intermediates."7 To attempt to avoid through rates by paying ticket rate to an intermediate point and the mileage rate beyond, must be accompanied with the conditions of the tariffs under which mileage is sold. 58 Naturally enough damages were denied on the basis of an unlawful contract, whereby a shipper was to receive the benefits of an unpublished division of a through rate.59

§ 841. Whether export rates must be filed.

Rates on export traffic must be published and filed in accordance with the provisions of this section.60 So-called through export rates, made by adding the ocean rate to the inland rail rates, are not analogous to railroad rates made by joint arrangement by railway carriers subject to the statute, in the sense that the total rate must be published and filed, and it is enough if the railroad carrier publishes and maintains its own rate to the seaboard.61 But if there is in fact such a joint arrangement that the rate is a joint rate under this section, then the entire through rate should be published, and not the inland division, which in that case might vary while the entire rate remained the same.62 It is now generally understood that if the carrier names export rates they must be filed, subject to the operation of the distinctions just stated, but otherwise as has been seen in a former chapter the Commission can have no concern with a rate applying outside of the United States.63

§ 842. Divisions and proportional rates.

Divisions of the joint rates between the carriers concurring therein are matters of private agreement, and for

57 Morton Salt Co. v. M. L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 28 I. C. C. 422. 58 In re Mileage Books, 28 I. C. C. 318.

59 Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R., 21 I. C. C. R. 270.

GO Re Export & Domestic Rates on Grain, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 214.

61 Kemble v. Boston & A. R. R., 8 Int. Com. Rep. 110.

62 Re Publication & Filing of Tariffs, 10 Int. Com. Rep. 55.

63 New Orleans B. of T. v. Illinois Central Ry., 23 I. C. C. 465.

that reason, generally speaking, are of no special concern to shippers, nor are they essential to legalize a published through rate.64 So far as charges on its own road are concerned, a carrier cannot be bound by tariffs of its connections in which it has not concurred; neither can it ignore the provisions of the tariffs of its connections with reference to charges for services performed by those connections.65 In one proceeding the factor of the combination through rate from Memphis to Little Rock. was not found unduly prejudicial as compared with the proportional rate on through shipments between the same points on traffic originating in different localities. It was noted in another case that a special proportional rate applied to shipments to Milwaukee, when destined to points east of Illinois-Indiana State line.67 A tariff provision for free reconsignment at a junction point to connecting lines where no through rates were in effect was not found applicable where a proportional rate was in effect.68

§ 843. Parties liable to prosecution.

66

The concluding part of section 1 of the Elkins Act brings all the carriers who have participated in any rate filed or published within the terms of the Act, as much so as if the tariff had been actually published and filed by such participating carrier, so that a connecting carrier may be convicted of rebating for accepting a lower rate than the one filed with the Commission by the initial carrier.69 In interpreting a schedule from which it was alleged there had been a departure, the court held that the route to which the tariff applied was the natural and direct route from Olean to Norwood by way of Rochester,

64 Germain Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 22.

65 Hull Co. v. S. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 302.

66 Scott-Mayer Commission Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 529.

67 Webster Grocer Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 19 I. C. C. 493.

68 Becker v. P. M. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 645.

69 United States v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 212 U. S. 509, 53 L. ed. 629, 29 Sup. Ct. 313.

and not the roundabout route by Buffalo, and that the tariff was therefore sufficiently definite to establish the rate specified over the former route, in a criminal prosecution under the Elkins Act for accepting a concession.70 An indictment which alleges that the transportation was pursuant to a common arrangement for a continuous shipment and that the concession was for a part and not from the aggregate rate for the interstate transportation, is not defective, since it is not necessary to the offense that all connecting carriers should join in giving the concession.71 In the most famous of these cases against the companies allied with the Standard Oil combination it was held that the defendant Indiana Company was not guilty under the Elkins Act of securing transportation at less than the published rates, since the charges paid by it for the portions of the haul between Evansville and Grand Junction and Grand Junction to destination were the lawfully published divisions of the legal rate from Whiting to Birmingham.72

Topic D. Form of Schedules Required

§ 844. Clearness of statement.

The publication of tariffs in convenient form, adequate in statement and properly authenticated, is essential to the enforcement of reasonable rates and impartial treatment. So far as possible the schedules should be simple in arrangement, ample in their disclosures, and free from ambiguity. Otherwise the opportunity is afforded for evading the law by discriminating practices and unjust exactions.73 The rate sheets must be readily intelligible to shippers and consignees.74 They must be so simplified that persons of ordinary comprehension can understand them; and a

70 Standard Oil Co. of N. Y. v. United States, 179 Fed. 614.

71 United States v. Vacuum Oil Co., 158 Fed. 536.

72 United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Ind., 183 Fed. 223.

73 Re Rate Schedules, 6 Int. Com. Rep. 267.

74 Johnston-Larimer D. G. Co. v. Atchison, T. & F. R. R., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 568.

notation in the tariff of one carrier, making reference to the tariff of some competing carrier, does not meet the requirement of the law that the rate charged shall be published and filed.75 The mere designation, in a paper or circular, of the means of arriving at rates by calculation or reference to other papers, does not constitute the rate sheet required; and the reissuing by a carrier of a tariff of another line, and, by a supplement concurrently issued, limiting its use of the rates therein prescribed to such as are over a specified minimum, is reprehensible.76 The Commission has had occasion to condemn a tariff such as to lead to confusion and discrimination in application of different rates to similar mixed carloads." In the revision of the tariffs of the express companies, a simple method of stating express rates was required by the Commission.78 And in general careless tariffs have been condemned again and again.79

§ 845. Necessary fullness of statement.

The schedules should be sufficiently full to show all that a shipper needs to know. Thus published tariffs specifying rates per standard crate on vegetables shipped from Florida to northern or northeastern points should state plainly the dimensions of the crate to which the rates apply.80 On the other hand, where the rate sheet states that the rates are subject to an official classification filed with the Commission, this was held enough to inform shippers that the rates given were for carriage with limited liability.81 The law requires that tariffs shall state plainly the rates applicable to any transportation which the railroads per

75 H. B. Pitts & Son v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry., 10 Int. Com. Rep. 684. 76 Colorado Fuel & I. Co. v. Southern P. Co., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 488.

"Barrett M'fg Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 20 I. C. C. R. 79.

78 In re Express Rates, 24 I. C. C. 380.

79 Payne V. M. O. L. & T. R. R. v. S. C. Co., 15 I. C. C. 185.

80 Re Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vegetables, 8 Int. Com. Rep. 585.

81 Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie & W. T. Co. (Minn.), 75 N. W. 602.

A

form. Published tariffs are of little value if a shipper cannot depend upon the statements therein contained.82 rule in a circular that agents shall decline to receive shipments of freight "to order," with directions to notify parties elsewhere than at destination point should be filed with Commission.83 A class-rate tariff containing no reference to the commodity rate tariff, it was held that this mere technical omission did not invalidate the commodity issue.84

§ 846. Methods of stating rates.

The Commission has often said that tariffs must be so framed as to be intelligible to those who are not necessarily experts in reading them.85 The practice is condemned of inserting obscure and general clauses in voluminous tariff publications, to the effect that where a combination of locals, either general or in specific instances, will make a lower aggregate through rate than the specific joint through rate therein stated, the former will be used.86 It is a mischievous practice for carriers to publish to their tariffs and on their bills of lading rules and regulations which are misleading, unreasonable, or incapable of literal enforcement in a court of law.87 Carriers should not publish rates in one tariff and discounts or allowances from such rates in another tariff, but instead, should file a new rate as such.88 Various light and bulky articles which cannot be loaded heavily were given the lowest minimum contained in the particular carriers' tariffs; this practice was said to be known as "the principle of the least minimum," and to apply universally.89 In the absence of a

82 Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. C. & E. I. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 149.

83 Ludowici-Celadon Co. v. A. C. L. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 693.

84 Highland Park M'fg Co. v. S. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 67.

85 Porter v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry., 15 I. C. C. 4.

86 Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry., 11 I. C. C. 342. 87 Re Released Rates, 11 I. C. C. 550.

88 In re Allowances for the Transfer of Sugar, 14 I. C. C. 619.

89 Lindsay Bros. v. P. M. R. R., 25 I. C. C. 368.