Page images
PDF
EPUB

Upon the whole, we are inclined to leave this matter as it is until opportunity has been afforded carriers to adjust their tariffs and arrangements, and, if so advised, present this subject to Congress; provided, however, that in the meantime all carriers which do not publish and maintain import and export tariffs shall file with the Commission as promptly as possible a statement of the rates actually charged. It is evident that there must be uniformity in the enforcement of these provisions of the Act. One carrier cannot be expected to publish and maintain its tariffs while its competitor is relieved from that obligation. If the Act is not amended within a reasonable time, it will be our duty to enforce it as it is.

10 I. C. C. REP. with propriety, and indeed must be done, the practice is not without limit. Carriers should observe some due relation be tween charges which they impose upon domestic and foreign commerce. In this view it is important that the exact rates which are charged should be made public. A complaint received since the beginning of the present inquiry illustrates this. The complainant desired to ship the machinery for a stamp mill from Chicago to China. Being interested in a line of steamships between San Francisco and the East, his intention was to make shipment to San Francisco and thus to destination by his own line. Upon investigation, however, he learned that the rate from Chicago to San Francisco was $1.25 per hundred pounds, while from Chicago to Shanghai it was 90 cents per hundred pounds. The rate at that time from Shanghai to San Francisco was 20 cents per hundred pounds. Had he desired to lay down his stamp mill at San Francisco, he could have shipped it to Shanghai, and from Shanghai back for 15 cents per hundred pounds less than the direct rate from Chicago to San Francisco.

Our conclusion upon the whole subject is:

1. That the Act now requires the publication of import and export tariffs in the same manner as domestic tariffs.

2. That public policy urgently requires that the inland transportation of import and export commerce should be subject to the Act to regulate commerce, and that the publishing and maintaining of tariffs upon such traffic imposes in most instances no hardship upon the carrier. There may be cases in which a modification of this rule would be of service to the carrier without detriment to the public, and perhaps other instances in which such a modification should be granted in the interest of both the carrier and the public. This can only be accomplished by an amendment of the Act, since the provisions of that statute are mandatory, and the Commission has no power to modify their requirements.

3. If carriers are to any extent relieved from giving the notice now required of advances and reductions in rates upon foreign commerce, they should in all cases file with the Commission the rates actually made and give such further notice to the public as may be possible.

Upon the whole, we are inclined to leave this matter as it is until opportunity has been afforded carriers to adjust their tariffs and arrangements, and, if so advised, present this subject to Congress; provided, however, that in the meantime all carriers which do not publish and maintain import and export tariffs shall file with the Commission as promptly as possible a statement of the rates actually charged. It is evident that there must be uniformity in the enforcement of these provisions of the Act. One carrier cannot be expected to publish and maiņtain its tariffs while its competitor is relieved from that obligation. If the Act is not amended within a reasonable time, it will be our duty to enforce it as it is.

10 I. C. C. REP.

THE CATTLE RAISERS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS, COMPLAINANT, AND THE CHICAGO LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE, INTERVENER,

V.

THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY; THE CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; THE CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY; THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY; THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY; THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; THE WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY; AND THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

Decided March 4, 1904.

1. The Act to regulate commerce clearly confers authority upon the Com

mission to award damages in cases brought before it, and as such award is simply a recommendation which can only be enforced by a suit at law asfording full opportunity for a jury trial, the Act in this

respect is, in the opinion of the Commission, constitutional and valid. 2. By its original decision herein the Commission declared that a ter

ininal charge of $2.00 per car on live stock for delivery to the Union Stock Yards in the City of Chicago was unlawful, and further that any such charge exceeding $1.00 per car would be unlawful, and continued the case for proof of damages to injured parties. The decision of the United States Supreme Court upon the petition to enforce the regulating order of. the Commission (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. et al. 186 U. S. 320, 46 L. ed. 1182, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624) in general sustained the view of the Commission but dismissed the proceeding on account of a reduction in the through rate which had been made from certain territory not described in the rec

ord before it, which reduction amounted to more than the terminal

charge, and authorized the Commission to take further proceedings to correct any unreasonableness in the rate resulting from the additional terminal charge as to any territory to which such reduction did not apply. The reduction referred to took place in 1896 and the $2.00 terminal charge has been imposed by defendants since June 1, 1894. It follows that as to all shipping territory the defendants have, between June 1, 1894, and the date of the through rate reduction in 1896, uulawfully exacted $1.00 per car on live stock as the terminal charge in Chicago, and that in respect to the territory in which the reduction in through rate did not apply defendants have always since June 1, 1894, collected an excessive charge in Chicago to the amount of $1.00 per car.

That branch of the case relating to reparation was properly held open pending determination of the other branch, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case for enforcement of the regulating order of the Commission constitutes no bar to submission of proof before

and action by the Commission upon the question of reparation. 3. The allegations concerning reparation in the original petition to the

Commission are plainly sufficient to constitute the basis for an award of damages by the Commission, but before hearing the defendants are eutitled to a specification showing in detail the amounts for which

recovery is sought. 1. Tlie Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas asked in its original petition

for reparation in behalf of its members, and whatever may be said of the right or status of shippers generally as to reparation for damages resulting from a rate or charge declared by the Commission to be unlawful, in this case the Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas is entitled to show damages to its members and upon such showing it will be the duty of the Commission to order the defendant carriers to make reparation, but in vicw of tlie unsettled state of the law in this respect, and in order that all phases of the question may be presented to the court, the members of the Association seeking damages should file claim in the nature of an intervening petition showing their membership in the Association and payment by them of the charges in ques. tion, accompanied by a specification giving as definitely as possible the

dates and amounts paid. 5. Where the statute establishes a method of procedure for the enforce

ment of a right of action which finally results in bringing that matter by the prescribed course before a court for determination, the principle established by ieading cases is that the first step which must be taken in the proceeding to enforce the claim should be treated as the beginning of the suit which finally results. Therefore when a party elects to proceed before this Commission for the recovery of damages his petition filed with the Commission should be considered the beginning of his action in all its subsequent stages. In this case the suit of members of the Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas for the recovery of damages should be treated as having been begun by the filing on

« PreviousContinue »