I. C. C. 46. The burden of proof applies to the total charges and the separately stated charges which make the total. Pacific Fuel & Supply Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 24. Notwithstanding the statute, parties who obtain a suspension of rates should present facts to the Commission. Commodity Rates between Missouri River Points, 28 I. C. C. 265, 267. "Statements of earnings per ton mile and suggestions of increased general operating expenses" not sufficient. Kansas-Iowa Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C. 285, 287. Existing contracts for lower rates will not prevent an increase in rates. Rates on Carload Stone, 29 I. C. C. 136. The theory of equalization of rates not sufficient here. Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 30 I. C. C. 415, 419. Statute discussed. Five Per Cent Case, 31 I. C. C. 351, 448. That a commodity usually takes a class rate justifies increasing the rate to the class basis. Rates on Beer and other Malt Products, 31 I. C. C. 544. Not applied when rates were increased to the point where they normally had been. Corp. Com. of Okla. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 31 I. C. C. 532, 535, 536. Here the charge was increased and the burden of proof was on the carriers. Empire Coke Co. v. B. & S. R. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 573, 582. Cases discussed. East J. R. Co. v. C. R. R. of N. J., 36 I. C. C. 146.

Merely correcting fourth section violations does not meet burden. LaFayette Chamber of Commerce v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 619. General permission to increase rates is not an approval of any particular rate. Globe Soap Co. v. A. & S. Ry. Co., 40 I. C. C. 121, 123. General statement of increased costs does not meet the burden. Kaw River Sand & Material Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 42 I. C. C. 504, 508. Statute does not apply to initial rates, says the Commission. Bay State Milling Company v. Transit Corp., 43 I. C. C. 338; Cotton from New Orleans, 49 I. C. C. 751, 753. Provision applied. Manufacturer's R. Co. v. United States, 246 U. S. 457, 62 L. Ed. 831, 38 Sup. Ct. 383.

§ 400. Shippers May Designate Routing.—In all cases where at the time of delivery of property to any railroad corporation being a common carrier, for transportation subject to the provisions of this act to any point of destination, between

which and the point of such delivery for shipment two or more through routes and through rates shall have been established as in this act provided to which through routes and through rates such carrier is a party, the person, firm, or corporation making such shipment, subject to such reasonable exceptions and regulations as the Interstate Commerce Commission shall from time to time prescribe, shall have the right to designate in writing by which of such through routes such property shall be transported to destination, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the initial carrier to route said property and issue a through bill of lading therefor as so directed, and to transport said property over its own line or lines and deliver the same to a connecting line or lines according to such through route, and it shall be the duty of each of said connecting carriers to receive said property and transport it over the said line or lines and deliver the same to the next succeeding carrier or consignee according to the routing instructions in said bill of lading: Provided, however, That the shipper shall in all instances have the right to determine, where competing lines of railroad constitute portions of a through line or route, over which of said competing lines so constituting a portion of said through line or route his freight shall be transported.

Par. 5 Sec. 15 added by the amendment of June 18, 1910, paragraph 8 as numbered by Transportation Act 1920, section 419.

Ruling under prior law stated, and holding that tariff provisions cannot exempt the carrier from the duty imposed by this law. Weyl-Zuckerman & Co. v. C. M. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 493, 495. When shippers instructions are not complete it is the duty of carriers to seek further instructions. Bruner Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 40 I. C. C. 549, 551; Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co. v. T. F. Ry. Co., 42 I. C. C. 421, 422. Duty stated. Wistar, Underhill & Nixon v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 43 I. C. C. 254, 256.

§ 401. Reciprocal Duties of Carriers as to Routing.-Whenlading, unless such diversion or delivery is in compliance ever property is diverted or delivered by one carrier to another carrier contrary to routing instructions in the bill of

with a lawful order, rule, or regulation of the Commission, such carriers shall in a suit or action in any court of competent jurisdiction, be jointly and severally liable to the carrier thus deprived of its right to participate in the haul of the property, for the total amount of the rate or charge it would have received had it participated in the haul of the property. The carrier to which the property is thus

diverted shall not be liable in such suit or action if it can show, the burden of proof being upon it, that before carrying the property it had no notice, by bill of lading, waybill or otherwise, of the routing instructions. In any judgment which may be rendered the plaintiff shall be allowed to recover against the defendant a reasonable attorney's fee to be taxed in the case.

Paragraph 9 section 15 added by Transportation Act 1920, section 420.

$402. Rule as to Non Routed Traffic.-With respect to traffic not routed by the shipper, the Commission may, whenever the public interest and a fair distribution of the traffic require, direct the route which such traffic shall take after it arrives at the terminus of one carrier or at a junction point with another carrier, and is to be there delivered to another carrier.

Paragraph 10 section 15 added by section 420 Transportation Act 1920.

§ 403. Unlawful to Give or Receive Information Relative to Shipments. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or any officer, agent, or en ployee of such common carrier, or for any other person or corporation lawfully authorized by such common carrier to receive information therefrom, knowingly to disclose or to permit to be acquired by any person or corporation other than the shipper or consignee, without the consent of such shipper or consignee, any information concerning the nature, kind, quality, destination, consignee, or routing of any property tendered or delivered to such common carrier for interstate transportation, which information may be used to the detriment or prejudice of such shipper or consignee, or which may

improperly disclose his business transactions to a competitor; and it shall also be unlawful for any person or corporation to solicit or knowingly receive any such information which may be so used: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the giving of such information in response to any legal process issued under the authority of any state or federal court, or to any officer or agent of the Government of the United States, or of any state or territory, in the exercise of his powers, or to any officer or other duly authorized person seeking such information for the prosecution of persons charged with or suspected of crime; or information given by a common carrier to another carrier or its duly authorized agent, for the purpose of adjusting mutual traffic accounts in the ordinary course of business of such carriers.

Any person, corporation, or association violating any of the provisions of the next preceding paragraph of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offense, on conviction, shall pay to the United States, a penalty of not more than one thousand dollars.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 Sec. 15 added by the amendment of June 18, 1910, changed by section 421 Transportation Act 1920 to paragraphs 11 and 12.

This section indicates a legislative intent to secure shippers immunity from a disclosure of their business. Albree v. M. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 303, 321. Possible violation of section suggested. Concentration of Cotton, 26 I. C. C. 585, 593. Purpose of section discussed, citing Conference Ruling 356, Re Freight Bills, 29 I. C. C. 496, 498. This statute did. not prevent giving information of the unlawful transportation of liquor. Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. North Carolina, 245 U. S. 298, 62 L. Ed. 299, 38 Sup. Ct. 96.

§ 404. Charges for Instrumentalities Furnished by Shipper Must Be Reasonable.-If the owner of property transported under this act directly or indirectly renders any service connected with such transportation, or furnishes any instrumentality used therein, the charge and allowance there for shall be no more than is just and reasonable, and the Commission may, after hearing on a complaint or on its own initiative,

determine what is a reasonable charge as the maximum to be paid by the carrier or carriers for the service so rendered or for the use of the instrumentality so furnished, and fix the same by appropriate order, which order shall have the same force and effect to be enforced in like manner as the orders above provided for under this section.

Paragraph 8 of Sec. 15 added by amendment of June 29, 1906 and the words italicized added by the amendment of June 18, 1910, changed to 13 by section 421 Transportation Act. 1920.

Storage and switching tracks within the inclosure of the shipper and established for his convenience will not furnish a basis for the shipper's claim for compensation for storing cars under this section. General Elec. Co. v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 237, 242.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

Matter of Allowances, 12 I. C. C. 55, quoted as referring to the Statue. Federal Sugar Refining v. B. & O. R. R. Co. 17 I. C. C. 40, 47. The section has no application to a warehouse company not the owner of the commodity shipped. Merchants Cotton Compress & Storage Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 98, 105. Such allowances must be without discrimination. Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 200. Cases discussing allowances cited and former holdings adhered to. Manufacturing Ry. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 304, 315. Claims for allowances should be submitted to the Commission. Sterling & Son Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 451, 454. Allowances for repairs on cars are of dangerous character. Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. O. W. R. R. & Nav. Co., 21 I. C. C. 539, 540. Allowances to industries discussed. Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C. 93, 101, 102. "Connected with such transportation" defined. Inman, Akers & Inman v. A. C. L. R. Co., 32 I. C. C. 146. Statute applied and allowances held legal. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain Co., 222 U. S. 215, 56 L. Ed 171, 32 Sup. Ct. 39; Int. Com. Com. v. Diffenbaugh, 222 U. S. 42, 56 L. Ed. 83, 32 Sup. Ct. 22. The amount of the allowance must be reasonable, and what is