Greene v. N. Y. Central and Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 473.
New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 534.
New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas
Pacific R'y Co. et. al., 534.

See LONG AND Short-haul CLAUSE; REASONABLE RATES; RELATIVE RATES;
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

CLASSIFICATION.

UNIFORM.-What has been done toward establishing a uniform classification.
Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 345, 351.

UNIFORM.-A confusion created or maintained by the carrier for its own
purposes, can not be used to justify a disobedience of the law, and if
changes in classification methods are necessary in order to conform to
the requirements of the statute, such changes should be made without
hesitation. The re-arrangement of rates and the simplification of classi-
fication are matters which the carriers should undertake and carry for-
ward for themselves.

In the Matter of the Tariffs and Classifications of the Atlanta and
West Point R. R. Co. et al., 19, 68, 86.

WHEN UNLAWFUL.-When classifications in use are complicated and in-
volved containing many exceptions and variations; when different clas-
sifications are used upon the road of the same carrier for shipment of
the same commodity to neighboring points; when two or more classifi-
cations are employed upon the same shipment in fixing a so-called com-
bination rate upon the line of the same carrier or of two or more con-
necting carriers, they are not in conformity with the statute.-Ib.

BULK AND VALUE OF FREIGHT.-A difference in the bulk and value of lum-
ber does not justify & greater charge for the shorter distance when
the carriers in their published rate sheets put the lumber in the same
class and at the same rate.

James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia R. R. Co.
et al., 225.

ARTICLES CLASSIFIED ALIKE ARE PRESUMPTIVELY ENTITLED TO EQUAL RATES.
-Grain and grain products classified alike are presumptively entitled to
equal rates, and if a difference is made by a carrier it assumes the bur-
den by sustaining it by satisfactory evidence.

McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada et al., 252.

OF CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS.-A change in the classification whereby the
discrimination was made between the rate on corn and its direct prod-
ucts which subjected persons in a locality engaged in the business of
manufacturing corn into its direct products, or of selling the same, to
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage, and was without necessity or
advantage to the carrier, or any reason founded on the character or
condition of the traffic, was held to be unlawful, notwithstanding the
new rate on corn was open to all persons equally and with equal service.
Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 432.

CHANGES IN, WHEN UNJUSTIFIABLE.-Where an existing classification and
rate are not shown to operate injuriously to the carriers from a given
point or to give undue advantage to shippers, 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 con-
tinuation of the previous classification and rate first established and long
maintained by the carriers themselves, without complaint from any
quarter. -Ib.

VALUE OF.-Classification of freight for transportation purposes is in terms
recognized by the Act to regulate commerce and is therefore lawful.
It is also a valuable convenience both to shippers and carriers.
Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co.
et al., 473.

Leggett v. Same, 473.

Greene v. Same, 473.

CAR-LOAD AND LESS THAN CAR-LOAD QUANTITIES.-A classification of freight
designating different classes for car-load quantities and for less than
car-load quantities for transportation at a lower rate in car-loads than
in less than car-loads is not in contravention of the Act to regulate
commerce. The circumstances and conditions of the transportation in
respect to the work done by the carrier and the revenue earned are dis-
similar, and may justify a reasonable difference in rate. The public
interests are subserved by car-load classifications of property that, on
account of the volume transported to reach markets or supply the
demands of trade throughout the country, legitimately or usually moves
in such quantities.-Ib.

Under the Official Classification, the articles known in trade as gro-
cery articles are so classified as to discriminate unjustly in rates
between car-loads and less than car-loads upon many articles, and a
revision of the classification and rates to correct unjust differences and
give these respective modes of shipment more relatively reasonable
rates is necessary, and is so ordered.-Ib.

See LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE; PREFErence and AdVATAGE; REASON-
ABLE RATES; RELATIVE RATES; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

COLORED PASSENGERS.

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

See PASSENGERS.

COAL.

In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada, 89.
Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 312.

COMBINATION RATES.

See RATES.

COMMERCE.

FOREIGN REGULATION OF.-English legislation and the procedure thereunder
in respect to applications by carriers to be admitted to through routes
and to participate in through rates stated.

Little Rock and Memphis R. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, Virginia and
Georgia R'y Co. et al., 1.

STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATION OF.

Leonard v. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co., 241.

Chapelle v. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co., 241.
See INTERSTATE Commerce.

COMMISSIONS.

STATE RAILROAD.

See STATE RAILROAD COMMISSIONS.

COMMISSIONS ON THE SALE OF TICKETS.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 303.

PROHIBITION OF, Recommended.-16. 433.

COMMUTATION TICKETS.

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

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

James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia R'y Co., 225.
BY CANADIAN CARRIERS.-Physical conditions stated; regulations under
which it is carried on, described.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 364.

WATER.-Demoralizing influences of, on rail rates, described.-Ib. 381.
Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 435.

See LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

COMPLAINANT.

NEED NOT BE DIRECTLY DAMAGED.

In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada, 89.

See REPARATION.

COMPLAINT.

WHEN INSUFFICIENT.

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

AGAINST THE Working of the Law.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 398.
See INVESTIGATIONS; PRACTICE; PARTIES.

CONCESSION OF RELIEF.

TERMINATES THE CONTROVERSY.

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

Harris v. H. R. 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. Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago and St. Louis R'y Co., 223.

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

Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Co.,

266.

CONFERENCE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 337.

CONSOLIDATION OF LINES.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 389.

CONTINUOUS BRAKES FOR FREIGHT TRAINS.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 409.

CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OF FREIGHTS.

Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R'y Co. v. Chicago and Alton R. R.
Co., 450.

Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Co., 592.

CAN NOT BE AVOIDED BY EVASION OF THE LAW.-The carriage of freights can not be prevented from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination by any means or devices intended to evade any of the provisions of the Act.

In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada, 89.

CONTRACTS.

TRACKAGE RIGHTS.-In the absence of statutory provision the rights of a railroad company under a lawful agreement for a specified use of the tracks of another railroad company are measured in respect to the track use by the terms of the contract, and the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce applied to the situation created by the contract and had no authority for a different use of the tracks.

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

CARS.-A railroad company may acquire cars by construction, by purchase, or by contract for their use, and no one has the power to compel a railroad company to select among these several modes or to contract with all comers.

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

See AGREEMENTS; FACILITIES OF TRAFFIC; PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE; · THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES; UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS.

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

See UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

COST OF CARRIAGE.

McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk R'y Co. of Canada et al., 252. Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co. et al., 473.

Leggett v. Same, 473.

Greene v. Same, 473.

COTTON.

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.

AUTOMATIC FREIGHT CAR.

COUPLERS.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 404.

DAMAGES.

See OVERCHARGE; REPARATION.

DEPOSITIONS.

AMENDMENT OF ACT CONCERNing, Recommended.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 432.

DISCRETION.

TO RE-OPEN CASE AFTER DECISION.

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

See PRACTICE.

DISTANCE.

See REASONABLE RATES.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

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

ELEVATOR CHARGES.

COMPLAINT OF.-A complaint against carriers subject to the Act of deductions made from the weight of wheat delivered at elevators failed to charge that the wheat was delivered for interstate transportation, or indeed for transportation anywhere. Held, that the complaint was insufficient in substance to show a violation of the Act and must be dismissed, but without prejudice.

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

EMIGRANTS.

SPECIAL TARIFF on Movables of.

Elvey v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 652.

EMPLOYEES.

See RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

EMPTY CARS.

See CARS; RETURN LOADS.

EVIDENCE.

ADDITIONAL.-After decision a petition to open the case for further testimony and re-hearing 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.

WHAT IS SUFFICIENT.-In proceedings like these it is enough to show the rates actually charged. If there are or have been any such to certain shippers or consignees different from the published tariff rates, or the preferential facilities, if any such, furnished by the defendants to some shippers or consignees and not to others, or the comparative rates on the different commodities named in the complaints, and from and to designated points. Innumerable shipments, with all their minuteness of detail over the various lines that were made for many years before the Act to regulate commerce took effect, as well as since that date, and the names of the consignors and consignees at so many different