AMENDMENTS.

X. Upon application by any petitionery or party amendments may be allowed by the Commission, in its discretion, to any petition, answer, or other pleading in any proceeding before the Commission.

COPIES.

XI. Copies of any petition, complaint, or answer, in any matter or proceeding before the Commission, or of any order, decision, or opinion by the Commission, will be furnished upon application by any person or carrier desiring the same, upon payment of the expense thereof.

AFFIDAVITS.

XII. Affidavits to a petition, complaint, or answer may be taken before any officer of the United States, or of any State or Territory, authorized to administer oaths.

PUBLICATION OF JOINT TARIFFS.

At a meeting of the Interstate Commerce Commission, held at the office of the Commission in the city of Washington on the 21st day of June, 1887:

PRESENT, ALL THE COMMISSIONERS :

The subject of the publication of joint tariffs being under consideration, the following preamble and order were unanimously adopted and directed to be sent to all railroad companies subject to the "Act to Regulate Commerce :

WHEREAS, Section six of the "Act to Regulate Commerce authorizes the Commission to direct when joint tariffs shall be made public, and to prescribe the measure of publicity to be given to the same:

It is ordered, as follows:

Joint tariffs of rates, fares, or charges, established by two or more common carriers for the transportation of passengers or freight passing over continuous lines or routes, copies of which are required by the sixth section of the "Act to Regulate Commerce" to be filed with the Commission, shall be

made public so far as the same relate to business between points which are connected by the line of any single common carrier required by the first paragraph of said section to make public schedules of its rates, fares and charges. Such joint tariffs shall be so published by plainly printing the same in large type of at least the size of ordinary "pica," copies of which shall be kept for the use of the public in such places and in such form that they can be conveniently inspected, at every depot or station upon the line of the carriers uniting in such joint tariff where any business is transacted in competition with the business of a carrier whose schedules are required by law to be made public as aforesaid.

IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

The Commission will not make an order for relief under the fourth Section of the Act to Regulate Commerce except upon verified petition and after investigation into the facts.

The following correspondence by telegraph presents clearly the point considered and decided:

SAN FRANCISCO, April 4, 1887. To Judge T. M. Cooley, Chairman.

The question is before us, in competition with the Suez Canal route for business with China and Japan, whether wo can make competing prices through to Atlantic ports at less rates than local rates charged, say from San Francisco to New York; the line from China and Japan being a continuous one in connection with the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railways.

The question is also before us of making, in competition with Cape Horn and the Isthmus of Panama, a railroad rate. that permits shipments between San Francisco and Atlantic ports, those rates (in order to meet competition) being necessarily lower for a longer distance than those charged for a shorter, and far below what would be a reasonable rate for the service performed.

We construe the fourth section of the Interstate Commerce

Act practically to be in substance the application to interstate commerce of the common law principle that the shipper avail himself of competition, and that a less rate may be charged for a longer than a shorter distance, providing more could not be obtained. If the right of competition is recognized as between the carrier and the shipper, our carrying business will not be interrupted; but otherwise we shall be unable to compete for the Chinese and Japanese trade with the Suez Canal, and also unable to compete with the water routes by Panama and Cape Horn for business originating in California. We await your construction.

LELAND STANFORD,

President Southern Pacific Railroad.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 5.

Leland Stanford, San Francisco.

Applications to the Commission for special exception under the Interstate Commerce Law can only be granted after investigation into the facts. A verified petition, setting forth the grounds of application should be presented.

T. M. COOLEY, Chairman.

SAN FRANCISCO, April 6.

Judge T. M. Cooley, Chairman, Washington, D. C'.

We do not ask for a ruling upon a special case, but a construction of section 4, as all the business between Pacific & Atlantic ports is governed by competition; the business from ports of China and Japan across the continent to Atlantic ports is governed by competition; and agents in China and Japan, to obtain business, make rates to meet the competition of Suez.

One of the Oriental & Occidental Company's ships will arrive in a few days with a cargo mostly for points east of the Rocky Mountains. If the rates established by the other companies are maintained, the contracts made for shipment cannot be carried out. All the through business of the overland lines is involved, and we cannot accept and dispatch freight, except upon a general ruling applicable to all business. The question arises upon every ton of freight offered for shipmen and practically we find ourselves unable to do through

business. You will see, therefore, that a special ruling or exception will not meet the case, as it arises upon every ton of freight offered. LELAND STANFORD.

Leland Stanford, San Francisco.

WASHINGTON, April 7.

The Commission were under no misapprehension regarding the facts; but they still hold that if, rather than take the responsibility of your own construction, you call for authoritative action, a case must be formally presented by petition, and then investigated by them.

T. M. COOLEY, Chairman.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TRADERS' AND TRAVELERS' UNION.

April 16, 1887.

The Commission will not express opinions on abstract questions, nor on questions presented by ex parte statements of fact, nor on questions of construction of the statute presented for its advice but without any controversy pending before it on complaint of violation of law.

Where the question on which advice is sought is whether carriers subject to the act may now grant any particular right or privilege which they were accustomed to grant before, the carriers should, in the first instance, determine it for themselves, and if it is then complained that what they do violates the Act, the question can be brought before the Commission on complaint, and it will then have jurisdiction to decide it.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.

WALKER, Commissioner.

An application in writing has been made to the Commission for its answer to the following questions, propounded on behalf of the Order of Railway Conductors:-1. Are railway companies prohibited from issuing free transportation to the immediate families of employes of their own railways? 2. Are railway companies prohibited from issuing free or reduced transportation to officers of associations composed exclusively of railway employes while those officers are temporarily out of railway service and exclusively employed by those associations? 3. May railway companies

issue passes to employes of other railways on the application of the employes, or must such application come from the officer of the company by which he is employed? 4. May railway companies issue free or reduced transportation to those who make railway service their business or trade while temporarily out of employment and in search of situations? 5. May railway companies provide free transportation for delegates to the annual conventions of an association composed exclusively of railway employes upon certificates. from the officers of the association that they are such representatives? 6. If free transportation may be furnished to representatives described in question 5, must all such representatives be actually in the employ of such railway, or may it include those who may be temporarily out of employment, and those temporarily engaged in other employments as officers of such association? 7. If free transportation is provided for delegates described in question 5, may it include members of the immediate families of delegates? 8. If free transportation or reduced rates are provided for the representatives of any one association, must the same be extended to all others which are composed exclusively of railway employes on application?

Another application has been made to the Commission on behalf of the Traders' and Travelers' Union, stating the system under which an additional allowance of free baggage has been heretofore carried by commercial travelers, subject to written agreement for registry and indemnification, which system the Commission is requested to examine carefully, "and advise us if there is any reason why a railway company, desiring to do so, should not enter into such an arrangement to grant, under stated terms, an increased allowance of free baggage."

These two petitions, presented by highly respectable organizations and raising questions of immediate practical importance, are representatives of a large number of similar applications which have been made to the Commission for its construction of provisions of the "Act to regulate commerce" as applied to the various points at which those provisions touch the customs of the past. They have been selected sim