etc., R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 610. Tariff filed with commission binding though not posted. Pueblo Transportation Asso. v. So. Pac. Co., 14 I. C. C. 82. Allowance made to shippers for cost of car door boards must be stated. Victor Fuel Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 119 So must reconsignment, storage and all other privileges. Folmer & Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 33, 36. Transportation by a railroad of employees of express companies engaged along the line of the railroad need not show in tariffs. Re Contracts for Free Transportation, 16 I. C. C. 246, 249. Tariffs are to be construed by their language and not by traffic officials Newton Gum. Co. v. Chicago, B. & O. R. Co., 16 I. C C. 341, 346. Section requires the filing of schedules, and when such schedules are filed, they show the only legal rates. Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Asso. of St. Louis, 81 Fed. 802. A receiver of a railroad is not bound by a tariff filed be fore his appointment and which he has not ratified. United States v. De Coursey, 82 Fed. 302. When a higher rate is charged than the rate given the shipper, because of misrouting, the shipper can recover the difference between the rate given him and the one he was compelled to pay. Pond-Decker Lumber Co. v. Spencer, 86 Fed. 846, 849, 30 C. C. A. 430, reversing 81 Fed. 277. Section discussed. United States v. Wood, 142 Fed. 405, 408, 409. The purpose of publication is that the shipper may know not only what he but also what his competitor must pay. United States v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 148 Fed. 646, 648. Assumed, without a definite discussion, that icing charges may be stated separately in schedules. Kundsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968, 971. Shipment of goods on through bill of lading from United States to a foreign country subject to the requirements of the section. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 153 Fed. 1, 10, 82 C. C. A. 135, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400. Affirmed. 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28 Sup. Ct. 428. Can not evade section when tariffs show a through route by transporting property over another route. United States v. Vacuum Oil Co., 153 Fed. 598. A provision in a passenger ticket not shown in the schedule is unlawful and void. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger, 155 Fed. 849.

When a schedule of rates includes a charge over private tracks, such charge must be collected. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. United States, 156 Fed. 558, 84 C. C. A. 324, affirming 148 Fed. 646. So also with reference to an elevator charge and no defense that such payment had to be made to get the business. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. United States, 162 Fed. 835, affirming United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 151 Fed. 84. The legality of a terminal charge separately stated must be determined by itself and without reference to the total charge for the through movement. Stickney v. Int. Com. Com., 164 Fed. 638. Affirmed. Int. Com. Com. v. Stickney, 215 U. S. 98, 54 L. Ed. 112, 30 Sup. Ct. 66. A mistake in quoting a published rate does not justify a deviation therefrom. Gulf, Col. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. 802; Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. Ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct. 628; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 444, 51 L. Ed. 553, 560, 561, 27 Sup. Ct. 350. Free cartage furnished openly and notoriously for a quarter of a century need not be stated prior to Act June 29, 1906, in absence of a requirement of the Commission therefor. Int Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. 986. May under this section make a distinct charge for the terminal road when separately stated in tariffs. Int. Com. Com. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 186 U. S. 320, 46 L. Ed. 1182. 22 Sup. Ct. 824. Nothing in section prevents the initial carrier from retaining the right to route freight. So. Pac. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. Rates are established when filed with Interstate Commerce Commission though not posted. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449, 51 L. Ed. 562, 27 Sup. Ct. 358.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

The purpose of this section is to secure to the public knowledge of the rates to be charged. Schultz-Hansen Co. v. S. P. Co., 18 I. C. C. 234, 237. Damages awarded for failure "plainly" to state tariff application. Larson Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 474. Holding itself out as a common carrier may be assumed to be such. Interstate

Remedy Co. v. Am. Ex. Co., 16 I. C. C. 436; Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. C. & E. I. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 149, 156, 158. Regulations governing baggage required to be stated since amendment to Sec. 1 by Act June 18, 1910. Regulations Restricting the Dimensions of Baggage, 26 I. C C. 292. Posting not a condition precedent to making schedules operative. Buren v. S. P. Co., 26 I. C. C. 332. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449, 51 L. Ed. 562, 27 Sup. Ct. 358; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Albers Com. Co., 223 U. S. 573, 594, 56 L. Ed. 556, 32 Sup. St. 316; United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, 56 L. Ed. 568, 32 Sup. Ct. 323. Commission's power to modify provisions as to posting state. Franke Grain Co. v. I. C. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 625, 629, modifying, Kiel Woodenware Co. V. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 242. "Integrity of through rate" defined in its application to section. Fabrication-in-transit Charges, 29 I. C. C. 70, 87. A shipper has a continued right in rates filed. Am. Sugar Refining Co. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 207 Fed. 733, 125 C. C. A. 251, reversing same styled case, 200 Fed. 652. Failure to post tariffs no ground for recovery of damages. Ill. C. R. R. Co., v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 441, 57 L. Ed. 290, 33 Sup. Ct. 176. Stock Yards Transit Co. must file tariff. U. S. v. Union Stock Yards & Transit Co., 226 U. S. 286, 57 L. Ed. 226, 33 Sup. Ct. 83; modifying same styled case, 192 Fed. 330, Op. Com. Ct. No. 15 p. 189. Special arrangement for transporting men. employed by Construction Co. legal. Santa Fe P. & P. R. Co. v. Grant Bros. Construction Co., 228 U. S. 177, 57 L. Ed. 787, 33 Sup. Ct. 474; reversing same styled case 13 Ariz. 186, 108 Pac. 467. Elkins law requires tariff to be observed. Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. United States, 210 Fed. 735, 127 C. C. A. 285, affirming same styled case 194 Fed. 234; Sunday Creek Co. v. U. S., 210 Fed. 747. Applies to demurrage charges. U. S. v. Erie R. Co., 209 Fed. 283. Expedited service illegal when privilege not shown in tariff. Englemon v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 210 Fed. 896; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, 56 L. Ed. 1033, 32 Sup. Ct. 648. "In connection with" defined. Kansas City, So. Ry. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S. 573, 56 L.

Ed. 556, 32 Sup. Ct. 316. Charges must be paid in money. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467, 55 L. Ed. 297, 31 Sup. Ct. 265, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671; Chicago I. & L. R. Co. v. United States, 219 U. S. 486, 55 L. Ed. 305, 31 Sup. Ct. 272. See notes 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 657, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 357, 55 L. Ed. 305. Separate statement of terminal. charges. Int Com. Com. v. Stickney, 215 U. S. 98, 54 L. Ed. 112, 30 Sup. Ct. 66.

Limitation of value in the tariff controls. Boston & M. R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 58 L. Ed. 868, 34 Sup. Ct. 526. Purpose of Section discussed. Hamlen & Sons Co. v. Ill. C. R. Co., 212 Fed. 324, citing Clegg v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 203 Fed. 971, 122 C. C. A. 273; C. C. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Hirsch, 204 Fed. 849, 123 C. C. A. 145, to the effect that any contract imposing a more burdensomel liability than that stated in the tariffs is void. Points from and to which Rates on Slag, 34 I. C. C. 337.

rates apply must be stated.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Section discussed as to separation of charges for different services. Iron Ore Rate Cases. 41 I. C. C. 181, 203; American Paper & Pulp Asso. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 41 I. C. C. 506, 512. Demurrage rates not given a retroactive effect. Horton v. Tonopah & Goldfield R. Co., 225 Fed. 406. Counter claim for damages to goods not allowed in suit for freight charges, Illinois C. R. Co. v. Hooper, 233 Fed. 135; Johnson Brown Co. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 239 Fed. 590, 592. Contra. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Cuneo, 241 Fed. 727, 730. Lawful conditions. of bills of lading filed with the Commission are as binding as tariffs. Boston & M. R. R. Co. v. Piper, 246 U. S. 439, 62 L. Ed. 820, 38 Sup. Ct. 354.

§ 359. Regulations as to Printing and Posting Schedules of Rates for Freight Moving through Foreign Countries from and to Any Place in the United States.-Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act receiving freight in the United States to be carried through a foreign country to any place in the United States shall also in like manner print and keep open to public inspection, at every depot or office where such freight is received for shipment, schedules showing the

through rates established and charged by such common carrier to all points in the United States beyond the foreign country to which it accepts freight for shipment; and any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign. country into the. United States the through rate on which shall not have been made public, as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United States from said foreign. country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight were of foreign production.

Paragraph two of section six. Paragraph as originally enacted. For annotations see next preceding section.

Posting for public inspection is not essential to make ef fective tariff duly filed with the Commission. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. C. & E. R. Co., 235 U. S. 371, 59 L. Ed. 275, 35 Sup. Ct. 131. Tariffs relating to import traffic. United States v. Grand T. R. Co., 225 Fed. 283.

§ 360. No Change of Schedules of Rates Shall be Made without Notice. No change shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges, or joint rates, fares, and charges, which have been filed and published by any common carrier in compliance with the requirements of this section, except after thirty days' notice to the Commission and to the public published as aforesaid, which shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force and the time when the changed rates, fares, or charges will go into effect; and the proposed changes shall be shown by printing new schedules. or shall be plainly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time and kept open to public inspection: Provided, That the Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, allow changes upon less than the notice herein specified, or modify the requirements of this section in respect to publishing, posting and filing tariffs, either in particular instances or by a general order applicable to special or peculiar cumstances or conditions:

"Provided further, That the Commission is hereby authorized to make suitable rules and regulations for the simplification of schedules of rates, fares, charges, and classifications and to perInit in such rules and regulations the filing of an amendment of or change in any rate, fare, charge, or classification without fling complete schedules covering rates, fares, charges or classi