« PředchozíPokračovat »
14, 58 L. Ed. 483, 34 Sup. Ct. 203. A jitney a common carrier. Nolen v. Riechman, 225 Fed. 812.
Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.
“Car Ferry" embraced in definition of railroad. Peninsular & Occidental S. S. Co., 37 I. C. C. 432, 435; Stock yards, Nashville Abattoir, Hide & Melting Asso. v. L. & N. R. Co., 40 I. C. C. 134, 139. Scope of transportation. American Paper & Pulp Asso. v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 41 I. C. C. 506, 511, 512; Railroad Com. of Fla. v. F. E. C. Ry. Co.. 42 I. C. C. 616, 625. Street Cars Excluded. James v. W. & 0. D. Co., 44 I. C. C. 570, 573. Railroad defined. St. Louis Mo-Ill. Passenger fares, 41 I. C. C. 584, 587, 589, 590. Transportation a Public Service. The Car Peddling Case, 45 I. C. C. 494, 501.
§ 338. Duty of Carrier to Furnish Transportation and to Establish Through Routes.-It shall be the duty of every common carrier subject to this Act engaged in the transportation of passengers or property to provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates, fares, and charges applicable thereto, and to provide reasonable facilities for operating through routes and to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the operation of through routes, and providing for reasonable compensation to those entitled thereto; and in case of joint rates, fares, or charges, to establish just, reasonable, and equitable divisions thereof as between the carriers subject to this Act participating therein which shall not unduly prefer or prejudice any of such participating carriers.
Paragraph 4, section 400, Transportation Act 1920; Interstate Commerce Act, section 1, paragraph 4. The former section read :
It shall be the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of this act to provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates applicable thereto; and to provide reasonable facilities for operating such through routes and to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the exchange, interchange, and return of cars used therein, and for the operation of such through routes, and providing for reasonable compensation to these entitled thereto.
This section is part of Par. 2 Section 1 of the Act as amended by the Act of June 18, 1910. The amendment added by Act June 29, 1906 read:
And it shall be the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of this act to provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates applicable thereto.
The original Act did not compel or empower the Commission to compel the establishment of through routes. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Penn. Co., 1 I. C. C. 86, 1 C. R. 357; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 1, 2 I. C. R. 454, citing English law and recommending amendments. Commerical Club. of Omaha v. Chicago, Rock I. & P. Ry. Co., 6 I. C. C. 647, 677; Gustin v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 376. And carriers could make through routes with one road and not with others. Capeheart v. L. & N. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 265, 3 I. C. R. 278. When through routes are established they must be kept open to public use. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 9 I. C. C. 182, 205. Order enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 123 Fed. 597, 132 Fed. 829. Circuit court reversed. 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. See same case, 10 I. C. C. 590. Through route ordered established. Cattle Raisers Asso. of Texas v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 20; Birmingham Packing Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 29, 500; American National Live Stock Asso. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 32; Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. R. 364. Through routes and through rates discussed and defined. Re Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 I. C. C. 163. Indemnity may be required of an irresponsible carrier before compelling through route and joint rate. Enterprise Transportation Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 326. Where a reasonable through route exists, the law does not require the Commission to establish another through route. Loup Creek Colliery Co. v. Va. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 471; Stedman v. Chicago & N.
W. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 167; Chicago & M. Elec. R. Co. v. ml. Cent. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 20; Cardiff Coal Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 460; Crane R. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 248. When all parties are before it, the Commission will fix through routes and joint rates. Merchants Traffic Asso. v. New York, N. H. and H. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. R. 225. Section cited Enterprise Fuel Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219, 221.
Notes of Decision Rendered Since 1909.
See Sections 377, 400 and 400, post.
Construing the statute as it existed prior to the amendment of 1910 with the provisions of Sec. 3, post, Sec. 377, and Sec. 15, post, Sec. 400, it was held that through routes could not be established if “reasonable and satisfactory” through routes already existed. Enterprise Fuel Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219. This limitation taken away by amendment of 1910. Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 179, 185. Carriers must not discriminate in establishing through routes. Wichita Falls System Joint Coal Rate Cases, 26 1. C. C. 215, 222; St. Louis S. & P. R. R. Co. v. P. & P. N. Ry. Co., 26 I. C. C. 226, 234, 235. Through routes established over interurban lines-See also cases cited_Louisville Board of Trade v. I. C. & S. T. Co., 27 I. C. C. 499. Construed in connection with a further provision of Sec. 1 post Sec. 402. Huerfano Coal Co. v. C. & S. E. R. A. Co., 28 I. C. C. 502, 505; Campbell's Creek Coal Co. v. A. A. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C. 682, 690. Limitation on power of Commission under Act 1906. Int. Com. Com. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 216 U. S. 531, 54 L. Ed. 605, 30 Sup. Ct. 415. But the amendment of 1910 gives the Commission a discretion. Crane Iron Works v. U. S., 209 Fed. 238, Op. Com. Ct. No. 55, p. 453; Crane Iron Works v. P. & R. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 248; Crane Iron Works v. C. R. R. Co. of N. J., 17 1. C. C. 514; Truckers' Transfer Co. v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 275; and Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 28 I. C. C. 93, 120; Decatur Nav. Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 31 I, C. C. 281 and cases cited. Pacific Navigation Co. v. So. Pacific Co., 31 I. C. C. 472; Port Huron & Duluth S. S. Co. v. P. R. Co., 35 I. C. C. 475; Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. Central of New Jersey R. Co., 35 I. C. C. 488.
Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.
Railroads can not make routes for the purpose of reserving markets to themselves. Eastern Oreg. Lumber Producers Asso. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 316. A National system of railroads should be established. Louisville B. of T. v. L. & N. R. Co., 40 I. C. C. 679, 689. “Through Route" defined. Lourie Mfg. Co. v. C. N. R. Co., 42 I. C. C. 448, 450. Section violated. Menasha Paper Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 241 U. S. 55, 60 L. Ed. 885, 36 Sup. Ct. 501. Tanks cars can not be required to be furnished, United States v. P. R. Co., 242 U. S. 208, 61 L. Ed. 251, 37 Sup. Ct. 95. The power to require through routes may be exerted over carriers who do not with their own rails reach the terminal point. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. United States, 245 U. S. 136, 62 L. Ed. 199, 38 Sup. Ct. 49.
$ 339. All Transportation Charges Must be Reasonable.-All charges niade for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property or in the transmission of intelligence by wire or wireless as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, shall be just and reasonable, and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service or any part thereof is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
First part of paragraph 5, section 1 as amended by section 400, Transportation Act 1920. The former section read: All charges made for any service rendered or to he rendered in the transportation of passengers or property and for the transmission of messages by telegraph, telephone or cable as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, shall be just and reasonable and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service, or any part thereof, is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
Part of paragraph three, section one, as amended by Act 1910..
The original Act read as follows:
"All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, or for the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable and just; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited and declared to be unlawful."
Provision applies to exceptional charges under section four. Re Southern Railway & Steamship Asso. (Re Petition of L. & V. R. Co.) 1 1. C. C. 57, 1 1. C. R. 278. A rate might not violate this section yet be illegal because discriminatory. Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 230, 1 I. C. R. 627. A carrier should not make rates for the purpose of keeping a commodity on its line. Reynolds v. W. V. Y. & P. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 393, 1 I. C. R. 685. what must be considered in determining the reasonableness of a rate. ton Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 136. 1 I. C. R. 754. An intermediate local rate should not exceed the through rate plus the local back to the intermediate point. Martin v. So. Pac. Co., 2 I. C. C. 1, 2 I. C. R. 1. Rate may be fixed on other than a mileage basis. La Crosse M. & J. Union v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 629, 2 I. C. R. 9. All surrounding circumstances and conditions must be considered in determining what is a reasonable rate. Bus. Men's Asso. of Minn. v. Chicago, St. P. & M. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 52, 2 I. C. R. 41. Apportionment of rates between different parts of a line may be considered. Brady v. Penn. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 131, 2 I. C. R. 78. No jurisdiction to increase rates. Re Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 231, 2 I. C. R. 137. Question a perplexing one involving a great variety of situations. Howell v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 2 1. C. C. 272, 2 I. C. R. 162. Excessive rates not justified even when road earns little more than operating expenses.
New Orleans Cotton Ex. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 375, 2 I. C. R. 289. The fact that cost of transportation is exceedingly great bły reason of the peculiar situation of a road should be considered. Rice v. W. N. Y. & Penn. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 389, 2 I. C. R. 298. Through rates may be proportionately less than local rates. Lippman v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 584, 2 I. C. R. 414. Long maintenance of a rate evidence that it is reasonably, low. Logan (Northwestern Iowa Grain & Stock