« PředchozíPokračovat »
just, fair, and reasonable, to be thereafter followed, and to make an order that the carrier or carriers shall cease and desist from such violation to the extent to which the Commission finds the same exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for such transportation or transmission in excess of the maximum rate or charge so prescribed, and shall adopt the classification and shall conform to and observe the regulation or practice so prescribed.
First part of paragraph 1, Sec. 15 as amended by Act of June 18, 1910. Prior to this amendment the Act read:
That the Commission is authorized and empowered, and it shall be its duty, whenever, after full hearing upon a complaint made as provided in section thirteen of this act, or upon complaint of any common carrier, it shall be of the opinion that any of the rates, or charges whatsoever, demanded, charged, or collected by any common carrier or carriers, subject to the provisions of this act for the transportation of persons or property as defined in the first section of this. act, or that any regulations or practices whatsoever affecting such rates, are unjust or unreasonable, or unjustly discrimitory, or unduly preferential or prejudicial, or otherwise in violation of any of the provisions of this act, to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable rate or rates, charge or charges, to be thereafter observed in such case as the maximum to be charged; and what regulation or practice in respect to such transportation is just, fair, and reasonable to be thereafter followed; and to make an order that the carrier shall cease and desist from such violation, to the extent to which the Commission finds the same to exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any rate or charge for such transportation in excess of the maximum rate or charge so prescribed, and shall conform to the regulation or practice so prescribed.
First part of section fifteen, as added by the Act of June 29, 1906.
The original section read:
"That if in any case in which an investigation shall be made by said Commission it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the Commission, either by the testimony of
witnesses or other evidence, that anything has been done or omitted to be done in violation of the provisions of this act, or of any law cognizable by said Commission, by any common carrier, or that any injury or damage has been sustained by the party or parties complaining, or by other parties aggreived in consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of the Commission to forthwith cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be delivered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common carrier to cease and desist from such violation, or to make reparation. for the injury so found to have been done, or both, within a reasonable time, to be specified by the Commission; and if, within the time specified, it shall be made to appear to the Commission that such common carrier has ceased from such violation of the law, and has made reparation for the injury found to have been done, in compliance with the report and notice of the Commission, or the satisfaction of the party complaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of record by the Commission, and the said common carrier shall thereupon be relieved from further liability or penalty for such particular violation of law."
The oiginal Act gave the Commission power not only to determine what rates were unreasonable, but what were reasonable. Coxe Bro. & Co. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 535, 577, 578, 3 I. C. R. 460, 478. Order not enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 74 Fed. 784; Murphy, Wasey & Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 122, 3 I. C. R. 725, 726. Power to prescribe rates exercised. Merchants Union of Spokane v. N. Pac. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 478, 4 I. C. R. 183, 198. Order not enforced. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. N. Pac. R. Co., 83 Fed. 249; Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 195, 4 I. C. R. 592, 617. Order not enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 76 Fed. 183, 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. Ed. 243, 17 Sup. Ct. 986. The Supreme Court having intimated in Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700, 5 I. C. R. 391, and having held in Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. Ed. 243, 17 Sup. Ct. 896, that the Commission had no power to fix rates, the Com
mission, after citing these cases, refused to exercise such power. Carey v. Eureka Springs R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 286, 319. The power the Commission had and exercised before the Act of June 29, 1906, was practically to prescribe the old rate as the rate for the future when an advance was declared illegal. For illustration, see Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 548, and Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 505, where an advance was declared illegal, and Southern Fine Lumber Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 195, and Nicola Stone & Meyers Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 199, where the full advance was decided to be the measure of reparation. No order made because of lack of authority to fix rates. Hastings Malting Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 675. The old law gave power to determine how much reparation should be awarded and thereby to determine to what extent a rate was excessive; the amendment gave the additional power to prescribe what rate should be collected in the future. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 1, 3. Section construed with reference to elevator allowances. Re Allowances to Elevators, 12 I. C. C. 85. Distribution of coal cars is a regulation and practice affecting rates under this section. Railroad Com. of Ohio v. Wheeling & L. E. R. Co. 12 I. C. C. 398; Rail & River Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 86. Rules is to who shall load and unload freight subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission under this section. Wholesale Fruit & Producers Asso. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 1 C. C. 410, 421. Section with section fourteen contemplates awards of money by the Commission. Washer Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 147, 153. Gives power to fix rates for the future and award reparation for the past. Arkansas Fuel Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95, 96. Whether or not the Commission had power to fix maximum rates prior to the Act of June 29, 1906, was first mooted and doubted in the Supreme Court in the cases of Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700, and Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 40 L. Ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. 666, and such power was definitely declared not to have been given the Commission in the case of Int. Com.
Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 42 L. Ed. 243, 17 Sup. Ct. 896. Subsequently these case were followed by the inferior courts. See Fed. Stat. Ann. vol. 3, p. 840.
Section fifteen of the old Act is little like the Hepburn Amendment. Therefore, citations to the former are not directly applicable to the present section. Construing this section with others, from twelve to eighteen, inclusive, held that "the Commission is invested with only administrative powers of supervision and investigation, which fall far short of making the board a court, or its action judicial, in the proper sense of the term." Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 613. Section required notice to be given carrier to cease violations of Act. Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 57 Fed. 1005, 1008, 4 I. C. R. While the proceedings of the Commission are not ju dicial, its procedure should substantially conform to that before a court. Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409, 414. When the Commission adopts an erroneous principle in arriving at a conclusion, its order based thereon will not be judicially enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 74 Fed. 784, 787.
While the Hepburn Act gives power to the Commission to fix rates, courts may enjoin advance until the Commission can determine whether or not the advance is legal. Kiser v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 158 Fed. 193, 198. The Commission may make a finding without being embarrassed by admissions in complaint. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 142, 149, 51 L. Ed. 995, 998, 27 Sup. Ct. 648. Immaterial error of law not ground to set aside order of Commission which is given the force "due to the judgments of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience.' Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 441, 454, 51 L. Ed. 1128, 1134, 27 Sup. Ct. 700. Some orders of the Commission entered since the passage of the Hepburn Act have reached the courts. In Stickney v. Int. Com. Com. 164 Fed. 638, 644, the circuit judge said: "This court has ample jurisdiction to set aside or suspend any order of the Commission resulting from a misconception and misapplication of a law to conceded or undisputed facts." In Mo., Kan. & Tex. R.
Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 164 Fed. 645, the circuit judge held: That the same rules of law applied when a suit was brought to enjoin an order of the Commission as when brought to enforce such order, and when complainant's case for an injunction was "wanting in that certainty, fullness, and persuasive force which ought to be, and is, essential to overcome the force of the Commission's finding or determination upon which the order is based," a preliminary injunction was denied. Injunctions granted against order of Commission for error in law. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 166 Fed. 498; same style case, 166 Fed. 499. Stickney case, supra, C. R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com. (Mo. River Rate Case), 171 Fed. 680. Injunctions denied. So. Pac. Ter. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 166 Fed. 134; Mo., Kan. & Tex Ry. case, supra.
Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.
This section is the dominating and controlling expression of the meaning of the Act. Joynes v. P. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 361. Wide authority given the Commission. Commutation Rate case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 431; Central Com. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 114, 115. Coal Rates from Oak Hill, Colo., 30 I. C. C. 505, 508. Full hearing required. Douglass & Co v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 541, citing So. Pac. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 219 U. S. 433, 55 L. Ed. 283, 31 Sup. Ct. 288; Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 277 U. S. 88, 57 L. Ed. 431, 33 Sup. Ct. 185, and cases cited. Commission has authority to determine how cars shall be distributed. Int. Com. Com. v. I. C. R. Co., 215 U. S. 452, 54. L. Ed. 280, 30 Sup. Ct. 163; Int. Com. Com. v. C. & A. R. Co., 215 U. S. 479, 54 L. Ed. 291, 30 Sup. Ct. 155. For history of the order here involved see: Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 172 Fed. 930; Traer v. C. & A. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 451. Other cases bearing upon the question. Ry. Com. of Ohio et. al. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co. et. al., 12 I. C. C. 398; U. S. ex rel. Pitcairn Coal Co. v. B. & O. Ry. Co., (C. C.), 154 Fed. 108; Logan Coal Co. v. Pa. Ry. Co. (C. C.), 154 Fed. 497.
The Commission can not condemn a rate which is not unreasonable, for the purpose of encouraging an industry. So.