ment shall be the same for like service though part of the traffic is booked to go beyond the port by sea has long been the rule in England, and is in terms provided for by statute.

A practice having grown up under the Act of 1854 of making through passenger rates by railway and steam vessel beyond the port of transshipment, of which the inland proportion of the railway company was less than the established rate of the same company to the seaport, the Regulation of Railways Act of 1868 enacted that the rate should be equal on the railway whether the passenger was destined to the seaport or beyond by steam vessel, and that the ticket should indicate the respective charges by steam vessel and by railway.

And in respect to imports the recent English Act (August 10, 1888) provides (section 27, sub. 2) "that no railway company shall make, nor shall the Court or the Commissioners sustain, any difference in the tolls, rates or charges made for, or any difference in the treatment of home and foreign merchandise in respect of the same or similar services."

Like charges for like inland service is therefore the established rule in England, and the fact that merchandise may be carried by rail to the seaboard for export, or be imported by sea to be carried inland by rail, is not allowed to create an exception to the rule.

The rule applied in England is not a tentative one, but is the result of discussion and experience. It agrees with the method approved by experience in this country. Although our statute does not contain the explicit enactments of the English acts, its general provisions permit the enforcement of a rule supported by so many considerations, and under which it is possible to regulate export rates with some assurance of stability and equality.

The Act to regulate commerce was designed to govern the transportation business of the whole country. Its operation was intended to be beneficial to the public, and its provisions as regards public interests are conservative. It does not attempt to revolutionize business pursuits, but its purpose is to aid legitimate business by requiring justice and impartiality on the part of the transportation agencies that

serve the public. Its chief provisions aim at the extirpation of known abuses, the prevention of an arbitrary use of the powers of carriers to give undue preferences to localities or individuals to the prejudice of others, and proper recogni tion of the principle that equality is the right of the citizen and the duty of the carrier. It lays down principles of national policy intended to be general in their application, and to secure the enjoyment of the equal rights to which all the citizens of a common country are entitled.

It is clearly essential that the mode of making through inland and ocean rates should be one that is practicable, and at the same time not a cover for discrimination and injustice. It is also reasonably evident that for these purposes, under existing conditions, the fixed inland tariff rate must be the basis of the through rate. No other feasible mode has as yet been devised that so fully assures conformity with the provisions of the law, and that furnishes any positive criterion by which unjust discriminations may be determined and dealt with on a consistent basis.

The Commission had in view these considerations when the order of March 8th, 1888, for the publication of such rates, was promulgated. The authority of the Commission to make such an order was clear and ample. The language of the Act is :

"And in cases where passengers and freight pass over continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges for such continuous lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also, in like manner, be filed with said Commission. Such joint rates, fares and charges on such continuous lines so filed as aforesaid, shall be made public by such common carriers when directed by said Commission, in so far as may, in the judgment of the Commission, be deemed practicable; and said Commission shall from time to time prescribe the measure of publicity which shall be given to such rates, fares and charges, or to such part of them as it may deem it practicable for such common carriers to publish, and the places in which they shall be published."

By the amendments made to the Act March 2, 1889, the following provisions were added in respect to advances and reductions in joint rates, the publicity to be given to such advances and reductions, and the duty of observance by carriers of their established joint rates:

"No advance shall be made in joint rates, fares, and charges, shown upon joint tariffs, except after ten days' notice to the Commission, which shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force, and the time when the increased rates, fares or charges will go into effect. No reduction shall be made in joint rates, fares, and charges, except after three days' notice, to be given to the Commission as is above provided in the case of an advance of joint rates. The Commission may make public such proposed advances, or such reductions, in such manner as may, in its judgment, be deemed practicable, and may prescribe from time to time the measure of publicity which common carriers shall give to advances or reductions in joint tariffs.

"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier, party to any joint tariff, to charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for the transportation of persons or property, or for any services in connection therewith, between any points as to which a joint rate, fare, or charge is named thereon than is specified in the schedule filed with the Commission in force at the time."

By the enactments quoted from the original Act the duty of carriers to file their joint tariffs of rates, fares or charges for continuous lines or routes over which freight passes, is imperative. The duty is no less imperative to make public such rates, fares and charges when directed by the Commission, and to such extent as the Commission-not the carriers may deem practicable. The statute also provides that riers-may publicity may be required to be given to the whole or a part of such joint rates, fares and charges as in the judgment of the Commission may be deemed practicable. The duty both to file and to publish is imposed by the statute, but the per

formance of the duty to publish, and the extent of the publicity, are left to the discretion of the Commission under a grant of power without qualifications. This power, like all other powers, is to be exercised reasonably and for the beneficial public purposes contemplated by the Act. The objects of the publication of tariff are to inform the public what rates and charges are made so that all may have the same knowledge for the purposes of their business, and to prevent discriminations and preferences. It is not questioned that internal tariffs for the transportation of property to the seaboard, whether for consumption and distribution there or for subsequent export under an independent arrangement with ocean carriers, should be made public. In these cases the jurisdiction of the Commission to require publication and to give effect to the Act admits of no doubt. When, however, property is consigned directly to a foreign port from an interior point upon a through rate for inland and ocean carriage, it is claimed that the part of such rate accepted by the inland carrier is not to be deemed a rate subject to the same requirements as in the other cases, but that the reasonableness of the aggregate through rate is alone to be dealt with by the Commission. The statute, however, makes no such exception, and the Commission has never intimated that a particular portion of a joint through rate received or participated in by one or more of the carriers forming a part of the line may not be called in question, and its justice or lawfulness determined under the provisions of the Act. There may be cases, as in the case of The Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co. et al. (1 I. C. C. Rep., 436), where the contention is with the through rate as an entirety, in which the divisions allotted to different roads are unimportant for the purpose of the case, but it is otherwise with the case in hand. The division of the through rate accepted by the inland carrier is for all practical purposes its rate to the seaboard, and is as fully subject to the provisions of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Commission as a rate terminating at the seaboard. If it were otherwise the law would be ineffectual for a large proportion of the commerce it was intended to regulate, and the immunity of only a fractional

part of the traffic would injuriously affect all of the residue though many times greater in amount. This is one of the considerations that led to the petition in this case.

By the amendments of March 2, 1889, the further duty of notification of advances and reductions, and the maintenance of joint tariffs, render the practice of changing every day, or several times a day, joint through rates, whether wholly inland or partly inland and partly ocean, an impossibility if these provisions of the statute are to be observed at all. The notification of advances and reductions is intended to precede the time when they take effect, and not to follow after the shipment of the property, when the notification is useless. And an advance upon ten days' notice, or a reduction upon three days' notice, is wholly inconsistent with daily or more frequent changes. These provisions are intended to secure stability in rates, and the Commission has no authority to absolve carriers from their observance.

The exact ground of complaint is the alleged discrimination by the inland carriers, who transport wheat, corn, flour, cotton, tobacco, live stock, dressed meats, and other productions of the interior, in favor of dealers who consign their shipments on through bills directly to foreign ports, and against the dealers in like traffic in the seaboard cities who purchase either for local sale or for subsequent export; the consequences being, as claimed, to give foreign purchasers advantages over home dealers, and to establish prices in foreign markets for the entire products exported, and, to some extent, for the domestic sales as well. The fact that discriminations of the nature charged were made during the period mentioned in the complaint, and the extent to which they were carried, appear in the testimony, and have been before noticed. Substantially the charge of the complaint in respect to discrimination is sustained by the evidence, and it was not justified by the circumstances and conditions shown to exist. The discrimination was actual; it was unjust, and therefore unlawful.

The necessary conclusion is that in making and publishing export tariffs, the rate to the seaboard should be specified and should not discriminate against the inland tariff rate