[PUBLIC-No. 72.] An act to amend an act entited "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section twelve of an act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eightyseven, be, and it is hereby amended so as to read as follows: "SEC. 12. That the Commission hereby created shall have authority to inquire into the management of the business of all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act, and shall keep itself informed as to the manner and method in which the same is conducted, and shall have the right to obtain from such common carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created; and the Commission is hereby authorized and required to execute and enforce the provisions of this act; and, upon the request of the Commission, it shall be the duty of any district attorney of the United States to whom the Commission may apply to institute in the proper court and to prosecute under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States all necessary proceedings for the enforcement of the provisions of this act and for the punishment of all violations thereof, and the costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States; and for the purposes of this act the Commission shall have power to require, by subpoena, the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements and documents relating to any matter under investigation. "Such attendance of witnesses, and the production of such documentary evidence, may be required from any place in the United States, at any designated place of hearing. And in case of disobedience to a subpoena, the Commission, or any party to a proceeding before the Commission, may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers and documents, under the provisions of this section. "And any of the circuit courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on, may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or other person, issue an order requiring such common carrier or other person.to appear before said Commission (and produce books and papers if so ordered) and give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. The claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but such evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any criminal proceeding. "The testimony of any witness may be taken, at the instance of a party, in any proceeding or investigation depending before the Commission, by deposition, at any time after a cause or proceeding is at issue on petition and answer. The Commission may also order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or investigation pending before it, at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Such depositions may be taken before any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a circuit, or any clerk of a district or circuit court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a county court, or court of common pleas of any of the United States, or any notary public, not being of counsel or attorney to either of the parties, nor interested in the event of the proceeding or investigation. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition to the opposite party or his attorney of record, as either may be nearest, which notice shall state the name of the witness and the time and place of the taking of his deposition. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose, and to produce docu mentary evidence, in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify and produce documentary evidence before the Commission, as herein before provided. "Every person deposing as herein provided shall be cautioned and sworn (or affirm, if he so request) to testify the whole truth, and shall be carefully examined. His testimony shall be reduced to writing by the magistrate taking the deposition, or under his direction, and shall, after it has been reduced to writing, be subscribed by the deponent. "If a witness whose testimony may be desired to be taken by deposition be in a foreign country, the deposition may be taken before an officer or person designated by the Commission, or agreed upon by the parties by stipulation in writing to be filed with the Commission. All depositions must be promptly filed with the Commission." Witnesses whose depositions are taken pursuant to this act, and the magistrate or other officer taking the same, shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States. Approved, February 10, 1891. 761 INDEX. ACCOUNTS. OF CARRIER, who is also a miner and shipper of coal. ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. 1. AMENDMENT, passed and approved, 758. 2. AMENDMENTS, recommended. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 410. 3. APPLICATION OF, to Import Traffic defined. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al., 447 4. CLASSIFICATION OF FREIGHT RECOGNIZED BUT NOT ENJOINED BY. Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST SECTION.-Carriers subject to its jurisdiction. Interstate Commerce. Instrumentalities of shipment or carriage. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Capehart et al v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 265. Shamberg Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England James & Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas 6. CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST SECTION.-Reasonable charges. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Pro- Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Com- San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail- Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central & Hudson River Harvard Company v. Pennsylvania Company et al., 212. Rice v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company et al., 228. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 296. New York Board of Trade and Transportation v. Pennsylvania Rail- Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England 7. CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND SECTION.-UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. Warner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Capehart et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 265. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad Com- Beaver & Company . Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway 8. CONSTRUCTIOon of Third SeCTION.-Preference or Advantage. Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. Warner v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et al., 32. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Company et al., 41. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Prod- Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Com- San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail- Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central & Hudson River |