petitors at points where the line of this road is crossed, and other points in its vicinity, are made as at present, for this company to change its own tariff would apparently involve the abandonment of traffic. Its officers are quite ready to say that the changes which it has made in the direction of conformity to the law have not been detrimental to its revenue, but on the contrary have benefited the carrier and have produced a feeling of satisfaction along its line, which is of material assistance to the prosperity of the road.

Similar results have been experienced by the Illinois Central and other southern roads which have entered upon the same policy.

So far therefore as the experience of carriers, during the time since the passage of the Act, has developed results consequent upon the actual introduction and application of the short-haul rule, it is clear that the evils anticipated were, to a large extent, non-existent, and that the relations between the carriers and their patrons have been quite materially improved. It is also clear that the present is not the time to stop the movement in this direction, but that it should be still further pressed in conformity with the suggestions hereinbefore made. The additional changes called for embrace many of the topics enumerated in the Order of Notice under which this proceeding has been had.

The greater charge for the transportation of a like kind of property for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction is found to be made at many points where it is in the opinion of the Commission unjustifiable; the disparity between the charges made at different points over the same line is in some instances apparently much too great. The form of the tariffs as prepared in many cases does not meet the requirements of the law; and in other cases the tariffs do not show the rates actually charged to shippers. Combination rates are made which are different from the rates specified in the tariffs as published and filed; the classifications in use remain complicated and involved, containing many exceptions and variations; different classifications are at times used upon the road of the same carrier

for the shipment of the same commodity to neighboring points; at times two or more classifications are employed upon the same shipment in fixing a so-called combination rate upon the line of a single carrier, or of two or more connecting carriers. In these and other respects which have been above described the methods pursued are not in conformity with the requirements of the Act to regulate com

merce.

The Commission has repeatedly said that the re-arrangement of rates and the simplification of classifications are matters which the carriers should undertake and should carry forward for themselves. Many questions of detail are involved with which it would not be easy for the Commission to deal. In order to effect the reforms recommended much labor and care are necessarily required, and a reasonable time for the purpose should be allowed.

The order of the Commission therefore is that the carriers named in the order of notice comply with the Act to regulate commerce in the particulars and respects hereinabove pointed out, without unnecessary delay, and make report to the Commission of their aetion in the premises. If the action so reported shall seem to the Commission to fall short of what is required by the law, further action will be taken.

IN RE RICE, ROBINSON AND WITHEROP v. THE PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN NEW YORK AND

RAILROAD COMPANY.

Petition by Complainants for leave to open this case and take further testimony therein. Received and decided April 15, 1889.

After a case has been decided, a petition to open it for further testimony and a re-hearing should be verified, and should indicate the nature of the new testimony and its purpose.

When a question of general public interest is involved, the Commission, in its own discretion, and in furtherance of justice, may open a case to give parties the benefit of a more extended investigation of the same subject matter in other pending cases.

MEMORANDUM.

BY THE COMMISSION:

A decision adverse to the complainants was rendered in this case on the 30th day of November, 1888.

Since that date complaints have been filed by other refiners and shippers of oil in the same territory against the same railroad company and other lines of road concerning the rates charged for transporting refined oil, and those cases, being at issue, have, been set for hearing at Titusville, on the 15th and 16th of May next. The complainants ask for leave to give further testimony in this case at the same time and place.

The petition now presented sets forth certain points in support of which further testimony is asked to be taken. These are substantially the same questions litigated on the former hearing, and it is not stated that new testimony has been discovered or that material evidence of a different character can now be given, nor is the petition verified, as, strictly, such petitions should be.

It is set forth, however, that the traffic will not bear the rate charged to Buffalo, and that the condition of respondent's business warrants a reduction of the rate.

As conditions of transportation vary from time to time, and rates should ordinarily be adjusted to such changed con

ditions, it is possible that the petitioners may be able to show that a lower rate at the present time is reasonable and just, and it is only fair that they should have the opportunity to do so. The petition, however, would be insufficient in a court of law, as it is only unspecified cumulative evidence upon points already adjudicated that is proposed to be given, and standing alone it would be sufficient here, although technical rules of procedure are not insisted on, and equitable considerations largely enter into the question of rates. But as the whole subject of rates upon refined oil is to be investigated in the same locality, and all the refiners similarly situated have interests in common, these petitioners ought not to be precluded from sharing the benefit of any light that may come from that investigation. In view of that fact and in the furtherance of justice the defects of the petition may be disregarded. Under such circumstances the Commission might with propriety open a case without an application for the purpose, and without previous notice to either party.

An order may be entered, therefore, that the case will be. regarded as opened for further evidence at the time and place mentioned, upon the points specified in the petition, and the testimony taken in the other cases to be cosidered in this case so far as it may be applicable.

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ACTS AND DOINGS OF THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY OF CANADA IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF TRAFFIC FROM THE UNITED STATES INTO CANADA.

Hearing at Washington, April 4, 1889. Decision filed April 18, 1889. The provisions of the Act to regulate commerce apply to foreign as well as domestic common carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from a place in the United States to a place in an adjacent foreign country.

The common carriers engaged in such transportation are subject to the provisions of the Act in respect to the printing of schedules of rates, fares, and charges for the traffic they carry, the posting and filing with the Interstate Commerce Commission of copies of such schedules, the notice of advances and reductions, and the maintenance of the rates, fares and charges established and published and in force at the time. Such common carriers are also subject to the provisions of the Act in respect to joint tariffs of rates, fares and charges for continuous lines or routes.

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.

Under the provisions of the Act the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada is required to print, post and file its schedules of rates and charges for the transportation of property from points in the United States to points in Canada, and cannot lawfully charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation therefor, or for any services in connection therewith, than is specified in such published schedule as may at the time be in force.

Upon an investigation by the Commission it appeared that the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada transports coal and coke under a schedule specifying a total rate from Buffalo, Black Rock, and Suspension Bridge, in the United States, to Hamilton, Dundas, and several other points in Canada, and that the published tariff rate for such transportation from points named to Hamilton and Dundas is one dollar a ton, but that it accepts a reduced charge or allows a rebate of twenty-five cents a ton in favor of certain consignees at Hamilton, Dundas, and other points in Canada.

Held, that the reduced charge accepted, or rebate allowed, is in violation of the Act to regulate commerce and unlawful.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has authority to institute investigations and to deal with violations of the law independently of a formal complaint, or of direct damage to a complainant.