APPENDIX G. REVIEW OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES. a. REVIEW OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS. b. FEDERAL RAILWAY REGULATION. NOTE. The report embraced in this Appendix is published as a separate document. INDEX. ABERDEEN GROUP COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION V. MOBILE AND OHIO R. Co- rebates reparation section 1 Page. 97-105, 112-114, 345 5-10, 18, 19, 23, 114 115 304 41 81 88 51, 52, 59, 60, 88, 90, 305 305 306 90 309 321 321 5-10 314 9, 36, 37, 38, 39, 62, 64, 316 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 54, 88, 114, 309, 315 Page. ALCOHOL ALEXANDRIA, IND 37 38 ALFORD V. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC R. Co.... ALLOWANCES TO ELEVATORS __ 169 134 234 ALLOWANCES TO TERMINAL OR INDUSTRIAL RAILROADS. 39, 42, 299, 308- 5-10, 18, 19, 23, 114 14 AMERICAN WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION . ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. Co__ ANDREWS SOAP Co. v. PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI AND ST. LOUIS R. Co‒‒‒‒ ANNUAL REPORTS OF CARRIERS, MANDAMUS TO COMPEL FILING OF ANTITRUST LAW. APPENDIX A 250 36 175 130 80, 89, 90 115 203 303 115 ARKANSAS CITY, KANS_ ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMMISSION ARMOUR CAR LINES COMPANY. ARRIGHI V. DENVER AND RIO GRANDE R. Co.... ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS OF ST. LOUIS v. MISSOURI PACIFIC ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS, NATIONAL. ASTORIA AND COLUMBIA R. Co., UNITED STATES v.- ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE R. Co. Business Men's League of St. Louis v_. Freeman Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v-- Kansas Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Kindel 0 _ _ _ _ Mayor and City Council of Wichita - re Rice v San Bernardino Board of Trade v- Shippers' Union of Phoenix v. United States v ATLANTA, GA 36, 40 26, 37, 40, 45, 107 38 14, 15, 16, 18, 47, 48 96 133 114 114 87 39, 41, 78 283 215 239 260 231 262 271,290 286, 287, 288 234, 235, 241, 251 182 177 280 89 AUSTIN AND NORTHWESTERN R. Co., DALLAS FREIGHT BUREAU V- BAIRD, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V---- 275 38 39 31 Page. BALTIMORE AND OHIO R. Co. Castle v-- Glade Coal Co. v. Montell V_. New York Produce Exchange v--- Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis R. Co. v. Riddle, Dean and Co. v- Robinson v-- BALTIMORE AND OHIO SOUTHWESTERN R. Co_. Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and Merchants' Exchange v‒‒‒‒‒ Sprigg v. Bell Co. v- BEAVER V. PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI AND ST. LOUIS R. Co_ BEER BEHLMER V. MEMPHIS AND CHARLESTON R. Co--- BEHREND V. WASHINGTON SOUTHERN R. Co BELINGTON, W. VA BELL COMPANY V. BALTIMORE AND OHIO SOUTHWESTERN R. Co_. BENNETTSVILLE, S. C....... BILL OF LADING_ uniform BIRMINGHAM, ALA-- BISHOP v. DUVAL_. BLACKING DAUBERS_. BLACKMAN v. SOUTHERN R. Co- BLACKVILLE, S. C. BLAIRSTOWN, Iowa. BLOCK SYSTEM. BLUEFIELD, W. VA-- 263 58,298 246 252 168 137, 142 84 267 94 290 59, 301 24, 25, 29, 38, 41, 56 56 41 41 52,299 167, 136 40, 52 21 38 193 37 219 290 38 290 40 41, 303 35 114 162 59, 60 BOARD OF TRADE OF PHILADELPHIA BOARDS OF TRADE UNION OF FARMINGTON, ETC., v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL R. Co_____ 53, 300 38 36 98-102 37, 41 26 135 BOSTON AND LOWELL R. Co., BOSTON AND ALBANY R. Co. v- BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTH- 139 BOSTON FRUIT AND PRODUCE EXCHANGE V. NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND BROWNELL v. COLUMBUS AND CINCINNATI MIDLAND R. Co‒‒‒‒ 87, 319 211 |