workable. Possibly the Commission might therefore have been justi fied in making immediate announcement of this opinion.

It was not, however, believed to be wise to make such announcement at that time. The construction of a new statute having great remedial purposes in view ought not to be hastily made by the tribunal called upon to act under it. When a question of construction comes before the courts parties interested in taking different views are heard by counsel, and if the case is important the court is likely to have all the consider ations which support the several views presented, and will thus be fully informed when it comes to make decision.

The Commission had not had the benefit of discussion by counsel of this most important provision. To delay, before taking any action whatever, until in the ordinary course of affairs a case should arise where the proper construction of the section should be the point in controversy, might be exceedingly injurious to many interests. Under these circumstances it seemed to the Commission that the prudent course, and the course most consistent with the general purposes the act was intended to accomplish, was to take such action as for the time being would disturb as little as possible the general business of the country, and at the same time give ample opportunity for full discussion and consideration of this most important question.

The act to regulate commerce was not passed to injure any interests, but to conserve and protect. It had for its object to regulate a vast business according to the requirements of justice. Its intervention was supposed to be called for by the existence of numerous evils, and the Commission was created to aid in bringing about great and salutary measures of improvement. The business is one that concerns the citizen intimately in all the relations of life, and sudden changes in it, though in the direction of improvement, might in their immediate consequences be more harmful than beneficial. It was much more important to move safely and steadily in the direction of eform than to move hastily, regardless of consequences, and perhaps be compelled to retrace important steps after great and possibly irremediable mischief had been done. The act was not passed for a day or for a year; it had permanent benefits in view, and to accomplish these with the least possible disturbance to the immense interests involved seemed an obvious dictate of duty.

Acting upon these views, and in order to give opportunity for full discussion, the Commission, after having made sufficient investigation into the facts of each case to satisfy itself that a prima facie case for its intervention existed, made orders for relief under the fourth section, where such relief was believed to be most imperative. These orders were temporary in their terms, and in making them it was announced that sessions would be held in the section of the country to which a majority of these orders relat d, at which all parties interested in the questions they presented were at liberty to appear and present their views. Whatever view should ultimately be taken of the proper interpretation of the fourth section, this course could result in no serious injury. If the first impression of the Commission should be held to be correct, the orders would only sanction what might have been done without them, but if the opposite view should be taken they would only postpone for a time the strict enforcement of the fourth section, and give opportunity during that period for the business of the country to adapt itself as far as possible to the new requirement.

The considerations which were influential in determining when these temporary orders should be granted were not more the relief of the car

riers from danger of loss than the prevention of teatened disturbance of business interests in certain localities, which by its reflex action seemed liable to embarrass seriously the entire country. When no great or special urgency was shown, connecting threatened injury to important interests with the literal enforcement of the section, or when the only showing made was of the loss of a certain line of traffic to one carrier which nevertheless was adequately served by being given another direction, temporary orders were not made. Fifty-eight petitions were filed for relief from the operation of the fourth section, some of which were joint; ninety-five railroad companies were petitioners; temporary orders were made in twenty cases, by the terms of which fortythree carriers were for a limited period and pending full investigation. relieved from the operation of the section as to certain points enumerated in each order, where the charging of less for the longer distance was permitted to be continued for the time being.

The opinion of the Commission upon the applications for relief is herewith given in Appendix A. In the same appendix is given a list of the carriers petitioning and a statement of the action of the Commission on each case.

In finally announcing its conclusion, as it did on the petition of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company for relief, the Commission called the attention of the several carriers which had obtained orders to the desirability of revising their tariffs and bringing them more nearly into conformity with the general rule of the fourth section. The opinion was expressed that this revision was practicable without serious injury to the interests involved. This suggestion was acted upon by several of the petitioning carriers, and by a still greater number who had not petitioned for relief; and the Commission takes pleasure now in being able to report that in large sections of the country obedience to the general rule of the fourth section is without important exception. While before the passage of the act few lines operated as competitors for long-haul traffic could be found upon which the practice of the lesser charge for the longer haul did not exist, on a very large propor tion of them all it has now come to an end. This has in some instances been accomplished by raising the rates on through traffic, but in many cases where this was done the practical experiment resulted finally in a general reduction throughout the line. In other instances the lower rates on long haul traffic were retained and the local rates reduced to the limit thus established. In still other instances a compromise course was pursued, the previous low rates at certain so-called competitive points being raised somewhat, and the local rates at intermediate points reduced sufficiently to be brought within the statutory rule. This last course was pursued upon some of the leading roads in the Southern States as to points to which it was in their power to control the rates made.

The process has been continually going on, and is still in progress. Tariffs are from time to time filed with the Commission showing a reconstruction of the rates in the direction of the rule laid down in the fourth section. The carriers making them sometimes protest that the rates are not voluntarily made, but only because the law so requires, and that they will involve large loss of revenue. The apprehension of loss in cases when the loal and non-competitive rates are adjusted to the through rates, is, in some cases, supported by strong probabilities. The transcontinental roads have not conformed to the general rule of the fourth section. By the managers of those roads it is contended that in view of the competition which they must meet, not only of ocean

vessels but of the Canadian railways, it will be absolutely impossible for them to comply with the strict rule of the fourth section without surrendering a very large portion of their through business, and that such surrender will be equally ruinous to their own interest and to many other large interests on the Pacific coast. How far this contention is just the Commission has as yet neither had the occasion nor found the opportunity for judging; but cases now pending in which the rates to interior points are complained of will soon receive attention, and the general question will probably to some extent be found involved.

Neither is it the case that the roads in the States south of the Ohio have come into general conformity with the rule of the fourth section. Some of them have greatly modified their tariffs in that direction; some profess compliance, while some insist that compliance is not possible without ruin. Of these the case of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company may be taken as representative. In pending proceedings against that company for a violation of the fourth section it is frankly avowed by the company that its method of making rates has not been changed since the act was passed, and at the same time it is insisted that any considerable change is impossible. The local rates

can not be reduced, it is said, because they are as low now as can be afforded unless the competitive rates are raised, and to raise the competitive rates would be to abandon the business, which would then go to other carriers. It is further insisted for the company that while it gives, as it is compelled to do, very low rates to competing points, the intermediate stations participate in the benefits, because their rates never exceed the rates to the competitive points with the local rates thence to the intermediate stations added, and therefore every reduction to the competitive point causes a like reduction to the intermediate point also. This, as has been said, is the contention which the company makes in pending cases, and in support of which much evidence has been put in.

Some of the cases in which the strict rule of the fourth section is not applied are cases in which the longer hauls are made by circuitous routes, and the charges are necessarily made very low in order to meet the competition of more direct lines. The competition by these circuitous routes is in some cases hardly legitimate, and while it continues it constitutes a disturbing element in the general railroad business of the section. It is nevertheless thought by the local communities to be important, and there are probably some weak lines that would find it dif ficult to maintain a useful existence if not permitted to engage in competition for a business that would naturally fall to other lines. It happens in some of these cases that the lower charges on the longer hauls are only made lower because the points to which they are made are nearer by direct routes to the common market than the points to which the higher charges are made; and in such cases to compel the circuitous route to conform to the rule of the fourth section strictly would be to compel an abandonment of some portion of its business. If the direct lines to the common market give to the nearer point the lower rate, the circuitous line has no alternative but to do the same or to give up any attempt at competition.

The Commission has not as yet had occasion to decide a case which involved the construction of the fourth section in its application to *raffic by these circuitous routes; the only case in which the question was made having been found, when the facts were examined, not to pre sent it. (1 Interstate Commerce Commission Reports. p. 199.)

In some cases the lower rate on the longer line is a combination of rates over several lines; and it has been contended in some quarters that the fourth section only applies to cases in which the carrier who makes the greater charge for the shorter haul controls the line of longer haul, and makes the charge upou that also. The Commission does not take this view, but has decided in the case of the Vermont State Grange against the Boston and Lowell Railroad Co. and others (1, Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, page 108), that where a carrier unites with one or more others in making a rate for long-haul traffic, the rate so made constitutes a measure for the rates on short-haul traffic upon its own lines as much as it would if the long-haul transportation was on its line exclusively.

Where the practice of making the greater charge upon the shorter haul has long prevailed, the effect of its abrogation upon some portion of the business of the smaller cities of the country should perhaps be noted. Those cities have generally been in position to handle goods of all kinds, purchasing them at importing, manufacturing, and producing points, and reselling to retail dealers in the more immediate vicinity. The rates of freight have favored these distributing points, and have been so low that goods could be taken to them and sent forward after handling, or even returned for a certain distance over the same line, at a less aggregate rate of freight than the smaller places could obtain on the same goods from the same initial point. The ability to do this has developed very important business houses, and has largely controlled business methods in some sections of the country, but it no longer exists when the fourth section has been literally applied. The rate from the initial point to the given city-as, for example, from Baltimore or Philadelphia to Danville, Va.-added to the rate from that point to smaller points beyond, will then be more than the through rates from the initial point to the latter places, and at the same time the rate to the given city will be as great or greater than the rates to the intermediate points on the same line; and the natural effect is to depress the wholesale business at all such points and to throw the trade into the hands of metropolitan dealers. This fact is clearly seen in some of the cases now pending before the Commission. There are compensations for all such incidental injuries, and the question involved being one of legislative policy, the Commission deems it sufficient to state the facts as they exist, without comment upon them.

The Commission, on October 20, caused a circular letter to be sent to the various carriers subject to the provisions of the act throughout the United States, inquiring concerning the practical application of the fourth section in making the tariffs in use upon the lines of each respectively. This circular has been very generally answered, and the replies give full information in respect to the manner in which the provisions of the "long and short haul" clause are now being observed by the carriers. A very large number of railroad companies, lines, and systems, answer unequivocally that there are no points upon their respective lines to or from which interstate rates for passengers or freight are greater than to or from more distant points in the same direction over the same line. Others, slightly misapprehending the inquiry made, state that no such instances exist upon their own roads, but that joint tariffs are made by them to points upon other roads where variations from the rule exist. Still others state the points upon their lines which are exceptionally treated, and give the reasons which are claimed to justify them in the rates made.

The statements and explanations of the different companies so far as they are other than a simple negative reply, present the situation so clearly and directly, from the stand-point of the carriers, and show so distinctly the various circumstances and conditions found in different parts of the country which are claimed by them to affect their traffic to an extent warranting a departure from the letter of the statutory rule, that the Commission has determined to lay the entire series before Congress as an appendix to this report. This appendix, which is marked E, contains the following documents:

I. Circular letter to carriers of October 20, 1887.

II. List of carriers which reply that they do not make interstate rates where a greater sum is charged for a shorter than for a longer distance in the same direction over the same line, to or from any point on their respective roads.

III. Letters and documents from carriers which accepted the invitation of the Commission to make a statement concerning the circumstances and conditions of traffic which they claimed made their case exceptional.

Reviewing railway operations during the period which has elapsed since the act took effect, the Commission feels warranted in saying that while less has been done in the direction of bringing the freight tariffs into conformity with the general rule prescribed by the fourth section than some persons perhaps expected, there has nevertheless been a gratifying advance in that direction, and there is every reason to believe that this will continue. That substantial benefits will flow from making the rule as general as shall be found practicable can not be doubted; and even when the circumstances and conditions of long and short haul traffic are dissimilar, the desirability of avoiding any considerable disparity in the charges is great and obvious. So far, therefore, and so fast as business prudence and a proper regard to the interests of the communities which would be disturbed and injured by precipitate changes will admit of its being done, such railroad companies as do not now conform to the statutory rule should make their rates on these two classes of traffic more obviously just and more proportional than they have hitherto been or now are.

III. THE FILING AND PUBLICATION OF TARIFFS.

In addition to the publication of the freight and passenger tariffs, each carrier is also required to file with the Commission copies of its schedules of rates, fare s, and charges, and promptly to notify the Commission of all changes made in the same; also to file with the Commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other carriers in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of the act to which it may be a party. And in cases where passengers and freight pass over continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates, or fares, or charges for such continuous lines or routes, copies of the same are in like manner required to be filed, and the Commission is empowered to require their publication in so far as it shall be found practicable, and to determine the measure of publicity to be given to such rates, fares, and charges. With these provisions there has been general, but not in all cases satisfactory, compliance on the part of the carriers, and the Commission, acting under the discretionary authority conterred upon it to require the publication