreed to make a rate from points in Columbia county, Washington Territory, as far from Portland, Oregon, as is the City of Colfax, for the transportation of wheat and other grains over the line of said railroad to said Portland, Oregon, of $5 per ton, while still continuing the rate from said Colfax at $7 per ton, thus charging your petitioners, and all other handlers of grain in Colfax, $2 per ton more for transporting their wheat the same distance than is charged the wheat raisers and buyers shipping from said points in Columbia county.

(V.) And your petitioners further allege that the sum of $7 per ton for the transportation of wheat as aforesaid from Colfax, Washington Territory, to Portland, Oregon, is unjust and unreasonable; and that a just and reasonable charge for such transportation is $3.50 per ton, which is approximately the rate fixed for a haul of the same distance by the Illinois State law.

(VI.) Wherefore, your petitioners pray that you may direct the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company to reimburse to your petitioners the sum of $87.50, the sum paid by your petitioners to the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company for the transportation of said two car loads of wheat to Portland, Oregon, in excess of a just and reasonable freight charge. And your petitioners further pray that the said Oregon Railway & Navigation Company may be required to establish a rate for the transportation of grain from Colfax, Washington Territory, to Portland, Oregon, not in excess of $3.50 per ton.

MCCLAINE, WADE & Co.

No. 4. COMPLAINT OF WRONG CLASSIFICATION

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

NATIONAL MACHINERY AND WRECKING CO.

v.

PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RY. et al.

The petition of the above-named complainant respectfully shows:

(I.) That complainant is a partnership composed of Jacob W. and Milton S. Kohn, in the State of Ohio, having its principal office and place of business