damages; and provision is made for service of its orders, and for sus pension and modification of them. 7. By a new provision, it is made the duty of a carrier to comply with the orders of the Commission so long as they are in effect. Under the original act the carrier could legally refuse to obey an order of the Commission taking the risk of a decision of the courts supporting the Commission. 8. The schedules and reports of carriers are made public records, prima facie evidence in judicial proceedings. 9. A new section is added, giving power to grant rehearings. The Commission has in fact from the first granted rehearings and this amendment codifies the practice. TOPIC A-PROCEEDINGS ON ITS OWN MOTION. 1043. Investigation by the Commission on its own motion. The Commission, without complaint or petition of an individual may investigate on its own motion the charges or other practices of any car rier subject to its jurisdiction. In such a case, before entering upon the investigation, it will give notice of the time and place of taking testimony, and afford opportunity for calling and cross-examination of witnesses. Such proceeding is a substantial compliance with the statute. Re Rates and Charges on Food Products, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 151, 4 I. C. C. 116 (1890). Upon investigation if it thereupon appears that the conduct of the carrier is illegal, the Commission should use whatever power it has to correct the injustice. In the Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 I. C. C. Rep. 382 (1903). § 1044. Investigation by order of Congress. Such an investigation was instituted in 1890 as a result of a resolution of the Senate and a complaint of the Department of Agriculture. The Commission held that its authority in this case was derived from the permission given in the statute to proceed on its own motion. "Neither the Senate nor the Department of Agriculture is authorized to make any complaint, which under the statute the Commission is required to investigate. The complaint so made and repeated through the Senate and Agricultural Department was not a form of legal process, but an expression of discontent and dissatisfaction with existing rates. It imposed no duty, conferred no power. It was an admonition suggesting too much forbearance if not an omission of duty in respect to rates. As such it showed that the Commission did not of its own motion without probable good cause institute this inquiry and begin the investigation under the statute." Re Rates and Charges on Food Products, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 151, 4 I. C. C. 116 (1890). § 1045. Investigation as result of filing new tariff. A similar investigation was ordered by the Commission upon the filing of tariffs by the trunk lines showing a general increase of freight rates. The circumstances are thus stated by Mr. Commissioner Prouty: "During the last of November, 1902, tariffs were filed with the Commission giving notice of advances in rates of general application. About the same time, owing largely to published interviews of railway traffic officials, the impression grew up that other general advances were to be made. This was widely commented upon by the press, and was the subject of considerable informal complaint to us. Any general advance in transportation charges is a matter of great public concern, and it seemed especially appropriate that the Commission, in the discharge of its duty to keep informed touching the methods and practices of railway carriers subject to the act to regulate commerce should ascertain the reason for these advances. An order was accordingly entered on December 1st respecting rates upon grain and grain products, dressed meats and provisions from the Mississippi river to the Atlantic seaboard, by which the leading lines of railway engaging in this traffic were required to appear at Washington on December 16th for the purpose of giving information touching the advances which had been made or were contemplated in these rates." After a full investigation the Commission stated its conclusion; but since such general investigation of proposed advances in freight charges was in a manner ex parte, although the respondent carriers were fully heard through their traffic representatives, and in some instances through their attorneys, and since facts not brought out in the inquiry, with further discussion of the subject, might lead to a different conclusion, no order was made. It was, however, determined that, unless the rates be readjusted in accordance with the views expressed by the Commission, proceedings would be begun against the several lines, which would put directly in issue the rates involved. In the Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Int. Com. Rep. 382 (1903). § 1046. Procedure upon such investigation. Such investigation cannot be instituted by petition, since there is no petitioner; but it must be begun by some notice to the carrier investigated of the subject of inquiry. An investigation of this sort having been undertaken, counsel for the carriers attacked the jurisdiction of the Commission on the ground that "the proceeding was not commenced and conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice established by the Commission, and was therefore without authority of law." The Commission, however, held the procedure regular, saying: "The act provides 'that the Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice,' and 'may from time to time make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order and regulation of business before it.' The Rules of Practice or orders which have been made in accordance with these provisions of the act refer to proceedings commenced by parties authorized to complain and apply to the Commission by petition. Such rules or orders have no application to proceedings instituted by the Commission on its own motion. These are commenced and conducted under the statute. The law requires the party complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier to apply to the Commission by petition which shall briefly state the facts, and the rules made by the Commission for the regulation of its proceedings require the petition to be verified. If the statute requires the two proceedings, or the method of commencing the two proceedings provided for in section 13 of the act, to be commenced in the same way, then the Commission to institute inquiry on its own motion must present a petition to itself; and, if the course of procedure or Rules of Practice prescribed by the Commission apply to the investigations and proceedings commenced by the Commission on its own motion as well as to those not so commenced, then the Commission must not only petition to itself, but must itself verify such petition. In the matter under consideration the Commission or some member of it would first make oath to the facts showing the rates to be unreasonable, then proceed with the investigation to ascertain if the verification was true and whether the rates were or were not unreasonable. Such is not believed to be the method provided by the act or the rules of the Commission for attaining the ends of justice.' "The Commission is authorized to institute inquiry on its own motion and in such inquiry to investigate the matter in question.' It has so determined when it has entered upon the investigation of such matters; and it may prosecute any inquiry necessary to such investigation by one or more of the Commissioners in any part of the United States. In any investigation the party to be affected must have notice. In any such matter as that we are now considering the party to be affected must have notice of what such party has done or omitted to do and which is challenged and which it is proposed to investigate. The notice given to the several com. panies named elsewhere in this proceeding was sufficient for this purpose and sufficient in law." Re Rates and Charges on Food Products, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 151, 4 I. C. C. 116 (1890). TOPIC B-PROCEEDINGS ON COMPLAINT. 1047. Procedure. [See Appendix of Forms.] The practice and procedure of the Commission is as simple as possible, consistent with justice; and it desires that without dilatory motions, pleas in abatement or other interlocutory proceedings, the matter in question may be brought to an issue at the earliest practicable day when a final hearing may be had forthwith, and all proper questions will then be entertained, whether jurisdictional or going to the merits of the controversy. So in a case where the defendant moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the Commission declined to take up the motion, because the object of the motion was to reach the merits of the case and have them discussed and passed upon summarily, instead of at the customary final hearing. A practice thus to anticipate by motion the final hearing the Commission did not think advisable and would not therefore favor. Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri Pac. R. R., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 321, 1 I. C. C. 156 (1887). In accordance with this view, the Commission desires counsel to simplify the issues so far as possible by agreeing upon the facts. This was expressed by the first chairman, Judge Cooley, in a letter in connection with a petition of the Boards of Trade Union of Minnesota. 1 Int. Com. Rep. 446 (1887). He wrote that in nearly every case "the major portion of the facts are not in dispute at all, and as to all such facts we are compelled to insist that counsel shall stipulate them in advance. We have more difficulty with this matter than with any other, counsel holding themselves aloof from each other, not trying to agree or not half trying, and then coming forward expecting to take time indefinitely in making proof of facts which are really not contested. If we had an indefinite amount of time at our disposal, they might be indulged; but as the case actually is, unnecessary indulgence to some is equivalent to denial of rights to others awaiting a hearing. "In the Boards of Trade Union case, the facts must be largely matters of public notoriety, and it would be altogether wrong to calculate upon taking up time to prove them by oral evidence. An agreement upon thei should be all ready before we take up the case. Of couse it would not be expected parties should agree upon the consequences flowing from the facts, but even as to these it is not generally necessary to go into proof as in a suit at law, for the Commission will apply its own judgment where all that is requisite in an application of ordinary common sense, and will not require or expect that evidence be adduced to show that usual results have followed." § 1048. Parties given opportunity to be heard. Proceedings on complaint of a party take the form of judicial proceedings. Thus a reasonable opportunity will be given for the parties to be heard. Business Men's Assoc. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 48, 2 I. C. C. 52 (1888). So where a railroad submits a shipper's claim for carload rating on a mixed carload to the Commission, it will be treated 'may from time to time make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order and regulation of business before it.' The Rules of Practice or orders which have been made in accordance with these provisions of the act refer to proceedings commenced by parties authorized to complain and apply to the Commission by petition. Such rules or orders have no application to proceedings instituted by the Commission on its own motion. These are commenced and conducted under the statute. The law requires the party complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier to apply to the Commission by petition which shall briefly state the facts, and the rules made by the Commission for the regulation of its proceedings require the petition to be verified. If the statute requires the two proceedings, or the method of commencing the two proceedings provided for in section 13 of the act, to be commenced in the same way, then the Commission to institute inquiry on its own motion must present a petition to itself; and, if the course of procedure or Rules of Practice prescribed by the Commission apply to the investigations and proceedings commenced by the Commission on its own motion as well as to those not so commenced, then the Commission must not only petition to itself, but must itself verify such petition. In the matter under consideration the Commission or some member of it would first make oath to the facts showing the rates to be unreasonable, then proceed with the investigation to ascertain if the verification was true and whether the rates were or were not unreasonable. Such is not believed to be the method provided by the act or the rules of the Commission for attaining the ends of justice.' "The Commission is authorized to institute inquiry on its own motion and in such inquiry to investigate the matter in question.' It has so determined when it has entered upon the investigation of such matters; and it may prosecute any inquiry necessary to such investigation by one or more of the Commissioners in any part of the United States. In any investigation the party to be affected must have notice. In any such mat ter as that we are now considering the party to be affected must have notic of what such party has done or omitted to do and which is challenged and which it is proposed to investigate. The notice given to the several com panies named elsewhere in this proceeding was sufficient for this purpose and sufficient in law." Re Rates and Charges on Food Products, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 151, 4 I. C. C. 116 (1890). TOPIC B-PROCEEDINGS ON COMPLAINT. 1047. Procedure. [See Appendix of Forms.] The practice and procedure of the Commission is as simple as possible, consistent with justice; and it desires that without dilatory motions, |