PASSENGERS.

COLORED.-Are entitled to the comforts, accommodations and protection afforded to other passengers paying the same fare.

Heard v. Georgia R. R. Co., 111.

REFUNDING OF EXCESS CHARGES TO.-A misapprehension under which a party has paid for one journey in two sections, whereby the cost of the transportation has been made more than it would have been had a through ticket been purchased, may lawfully be corrected by return of the excess, though the carriers were without fault and only charged for each portion of the journey the regular rates.

Sanger v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 134.

WHEN RATES FOR PARTIES ARE UNLAWFUL.

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis R'y Co. v. Baltimore and Ohio
R. R. Co., 465.

PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL TRAIN RATES BY.

Sidman v. Richmond and Danville R. R. Co., 512.

RIGHT OF CARRIERS TO SELECT CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF.

Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 577.

See CARRIERS; CARS; PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE; RATES; UNJUST DIS

CRIMINATION.

PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Co. et al., 266.
See PRACTICE.

PETITION.

FOR RE-HEARING.—After a case has been decided a petition to open it for further testimony and a re-hearing should be verified, and should indicate the nature of the new testimony and its purpose.

In re Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 87.

Should show prima facie that some material testimony has been overlooked or misapprehended, or some error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Myers o. Pennsylvania Co. et al., 130.

PETITIONER.

WHEN HIS REMEDY IS IN THE COURTS.

Bishop v. H. R. Duval, receiver, etc., 128.

Harris v. H. R. Duval, receiver, etc., 128.

Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Co., 266.

PORTS OF TRANS-SHIPMENT.

New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson R. R.

Co. et al., 137.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 372.

PRACTICE.

RE-HEARINGS. After a case has been decided, a petition to open it for further testimony and a re-hearing should be verified, and should indicate the nature of the new testimony and its purpose.

In re Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 87.

When a question of general public interest is involved, the Commission, in its own discretion, and in furtherance of justice, may open a case to give parties the benefit of a more extended investigation of the same subject matter in other pending cases.-Ib.

A petition to re-open a case that has been decided, and for a re-hearing, should show prima facie that some material testimony has been overlooked or misapprehended, or some error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Myers v. Pennsylvania Co. et al., 130.

When the application is insufficient in these respects, and only asks for a re-discussion of the facts and law already considered, with no offer of new evidence that can change the result, the application will be denied.-Ib.

CONCESSION OF Rates before DECISION TERMINATES THE CONTROVERSY.
Bishop v. Duval, receiver, etc., 128.

Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc., 128.

Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific R'y Co. et al., 221.

Chicago, St. Louis and Pittsburgh R. R. Co. v. Louisville, New
Albany and Chicago R'y Co., 223.

American Wire Nail Co. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific
R'y Co. et al., 224.

SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM TO STRANGERS TO THE PROCEEDING.-When an application is made to compel parties not engaged as carriers of interstate commerce, or others who are strangers to the proceedings to produce books, papers and documents, the application should specify, as nearly as may be, the books, papers or documents for the production of which process is desired, and be accompanied by an affidavit that they are in possession of the witness or under his control, and should set forth facts which make a prima facie case that they contain evidence material and necessary to the party seeking their production; and in such a case the prima facie showing that what is required to be produced will be legal evidence, ought to be very clear and full.

Rice v. Cincinnati, Washington and Baltimore R'y Co. et al., 186.
Rice v. Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co., 186.

SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM TO PARTIES.-Where the application is made to compel a party to the proceeding, who is a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, to produce its books for the purposes of evidence in a pending proceeding, it is sufficiert for the application to indicate in writing, in a general way, what books of the carrier should be produced, and that the applicant believes they will become of service on account of the light they will throw upon the questions in controversy; and as an evidence of good faith the applicant should make an affidavit as part of the application that such application is made in good faith and not for the purpose of vexing or harrassing the defendant. Upon such a showing as a general rule the proceedings should issue, unless the number of books called for should be so large, or from other exceptional circumstances the Commission should order the testimony to be taken at such place as would avoid oppression in producing the books at a far distant hearing and expedite the progress of the investigation.-Ib.

SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM.-As the application in these cases does not conform to the rules herein stated in reference to making a prima facie showing for the compulsory production of the books, papers and documents, either as against the defendant carriers or those who are strangers to these proceedings, the relief it seeks can not be granted, and for the present must be denied; but this does not preclude the petitioner from renewing his application, provided, in so doing, he conforms to the rules indicated.-Ib.

REPLICATION.-Under the rules of practice issued by the Commission a
replication to an answer is not required or allowed.

Oregon Short Line R'y Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 264.

REPARATION IN Pending ProCEEDING.—The amendment of March 2, 1889,
expressly provides that it shall have no application to pending proceed-
ings, and as this proceeding was pending at the time, no reparation can
be awarded, and the remedy of the petitioner is in the court.

Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Company et al., 266.
AMENDED RULES AND FORMS.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 297.

-

COMPLAINT, WHEN INSUFFICIENT. When a complaint charged that the
respondent railroad companies, which were common carriers subject to
the Act to regulate commerce, were accustomed to make deductions of
from five to ten pounds of wheat per load from the true weight when
delivered by the farmer to the buyer at the elevators of the respondents,
and gave receipt to the farmer for the amount as thus diminished, upon
which the latter was paid by the buyer, thereby suffering a loss to the
extent of such reduction, but failed to charge that the wheat was deliv-
ered for interstate transportation, or, indeed, for transportation any-
where, it was Held, that the complaint was insufficient in substance to
show violation of the Act to regulate commerce, and that the respond-
ents were entitled to have it dismissed on their motions to that effect,
but that the dismissal should be without prejudice.

White . Michigan Central R. R. Co. et al., 281.

An averment that the respondents were interstate commerce carriers
subject to the Act to regulate commerce was not of itself sufficient to
warrant an inference under a motion to dismiss a complaint for insuffi-
ciency, that wheat delivered at an elevator of the respondents was for
interstate commerce.-Ib.

WHEN NECESSARY PARTIES WILL BE BROUGHT IN.—Ib..

See PARTIES.

PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE.

WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS.-It is the lawful duty of a carrier to
afford to passengers engaged in interstate travel over its line equal com-
forts, accommodations and equipment, and protection of the law, with-
out regard to race, color or sex, against undue prejudice and disadvan-
tage from disorderly conduct on the part of other passengers or persons.
Heard v. Georgia R. R. Co., 111.

PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE TO SHIPPERS OF CORN PRODUCTS. - When
an existing classification and rate are not shown to operate injuriously
to the carriers from a given point or to give undue advantage to ship-
pers, a change is not justifiable that materially injures an important
industry and a class of shippers at that point who have there built up
the industry in reliance upon a continuation of the previous classifica-
tion and rate first established and long maintained by the carriers them-
selves, without complaint from any quarter. Such change in classifica-
tion and rate would subject the persons engaged in the industry and the
locality and the particular traffic to unreasonable disadvantage within
the prohibition of section three of the Act to regulate commerce.
Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 435.

A discrimination between the rate on corn and its direct products
from a given locality resulting from a reduction of the rate on corn
below the rate on its direct products, which subjected persons in that
locality engaged in the business of manufacturing corn into its direct
products and of selling the same to unreasonable prejudice or disad-

vantage, and was without necessity or advantage to the carrier, or any
reason founded on the character or condition of the traffic, Held to be
in violation of section three of the Act to regulate commerce, notwith-
standing the new rate on corn was open to all persons equally and with
equal service.-Ib.

CAR-LOAD AND LESS THAN CAR-LOAD QUANTITIES.-A difference in rates upon
car-loads and less than car-loads of the same merchandise between the
same points of carriage so wide as to be destructive to competition
between large and small dealers, especially upon articles of general and
necessary use, and which, under existing conditions of trade, furnish a
large volume of business to carriers, is unjust and violates the provis-
ions and principles of the Act.

Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co.
et al., 473.

Leggatt & Co. v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co.
et al., 473..

Greene v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 473.
RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF TRAFFIC AT LOCAL STATIONS. - The Union
Pacific Railway Company entered into a contract with the Rock Island
Railway Company by which for a valuable consideration the latter com-
pany acquired the right to run its through trains from and to points
on its own road over the road of the Union Pacific Company between
Kansas City and Topeka, upon the condition that no intermediate busi-
ness should be done by the Rock Island Company on any part of the
line used under the agreement, the Union Pacific Company retaining
control of the road and of its operation, and supplying transportation
accommodations for the intermediate points between Kansas City and
Topeka. Upon complaint made against the Rock Island Company by
a resident of Lawrence, one of the intermediate towns, for refusing to
perform the ordinary duties of a common carrier in receiving and dis-
charging traffic at his town: Held, that the duties of the Rock Island
Company were limited by its rights and powers under its contract and
that it was not bound to do the local business prohibited by the agree-
ment on the line used by its through trains.

Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R'y Co., 519.

THROUGH AND LOCAL RATES.-The proportion of one carrier in a through
rate upon a long haul often and frequently well may be considerably
less than its local rate for hauling the same freight over its own line,
without there being any unjust discrimination, unlawful preference or
extortion involved in such a method.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. et al., 534.
New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas
Pacific R'y Co. et al., 534.

TRANSPORTATION OF COTTON IN FLAT AND BOX CARS.-The Commission
will not order the rail carrier to transport cotton on flat cars instead of
in box cars to New Orleans, the rate being the same on each, no injury
being shown to have resulted to petitioners or to that city, or to any
shipper or producer from the carriage in box cars.-Ib.

EXCURSION CARS.-Where a railroad company has by an arrangement
with one car company procured a sufficient supply of sleeping and excur-
sion cars for all the business of its lines, and refuses to haul excursion
cars of other private car companies over its track for this reason, it can
not be forced to do so against this objection.

Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 577.
Unless the contrary is imposed as conditions in the grant of its
charter, the right to construct and operate a railroad is a franchise in
its nature exclusive, not held in common with the public, though the
grant of the franchise is for the public use; and the tracks of a railroad

are not a common highway upon which any one can enter and use his
own cars for transportation purposes against the objection of the com-
pany owning the tracks.-Ib.

OBLIGATIONS OF STATE CARRIERS.-When a State carrier engages in inter-
state 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, 592.

See FACILITIES OF TRAFFIC; RATES; REASONABLE RATES; RELATIVE RATES;
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE.

Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 435.

See PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE.

PROPRIETARY COMPANY.

GRANT OF TRACKAGE RIGHTS TO ANOTHER COMPANY FOR THROUGH BUSINESS

BY.

Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 519.

PROSECUTIONS.

UNDER THE STATUTE.—Prosecutions must take place in United States courts.
They are not cognizable before the Commission.

Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 430.

IN SAFE CAR EQUIPMENT.

PUBLIC INTEREST.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 400.

Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 577.

RAIL AND WATER LINES.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 381.

COMBINED COMPETITION BY.

James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia R'y Co. et al., 225.
See LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE; WATER AND RAIL LINES; WATER

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 337.
See STATE RAILROAD COMMISSIONS.

RAILROAD COMPANIES.

RELATIONS OF, WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 424.

See CARRIERS.