Wilmington and Weldon Railroad Company, The Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad Company, The Petersburg Railroad Company, The Richmond and Petersburg Railroad Company, The Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company, The Alexandria and Fredericksburg Railway Company, The Alexandria and Washington Railway Company, The Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, The Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, The Florida Central and Penin sular Railroad Company, The Baltimore Steam Packet Company, The New York and Texas Steamship Company, The Clyde Steamship Company, The Ocean Steamship Company of Savannah. 1. The act to regulate commerce makes it the duty of this Commission "to investigate any complaint forwarded by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory at the request of such commissioner or commission." The complaint in this case was brought by and in the name of the railroad commission of Florida, but the real parties in interest are large classes of growers, buyers, and shippers in the State of Florida. Since the complaint was filed the nominal complainant has ceased to exist. Held, That the repeal of the law creating the railroad commission of Florida could not operate as a withdrawal or dismissal of the complaint, that commission having been only an instrument for the transmission of the complaint to this commission, and having fully performed that function before an end was put to its existence. To abate or dismiss the proceeding on that ground would be to sacrifice substance to form in contravention of the spirit and letter of the act to regulate commerce and of the rules of courts of law in analogous cases. Held further, That under the provision of the act to regulate commerce authorizing this Commission to "institute any inquiry on its own motion in the same manner and to the same effect as though complaint had been made," neither complaint nor complainant is necessary to confer jurisdiction. 2. The defendants, the Clyde Steamship Company, the New York and Texas Steamship Company, and the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company, are common carriers engaged in interstate commerce by arrangement as alleged in the complaint, and as such are subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission in respect thereto. 3. It does not appear that defendants willfully omitted or failed to notify the Commission and the public of the advance in rates complained of, or that anyone has sustained damage or injury by reason of such failure or omission, and therefore there is no case made out for an application by the Commission to a district attorney of the United States for the institution of a prosecution, and no ground for a recommendation of reparation for such injury. 4. While a complainant has no interest in the division the defendants make between themselves, and it does not determine what the charge to the public must be, yet the division is not without significance in determining what are reasonable rates for the whole distance on the lines in question. 5. Carriers making an advance in rates should be able to present a satisfactory justification of such advance, particularly when the old rates have been of many years' standing and the advance is great and the traffic affected is of large and constantly increasing volume and of vital importance to a large section of country. 6. Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances in this case-Held, That the advance of 10 cents per box in rates on oranges from Florida points to New York and other northeastern markets, made by defendants on November 23, 1890, was without justification, and so far as it exceeded 5 cents per box was unreasonable and contrary to law; that defendants be notified and required to make reparation for injuries occasioned by such unreasonable and unlawful rates to the several persons entitled thereto, and, as such persons are not parties to this proceeding and the amounts wrongfully received from them, respectively, can not be ascertained from the evidence already taken, that this proceeding be continued for such further action or inquiry in that behalf as may become necessary. Lehmann, Higginson and Company v. the Texas and Pacific Railway Company, The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, and George A. Eddy and H. C. Cross, receivers of said Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company. 1. A schedule of rates designated a "joint freight tariff" announcing a rate from New Orleans to Kansas City of 30 cents per hundred pounds of sugar was duly published and filed with the Commission by the New Orleans Traffic Association on behalf of the roads composing said association "and connections." The Texas and Pacific Railway Company, a member of said association, in its own behalf, issued and filed a supplemental sheet announcing said rate of 30 cents effective. The several companies composing said traffic association operate roads extending to and leading out of New Orleans, but none of them extending to Kansas City: Held, That a joint tariff of rates or charges must show on its face what carriers unite in establishing such joint tariff, and that the publication and filing of said schedule and supplemental rate sheet did not establish, as provided by section 6 of the act to regulate commerce, a joint tariff of rates and charges on a continuous line from New Orleans to Kansas City over the roads of said association, or of any one of them, in connection with any other road or roads. Held further, That where freight passes over a continuous line or route operated by more than one company on which no joint tariff of rates or charges has been established, the tariff of rates or charges is the sum of the established local rates or charges of the several companies operating such continuous line. 2. Several railway companies forming a continuous through line carried certain traffic to the terminal point at a 30-cent rate and for the same rate to an intermediate point, and to a point on a branch line more distant than the said intermediate but less distant than said terminal point they maintained a rate of 42 cents on the like traffic: Held, That the roads might lawfully maintain the same rate at the intermediate and terminal points, and that some higher rate might be maintained to the branchline point off the direct through line without unjust discrimination. Held further, That as to the branch-line point the complainant was entitled to a refund of the amount paid in excess of a reasonable rate. STATEMENT OF IMPORTANT POINTS DECIDED BY THE COMMISSION SINCE ITS ORGANIZATION. ABSTRACT QUESTIONS. OPINIONS ON.-The Commission will not express opinions on abstract questions; Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc., et al. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific Railway Company et al. Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburg Railroad Company v. Cleve land, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. American Wire Nail Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company et al. Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Company. ACCOMMODATIONS. Councill v. Georgia Railroad Company. ACCOUNTS. OF CARRIER, who is also a miner and shipper of coal. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co. See Unjust Discrimination. ADVANCES IN RATES. COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN POWER TO ORDER.— In re Chicago, St. Paul, and Kansas City Railway Company. See Rates; Tariffs. ADVANTAGE OF BUSINESS LOCATION. See Location. AFFIDAVITS. FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING. Procter & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad Company et al, See Practice. 94 AGENT. DUTIES IN ROUTING FREIGHT. Pankey v. Richmond and Danville Railroad Company. New York and Northern Railway Company . New York and See Through Routes and Through Rates. FOR THROUGH RATES. AGREEMENTS. In re Application of F. W. Clark. FOR TRACKAGE RIGHTS. Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company. FOR USE OF IMPROVED STOCK CARS OWNED BY SHIPPERS.— Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railway Company et al. FOR THROUGH LINES. New York and Northern Railway Company . New York and FOR THROUGH BILLING AND THROUGH RATES.— Capehart et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. See Through Routes and Through Rates; Contracts; Preference or Advantage. See Complaint. AMENDMENT. ANSWER. REPLICATION NOT ALLOWED. Oregon Short Line v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company. ARRANGEMENT. See Through Routes and Through Rates; Common Control; Management or Arrrangement; Agreement; Contracts. BARRELS. TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM OILS IN. Rice v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Nicolai v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. In re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates in Oil. Scofield v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl vania Railroad Company. See Unjust Discrimination. BILLING OF FREIGHT. DUTIES OF CARRIERS IN REGARD TO. Pankey v. Richmond and Danville Railroad Company et al. BOOKS, PAPERS, AND DOCUMENTS. COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF. Rice v. Cincinnati, Washington and Baltimore Railroad Company et al., in re Application of Petitioner. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products. See Interstate Commerce Commission; Practice; Evidence; Carriers. BONDED DEBT. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food See Reasonable Rates. BRIDGE CHARGES. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada et al· See Reasonable Rates. BULK OF TRAFFIC. See Traffic; Classification. BURDEN OF PROOF. WHEN ON COMPLAINANT. Fulton v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Harding v. Same Company. Holbrook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railroad Com pany. Jackson v. St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company. Howell v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company WHEN ON CARRIER. In re Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Logan et al. v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl- ON PETITION FOR REHEARING. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad |