reconsignment privilege applicable to a given shipment it was held that the sum of the locals to and from the point of reshipping is the legal rate.90

§ 847. Requirements of the Commission.

The Commission has full jurisdiction over regulations affecting transportation expressed in tariffs.91 Tariffs should not be used until Commission's rules are complied with.92 Note should be made of the Commission's rules concerning supplements to tariffs.93 An index sufficient to comply with Commission's rules should be included.94 All the rules come to this, that the classifications should be clearly stated. Tariffs which apply rates upon commodities according to their use are improper; the carrier has no right to attempt to dictate the uses to which commodities transported by it shall be put."5 And for the same reason the practice of naming specific consignors and consignees as entitled to special service is condemned.96 Short-term commodity rates are suggestive of the "midnight tariff" of the older times before the requirement of a month's notice." The ruling of the Commission directing that if a supplement to a tariff is issued which conflicts with a part of a previous supplement, which is not thereby canceled in full, that such newly issued supplement should specifically state the portion of the previous supplement intended thereby to be canceled, is held to apply to successive supplements to the same tariff, as well as to other and different tariffs.98

90 Deeves Lumber Co. v. A. & V. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 42.

91 Hood & Son v. Delaware & Hudson, 17 I. C. C. 15.

92 Noble v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 70.

93 In re Proposed Schedules of Rates on Lumber, 20 I. C. C. 575. 94 Western Mantle Co. v. S. P. & S. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 643.

95 Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. C. & E. I. R. R., 11 I. C. C. 149.

96 Pierce Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 579.

97 Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. v. D. & N. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. R. 83.

4.

98 Veitch v. S. A. L. Ry., 22 I. C. C.

§ 848. Consequences of indefinite tariffs.

A tariff so ambiguous as to be impossible of determination is of no effect." A complainant is not to be deprived of his right to a reasonable rate by the fact that the defendants, through neglect of the rules of this Commission as to publication of their tariffs, had failed to establish that rate in legal form.1 Recently where a tariff provision relating to crating of articles was found to be ambiguous, reparation was awarded for unreasonable charges resulting therefrom. But still more lately it has been held that reparation will not be awarded where claim is not based upon reasonableness of rate charged, but involved simply a question of tariff construction. A tariff stating that the rate is governed by what a State commission fixes is improper. In an indictment against a shipper under the Elkins Act for accepting and receiving a concession, it is error to exclude evidence offered on the part of defendant to show that it had no knowledge of the lawfully published rate, especially where the tariffs setting out such rate were involved and somewhat ambiguous. Minimums must be duly scheduled, else the carload is the car full at its actual weight. Damages were awarded for violation of section 6, where shipper routed his goods via a route taking a higher rate, because tariff was defective in failing to state that there were two stations in the same State by the same name."

6

§ 849. All pertinent conditions requisite.

It is the duty of a carrier to set forth in connection with the published rate any exceptions thereto or references to

99 See Stone O. Co. v. P. B. & W. R. R., 18 I. C. C. 160.

1 Black Horse Tobacco Co. V. I. C. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 588.

2 Alexander v. S. P. Co., 24 I. C. C. 306.

Taylor Dry Goods Co. v. M. P. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 205.

4 United States v. Standard Oil Co., 170 Fed. 988.

5 Standard Oil Co. of Indiana v. United States, 164 Fed. 376.

6 Sunderland Bros. V. Missouri R. & F. Ry., 18 I. C. C. 425.

7 Larson Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 474.

any rules, regulations, or conditions affecting the application of the rate; and, if this is not done, the rate is absolute and unlimited as to all points within its purported application. Carriers should not publish rates in one tariff and rules and regulations affecting such rates in another tariff, or even in another passage of the same tariff.9 Although a rule may appear to be unlimited in its application when taken by itself, the general character of the tariff in which it is found must be taken into consideration.10 If all the parts constituting a completed article are offered as one shipment, under one bill of lading, the freight charge should be calculated upon a rating for the completed article. A clause in a tariff providing that weight ascertained upon a particular scale should govern was held unreasonable by the Commission. 12 An initial carrier's tariff providing for a deduction in weight on account of moisture, a connecting carrier, which participated in the movement, having not concurred in such tariff, it was held that the complainant was entitled to the deduction only on that part of the haul performed by the initial carrier. 13

§ 850. Rules for construing schedules.

Tariff rules must have a reasonable interpretation. And the Commission has been very insistent that tariffs should be definite.14 Tariffs are but forms of words, and the Commission in the exercise of its power to administer the Act, can look beyond the forms to what caused them and what they are intended to cause and do cause.15 Tariffs are to be construed according to what they express not

8 Crescent C. & M. Co. v. C. & E. I. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 149.

See I. C. C. Conference Ruling, No. 281.

10 Hutchinson Mill Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 180.

11 Western Classification Case, 25

I. C. C. 442.

12 In re Weighing of Freight by Carrier, 28 I. C. C. 7.

13 Hull v. So. Pac. Co., 24 I. C. C. 302.

14 Western Classification Case, 25 I. C. C. 442.

15 In re Advances on Manganese Ore, 25 I. C. C. 663.

17

according to what is thought to be their intent.16 In other words, tariffs are to be interpreted according to the reasonable construction of their language; the intention of the framers and the practice of the carriers do not control. A tariff rate or rule cannot be divorced from any of its governing conditions or limitations, except by clear and specific tariff provision therefor. 18 It was held, therefore, that unless shipments were in fact soda ash and designated as it, they are not entitled to soda-ash rating.19 And for another example of this, a tariff was held ambiguous in not defining what was meant by "knocked down," "knocked down flat" and "completely knocked down." 20 The term "live stock" used in a tariff providing for the free transportation of caretaker does not include a caretaker of chickens.21 In another case this Southern classification was construed; and it was held that farm wagons were properly rated as sixth-class freight and did not come within the exception in favor of "agricultural implements," in which were included farm wagons and other articles taking a mixed carload rate. 22 Commodity rates should be strictly applied; and a special rating on "pepper' does not take "chile pepper" out of classification. 23 While cannel coal may properly be given a higher rate than bituminous, in the absence of a cannel-coal rate, the bituminous rate would apply to cannel coal.24

§ 851. Specific ratings overrule general.

In every instance where a commodity rate is named in a tariff upon a commodity and between specified points, the

16 Newton Gum Co. v. C., B. & Co., 16 I. C. C. 341.

17 Bon Marche v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 21 I. C. C. 195.

18 Newman Lumber Co. v. M. C. R., 11 I. C. C. 97.

19 Ponchatoula Farmers' Ass'n v. I. C. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 513.

20 Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. v. S. P. & S. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 546.

21 Ream v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C. 107. 22 Crombie & Co. v. S. P. Co., 19 I. C. C. R. 561.

23 Milburn Wagon Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 22 I. C. C. R. 460.

24 North Fork Cannel Coal Co. v. A. A. R. R., 25 I. C. C. 241.

25

commodity rate is the lawful rate, and the only rate that can be used with relation to that traffic between those points, even though a class rate or some combination may be lower. The naming of a commodity rate on any article or character of traffic takes such articles or traffic entirely out of the classification and out of the class rates between the points to which such commodity rate applies. 26 Where both class and commodity rates on any article are in effect from and to the same points, the commodity rate, being specific, takes the article out of the classification and becomes the only lawful rate.27 And, therefore, a rule providing that the publication of a commodity rate removes the application of the classification rate, was not found unreasonable.28 Sometimes a tariff provides for an alternate application by which either class or commodity rate may be applied dependent upon which is the lower.29 Where two rates are in effect, the shipper is justified in demanding the lower, and the carrier may not lawfully collect more.30 Although naming of commodity rate takes article out of class rates, this rule does not prevent alternative use of class and commodity rates in same tariff. 31 Where conflicting rules which affect the rate, are published effective on the same date in separate tariffs by the same carrier, the rule which will result in application of lower rate is taken.32 But it is generally so that where a commodity rate is named, such commodity rate is the only rate that may be used.3 The so-called alternative rule provides that, if class rates make lower charge than commodity rates, class rates 25 Western Classification Case, 25 I. C. C. 442.

26 Porter v. St. L. & S. F. R. R., 15 I. C. C. 1.

27 Central California Traction Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 550. 28 In re Express Rates, 24 I. C. C. 380.

29 Rates on Sash, Doors, and Blinds into Texas, 26 I. C. C. 116.

33

30 Boise Commercial Club v. Adams Express Co., 17 I. C. C. 115.

31 Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. C., B. & Q. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 141.

32 Badenoch Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 22 I. C. C. 36.

33 Goerres Cooperage Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 5.