2173. Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Company v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 6, 1908. Refund of $0.85 on shipment of calico from Kansas City, Mo., to Douglas, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2181. J. H. Hughes v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 6, 1908. Refund of $3.36 on shipment of skirt leather from Santa Clara, Cal., to Bisbee, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2184. Rafaelovich & Brajovich v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 5, 1908. Refund of $2.28 on shipment of olive oil from San Francisco, Cal., to Bisbee, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2186. E. B. Mason & Company v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 6, 1908. Refund of $1.21 on shipment of leather from San Francisco, Cal., to Bisbee, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2197. Duluth Iron & Metal Company v. Northern Pacific Railway Company. May 12, 1908. Refund of $9.37 on carload of scrap iron from Duluth, Minn., to St. Louis, Mo., on account of misrouting by carrier's agent.

2198. Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Company v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 11, 1908. Refund of $6.79 on shipment of candy from Kansas City, Mo., to Bisbee and Douglas, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2211. Moctezuma Copper Company v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 11, 1908. Refund of $78 on shipment of rice from San Francisco, Cal., to Douglas, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2252. Rafaelovich & Brajovich v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 11, 1908. Refund of $1.14 on shipment of tea from San Francisco, Cal., to Bisbee, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2282. Fisher & Hickey v. El Paso & Southwestern Railroad Company. May 14, 1908. Refund of $42 on shipment of potatoes and onions from Sacramento, Cal., to Bisbee, Ariz., on account of excessive rate.

2383. W. W. Wheeler Lumber & Bridge Supply Company v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. May 20, 1908. Refund of $16.20 on carload of lumber from Hazen, Ark., to Napoleon, Mo., on account of misrouting by carrier's agent.

2395. C. E. Healy & Company v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. May 18, 1908. Refund of $29.93 on shipment of potatoes from Itascą, Minn., to Camp Point, Ill., on account of misrouting by carrier's agent.

2425. E. H. Young v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. May 22, 1908. Refund of $36.40 on carload of cotton-seed meal from Purcell, Okla., to Galveston, Tex., on account of excessive rate.

2442. J. H. Everett & Son v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company. May 21, 1908. Refund of $52.80 on shipment of seed cane from Lewisburg, Tenn., to Atlanta, Ga., on account of excessive rate.

2443. R. B. Whiteside v. Northern Pacific Railway Company. May 20, 1908. Refund of $20.36 on carload of oats from Duluth, Minn., to Park Falls, Wis., on account of excessive minimum carload weight.

2461. J. A. Gallant v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. May 20, 1908. Refund of $15.95 on shipment of sugar from New Orleans, La., to Tumlin Gap, Ala., on account of excessive rate.

2490. Hamm Brewing Company v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. May 23, 1908. Refund of $24.20 on 3 shipments of beer from St. Paul, Minn., to Watertown, S. Dak., on account of excessive minimum carload weight.

2491. Hamm Brewing Company v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. May 25, 1908. Refund of $18.33 on 6 shipments of beer from St. Paul, Minn., to Oskaloosa, Iowa, on account of excessive rate.

2569. T. F. Schmucker v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. May 27, 1908. Refund of $36.02 on shipment of household goods from El Paso, Tex., to Denver, Colo., on account of excessive rate.

2585. Merrill & Company v. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Company. June 1, 1908. Refund of $34.58 on carload of lumber from Lake, Miss., to Lincoln Center, Kans., on account of misrouting by carrier's agent.

2648. L. Starks Company v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. June 3, 1908. Refund of $18 on carload of potatoes from Wild Rose, Wis., to Muskogee, Okla., on account of excessive rate.

INDEX.

ABSORPTION.

Under the circumstances stated in the report the Kansas City Southern Rail-
way should give to the complainant the benefit of the $3 switching charge which
it absorbs when delivery is made to a connection for switching purposes within
the switching limits of Kansas City, although in this case the delivery to the
Belt Railway is without such switching limits. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co.
et al. 573.

Local rates to junction points in groups with long haul. Frye & Bruhn et al.
v. N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 501.

Switching charges. La Salle & Bureau County R. R. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry.
Co. 610.

Johnston & Larimer et al. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 388

Switching charges provided in tariff when joint rate above $10. Wellington
et al. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 534.

ACCOUNTING.

Investigation at instance of a stockholder refused. Manning v. C. & A. R. R.
Co. et al. 125.

ACT EFFECTIVE.

Act passed June 29, 1906, postponed by resolution sixty days; effective August
28, 1906.

Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

Goff-Kirby Coal Co. et al. v. B. & L. E. R. R. Co. 383.

Hussey v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 366.

ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE.

Creates a special tribunal with power to determine causes involving a right
which long existed at common law to recover for an unreasonable transportation
charge. Hussey v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 366.

ADJACENT.

The word "adjacent," as used in the act to modify the words "foreign coun-
try," would seem to mean adjacent in the sense of the possibility of substantial
continuity of rails. Lykes S. S. Line v. Commercial Union et al. 310.

This Commission has no jurisdiction as to shipments moving from ports of the
United States to a foreign country not adjacent when such shipments are not
carried by rail, or by rail and water, from an inland point of origin to a port of
transshipment. An inland movement of export or import traffic is a condition
precedent to the attaching of jurisdiction. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v.
Hamburg-American Packet Co. et al. 266.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.

This Commission is the creature of statute, and its authority is derived from
the act of Congress creating the Commission and the various amendments. Its
function is to administer the act to regulate commerce and not to enforce con-
ditions found in Federal or other charters. While a violation of the conditions

721

of the acts of Congress granting the rights of way may be grounds for forfeiture, the remedy is in the courts, as it is not the province of this Commission to enforce compliance with conditions subsequent found in railroad charters. Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 214.

The complaint in this case was filed the day after certain interstate rates had been suspended for the winter; but it appeared, when the complaint came on for hearing, that the rates had been restored. Upon objection made that the Commission was without jurisdiction to proceed except upon a new or amended complaint; Held, That the point was not well taken; and that, having jurisdietion when the complaint came on to be heard the Commission, being an administrative body, ought not to delay the hearing upon a purely technical objection that does not reach the merits of the controversy. Benton Transit Co. v. B. H.St. J. Ry. & L. Co. 542.

Act to regulate commerce creates a special administrative tribunal. Hussey v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 366.

ADVANCES IN RATES.

The increases in the through rates made since defendant's amended answer to this complaint was filed are unreasonable and unjust. Through route and joint rates not in excess of the sums of the local rates which were in effect when such amended answer was made are ordered. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. et al. 1.

The rates were low before the increase, but having been established after prolonged negotiations especially for the purpose of permitting complainant to reach a particular market, and in preference to making a readjustment in some other direction or territory, and complainant having adjusted its business thereto, defendants may not by an arbitrary advance in those rates destroy complainant's business, there being no evidence that the rates advanced were less than the cost of service. New Albany Furniture Co. v. M. J. & K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.

The greater portion of the advance in rates condemned as unreasonable and unjust under the facts in these cases, and reparation awarded. Id.

Express rates on cream. Reynolds v. Southern Express Co. 536. Hardwood lumber from Chicago points to Pacific coast terminals. Burgess et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

Hardwood lumber from Memphis to New Orleans. Thompson Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

Increase in cost of operation justifies advance of rates; increase of traflie requires decrease of rates. Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

Detroit Chemical Works v. Nor. Cent. Ry. Co. et al. 357.

Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R. et al. 258.

AGENT.

Peculiarly the duty of, to offer reasonable assistance to shippers. In re Released Rates. 550.

AGREED VALUATION.

If a rate is conditioned upon the shipper's agreeing that the carrier's liability shall not exceed a certain specified value, (a) the stipulation is valid when loss occurs through causes beyond the carrier's control; (b) the stipulation is valid, even when loss is due to the carrier's negligence, if the shipper has himself declared the value, expressly or by implication, the carrier accepting the same in good faith as the real value, and the rate of freight being fixed in accordance therewith; (c) the stipulation is void as against loss due to

the carrier's negligence or other misconduct if the specified amount does not
purport to be an agreed valuation, but has been fixed arbitrarily by the carrier
without reference to the real value; (d) the stipulation is void as against loss
due to the carrier's negligence or other misconduct if the specified amount,
while purporting to be an agreed valuation, is in fact purely fictitious and
represents an attempt to limit the carrier's liability to an arbitrary amount.
In re Released Rates, 550.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.

Rates on.

Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 128.

ALLOWANCES.

When rates are filed and published, carriers must abide thereby. No allow-
ances of any kind not specified in tariffs can lawfully be paid. La Salle &
Bureau County R. R. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 610.

ALL-WATER CARRIAGE.

Congress has not sought to exercise control over it. Cosmopolitan Shipping
Co. v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. et al. 266.

ANTITRUST ACT.

Fixing rates by concerted action leads to more careful scrutiny, but not con-
clusive of the unreasonableness of rates. Railroad Commission of Kentucky
v. L. & N. R. R. Co. et al. 300.

Referred to in pleading. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P. C. C. & St. L.
Ry. Co. et al. 87.

ARBITRARY.

Central Freight Association territory on all classes from Henderson above
Evansville rates. Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. L. & N. R. R. Co. et
al. 300.

Grain to New England from New York. Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H.
R. R. R. Co. 31.

Grain, St. Louis to Texarkana from Little Rock. Traffic Bureau, etc. of
St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 105.

Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 319.
Traffic Bureau etc. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 11.

BACK HAUL.

To the compress where there is a
origin, the higher rate usually applies.
& S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 187.

BANANAS.

higher rate to destination than from
Chickasaw Compress Co. et al. v. G. C.

Rates on, New Orleans to Memphis. Thompson Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. R.
Co. et al. 657.

Traffic, routes, and rates. Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F.
R. R. Co. et al. 620.

BAR.

The bringing of a suit in the United States circuit court for the recovery of
· excessive railway charges is not a bar to a subsequent proceeding before this
Commission where that suit was dismissed without prejudice, and for the
reason that the Commission had never passed upon the reasonableness of the
rate involved. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 329.

A complaint by a voluntary association demanding reparation under general
averments which do not name the members on whose behalf it is filed and do