petition, which must briefly state the facts which are claimed to constitute a violation of the act, and must be verified by the petitioner, or by some officer or agent of the corporation, society, or other body or organization making the complaint, to the effect that the allegations of the petition are true to the knowledge or belief of the affiant.

The complainant must furnish as many written or printed copies of the complaint or petition as there may be parties complained against to be served. When a complaint is made the name of the carrier complained against must be set forth in full, and the address of the petitioner and the name and address of his attorney or counsel, if any, must be indorsed upon the complaint.

The Commission will cause a copy of the complaint to be served upon each common carrier complained against, by mail or personally, in its discretion, with notice to the carrier or carriers to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within the time specified.

ANSWERS.

V. A carrier complained against must answer the complaint made within twenty days from the date of the notice, unless the Commission shall in particular cases prescribe a shorter time for the answer to be served, and in such cases the answer must be made within the time prescribed. The original answer must be filed with the Commission, at its office in Washington, and a copy thereof must at the same time be served upon the complainant by the party answering, personally or by mail. The answer must admit or deny the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint, and may set forth any additional facts claimed to be material to the issue. The answer must be verified in the same manner as the complaint. If a carrier complained against shall make satisfaction before answering, a written acknowledgment of satis faction must be filed with the Commission, and in that case the fact of satisfaction without other matter may be set forth in the answer filed and served on the complainant. If satisfaction be made after the filing and service of an answer, a supplemental answer setting forth the fact of satisfaction may be filed and served.

VI. If a carrier complained against shall deem the complaint insuf ficient to show a breach of legal duty, it may, instead of filing an answer, serve on the complainant notice for a hearing of the case on the complaint, and in case of the service of such notice, the facts stated in the complaint will be taken as admitted. The filing of an answer will not be deemed an admission of the sufficiency of the complaint, but a motion to dismiss for insufficiency may be made at the hearing.

ADJOURNMENTS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME.

VII. Adjournments and extensions of time may be granted upon the application of parties in the discretion of the Commission.

HEARINGS.

VIII. Upon issue being joined by the service of answer, the Commis sion, upon request of either party, will assign a time and place for hear ing the same, which will be at its office in Washington, unless other wise ordered. Witnesses will be examined orally before the Commission, except in cases when special orders are made for the taking of testi mony otherwise. The petitioner or complainant must in all cases prove 9293-9

the existence of the facts alleged to constitute a violation of the acı unless the carrier complained of shall admit the same, or shall fail to answer the complaint. Facts alleged in the answer must also be proved by the carrier, unless admitted by the petitioner on the hearing.

In cases of failure to answer, the Commission will take such proof of the charge as may be deemed reasonable and proper, and make such order thereon as the circumstances of the case appear to require.

WITNESSES AND DEPOSITIONS.

IX. Subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses will be issued by any member of the Commission in all cases and proceedings before it, and witnesses will be required to obey the subpoenas served upon them requiring their attendance or the production of any books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, or documents relating to any matter under investigation or pending before the Commission.

Upon application to the Commission authority may be given, in the discretion of the Commission, to any party to take the deposition of any witnesses who may be shown, for some sufficient reason, to be unable to attend in person.

AMENDMENTS.

X. Upon application by any petitioner or party amendments may be allowed by the Commission, in its discretion, to any petition, answer, or other pleading in any proceeding before the Commission.

COPIES.

XI. Copies of any petition, complaint, or answer, in any matter or proceeding before the Commission, or of any order, decision, or opinion by the Commission, will be furnished upon application by any person or carrier desiring the same, upon payment of the expense thereof.

AFFIDAVITS.

XII. Affidavits to a petition, complaint, or answer may be taken before any officer of the United States, or of any State or Territory, authorized to administer oaths.

The following amendment of the Rules of Practice was adopted June 15, 1887:

That Rule IX of "the Rules of Practice" be modified to the extent that where a cause is at issue on petition and answer, each party may proceed at once to take depositions of witnesses in the manner provided by sections 863 and 864 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and transmit them to the secretary of the Commission, without making any application to, or obtaining any authority from, the Commission for that purpose.

The following is a letter addressed by Hon. T. M. Cooley, chairman, to a merchant who had complained of a railroad rate:

ANN ARBOR, August 15, 1887. DEAR SIR: A communication from you complaining of a rate which has been imposed on merchandise transported by railroad for you has been forwarded to me from Washington for answer. I incline to think

from the wording of your letter that you suppose the Commission to have much greater powers than its members understand the law has conferred upon it; and it is to correct this impression that I write more at length now than would otherwise be important. It is not, as we have found, an uncommon supposition among business men that the Commission has been given a general authority to alter and correct railroad rates by prompt action, with or without complaint of the rates being made; and it is sometimes criticised for not doing more in this direction. If one were to consider for a moment the vast extent of our country and of its railroad system, immensely greater than that of any other nation on the globe, and were at the same time to bear in mind how common is the fault-finding with railroad charges, he might then have some little idea what would be involved in any attempt thus to supervise and correct at discretion what might be thought wrong; but he would be more forcibly impressed with the impossibility of any off hand correction of railroad abuses if he were in the way of seeing and noting the grounds of the complaints which are actually sent in for the Commission's action. In a single day within the present week complaining letters were received from California, Utah, New York City, North Carolina, and Arkansas, as well as from points nearer home, and in nearly every case the party complaining was apparently under the impression that the Commission was charged with a duty to proceed immediately and ascertain as best it might by local investigation whether the rate complained of was just or unjust, and that he on his part had done all that was required of him when he had brought the matter to the Commission's attention. In very many of these cases the communications sent in do not contain any such statement of the facts as to enable the Commission to form an opinion whether the complaint is or is not probably well founded; and if it were to proceed at once to make an investigation it must then do so without prima facie cause for it having been shown. In some instances the communication is not even a complaint, the writer only expressing his belief or his suspicion that there is a wrong of some kind which ought to be corrected, and taking it for granted that such an expression will be sufficient to demand the Commission's action. In one communication recently received desire was expressed that investigation be entered upon in a distant part of the country, where railroad classification and rates were supposed to be prejudicial to the public interest, though the writer frankly stated that he could not himself indicate any particular thing as wrong, and that he knew of no one who was complaining. As any one may send such a communication, and i.. most cases the writers will be entirely unknown to the Commission, it can not always be known even that it is sent in good faith, much less that it is probably made on good grounds.

In many of the cases thus brought to our attention it is evidently expected that we will not only correct the course of the roads for the future, but also order a refunding of overcharges. To a man of your large business experience it will readily occur, on reflection, that Congress would not be likely to pass a law giving such summary and autocratic powers. To look no further for reasons against it, ample might be found in the fact that if the Commission were thus to undertake to respond to calls which any one in any part of the country might make at pleasure and without responsibility, it must soon, from mere acccumulation of cases, find itself powerless for effective work, and thus the law itself become unworkable. The Commission perceived this very clearly at the outset and deemed it absolutely necessary to require that complaints be

verified in proof of genuineness and good faith, and that they recite suf ficient of the facts to make out an apparent case of injustice which would fairly justify the railroad company being called upon to answer. When these requirements have been brought to the attention of those from whom communications were received a very large proportion of them are not heard from further. Sometimes we have reason to believe this is because they have discovered they were mistaken in the facts, and sometimes because they have learned the law is not what they supposed, while in some cases the grounds of complaint were of such trifling importance that when it was found the case could not be passed upon summarily and ex parte the persous finding fault did not think it worth while to make formal complaint. But, notwithstanding this, a sufficient number of complaints have been duly and responsibly made to keep the Commission fully occupied; and if it had attempted to consider everything that was sent in, without requiring a prima facie showing of reasons for its intervention, it would probably have accomplished far less than it has, because its attention would have been withdrawn from subtantial and bona fide charges to those which were not shown to be such, and which, in many cases, there is reason to believe would have turned out to be mistakenly or inconsiderately made. This would have been worse than a mere wasting of time; it would have rendered impossible much that, as the Commission believes, has so far been usefully accomplished. Taking up such complaints as by their showing fairly challenged attention, the Commission has been able to secure a correction of many faults and wrongs, sometimes as a result of public investigation, but more often through such representations to the parties complained of as convinced them of the advisability of giving redress without awaiting adverse proceedings.

But another reason why Congress would not have given such summary powers is, that it is always supposable there may be an explana tion which will change either wholly or in part the appearance of the prima facie case so as to excuse or palliate the supposed wrong. The opportunity to make this may be as important in cases that at first blush seem plain as in any others, and particularly in cases where rates depend upon a classification of property as making them unjust. When a man complains that his property is put in a class above that in which it should be found, and that the charges upon it are thereby unjustly increased, it may seem, if his case is taken up by itself, that he is quite right. But on questions of classification there are commonly three or more parties interested; the railroad company, perhaps, least of all. A change in classification that favors one article of merchandise almost necessarily prejudices any other that to any extent is competitive; so that it is unsafe to assume without caseful investigation that any proposed change will have injurious results to no one unless it be the roads themselves.

I have made this statement that you might fully understand the necessity the Commission is under of requiring that complaints intended for its action be made responsibly, and with sufficient fullness, so that the statements fairly put the railroad on its defense. The Commission can not assume from a mere statement of what has been paid for trans portation that the amount is excessive. It may seem to be so, and yet an explanation which makes it reasonable be possible. At any rate, to make an explanation is as much a matter of right in these cases as to make defense when sued at law.

It is the desire of the Commission that complaints be made in the form of petition, but they may be perfectly simple and without technicality.

If the petition states the facts, making out an apparent case of wrong which the Commission has jurisdiction to redress, it will be sufficient. If, after this statement of our course of procedure, you desire to make complaint for the action of the Commission, the rules which are herewith sent you will be sufficient guide, and on the receipt of your petition it will have immediate attention; but the facts should be stated more fully than they were given in your letter, which, you will remember, was very meager in statement.

Very respectfully, yours,

T. M. COOLEY.

COPY OF A LETTER REPLYING TO INQUIRIES AS TO MODE OF PROCEDURE.

JUNE 15, 1887.

DEAR SIR: Yours of June 14 received. The rules of the Commission do not require a replication. It is intended that all its proceedings shall be in the simplest form consistent with a reasonable degree of certainty. Cases are considered as at issue when the answer is filed and copies served. If issues of fact are raised upon the answer by denials, or by allegations of new matter, it is the understanding of the Commission that the case stands for trial upon the questions of fact as well as of law; a day for hearing will be assigned on request of either party; witnesses can then be examined, if necessary, and argument made upon the law as applicable to the facts established by proof. The case can be presented by written or printed arguments if parties prefer to take that course. It is the desire of the Commission that parties agree upon facts relating to questions presented, so far as possible; and for this purpose stipulations in writing may be filed or oral concessions made on the hearing. In case parties can not agree upon the facts and desire to avoid the expense of bringing witnesses to Washington, depositions for use before the Commission may be taken on notice to the other side, in the manner provided by sections 863 and 864 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Such depositions when taken should be transmitted to the secretary of the Commission, who will open and file the same. If the taking of depositions is deemed necessary, it should be entered upon as soon as practicable after the service of the answer.

For the Commission.

Yours truly,

EDW. A. MOSELEY,

Secretary.

Sections 863 and 864, referred to above:

SEC. 863. The testimony of any witness may be taken in any civil cause depending in a district or circuit court by deposition de bene esse, when the witness lives at a greater distance from the place of trial than 100 miles, or is bound on a voyage to sea, or is about to go out of the United States, or out of the district in which the case is to be tried, and to a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial, before the time of trial, or when he is ancient and infirm. The deposition may be taken before any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a circuit court, or any clerk of a district or circuit court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a county court or court of common