not exempt from the authority to regulate 37. The law imposes no obstructions to transportation by foreign carriers from or into the United States, but requires such carriers in conducting their business to conform to the same regulations that gov: ern domestic carriers.-Re Investigation of Acts of Grand Trunk Ry. Co., (1889) 3 I. C. C. R. 89, 108, 2 I. C. R. 496. 38. Where a foreign railroad corporation comes into the United States to com pete for traffic between domestic points, it should be content to operate upon the same terms with its American competitors, unless those terms are clearly unjust and unreasonable.-Re Alleged Disturbance in Passenger Rates by Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., (1898) 8 I. C. C. R. 71, 88. extend beyond the line of the state, it is not within the provisions of the Act.Ex parte Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 867. 41. A railroad company whose line was confined to a single state received freight destined to points in other states, but never became a party to through bills of lading, nor entered into a conventional division of freight charges with connecting lines. Held, that such company was could not be required to make reports of not within the purview of the Act, and its business to the Commission.-Interstate Commerce Commission v. Bellaire Z. & C. 42. A railroad company, whose line was wholly in the state of Michigan, transported freight only on local bills of lading under special contracts of carriage limited to its own line. It neither shared in through rates with other carriers, nor assumed any obligation in respect thereto. Held, that the company was not subject to the requirement of the Commission to II. CARRIERS NOT SUBJECT TO ACT. make report of its business under section STATE COMMON CARRIERS, 39-42. WATER CARRIERS, ≤3-47. BRIDGE COMPANY, 48. BRIDGES OR FERRIES, 49. STAGE COACHES, 50. OMNIBUS AND EXPRESS WAGONS, 51. Extending free transportation to officers State common carriers. 39. A carrier is not within the operation of the Act unless it is engaged in interstate commerce by means of a railway or railway and water-craft under one "control, management, or arrangement,' and, by such means, actually and continuously carries goods from within to without a state, or from without to within the same. Ex parte Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 867. 40. A carrier whose line is wholly within a single state may form a link in a line of interstate commerce; but if its relation to such commerce, or interest in, or lability for the carriage thereof, does not 20 of the Act.-United States v. Chicago, K. & S. Rd. Co., (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 783. Water carriers. 43. Ocean carriers are not subject to the Act to regulate commerce.-Kemble v. Boston & A. Rd. Co. et al., (1899) 8 I. C. C. R. 110, 119. 44. There is no requirement of law that independent water lines shall file their tariffs with the Commission.-New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Ill. Cent. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) 3 I. C. C. R. 534, 562, 2 I. C. R. 777. 45. The Interstate Commerce Act does not include or apply to water-craft, unless used in connection with a railway, "under a common control, management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment' from one state or territory of the United States to another, or to or from such state or territory from or to a foreign country.-Ex parte Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 867. 46. The mere fact that a railway wholly within a state, and a vessel running between such state and another, meet at a point within the railway state, and thus form a continuous line of transportation between the two states, by the one taking up the goods delivered by the other at its terminus and carrying them to destination, does not bring the carriers who use the railway and vessel within the act to regulate commerce. So long as the railway and vessel are each operated under a sepa rate and distinct control, each making its own rates and liable only for the carriage of the goods to the end of its route, nei ther is subject to the Act.-Ex parte | Chicago. It thus performed a definite serv Koehler, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 867. 47. Defendant carriers each had stations at different points along the Tennessee river. Considerable territory along and near the river and between their lines could be reached only by steamboats, and in connection with these boats the rail carriers transported freight to and from such territory, the freight being transferred at points where the stations were maintained. Defendants interchanged traffic with the Tennessee River Navigation Co., upon through rates and bills of lading, but refused to interchange traffic on like terms with complainants, although complainants' steamer formed a line in direct competition with that of the Navigation company. On complaint that such refusal was in violation of section 3 of the Act relating to the furnishing of equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between connecting carriers, held, that as complainants' steamer was not subject to the Act, defendants were guilty of no unjust discrimination.-Capehart & Smith v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 265, 3 I. C. R. 278. Bridge company. 48. A bridge company owning no cars which merely transfers the cars of certain railroad companies over its bridge, and charges a stipulated toll for the service, is not a common carrier within the meaning of the act to regulate commerce. -Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567, 615, refusing to enforce order of Commission, 2 I. C. C. R. 162, 2 I. C. R. 102. Bridges or ferries. 49. A railroad company may provide by contract with an independent company for the construction of a bridge or a ferry to be used as a part of its line, but in such case the bridge company or the ferry company is not a common carrier. The railroad is the carrier, the bridge or the ferry being only a part of the railroad itself. Enterprise Transp. Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 326. Stage coaches. 50. A stage coach company, held not within the provisions of the Act.-Wylie v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. et al., (1905) 11 I. C. C. R. 145. Omnibus and express wagons. 51. Petitioner was engaged, by means of omnibuses and express wagons, in transporting passengers and their baggage between railroad stations in the City of ice in connection with a large amount of apply to transportation by team or wagon. 53. A private-car company, the business of which is to lease special live-stock cars to shippers for the transportation of their stock, is not a "connecting carrier,"’ entitled to equal facilities for interchange of traffic under the provisions of paragraph 2, section 3 of the Act.-Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. Rd. Co. et al., (1887) 1 I. C. C. R. 132, 1 I. C. R. 329. Switching company. 54. A switching company which merely transfers goods from one carrier to another within the state, without reference to their final destination, held not engaged in interstate commerce.-Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. 567. Stock Yards company. 55. The Union Stock-Yards & Transit Co. permitted carriers at Chicago to use its tracks in transporting carloads of live stock to the Union Stock-Yards in that city, and imposed a trackage charge therefor. Held, that with respect to live-stock traffic the Stock-Yards Co. was not a common carrier within the Act.-Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. et al., (1898) 7 I. C. C. R. 513. VIL INTERCHANGE OF CARS BETWEEN CONNECTING ROADS, 39-43. cars than on oil in barrels, see 757-762. Rates,'' VIII. CONDITION OF CARS PROVIDED, Tank-car allowances, see 44, 45. 2, 3. See "Car shortage;" "Embargo;" "In- I. DUTY OF CARRIER TO PROVIDE terchange of cars; ""Private cars. "" CARS. Baggage ears, carriage of parcels or packages in baggage cars for suburban passengers, see "Parcels or packages." Charges for detention of cars, see "Demurrage charges."' Combination of employes to prevent interchange of cars, see "Connecting carriers," 52-55. Delivery of cars, see "Delivery at des tination." Distribution of cars, see "Car distribution." Embargo, as excuse for refusal to furnish ears, see "Car distribution," 19. Equal facilities for interchange of traffic, private-car company not entitled to, see "Connecting carriers," 50. Failure to furnish cars, prosecution of offense, see "Criminal prosecution," 17. Failure to justly distribute cars, prosecution of offense, see "Criminal prosecution," 18. Interchange of cars, authority of Commission to require, see "Rates," 868. Interchange of traffic, see 'Connecting carriers," 7-10, 26. Minimum carload weights, see "Weights."' Minimum weight based upon marked capacity of car, see "Weights," 13. Minimum weight, duty of carrier to furnish ear capable of carrying prescribed minimum weight, see "Weights," 5-10. Rebate, granting or accepting of, number of carloads shipped as measure of number of offenses, see "Criminal prosecution," 62. 3-11. Refrigerator cars, see "Refrigeration." Refrigerator cars, charges for refrigera tion, see "Refrigeration charges." Separate accommodations for white and colored passengers, see "Passengers, Stable-car company, when subject to Act, see "Stable-car company." Stable-ear company, payments by, to ship pers, as rebates, see "Rebates or concessions," 31. Substitution of smaller cars when carrier unable to furnish car capable of carrying prescribed minimum weight, see "Weights," 9, 10. Tank ears, allowance to shipper for use of, must appear on tariff, see "Schedules or tariffs," 104. Tank ears, lower charge on oil in tank IN GENERAL, 1, 2. REFRIGERATOR CARS, 4, 5. DELAY IN FURNISHING CARS IN TIME OF CAR SHORTAGE, 6. In general. 1. The carrier is free under the Act to choose its own appropriate means of carriage.-United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., (1889) 40 Fed. Rep. 101. 2. It is the duty of the carrier to properly equip its road with all such cars as experience has shown to be necessary for the right movement of freight along its line. It cannot, therefore, set up its omission in this respect as an excuse for charg ing an exceptional rate which unjustly discriminates against one locality in favor of favor of another.-Board of Trade of others and against one kind of traffic in Chicago v. Chicago & A. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 158, 187, 3 I. C. R. 233. Coal cars. 3. A railroad company is not required to keep a coal-car equipment sufficiently extensive to meet the maximum output of coal on its line at any part of the year, but is only required to furnish car facilities to coal shippers to meet a demand adjusted and regulated to utilize the company's car equipment with uniformity and regularity throughout the year.-Logan Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1907) 154 Fed. Rep. 497. Refrigerator cars. 4. The duty is incumbent on a railroad company which holds itself out as a car. rier of perishable fruit to provide refrigerator cars for the service.-Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 360. 5. Where a carrier holds itself out as a carrier of perishable fruit, it must provide the necessary refrigerator cars for the transportation of that commodity.-Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, (1905) 11 I. C. C. R. 129. Delay in furnishing cars in time of car shortage. 6. Where a carrier, by reason of causes beyond its control, is unable to furnish sufficient cars to accommodate all chippers along its line, it is not chargeable with a violation of law because it fails to furnish cars as rapidly as they are ordered.Riddle, D. & Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. Rd. Co., (1888) 1 I. C. C. R. 374, 1 I. C. R. 688. II. SECURING CARS BY LEASE. CARRIER MAY LEASE EQUIPMENT, 7. NOT OBLIGED TO LEASE FROM ALL COMERS, 8. CARRIER MAY LEASE EQUIPMENT FROM III. JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION. TO COMPEL FURNISHING OF PARTICULAR KIND OF CARS, 12, 13. REFRIGERATOR CARS, 14. TO COMPEL HAULING OF COTTON ON TO COMPEL DELIVERY OF CARS TO CON- JURISDICTION IN CASES INVOLVING DE- ONE SHIPPER AND REFUSE TO LEASE To compel furnishing of particular kind of RESPONSIBILITY OF CARRIER FOR EQUIPMENT OBTAINED BY LEASE, 10, 11. Carrier may lease equipment. 7. Carriers are free under the Act to procure equipment for their business by lease as well as otherwise.-Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., (1902) 9 I. C. C. R. 182, 206e. Not obliged to lease from all comers. 8. A railroad company may acquire cars by construction, by purchase, or by contract for their use. But no one has a right to compel the company to select among these modes, or to contract with all comers. Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., (1890) 3 I. C. C. R. 577, 584, 2 I. C. R. 792. Carriers may lease equipment from one shipper and refuse to lease from another. 9. Carriers are not prohibited under the Act from leasing equipment from a shipper. Neither are they compelled to contract with one shipper in this respect because they have so contracted with another. Consolidated Forwarding Co. V. Southern Pacific Co. et al., (1902) 9 I. C. C. R. 182, 206e. cars. 12. The Commission has no authority under the Act to compel a carrier to provide cars of a particular kind.-Scofield et 2 I. C. C. R. 90, 2 I. C. R. 67. al. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., (1888) 13. The Commission is without authority to compel carriers subject to its jurisdiction to provide any particular kind of cars or other special equipment.-Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. Rd. Co. et al., (1892) 5 I. C. C. R. 193, 212, 3 I. C. R. 841. Refrigerator cars. 14. The Commission has no authority in the matter of compelling a railroad company to provide refrigerator cars. Where such cars are not provided relief must be sought in the courts.-Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 360. To compel hauling of cotton on flat cars. 15. Defendants hauled uncompressed cotton from stations in Mississippi to New that the cotton should be hauled on flat Orleans in box cars. Complainant insisted cars. Held, that the matter related to the physical operation of the roads; that the Commission could not interfere.-New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Ill. Cent. Rd. Co. Responsibility of carrier for equipment ob- et al., (1890) 3 I. C. C. R. 534, 2 I. C. R. tained by lease. 10. For all transportation purposes, so far as the public is concerned, the carrier makes every vehicle its own that it uses upon its road, no matter how acquired. Its responsibility to the public is the same in respect to rates and other transportation duties, whether it owns or hires its vehicles. Rice, R. & W. v. Western N. Y. & P. Rd. Co., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 131, 3 I. C. R. 162. 11. The measure of responsibility which a railroad company is under to shippers for the sufficiency of refrigerator cars furnished by it is the same whether such cars are obtained by purchase or by lease. -Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, (1905) 11 I. C. C. R. 129. 777. 16. The Commission has no authority to require a railway carrier to deliver it's cars containing interstate freight to a connecting carrier.-Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al., (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 173. Jurisdiction in cases involving delay in furnishing cars. 17. The Commission has no authority over cases which merely involve failure on the part of the carrier to furnish cars for the movement of freight within a reasonable time.-Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette Rd. Co., (1905) 10 I. C. C. R. 629. IV. CARS OWNED BY SHIPPERS. TRANSPORTATION OF CARS OWNED BY SHIPPERS CARRIER MUST AVOID DISCRIMINATION, 18-20. v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co., (1889) 2 I. C. 22. The carrier may justly make a reasonable allowance to owners of tank cars for the use of such cars.-Rice v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., (1888) 1 I. C. C. R. 503, 1 I. C. R. 722. RIGHT TO REFUSE TO TRANSPORT UNSAFE OR UNSUITABLE CAR, 21. ALLOWANCE FOR USE OF CARS, 22, 23. Transportation of cars owned by shippers - Carrier must avoid discrimination. 18. There is nothing in the law that 23. A rate of three-fourths of a cent prevents a carrier in the course of its per mile paid by a carrier for the use of business from arranging with the shipper tank cars in which to transport oil, held to furnish cars for the shipment of his reasonable.-Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore own goods at terms agreed upon between & M. S. Ry. Co., (1888) 2 I. C. C. R. 90, him and the carrier, but in every such | 120, 2 I. C. R. 67. transaction the carrier, at its peril, must see to it that neither directly nor relative- V. CARS OWNED BY CAR COMPANIES. ly is a better rate given to such shipper than to others engaged in the same business, and making shipments of the same kind of goods, who are dependent upon the earrier for ears.-Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., (1888) 2 I. C. C. R. 90, 2 I. C. R. 67. 19. Defendant transported petroleum products in barrels from Titusville, Pa., to Buffalo, the rate thereon being 82 cents per 100 pounds, including the weight of the barrel. Shippers in tank cars paid the same rate, but were charged only for the weight of the oil carried. This imposed on the barrel shipper a greater charge, to the extent of the weight of the barrel, than that exacted from the shipper in tanks. The tank shipper furnished his own tank cars. Held, that defendant was bound to provide tank cars for all shippers, or else refrain from charging for the weight of the barrel.-Rice, R. & W. v. Western N. Y. & P. Rd. Co., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 131, 3 I. C. R. 162. 20. Where a carrier makes use of vehieles owned by certain shippers, it must either furnish like vehicles to all competitors in the traffic, or be careful to make no unjust discrimination and give no undue preference in its rates. Thus, where the carrier accepts tank cars from certain ship pers of oil, and has none of its own to furnish to other shippers, but can supply only box cars in which barrels must be used for oil, it is not at liberty to impose an extra charge for the weight of the barrel.-Independent Refiners' Assn. Western N. Y. & P. Rd. Co. et al., (1892) 5 L. C. C. R. 415, 4 I. C. R. 162. v. Right to refuse to transport unsafe or unsuitable car. 21. A carrier is under no duty to transport a tank car for a shipper where the same is unsafe or unsuitable for transportation. Michigan Congress Water Co. CARRIER MAY REFUSE TO HAUL, 24. EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT FOR REFRIGERA- ARRANGEMENT TO HAUL CARS OF ONE RATES CHARGED FOR TRANSPORTATION Carrier may refuse to haul. 24. A railroad company is entitled to judge for itself whether it will undertake to haul private cars of other companies.— Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. PennsylVania Rd. Co., (1890) 3 I. C. C. R. 577, 584, 2 I. C. R. 792. Exclusive contract for refrigerator cars. 25. A railroad company is at liberty to enter into an exclusive contract with a car-line company to furnish refrigerator cars and refrigeration for the transportation over its line of perishable commodities. Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit. (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 360. Arrangement to haul cars of one company and refusal to haul those of another. has arranged with a private car company 26. The fact that a railroad company to furnish it with sleeping cars for the accommodation of its passengers imposes no obligation on the railroad to make a similar arrangement with another private Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., (1890) 3 I. car company.-Worcester Excursión Car C. C. R. 577, 2 I. C. R. 792. 27. Where a carrier has made an ar rangement with a car company to furnish excursion cars for transportation over its lines, by which a sufficiency of excursion cars of a safe, comfortable and suitable character are supplied for that purpose, it is not required to transport excursion cars of another company over its lines and in' |