pend in whole or in part any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Third. Such cases as by Section 3 of the Act entitled "An Act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states," approved February 19, 1903, are authorized to be maintained in a Circuit Court of the United States. Fourth. All such mandamus proceedings as under the provisions of Section 20 or Section 23 of the Act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, as amended, are authorized to be maintained in a Circuit Court of the United States.325 * * This court was, by a provision of the Appropriations Act approved October 22, 1913, "abolished from and after December 31, 1913, and the jurisdiction vested in said Commerce Court is [was] transferred to and vested in the several district courts of the United States;" and it was further provided that "the procedure in the district courts in respect to cases of which jurisdiction is conferred upon them by this Act shall be the same as that heretofore prevailing in the Commerce Court. ''326 The procedure in the District Courts in cases in which jurisdiction formerly existed in the Commerce Court, as well as the procedure in other cases arising under the Interstate Commerce Act will be discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. § 358. General Jurisdiction of Federal District Courts.— Judicial Code, Section 24, paragraph (8), (U. S. C. A. Title 28, Sec. 41) gives the District Courts of the United States, regardless of "the sum or value of the matter in controversy," jurisdiction "of all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce, except those suits and proceedings exclusive jurisdiction of which has been conferred upon the 325 Act June 18, 1910, Chap. 309, 36 Stat., p. 539, Sees. 1 to 6, incl.; Judicial Code, Sees. 200 to 214, inclusive. 326 For a discussion of the pro cedure in the Commerce Court, see article thereon by the author hereof in Standard Encyclopedia of Procedure, Vol. 5, p. 153. Commerce Court." The exception stated, as appears from Section 357, ante, no longer obtains, and the District Courts now have all jurisdiction formerly granted to the Commerce Court. The Interstate Commerce Act requires carriers to file, in the form prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, tariffs of “rates, fares and charges," and the carriers cannot "charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less compensation" than is fixed in such tariff.327 When a carrier collects more than the tariff rate, the shipper may sue for the overcharge; when less is collected, the carrier may sue the shipper. In both cases the District Courts of the United States have jurisdiction, concurrent with the state courts, however small the amount involved.328 The Transportation Act, 1920, leaves jurisdiction as theretofore in the United States District Courts, concurrently with the state courts, to determine rights growing out of federal control.329 Paragraph 1 (a) of Sec. 24 of the Judicial Code gives District Courts general jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds the value of $3000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, when the suit, (a) "arises under the constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority." § 359. Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States to Compel the Attendance of Witnesses before the Commission and Enforce Obedience to Act.-Upon request of the Commission, it shall be the duty of any district attorney of the United States to whom the Commission may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. In case of disobedience of the subpoena of the Commission, it may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of 327 Sections 449, 455, post. 328 Note 314, ante. 329 Transportation Act, 1920, Sec. 206, appendix 1, post. For a discussion of whom to sue under Section 10 of Federal Control Act see article by author hereof Central Law Journal, Vol. 88, pp. 100 and 157 and Vol. 90, page 245; McGregor v. G. N. Ry. Co., (N. D.) 172 N. W. 841, 4 A. L. R. 1635 and notes. witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents under the provisions of the Act. And any of the District Courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to the provisions of such Act, or to any other person, issue an order requiring such common carrier or other person to appear before said Commission and produce books and papers, if so ordered, and give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. Section 9 of the original Act provides that certain named officers and agents shall testify and that "the claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying, but such evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any criminal proceeding." The Supreme Court having held that the law must give the witness absolute immunity from prosecution before he could be compelled to testify,330 the Compulsory Testimony Act,3 331 the Immunity of Witnesses Act332 and Section 3 of the Elkins Act333 met this condition, and a witness may be required to testify as provided in those statutes,334 subject of course to the rule that the testimony is relevant to a question over which the Commission has jurisdiction.3 335 § 360. Enforcement of Forfeitures.-Section 16 of the Act provides for forfeitures for any neglect to obey an order of the Commission made under authority of Section 15. A forfeiture is provided for failure to comply with the duties of carriers under the Valuation Act,336 as also under the Govern 330 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 35 L. Ed. 1110, 12 Sup. Ct. 195. 331 Sec. 661, post. 332 Sec. 662, post. 333 Sec. 639, post. 334 Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 40 L. Ed. 819, 16 Sup. Ct. 644. 335 Int. Com. Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 Sup. Ct. 1125; Int. Com. Com. v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 48 L. Ed. 860, 867, 24 Sup. Ct. 563; Harriman v. Int. Com. Com., 211 U. S. 407, 419, 420, 53 L. Ed. 253, 29 Sup. Ct. 115. See also Sec. 267, ante, and United States v. Skinner, 218 Fed. 870. 336 Post, Sec. 475. ment-Aided Railroad and Telegraph Act.337 A carrier who, after written request to quote a rate, refuses so to do, or misquotes the rate, is subject to a penalty of $250.00.3 338 These forfeitures are recoverable in a suit in court in the name of the United States brought in the district where the carrier has its principal office, or through which the road runs. It is the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States.339 § 361. Mandamus.-Section 19a of the Act gives jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States, upon application of the Attorney-General at the request of the Commission, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus to compel a compliance with the provisions of that section, and general authority to be exercised in like manner is given to enforce by mandamus compliance with any of the provisions of the Act. This general authority was conferred by the Amendment of 1906, to meet a decision of the Supreme Court holding that no jurisdiction existed to compel a carrier to file reports with the Commission, although the court stated that Congress could confer such authority.340 District Courts of the United States have jurisdiction, upon the relation of any person, firm, or corporation alleging a violation of the provisions of the Act which prevents the relator from having interstate traffic moved by a common carrier at the same rates as are charged, or upon terms or conditions as favorable as those given by said common carrier for like traffic under similar conditions to, any other shipper, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus against such common 337 Sec. 656, post. 338 Sec. 6 of Act; Sec. 459, post. 339 Sec. 16 of Act; post, Sec. 527. 340 United States ex rel. Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 197 U. S. 536, 49 L. Ed. 870, 25 Sup. Ct. 538, citing Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet., 37 U. S. 584, 9 L. Ed. 1181; United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 26 L. Ed. 167. See, under present law, Int. Com. Com. v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194, 56 L. Ed. 729, 32 Sup. Ct. 436; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 423, 58 L. Ed. 296, 34 Sup. Ct. 125. carrier, commanding it to move and transport the traffic, or to furnish cars or other facilities for transportation, for the party applying for the writ. The writ of mandamus is cumulative and may issue upon such terms as the court may prescribe, notwithstanding there may be undetermined questions of fact as to the proper compensation to the carrier.34 The remedy is limited to compelling the performance of duties which are either so plain as not to require previous action by the Commission or which plainly arise from some provision of the statute or existing order of the Commission within the lawful scope of its authority.342 This writ, however, cannot issue to prevent undue discrimination prior to action by the Commission determining that the particular acts complained of are unlawful. When it is the duty of the Interstate Commerce Commission to act, action may be compelled by the writ.343 § 362. To Enforce Rights Under the Act to Aid Railroads and Telegraph Companies.-By Section 4 of the Act of August 7, 1888, entitled "An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph lines," etc.,344 it is made the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States, by proper proceedings, to protect and enforce the rights of the United States thereunder. This section makes no provision concerning jurisdiction to enforce these rights and, under the rule hereinbefore stated (Section 351), it would seem that the Attorney-General might file suit in a state court if he chose. so to do. The next section giving a right to sue for penalties and damages prescribes that the "action for damages" may be brought in the "district court of the United States in any state or territory in which any portion of the road or telegraph line of said company may be situated." In construing this statute it was held that the special remedy provided did not exclude the equitable remedies, for, said the court: "It 341 Sec. 23 of Act; Sec. 620, post. 342 See Note 318, ante. 343 Int. Com. Com. v. Humboldt Steamship Co., 224 U. S. 474, 56 L. Ed. 849, 32 Sup. Ct. 556, affirming same-styled case, 37 App. D. C. 266. See also Kansas City So. R. Co. v. I. |