STATEMENT OF IMPORTANT POINTS DECIDED BY THE COMMISSION SINCE ITS ORGANIZATION.

ABSTRACT QUESTIONS.

OPINIONS ON.—The Commission will not express opinions on abstract questions;
nor on questions presented by ex parte statements of fact; nor on ques-
tions of the construction of the statute when no controversy is pending.
In re Order of Railway Conductors.
In re Traders' and Travelers' Union.
In re Iowa Barb Steel Wire Company.
In re St. Louis Millers' Association.
In re Disabled Soldiers and Sailors.
Bishop v. Duval, receiver, etc.

Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc., et al.

Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific Railway Company et al.
Pennsylvania Company v. Louisville, New Albany and Chicago
Railroad Company.

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.
See Concession of Relief.

ACCOMMODATIONS.

Councill v. Georgia Railroad Company.
Heard 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.
Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson
River Railroad Company et al.

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

New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and
New England Railroad Company et al.

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 v. New York and
New England Railroad Company et al.

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 Pennsylvania 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 Com-
pany.

In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food
Products.

See Interstate Commerce Commission; Practice; Evidence; Car-
riers.

BONDED DEBT.

In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food
Products.

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
Company.

Harding v. Same Company.

Holbrook v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railroad Com

pany.

Jackson v. St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company.
Leonard v. Union Pacific Railway Company.

Howell v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company
et al.

WHEN ON CARRIER.

In re Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company.
Spartanburg Board of Trade v. Richmond and Danville Rail-
road Company et al.

Logan et al. v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company.
McMorran v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada et al.
San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fé Railroad Company et al.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.—

Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad
Company et al.

See Location.

BUSINESS LOCATION.

་ CANADIAN COMPETITION.

Third Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission. See Competition.

CAPITAL STOCK.

In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food
Products.

See Reasonable Rates.

CAR-LOAD RATES.

ON LIVE CATTLE.--Prescribed minimum rate for a car load and a charge by the 100 pounds in proportion to the car-lot rate for any excess over the miniHeld not to be unlawful.

mum

Leonard & Chappell v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company.

CAR LOADS AND LESS THAN CAR LOADS.

Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad
Company et al.

Leggett & Co. v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad
Company et al.

Greene v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com-
pany et al.

CAR MILEAGE.

ON TANK CARS.

Rice v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company.

Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway
Company.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company.

INVESTIGATION CONCERNING.

Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. ON DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CARS. Ib.

WHEN BURDENSOME. Ib.

WHEN PAID TO SHIPPERS.-Only such allowance for the use of cars should be made to shippers as to permit no advantage to the private owner of cars who is also a shipper, nor afford a margin for paying rebates to other shippers. Ib.

ON CARS PRIVATELY OWNED.-Legislation regulating the payment of, recommended. Ib.

NOT TO BE USED AS A DEVICE TO EVADE MAKING EQUAL CHARGES.— Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

PAYMENT OF UNLAWFUL REBATES IN EXCESSIVE CAR MILEAGE.Shamburg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company et al.

See Unjust Discrimination; Preference or Advantage.

S. Mis. 31-7

CARRIERS.

SUBJECT TO THE ACT.-The fact that the owner of merchandise, which is offered to a carrier for transportation from one point to another in the same State, intends to have it further transported by a second carrier into another State, does not make such first transportation interstate commerce or render the carrier subject to the control of the Commission in respect to it, even though such first carrier may be informed of the ultimate destination of the merchandise.

Missouri and Illinois Railroad Tie and Lumber Company v. Cape
Girardeau and Southwestern Railway Company.

A State railroad used and operated as a means of conducting interstate traffic in coal by companies owning connecting interstate roads is one of the facilities and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and the carriers using it are subject to the provisions of the act to regulate commerce.

Heck & Petree v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway
Company et al.

Certain fruit traffic originates in the State of New Jersey and is destined to the city of New York; but the delivery by defendants to the consignees is made at Jersey City, in New Jersey, and defendants' rates are made not to New York but to Jersey City. Under these facts the traffic, so far as defendants conduct it, is not interstate, and the Commission has no jurisdiction over their rates.

New Jersey Fruit Exchange r. Central Railroad of New Jersey et al.

When a State carrier engages in interstate commerce it becomes a national instrumentality for the purposes of such commerce, and is subject to regulations prescribed by the national authority. It can not limit its obligations in that business, but must serve the business offered impartially and without preference or discrimination.

Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company.

The common carriers named and referred to in the last clause of section 3 of the act to regulate commerce are such alone as are subject to the provisions of that statute.

Capehart et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. The words "common control, management, and arrangement," as found in the first section of the act to regulate commerce, defined and applied to the special facts of the case.

Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al.

Where two or more roads forming a continuous connecting line between points in different States bill and carry interstate traffic through to certain stations on the last road forming such line, neither the roads.together nor any one of them can evade the obligations of the fourth section of said act by declaring that as to such traffic destined to such stations on such terminal road it is a local carrier.

James & Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and
Texas Pacific Railway Company et al.

The defendants, the Clyd: 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.

The Railroad Commission of Florida v. the Savannah, Florida and Western Railway Company et al.