will choose the route by which it can go the most cheaply. Investigations in other cases before the Commission show that a difference in the freight rate of between one-fourth and one-eighth of a cent per bushel determines the route by which grain shall be exported. Now, the ocean freights from Boston and New York are substantially the same. It follows, therefore, that the inland rate must also be the same. It has been decided that a differential of substantially 2 cents per hundred pounds may be properly made on domestic grain against Boston, but if the export rate were 2 cents higher to Boston than to New York, no traffic would move through the port of Boston. The object of these two rates, therefore, is to equalize the export rate between the ports of Boston and New York. The export rate to Boston is not in reality a Boston rate at all, but is in essence the inland division of a through rate through that port to foreign ports. That the inland carrier may receive in such case for its division a sum less than the domestic rate has been, as we have just seen, determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; hence the thing accomplished by the making of these two rates is not, as a matter of law, illegal."

§ 652. Foreign competition justifies only necessary difference in rates.

But while foreign competition may be considered in fixing the inland share of the through rate, the difference thus justified between the inland and the export or import rate is only such difference as is necessary to meet the competition. The Supreme Court in Texas & Pacific Railway v. Interstate Commerce Commission distinctly pointed out that this was a question of fact to be determined in each case, and a question which was not raised in the actual litigation. "The questions. whether certain charges were reasonable or otherwise, whether certain discriminations were due or undue, were questions of

5

5 162 U. S. 197, 40 L. Ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. 666 (1896).

.

fact, to be passed upon by the Commission in the light of all facts duly alleged and supported by competent evidence. The mere fact that the disparity between the through and the local rates was considerable did not, of itself, warrant the court in finding that such disparity constituted an undue discrimination; much less did it justify the court in finding that the entire difference between the two rates was undue or unreasonable, especially as there was no person, firm, or corporation complaining that he or they had been aggrieved by such disparity."

§ 653. Limitations upon making export and import rates. That foreign business must not be unduly favored at the expense of domestic business was expressly pointed out by the Interstate Commerce Commission."

"The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, supra, has been understood in some quarters as virtually removing import and export traffic from the jurisdiction of the Commission. Such is not by any means its scope or effect. That decision simply broadened the power of the Commission in reference to such traffic. If any individual or locality feels itself aggrieved by the rates made upon export or import business as compared with domestic business, the Commission has full authority to consider and pass upon that grievance. The propriety, as a matter of fact, of the rates maintained by the Texas & Pacific Railway Company has never been upheld by the decision of any tribunal. It has never been decided that that company may transport boots and shoes for the English manufacturer from New Orleans to San Francisco for one-sixth the amount charged the American manufacturer for the same service, but merely that, in determining whether such rate constitutes an unjust discrimination or an

6 Kemble v. Boston & A. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 110, 115 (1899).

undue preference, the interest of the carrier and the consumer should be taken into account as well as that of the producer."

It was accordingly held by the Commission, in the case of New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central & H. R. Railroad, that the inland portion of an export rate through New York must be no less than the inland rate from the originating point to New York. Nothing was shown in the case to justify a difference in rates; and it is no doubt the fact that no differential is needed in order to secure shipments for export through New York.8

73 I. C. C. Rep. 138, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 553 (1889).

8 Acc. Mansion House Assoc. v. London & S. W. Ry., 9 Ry. & Can. T. Cas. 20 (1895).

CHAPTER XX.

THE RATE AS AN ENTIRETY.

§ 661. Nature of a rate.

TOPIC A-THE UNIT FIXED BY REGULATION.

§ 662. Characteristics of the rate as a regulation.

663. Established classification prima facie reasonable.

664. No presumption from continuance of classification under order of commission.

665. Publication of change of rate requisite.

666. Classification sheet not varied by contract or representation.

667. Methods of charging in rate making.

668. A minimum rate is justifiable.

669. Where minimum is fixed excess may be charged for.

670. Minimum weights with provision for refund of excess.

TOPIC B-THE JOURNEY THE UNIT IN PASSENGER SERVICE.

§ 671. The journey is a single entire unit.

672. Fare demanded at any point on the journey.

673. Ticket entitles passenger to carriage for a single journey.

674. Passenger cannot take two journeys for a single fare.

675. Passenger cannot pay two partial fares for a single journey. 676. Part of journey completed before collection of fare.

677. Resumption of journey by rejected passenger.

678. Passenger expelled at a regular station.

679. Change of destination during the journey.

680. Second journey on same train.

681. Non-payment of charges for prior carriages.

682. Effect of repudiation upon the applicants rights.

TOPIC CTHE SHIPMENT THE UNIT IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

§ 683. Maritime freight.

684. Right to compensation by agreement in case of carriage by sea. 685. Right to freight on land.

§ 686. Effect of carriage over a portion of the journey.

687. No freight without delivery.

688. Freight indivisible as a rule.

689. Entire freight when goods arrive damaged.

690. Effect of partial delivery.

691. Lien for entire charge on every part.

692. No lien except for specific charge.

TOPIC DADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR SEPARATE PARTS OF THE

SERVICE.

§ 693. General principles as to additional charges.

694. Whether extra charges should be made.

695 Foreign system of itemized charge.

696. Charges for service before carriage is undertaken.

697. Freight should cover the entire carriage.

698. No separate charge for a part of the transit.

699. Charges for services during transportation.

700. Terminal facilities usually included in the rates. 701. Terminals regarded as connections.

702. Services after carriage is ended. 703. Storage charges.

704. Demurrage of cars.

§ 661. Nature of a rate.

In concluding this general discussion of the law governing railroad rates, it is necessary to point out certain characteristics of the rate itself which seem to require consideration. The separate rate is the definite charge fixed by the person conducting a public employment as the price demanded for performing the service asked. The most salient characteristics of a rate, considered abstractly, is that it is an entirety, the single charge for the whole service which is performed. Illustrations of this characteristic of the particular rate are collected in this chapter, as it is a matter of continual importance to those who have dealings with a public service company. such as the railroad corporation is.