I. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
1. Jurisdiction of Commission.
2. What is through route or

"common arrangement."
3. What is joint rate.
3/2- Participation in through
traffic.

II. ESTABLISHMENT BY CARRIER.

4. In general.

5. Dispute over divisions.

6. Circuitous routes.

7. Obligation to carry.

8. Relation of similar points.

9. Right to favor own line.
10. Stc^us of intermediate car-
rier.

11. What is satisfactory through
route.

(1) In general.

(2) When through route

ordered or denied.

III. BILLS OF LADING.

12. Issuance in general.

IV. REASONABLENESS OF THROUGH

RATES.

13. In general.

14. Divisions.

15. Exceeding combinations of
intermediates.

t6. Reparation.
V. TARIFFS AND CONSTRUCTION.

17. In general.

18. Application of proportional
rate.

19. Breaking transit.

20. Change in rate while ship-
ment at transit point.

21. Intermediate clause.

22. What is legal rate.

23. Procedure.

CROSS REFERENCES.

See Differentials, 4; Electric Lines,
II; Foreign Commerce; Passenger
Fares and Facilities, 14; Routing
and Misrouting; Water Carriers.

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION.

See Courts, 3 (b) ; Crimes, 1 (b),
2 (d).

1. Jurisdiction of Commission.

See Advanced Rates, 1 (1) (e) ; Ex-
press Companies, 1 (d); Interstate
Commerce Commission, 2 (g), 9
(m); Passenger Fares and Facili-
ties, 1 (e); Procedure Before Com-
mission, 13 (j); Reasonableness of
Rates, 3 (LI); Routing and Mis-
routing, 1 (c).

(a) Under the amendment of June
29, 1906, the Commission has jurisdic-



tion over a complaint demanding a filing
with the Commission and publishing of
rates for transportation of passengers
and property between points in Alaska
and points in the Dominion of Canada
and other places, and the establishment
of through routes and joint rates be-
tween points in Alaska and points in
the state of Washington, said amend-
ment having superseded the authority
conferred upon the Secretary of Interior
by section 2 of the Act of May 14,
1898. I. C. C. v. H. S. S. Co., 224 U. S.
474, 483, 32 Sup. Ct. 556, 56 L. ed. 849.

(b) The Commission is expressly
empowered to determine the reasonable-
ness of any part or the aggregate of
charges for interstate transportation and
to establish joint rates. Sunderland
Bros. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 23
I. C. C. 259, 261.

(c) It is not clear that the Commis-
sion has jurisdiction to deal with divi-
sions under a rate not fixed by the
Commission, but that question is not
decided. In Re Wharfage Charges at
Galveston, 23 I. C. C. 535, 546.

(d) The statute provides that in es-
tablishing joint rates and through routes,
each carrier against which the order is
made shall be given the benefit of
the long haul by its own line "unless
to do so would make such through
route unreasonably long as compared
with another practicable through route
which could otherwise be estab-
lished." The Commission cannot there-
fore establish in every case a through
route and a jqint rate, but must work
under the limitation imposed by the
Act of Congress as above set forth.
In Re Investigation of Alleged Un-
reasonable Rates on Meats, 23 I. C.
C. 656, 662.

(e) Carriers are required under sec-
tion 1 to make reasonable rules and
regulations with respect to the inter-
change, exchange and return of cars used
upon through routes and for operation of
such through routes, and where they
have failed in this respect the Commis-
sion is empowered by section 15 to
determine the individual or joint regu-
lation or practice that is just, fair and
reasonable. Missouri & Illinois Coal Co.
v. I. C. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 39, 49.

(f) The Commission may after hear-
ing establish through routes and joint
classifications and rates, when one of



THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, 1 (g) (m)



841



the connecting carriers is a water line,
but not when the transportation is
wholly by water. (Lane, Comm'r, concur-
ring opinion.) In Re Transportation by
C. & O. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 207, 209.

(g) With respect to the transporta-
tion of persons and property by rail,
the Act has not undertaken to specify
in terms what shall for the purpose
of that statute be considered to be a
common carrier, but has proceeded upon
the foundation of the common law as
to public callings. It is not therefore
within the authority of the Commission
to pronounce any carrier by rail not to
be in fact or in law a common carrier,
if by the tests and principles cf the
common law, coupled with such require-
ments as may have been imposed by
constitutional or legislative authority,
it would be held to be such. The right
of such a carrier to participate in
through routes and joint rates and saare
in the earnings of such rates with others
is a wholly different question and one
clearly within the purview of the stat-
ute and under the jurisdiction and con-
trol of the Commission, as expressly
provided in the Act. The purpose of
the Act in this respect must be ful-
filled by action appropriate to Oie end
in view, and at the same time effective
to prevent unjust discrimination in any
form, enforcing reasonable requirements
and limitations in respect to the es-
tablishment of through routes and joint
rates, and the sharing of tlic earnings
thereunder, consistently with all other
provisions of the statute, in such man-
ner as will result in substantial justice
to all the parties in interest and the
observance of the standards of the law
in the public interest. Mfr'rs Ry. Co.
v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C.
304, 312, 313.

(h) Formerly the Commission under
section 15 had authority, after hearing
on a complaint, to establish through
routes and maximum joint rates and to
prescribe the divisions thereof, "provided
no reasonable or satisfactory through
route" existed. In the amendment of
June 18, 1910, this limitation was omit-
ted. As the section now reads the only
limitations on the authority of the Com-
mission to establish through routes and
joint rates that are pertinent in this
case are: (a) It may not require any
railroad involuntarily to embrace in a
through route substantially less than



the entire length of its road between
the termini of the proposed through
route. (b) It may not establish through
routes and joint rates between a steam
railroad and a street electric passenger
railway that does not transport freight
in addition to its passenger and express
business. The first of these limitations
must be observed in all cases. C. &
C. Traction Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R.
Co., 20 I. C. C. 486, 490; order of Commis-
sion enjoined, B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co. v.
U. S., 195 Fed. 962.

(i) The Commission's power to re-
quire the institution of through routes
and joint rates is expressly conditional
upon there being no reasonable or satis-
factory through route in existence.
Southern California Sugar Co. v. S. P.
L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C.
6, 10.

(j) The Commission cannot estab-
lish a through route and joint rate
where a reasonable or satisfactory
through route and joint rate already
exist. Spring Hill Coal Co. v. Erie R.
R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 508, 509.

(k) The law does not require the
Commission in all cases where no
through route and joint rate exists to
establish a route and fix a rate appli-
cable thereto, but only empowers it
to do so in a proper case for the pur-
pose of giving effect to the Act. Baer
Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co.,
17 I. C. C. 225, 228.

(1) Where an intermediate carrier
participates in a shipment without filing
its concurrence to the through rate, the
Commission is not ousted of jurisdiction
to pass upon the reasonableness of the
through rate and to award reparation.
Kindelon v. S. P. Co., 17 I. C. C. 251,
266.

(m) While at common law a com-
mon carrier may not have been com-
pelled to accord traffic coming off the
rails of other carriers and not originat-
ing on its own lines the necessary fa-
cilties for through movement, under the
Act, as amended June 29, 1906, this is
no longer the law with regard to inter-
state carriers. The only limitation
placed upon the exercise of the power
of the Commission to establish a through
route is where there is already a rea-
sonable or satisfactory through route in
existence, and the question as to whether
or not an existing through route is rea-



842



THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, 1 (n) 2 (a)



sonable or satisfactory is one of fact
for the determination of the Commission.
Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. C. & S.
Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 479, 480.

(n) The Commission has no authority
to establish a rate in Mexico, nor to
order the maintenance of a future rate
from points in the United States to
points in Mexico, but it may require
American carriers to discontinue apply-
ing a joint through rate, and, where
such a rate has been voluntarily main-
tained, may inquire into its reasonable-
ness and award damages. Black Horse
Tobacco Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C.
C. 588, 590.

(o) The Commission may establish
a through route and joint rate, provided
no reasonable or satisfactory through
route exists. Enterprise Fuel Co v.
Penn. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 219, 220.

(p) The first section gives the ship-
per a right to a through route and a
reasonable rate, but the rate open to
him need not be a j int rate, and the
mere fact that no joint rate already
exists does not lay upon the Commis-
sion any absolute requirement to es-
tablish one. Chamber of Commerce of
Milwaukee v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,
(Prouty, Comm'r, concurring opinion.)
15 I. C. C. 460, 467.

(q) The Commission has power to
establish a through route. Pacific Coast
Lumber Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C.
C. 51, 53.

(r) The Commission is allowed to
establish a through route and a joint
rate only when the carriers themselves
have neglected to provide a reasonable
and satisfactory one. Pacific Coast
Lumber Mfrs.' Ass'n v. N. P. Ry. Co., 14
I. C. C. 51, 53.

(s) With respect to the authority
of the Commission to order through
routes and joint rates the Act makes
no discrimination between railroads
that are operated by electricity and
those that use steam. Both are subject
to the Act when engaged in the inter-
state transportation and are entitled
to equal consideration in any contro-
versy. The progress in the science of
electricity and the rapid increase of
new devices for its application have
led many practical railroad men to
think that we may be measurably near
its general use as the chief motive



power in transportation. Chicago &
Milwaukee Electric R. R. Co. v. I. C. R.
R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 20, 27.

(t) Section 1 of the Act requiring
carriers to establish routes and just
and reasonable rates applicable thereto
must be read in connection with sec-
tion 15, under which latter section the
Commission cannot grant relief when
a reasonable or satisfactory route or
rate exists. Cardiff Coal Co. v. C. M. &
St. P. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 460, 466.

(u) Coal was carried from points in
Arkansas over the K. C. S. Ry. to
Dodson, Mo., a point formerly outside
Kansas City, and thence over defend-
ant Westport Belt Ry. from Dodson to
Westport, a point within the limits of
Kansas City. The shipping receipt speci-
fied Westport as the ultimate destina-
tion. The car was waybilled by the
K. C. S. Ry. to Dodson, transported to
that point and there placed upon side
tracks, from which it was taken with-
out further instructions by the Belt
Railway and carried to Westport. Com-
plainant consignee at Westport paid the
K. C. S. Ry. its full rate to Dodson and
the Belt Railway its full rate of 20c
per ton for the haul from Dodson to
Westport. HELD, defendant Belt Rail-
way in said shipments was engaged in
interstate commerce and was subject to
the jurisdiction of the Commission with
respect to through routes and joint
rates. A movement from a point in one
state to a point in another is to be
treated as an entirety and cannot be
split up into separate movements for
the purpose of exempting one of the
carriers operating wholly between points
within a state from the regulations of
interstate commerce. Leonard v. K. C.
S. Ry. Co. and K. C. & Westport Belt
Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 573, 579.

2. What is Through Route or "Com-
mon Arrangement."

See Supra, 1 (I); Infra, 11 (1)
(a), 16 (g), 17 (b), 22 (b), (c),
(d), (f), (h), (i); Absorption of
Charges, 1 (a); Allowances, 8 (4)
(c); Crimes, 11; Interstate Com-
merce, 3 (f) (i); Proportional
Rates, 1 (b); Reparation, 19 (c) ;
Routing and Misrouting, 4 (aaa);
Tariffs, 4 (x), 10.

(a) The phrase "common arrange-
ment" means an agreement or under-
standing between connecting carriers
with respect to the transportation of
merchandise and the charges and divi-



THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, 2 (b) (1)



843



sions to be made therefor. Mutual
Transit Co. v. U. S., 178 Fed. 664, 666.

(b) Defendant steamship company
operated on the Great Lakes from Buf-
falo, N. Y., to West Superior, Wis. It
contracted with a shipper to protect a
rate of 45c on iron from Emaus, Pa., to
Winnipeg, Manitoba. The rate published
by the initial and delivering rail car-
riers was 49M>c. Defendants did not
concur in such rate. The rail carriers
were not informed of the agreement
between the shipper and defendant for
the 45c rate and the bills of lading,
shipping receipts and the other docu-
ments called for a rate of 49 y 2 c and
specified the divisions which defendants,
the initial and delivering carriers, were
to receive, which rate was collected.
Defendant rebated the difference be-
tween the 49 1 /c and the 45c rates. No
proof was offered of any further under-
standing or arrangement between de-
fendant and the other rail carriers.
HELD, defendant, carrying wholly by
water, was not shown to have entered
into a "common arrangement" with the
rail carriers so as to make it subject
to the Act, and could not be convicted
of rebating under the Elkins Act. Mut-
ual Transit Co. v. U. S., 178 Fed. 664,
667.

(c) A mere agreement by an inde-
pendent water carrier to accept freight
from a connecting railroad and to
transport it for its own particular rate,
may be an "arrangement" for continu-
ous carriage, but it is not a "common
arrangement" within the meaning of
the Act. Mutual Transit Co. v. U. S.,
178 Fed. 664, 667.

(d) In the concert of action, in the
successive receipt and movement of the
traffic by the connecting carriers under
through bills of lading for continuous
carriage, is manifested the "common ar-
rangement" contemplated by the Act
of Congress. No previous formal con-
tract is necessary. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co.
v. U. S., 157 Fed. 831, 833.

(e) By failing to establish or concur
in a joint through rate for traffic ac-
cepted for interstate transportation, each
participating carrier impliedly asserts
that the rate which it has duly estab-
lished, published and filed for its own
line shall be a component part of the
through rate to be charged. C. B. & Q.
Ry. Co. v. U. S., 157 Fed. 831, 833.



(f ) Where passengers are transported
by continuous carriage over the lines
of several interurban railways between
interstate points, a through route exists
over which passengers are actually
transported by continuous carriage, and
the fact that through tickets are not
used, or joint rates or fares may not
be in force, does not prove that the
transportation is not interstate in char-
acter. Citizens of Somerset v. Wash-
ington Ry. & Electric Co., 22 I. C. C.
187, 191.

(g) Shipments of flour were accepted
by defendants for transportation from
Hays, Kan., to South Tacoma, Wash.,
and bills of lading were issued for
the through movement from point of
origin to point of desired destination,
and shipments were duly transported in
accordance therewith. HELD, it cannot
be said that there was no through route
in effect, and under the circumstances
the prayer of the complaint for the
establishment of a through route is
denied. Kenworthy & Son v. U. P. R.
R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 515, 517.

(h) Carriers engaged in a through
route in law constitute one line. R. R.
Commission of Nev. v. S. P. Co., 19
I. C. C. 238, 252.

(i) A shipment sent through to des-
tination without the intervention of the
shipper at junctions moves on a through
route. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M.
P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 225, 226.

(j) A rate formed by a combination
of separate rates over connecting lines
has every substantial feature of a
through rate, and separately established
rates over a through route are expressly
recognized in section 6 of the Act.
Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry.
Co., 17 I. C. C. 225, 228.

(k) When traffic from two territories
served by different lines is carried to
a point on a common connecting line
under joint rates published in a single
tariff to which all three lines are par-
ties, a through line or group of lines
is formed which serves both territories
and makes discrimination possible. In-
diana Steel & Wire Co. v. C. R. I. &
P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 155.

(1) The D. & R. G. R. R., the deliv-
ering line on shipments from St. Louis,
Mo., to Leadville, Colo., advanced to the
M. P. Ry. the full amount of its charges



844



THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, 2 (m) 4 (a)



and collected the same from the con-
signee. These facts, together with other
facts of record, constitute an arrange-
ment which clearly brings the trans-
portation within the scope of the Act.
Nollenberger v. M. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C.
C. 595, 598.

(m) A through route is a continuous
line formed by agreement, express or
implied, between connecting carriers
over which shipments are to be made,
and all services in connection therewith
from origin to destination must be per-
formed by said carriers at their lawfully
established rates applicable thereto. The
service must be continuous for every
part of the journey over the continuous
line. When a through rate is estab-
lished the shipper should not be called
upon at any point therein to assume
possession or control of his shipment or
do any service in forwarding it to its
final destination, such as loading and
unloading in transit, although carriers
may provide for unloading and trans-
ferring at stated junction points as a
part of the through service if their
tariffs also specify the kind of service
required in transferring at such points
and the separate rates and charges to
be exacted therefor. Memphis Freight
Bureau v. F. S. & W. R. R. Co., 13
I. C. C. 1, 8.

(n) A shipment reconsigned before
arrival at the original point of distribu-
tion constitutes a through movement.
Miller & Co. v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 249.

(o) The voluntary making of new
rates constitutes a common control,
management or arrangement for a con-
tinuous carriage or shipment. Pitts-
burgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (Ind.
1910), 91 N. E. 735, 740.

(p) Section 1 of the Interstate Com-
merce Act as amended June 29, 1906,
provides "that the provisions of this
Act shall apply to any common carrier
or carriers engaged in the transporta-
tion of passengers or property wholly
by railroad (or partly by railroad and
partly by water, when both are used
under a common control, management
or arrangement for a continuous car-
riage or shipment) and also to the
transportation in like manner of prop-
erty shipped from a foreign country to
any place in the United States or an
adjacent foreign country." Section 2



of the Act requires the filing and post-
ing of charges for transportation be-
tween points on the line of the carrier
and points on the route of any other
carrier (by railroad, by pipe line or by
water, when a through route and joint
rate have been established). Defendant
Great Northern Ry. Co. established a
rate of 85c on canned goods from Stav-
anger, Norway, to Seattle, Wash., with
the provision that it was to receive 75c for
its portion of the haul and if the best
ocean rate should make the total
charge exceed 85c, the charge for the
entire haul was to be 75c plus the best
ocean rate obtainable. HELD, the
shipment covered by such rate was
subject to the Interstate Commerce Act.
Fisher v. G. N. Ry. Co., 49 Wash. 205,
209, 95 P. 77.

3. What Is Joint Rate.

(a) The "joint rate" referred to in
section 6 of the Act relating to the
publishing of rates does not apply to
the combined rates on shipments from
United States inland points through
Atlantic ports via ocean carriers to
European points, since the Commission
has no jurisdiction over ocean carriers.
To permit the making of joint rates, in
the strict sense used in the section be-
tween such points, would open the way
for rebates and other discriminatory prac-
tices, since in publishing a joint rate
under section 6 the carriers are not
compelled to publish their divisions of
the same and by a manipulation of
divisions th'e ocean carriers might ob-
tain an inequitable portion thereof
wherewith to "induce" traffic. The
rail carriers must, therefore, on such
traffic publish their rates from inland
points to Atlantic ports. Cosmopolitan
Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American
Packet Co., 13 I. C. C. 266, 280.

3>/2- Participation in Through Traffic.
See Act to Regulate Commerce, II
(f).

II. ESTABLISHMENT BY CARRIER.

4. In General.

See Branch Lines, 2 (i); Discrimina-
tion, 7 (w), (z); Evidence, 20
(o) ; Reconsignment, 1 (a).

(a) The Act imposes upon common
carriers subject to its provisions the
duty of establishing in a prescribed
mode the rates, whether individual or
joint, to be charged for the transporta-



THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, 4 (b) 5 (d)



845



tion in interstate commerce of property
over their lines; the rates so estab-
lished are obligatory upon carrier niiu
shipper and must be strictly observed
by both until changed in the mode pre-
scribed. U. S. v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599,
G02, 32 Sup. Ct. 323, 56 L. ed. 568.

(b) Undue preference results from
failure to establish through routes and
joint rates to complainant's mines which
are reached by industrial lines. Ston-
ega Coke & Coal Co. v. L. & N. R. R.
Co., 23 I. C. C. 17, 26.

(c) A carrier cannot impose an un-
reasonably high local rate upon any
community because it enjoys low in-
bound rates. R. R. Comm. of La. v.
St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 31, 34.

(d) When conditions admit, rates
should be established from the larger
grain markets, applicable to all grain
handled at and shipped from the market,
irrespective of its point of origin.
Southern Illinois Millers' Ass'n v. G. H.
& S. A. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 512, 513.

(e) Where the withdrawal of a
joint through rate via a certain route
left a higher combination in effect, and
the carrier cannot justify the increase,
through routes and joint rates will be
ordered to be established. In Re Ad-
vances on Coal, 23 I. C. C. 618.

(f) Where application is made to
have a rate constructed through one
gateway rather than via the present
gateway, it is not enough to show that
in miles the distance is less via the
proposed route; it must be shown that
the cost of transportation is less, or
rather, that the combination of rates is
less as estimated by the general level
of rates in the territory involved. In
Re Advances on Meats and Packing-
house Products, 23 I. C. C. 656, 669.

(g) The commerce of the country is
regarded as national, not local, and the
railroads are required to serve the
routes which they have established, or
which they may have been required to
establish, in connection with other car-
riers, without respect to the fact that
this may carry their equipment beyond
their own lines. Missouri & Illinois
Coal Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C.
39, 44.

(h) The full burden of the obligation
to establish through routes, furnish the
necessary facilities for transportation



and make reasonable and proper rules
of practice as between themselves and
the shippers, rests in the first instance
upon the carriers. Missouri & Illinois
Coal Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C.
39, 46..

(i) Through rates should not be con-
structed by using the full combination.
Bluefield Shippers' Ass'n v. N. & W.
Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 519, 532.

(j) A road is built and operated as
a whole and local rates are not to
be made with reference to difficulties
of each particular portion, heavy grades
and tunnels add to cost of operation.
Traffic Bureau of Merchants' Exchange
of San Francisco v. S. P. Co., 19 I. C.
C. 259, 261.

(k) Divisions are not essential to