IN RE PROCEDURE IN CASES AT ISSUE.

Proceedings to be in the simplest form consistent with reasonable certainty. No replication required. When facts are not agreed upon, depositions may be taken on notice, and the work should be entered upon immediately after answer. Assignments for hearing made on request of either party. Parties will be heard orally, or upon briefs, as they prefer.

The following letter, which was addressed to an attorney who made inquiry concerning the method of procedure in a case where an answer had been filed raising issues of fact, contains a statement of the practice then adopted and since pursued by the Commission.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 15, 1887. James Tillinghast, Esq., Attorney at Law, 12 South Main St., Providence, R. I.

DEAR SIR: Yours of June 14th received. The rules of the Commission do not require a replication. It is intended that all its proceedings shall be in the simplest form consistent with a reasonable degree of certainty. Cases are considered as at issue, when the answer is filed and copies served. If issues of fact are raised upon the answer by denials, or by allegations of new matter, it is the understanding of the Commission that the case stands for trial upon the questions of fact as well as of law; a day for hearing will be assigned on request of either party; witnesses can then be examined, if necessary, and arguments made upon the law as applicable to the facts established by proof. The case can be presented by written or printed arguments if parties prefer to take that course. It is the desire of the Commission that parties agree upon facts relating to questions presented, so far as possible; and for this purpose, stipulations in writing may be filed or oral concessions made. on the hearing. In case parties cannot agree upon the facts and desire to avoid the expense of bringing witnesses to Washington, depositions for use before the Commission may be taken on notice to the other side, in the manner provided by Sections 863 and 864 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Such depositions when taken should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, who will

open and file the same. If the taking of depositions is deemed necessary, it should be entered upon as soon as practicable after the service of the answer.

For the Commission :

Yours truly,

EDWARD A. MOSELEY, Secretary.

IN RE PROCEEDURE CONCERNING QUESTIONS

OF LAW.

Dilatory proceedings considered objectionable, and a single speedy hearing desired in every case; all proper questions will then be entertained, whether jurisdictional or relating to the merits of the controversy.

On July 13th, 1887, John S. Blair, Esq., of counsel for defendant in a pending case, appeared before the Commission and moved to dismiss the complaint, upon the ground that the matters alleged did not present a violation of the provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce. No notice had been given of the motion.

The Commission declined to take up the motion.

First, because notice to the complainants had not been given.

Second, because the object of the motion was to reach the merits of the case and have them discussed and passed upon summarily instead of at the customary final hearing. A practice thus to anticipate by motion the final hearing the Commission did not think advisable, and would not, therefore, favor.

It was said that it is the desire of the Commission that the practice and proceedings in all cases shall be in the simplest form possible, consistent with justice, and that without dilatory motions, pleas in abatement or other interlocutory proceedings the matter in question be brought to an issue at the earliest practicable day, when a final hearing may be had; all proper questions will then be entertained, whether jurisdictional or going to the merits of the contro

versy.

The case was afterwards heard and decided in the manner suggested. (See Associated Grocers of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, page 156 ante.)

IN RE JOINT TARIFFS AND SCHEDULES.

Schedules of joint tariffs required to be filed with the Commission, by section 6 of the Act, need not be duplicated by each company which unites in making them. On receipt of a written statement from each corporation acknowledging the authority of the association, committee, or other traffic combination, to issue tariffs in its behalf, schedules filed by such association, etc., will be credited to each road in the organization which so requests.

The following letters, which were addressed to various parties, inquiring in respect to the filing of joint tariffs, etc., under section 6 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, express the desire of the Commission respecting the method to be pursued in the filing of schedules of passenger rates and joint tariffs of freight charges in which several carriers participate.

WASHINGTON, May 21, 1887.

L. J. Seargent, Esq., Traffic Manager Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, Montreal, Quebec.

DEAR SIR-In reply to yours of the 18th inst., inquiring whether more than one member of a traffic combination, consisting of several railroads or freight lines, must file in this office copies of their agreements, joint tariffs, &c., I am authorized to state that, provided due notice from different companies is filed here that any one member or an agent is authorized to make return for all or several of the members of such combination, such filing will be sufficient for all tho parties to the joint agreements, tariffs, and classifications, who may give such notice.

I am, very respectfully, yours,

EDWARD A. MOSELEY, Secretary.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 15, 1887. N. E. Weeks, Esq., Secretary Boston Passenger Committee, Boston, Mass.

SIR-In the case of schedules of passenger rates issued by a committee representing a group of roads, the Commission desires a written statement from each corporation, to the effect that it is a member of the Association which the com

mittee represents, and that tariff schedules filed by the committee are to be treated as if filed by such corporation. In case there is a written agreement, under which the Association works, a copy thereof should also be filed. Upon receipt of the foregoing, as evidence of the authority of the committee, schedules of tariffs and documents issued relating to changes in passenger rates, etc., will be received by the Commission and credited to each road in the Association as if filed by such road respectively. A letter of transmittal stating contents should accompany each enclosure.

Yours truly,

EDWARD A. MOSELEY, Secretary.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 22, 1887.

J. N. Faithorn, Esq., Chairman W. & N. W. Freight Bureau, Chicago, Ill.

DEAR SIR-In the case of schedules of passenger rates, and of joint tariffs of freight charges, and of classifications, circulars and other matter, issued by a freight bureau, association, or other traffic combination, consisting of several carriers, or issued by a committee representing a group of roads, the Interstate Commerce Commission desires a written statement from each corporation, to the effect that it is a member of the association in question, and that schedules, tariffs, and classifications, circulars, and other printed matter issued by the committee, or its chairman, or other authorized official, and filed with the Commission are to be treated as if filed by such corporation itself. In case there is a written agreement under which the association works, a copy thereof should also be filed.

Upon the receipt of the foregoing as evidence of the authority of the bureau, association or committee, schedules, tariffs and other documents, issued by it, will be received by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and credited to each road in the organization, as if filed by such road respectively; and in such case it will not be necessary for each carrier to file such publications individually.

A letter of transmittal stating contents should accompany each enclosure.

Very respectfully,

For the Commission.

EDWARD A. MOSELEY,
Secretary.

THE MANUFACTURERS' AND JOBBERS' UNION OF MANKATO v. THE MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY AND OTHERS.

Tried at St. Paul September 16. Report filed November 21, 1887.

When, after trial, but before decision, the defendant concedes the relief sought, and reduces its tariff to the rates claimed by the petitioner, no order is made or opinion announced by the Commission; a report of the facts is made to complete the record of the case.

E. M. Pope, for complainant.

W. II. Truesdale, Vice-President M. & St. L. Ry. Co., for defendant.

BRAGG, Commissioner:

The complaint in this proceeding was made by the Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato, in the State of Minnesota, against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company, and The Kankakee & Seneca Railroad Company. It alleges that the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company is a corporation created, organized, and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and as a railroad company was, at the time of the filing of the petition and for more than two years last past had been, doing business as a common carrier in the State of Minnesota and elsewhere. It avers that petitioner is an association of business men of the city of Mankato, in Minnesota, whose object is to promote the business interests of that city. It states that the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, in connection with the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, the Kankakee & Seneca Railroad Company, and the Bur