extent, was likewise found in the action of the courts in enforcing the principles of the common law applicable to common carriers-particularly that one which required uniformity of treatment in like conditions of service. "As, however, the powers of the states were restricted to their own territories, and did not enable them to efficiently control the management of great corporations whose roads extend through the entire country, there was a general demand that Congress, in the exercise of its plenary power over the subject of foreign and interstate commerce, should deal with the evils complained of by a general enactment, and the statute in question was the result." Amendatory and supplemental acts have enlarged the powers of the Commission, but these additions to the Commission's powers under the Interstate Commerce Act have had in view the purpose to prevent discrimination, to require certainty, stability and reasonableness in the rates charged, and, finally, by the amendments of 1920, to build up and maintain a system of transportation adequate to the needs of the commerce of the country. The amendment authorizing the supervision and standardization of the accounts of carriers 396 had for its purpose to enable the Commission better to perform its duties respecting the regulation of carriers.397 In the Minnesota Rate Cases,398 the fact that the purpose of the Act was not to include intrastate transportation was definitely stated. The Minnesota Rate Cases dealt with the question of the constitutionality of rates prescribed by state authority applicable only within the state. A different question is presented when there is involved the relationship of interstate rates with intrastate rates. When such a question is presented, as was held in the Shreveport case (Ante, Sec. 62), the state rates must not unlawfully discriminate against in 396 Sec. 551, post. 397 Kansas City S. Ry. Co. V. United States, 231 U. S. 423, 58 L. Ed. 296, 34 Sup. Ct. 125. 398 Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 352, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 33 Sup. Ct. 729. For statement as to the purpose of the acts original and amendatory, see Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28 Sup. Ct. 428; United States v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Nav. Co., 228 U. S. 87, 108, 57 L. Ed. 742, 33 Sup. Ct. 443. terstate shippers, and, when they do, the Interstate Commerce Commission may grant relief. § 71. Carriers Included in the Act.-The original Act applied only to transportation wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water. Included in the definition of railroads are bridges, car floats, lighters, and ferries used or operated in connection therewith, the line in use by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a contract, agreement, or lease, and all instrumentalities of shipment or carriage. The present Act extends the law to apply to the transportation of oil or other commodities, except water and gas, by means of pipe lines or partly by pipe lines and partly by rail or water, and includes express companies, telegraph, telephone and cable companies, whether wire or wireless; all switches, spurs, tracks, terminals and terminal facilities of every kind used or necessary in the transportation of the persons or property designated, and also all freight depots, yards, and grounds, used or necessary in the transportation or delivery of any of said property; cars and other vehicles and all instrumentalities and facilities of shipment or carriage, irrespective of ownership or of any contract, express or implied, for the use thereof, and all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation and transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage and handling of property transported. Under the Act, foreign carriers engaged in transporting between points within and points without the United States are subject to the regulations prescribed;309 water carriers are subject thereto when the transportation is partly by rail and 399 Re Investigation of Acts Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada, 3 I. C. C. 89, 2 I. C. R. 496. A rate, however, made by the Canadian Commission applicable in Canada-though part of the through rate from the United States to Canada-is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, International Paper Co. v. D. & H. Co., 33 I. C. C. 270. For a full discussion of this subject, see Carey Mfg. Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., 36 I. C. C. 203. Over shipments exclusively in Canada, the Commission has no jurisdiction, but it has jurisdiction of that part of a through movement between Canada and the United States, which is in the United States, Emery & Co. v. B. Q. M. R. R., 38 I. C. C. 636; Lake and Rail Rate Cancellations, 44 I. C. C. 745; Carlowitz & Co. v. C. P. R. Co., 46 I. C. C. 290. partly by water, both being under a common contract, management or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment.400 Under the Panama Canal Act401 of August 24, 1912, the Commission is given jurisdiction over the transportation of rail and water carriers when property is transported from point to point in the United States by rail and water, through the Panama Canal or otherwise. The extent of this jurisdiction is stated in the Act, and the Commission has exercised the jurisdiction thus conferred.402 A corporation organized to construct and maintain a bridge across a river running between two states, and which corporation owns no cars, but merely furnishes a highway over which common carriers and others may transport goods, was held not to be within the provisions of the Act.403 Carriers by water between ports of different states under joint rates with railroads, which rates are filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, are within the purview of the Interstate Commerce Act, although such carriers are incorporated under the laws of a particular state." 404 In the Pipe Line cases,405 the Supreme Court sustained the jurisdiction of the Commission over pipe-line carriers transporting oil in interstate commerce. A terminal company, part of a railroad and steamship system, is within the Act,406 and so is a rate between points in 400 Sec. 401, post. 401 Sec. 466, post. 402 Sec. 272 and 466, post, Augusta & Savannah S. S. Co. v. O. S. S. Co., 26 I. C. C. 380. 403 Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 617, 2 L. R. A. 289, 2 I. C. R. 351. 404 Interstate Com. Com. v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194, 56 L. Ed. 729, 32 Sup. Ct. 436, reversing Goodrich Transit Co. V. Interstate Com. Com., 190 Fed. 943, Commerce Court Opinions 21 to 24, p. 95. Within the meaning of the Anti-Trust statutes, tugs employed in towing vessels engaged in interstate commerce are themselves instrumentalities of such commerce, United States V. Great Lakes Towing Co., 208 Fed. 733. Where there is no common or joint arrangement, water carriers held not within the Act, Mutual Transit Co. v. United States, 178 Fed. 664, except as provided in the Panama Canal Act, supra. 405 United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U. S. 548, 58 L. Ed. 1394, 34 Sup. Ct. 956. 406 Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 219 U. S. 498, 55 L. Ed. 310, 31 Sup. Ct. 279. the same state which includes delivery on boat for interstate transportation.407 A stock-yard company, owning and operating a railroad system which transports cars to and from trunk lines which operate cars in interstate transportation, is within the Act.4 408 That street railways were not included within the law prior to the amendatory Act of June 18, 1910,409 has been determined by the Supreme Court, although the effect of that Act on the question was left undecided.410 The Commission has frequently acted under the power granted it over express companies, which are now specifically included.4 411 The Interstate Commerce Act is, however, not so broad as the Safety Appliance and Employers' Liability Acts, and Congress has expressly, by the proviso to Section 1, excluded intrastate commerce.412 § 72. Carriers' Duties under the Act. It is the duty of every carrier subject to the provisions of the law to provide and furnish transportation upon reasonable request therefor, 407 R. R. Com. of Ohio v. Worthington, 187 Fed. 965, 110 C. C. A. 85. See also, Note 421, post. 408 United States v. Union Stock Yards, 226 U. S. 286, 57 L. Ed. 226, 33 Sup. Ct. 83; Union Stock Yard & Transit Co. v. United States, 192 Fed. 330, Commerce Court Opinion No. 15, pp. 189 and 225. See also Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. St. Louis I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 304 and cases cited. 409 Post, Sec. 403. 410 Omaha & C. B. Street Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 230 U. S. 324, 57 L. Ed. 1501, 33 Sup. Ct. 890, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 385, reversing same-styled case, 191 Fed. 40, Commerce Court Opinion No. 25, p. 147, and affirming same-styled case, 179 Fed. 243, and setting aside order of Interstate Commerce Commission in West End Improvement Club V. 411 American Exp. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 522, 53 L. Ed. 635, 29 Sup. Ct. 315; Barrett v. New York City, 183 Fed. 793. Nor does it make any difference that the company is not a corporation, United States v. Adams Exp. Co., 229 U. S. 381, 57 L. Ed. 1237, 33 Sup. Ct. 878. 412 Pacific C. Ry. Co. v. United States, 173 Fed. 448; United States v. Union Stock Yards Co., 192 Fed. 330, 339, Commerce Court Opinion No. 15, p. 189, 225; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 352, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 33 Sup. Ct. 729; Sec. 61, ante. and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates applicable thereto. All charges made for any service rendered or to be 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.. Just and reasonable regulations and practices affecting classification of commodities must be established, observed and enforced. Railroads are prohibited from transporting certain commodities in which they are interested. Switch connections, under certain circumstances, must be made with other carriers and with shippers. Rebates and other forms of discrimination are prohibited. Undue and unreasonable preferences to persons, places or particular kinds of traffic are illegal; and, except in special cases, no greater charge shall be made. for a shorter than a longer haul, the shorter being included within the longer. Transportation of freight must be continuous, pooling, without the permission of the Interstate Commerce Commission, is prohibited, and rates are required to be published, posted and maintained. Transportation Act, 1920, adopted and amended the Car Service Act prescribing in detail the duties of railroads with reference to furnishing and distributing cars.413 The 1920 Act also restricted the freedom of the carriers in constructing new, or extending old, lines, regulated the issuance of stocks and bonds,414 and otherwise enlarged regulation and increased the power of the Commission.415 This 1920 Act designated the original Act to Regulate Commerce and all subsequent additions thereto and amendments thereof as the Interstate Commerce Act. Carriers included in the Act must keep accounts according 413 Transportation Act, 1920, Sec. 402, being paragraphs (10) to (17) of Interstate Commerce Act, Secs. 412 to 419, post. 414 Id. paragraphs (18) to (22), secs. 420 to 424, post. 415 See Chapter XI, post. |