basing fares, thus enabling other car-
riers to use the same, in connection with
their own duly established fares, for the
through transportation of passengers on
any physical line of connecting carriers,
upon a combination of tickets over all
of the component parts of such through
lines, and for the carriers composing or
operating such through line to afford
through sleeping car, baggage, checking
and other through accommodations in
the same manner as in case of through
tickets over the entire line, provided the
passenger demanding such through trans-
portation and through accommodation
shall present to the initial carrier at the
point of starting the lawfully authorized
tickets covering the lines necessary for
the entire through journey. It, how-
ever, is not deemed lawful for a carrier
to check a passenger's baggage beyond
the point to which he presents tickets
at the point of starting, upon the mere
declaration of intention to go farther
upon . another ticket, to be thereafter
purchased or otherwise. In Re Mileage,
Excursion and Commutation Tickets, 23
I. C. C. 95, 96.
(b) Upon duly established tariff au-
thority therefor the initial carrier may
issue to a passenger a through ticket
for the sum of two or more duly es-
tablished fares applicable over the
several connecting roads composing the
through physical line from the starting
point to destination, or may issue ad-
520
PASSENGER FARES AND FACILITIES, 4 (a) 5 (e)
ditional or separate ticket or tickets
at lawful tariff fares therefor, which,
in connection with the ticket or tickets
already held by the passenger, will
cover the entire journey that the pas-
senger desires to take. In Re Mileage,
Excursion and Commutation Tickets, 23
I. C. C. 95, 97.
4. Certificate Plan.
(a) Defendant carriers published tar-
iffs for the letter carriers' convention
at St. Paul, Minn., 1909, which carried
the provision that a rate of a fare and
a half on the certificate plan would
apply to this occasion from points east
of the Missouri River, on condition that
a thousand or more persons be in at-
tendance by rail, holding certificates
which show the purchase of one-way
tickets at a dollar or more. It was
also provided that passengers must pur-
chase one-way tickets at place of meet-
ing or normal (not special or reduced)
one-way fare and obtain a certificate
receipt. The receipt, when signed by
the secretary of the meeting and
stamped by the joint agent, to be hon-
ored for "delegate" return ticket at re-
duced fare. Attendance at the conven-
tion was over 1,400, but there were only
888 certificates. The St. Louis delega-
tion purchased 106 summer tourist's
round-trip tickets, St. Louis to St. Paul
and return, and the Kansas City dele-
gation 39 1 /& round-trip tickets, Kansas
City to St. Paul and return. The agent
refused to validate any certificates un-
less there were 1,000 or more present,
and would not allow the tickets from
St. Louis to Kansas City to be counted.
HELD, that the certificate plan be ap-
proved; that the tariffs must control,
and that reparation would not be al-
lowed to those certificate holders who
had been compelled to pay the full fare
on the return. National Ass'n of Let-
ter Carriers v. A. T. & S. F Ry. Co ,
20 I. C. C. 6.
5. Commutation Fares.
See Supra, 1 (b), 3 (a); Commuta-
tion Fares; Through Routes and
Joint Rates, 22 (I).
(a) Complainants attacked the pro-
posed new commutation fares between
New York City and points in the state
of New Jersey as unjust, extortionate
and unreasonable. HELD, that the car-
riage of a commuter differs in many
respects from other passenger traffic,
and is an independent and a special
service and a special kind of traffic.
This being the case, the reasonableness
of the fares demanded for the service
may be looked into by the Commission
under section 1 of the Act. The new
commutation rate of the Central of
New Jersey R. R., which ranges from
$5.95 for ten miles up to $10.35 for 40
miles, is held reasonable, and these
rates are taken as a standard, and
under that view the new fares of
the Erie, Lackawanna and West Shore
railways, being approximately the same,
are not unreasonable. The new rates
of the Pennsylvania Co., which range
from $6.25 for 10 miles to $16 for 40
miles, are unreasonable and should not
exceed more than $10 for the commuta-
tion tickets from New Brunswick to
New York, 31.3 miles, rates for other
distances being adjusted relatively.
Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428.
(b) Commutation fares are entirely
different from mileage books. Commu-
tation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 434.
(c) A carrier that has not under-
taken a commutation service may pos-
sibly not be compelled to do so under
the present law, but whether, having
done so, it can withdraw such service, is
another question. Commutation Rate
Case, 21 I. C. C. 428', 437.
(d) As applied to passenger traffic,
commutation seems to signify the pay-
ment in a single sum of the cost to the
traveler for transportation, limited in
point of time or in the number of trips,
between two designated points. Appar-
ently it implies also a fare per trip
that is less than the normal fare for
a one-way journey. Commutation Rate
Case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 438.
(e) The prosperity and growth of
many communities throughout the coun-
try depend upon an efficient and reason-
able commutation service. Many such
communities have not only been encour-
aged by the carriers, but were, in fact,
originally established largely on their ini-.
dative. Suburban property has been
bought, homes have been established,
business relations made, and the entire
course of life of many families adjusted
to the conditions created by a commuta-
tion service. This may not have been
done on the theory that the fares in ef-
fect at any particular time would always
be maintained as maximum fares, but
countless homes have been established in
suburban communities in the belief that
PASSENGER FARES AND FACILITIES, 5 (f) (i)
521
there would be a reasonable continuity
in the fares, and that the carriers in any
event would perform the service at all
times for a reasonable compensation.
S burban communities have grown into
existence on the theory, voluntarily ac-
cepted by the carriers as well as by the
public, that one who makes daily use -of
an agency of transportation between his
place of business and his home must
necessarily be accorded a special and a
low rate. This theory is firmly fixed in
the history and traditions of transporta-
tion by rail and must, therefore, be re-
garded as embraced in the law under
which such transportation is regulated.
Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428,
437, 442.
(f) Commutation traffic stands by it-
self as a special and distinct kind of
service, for which the carrier may de-
mand no more than a reasonable compen-
sation. Excursion traffic is sporadic and
occasional, and altogether exceptional.
Unlike excursion traffic, commutation
traffic is neither occasional nor sporadic,
but, on the contrary, is characterized by
an unusual regularity in volume; it may
be accurately measured and provided for
more readily than in the case of any
other kind of passenger traffic. It is ordi-
narily constant, except as it may gradu-
ally grow in volume. Its stability is
established by the juxtaposition of a
community of homes and a community
of workshops; and this separation of the
place of residence from the place of
work is in many cases the direct result
of the efforts of the carrier. It has been
encouraged, developed and fostered by
the carriers, and large and numerous sub-
urban communities have grown up in the
belief, not that some fare less than the
normal full passenger fare would be de-
manded in the future, but in the belief
that no more than a just and reasonable
fare would at any time be exacted, con-
sidering the special character of the
traffic and of the service and the condi-
tions that differentiate both the traffic
and the service so completely and abso-
lutely from all other kinds of passenger
traffic and service. That it has been re-
garded as a different class of traffic con-
ducted under entirely different conditions
and a different kind of service is shown,
not only by the origin of commutation and
the subsequent traditions that have accu-
mulated with its growth, but by the gen-
eral recognition of it by the carriers
themselves as an indepen Tent and a spe-
cial service. This being so, there is no
reason why the reasonableness of the
fares demanded for the service may not
be looked into by the Commission under
section 1. It is conceded on behalf of the
principal complainant that a carrier mi. 7
not be compelled under the present law
to undertake a commutation service and
to establish commutation rates. That is
probably true. But having undertaken a
definite and regular commutation service,
such as is shown of record on the part
of each of the defendants in this pro-
ceeding, the power as well as the duty of
the Commission under section 1 to ex-
amine into the reasonableness of the
charges exacted when complaint has bsen
made seems to be beyond question. Read-
ing section 22 (which provides "that
nothing in this Act shall prevent . . .
the issuance of mileage, excursion or
commutation passenger tickets") in the
light of the special nature and character
of commutation traffic and service, the
utmost that reasonably may be said of
it as applied to commutation tickets is
that it constitutes a statutory recogni-
tion of the fact that commutation is
a different kind of traffic. Commuta-
tion Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 441,
442, 443.
(g) Improvements which required ex-
penditures of large sums of money, which
have added to the efficiency- of the serv-
ice, and therefore to its value to the
commuters, are entitled to some recog-
nition in determining the reasonableness
of the increased commutation rates.
Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428,
444.
(h) The administrative ruling of the
Commission adopted October 12, 1908,
holding it unjustly discriminatory for a
carrier to offer special rates on monthly
commutation tickets to school children,
and to deny such rates to other children
of the same age, is upheld, but under the
ruling the carrier may offer special rates
to children between certain ages, pro-
vided same is open to all persons within
the age limits prescribed. In Re Com-
mutation Tickets to School Children, 17
I. C. C. 144.
(i) A carrier may determine for itself
whether it will sell commutation tickets;
but if it elects to sell them, it must do
so subject to the provisions of the Act.
Weber Club & Intermountain Fair Ass'n
v. O. S. L R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 212, 216.
522
PASSENGER FARES AND FACILITIES, (a) (1)
6. Mileage and Excursion Rates.
See Advertising, I; Mileage Scale.
(a) Carriers are permitted but not
compelled to establish excursion, commu-
tation and mileage tickets; but are not
at liberty to discriminate with respect
thereto. In Re Mileage, Excursion and
Commutation Tickets, 23 I. C. C. 95, 96.
96.
(aa) The volume of traffic, competi-
tion and other conditions may justify
lower excursion fares to Atlantic City
from New York than from Baltimore.
Merchants & Mfrs.' Ass'n of Baltimore
v. A. C. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 129.
(b) Though exceptional cases may re-
quire a different conclusion, ordinarily a
carrier may refuse to continue to issue
excursion tickets lower than its normal
fares. Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C.
C. 428, 437.
(bb) With respect to some kind of ex-
cursion traffic, section 4 has been applied
by the Commission. Commutation Rate
Case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 442.
(c) Unusual conditions may require
the enforcement of sections 2 and 3, as
regards excursion tickets, though the
Commission has not yet done so. Com-
mutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 442.
(d) Section 1, requiring that all rates
must be reasonable, has, it seems, no real
application to mileage books, and though
an exceptional case might require a dif-
ferent conclusion, a carrier ordinarily
may refuse to continue to issue mileage
tickets lower than its normal fares.
Commutation Rate Case, 21 I. C. C. 428,
437, 442.
(e) Exchange orders are issued volun-
tarily, and carriers may therefore attach
reasonable and non-discriminatory regu-
lations to their use. Eschner v. Penn.
R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 60, 64.
(f) Mileage books carriers issue vol-
untarily, and therefore may attach
thereto reasonable and non-discrimina-
tory regulations. Eschner v Penn. R. R.
Co., 18 I. C. C. 60, -64.
(g) Defendant joined in the sale of a
book known as an exchange order and
good only west of Pittsburgh, by which
the purchaser obtained a reduction of
the regular fare. It issued a similar book
called a mileage book, good only east of
Pittsburgh. Complainant presented to
defendant's ticket agent at Cleveland, O.,
both an exchange order and a mileage
book and demanded the through checking
of his baggage and a through Pullman
ticket from Cleveland to Philadelphia.
His request was refused, and he was com-
pelled to recheck his baggage at Pitts-
burgh and buy a new Pullman ticket at
Pittsburgh for Philadelphia. HELD, de-
fendant's practice in this respect was not
unreasonable or unduly discriminatory,
since defendant was entitled to refuse
certain accommodations accorded to pur-
chasers of tickets in view of the lower
rate granted complainant by the mileage
books, and since complainant was free to
purchase regular tickets for himself.
Eschner v. Penn. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C.
60, 63.
(h) The language of section 22 of the
Act, to the effect that nothing in the Act
shall prevent the issuance of mileage, ex-
cursion or commutation passenger tick-
ets, is permissive and does not give the
Commission any authority to require in-
terstate carriers to sell interstate trans-
portation in that form. Eschner v. Penn.
R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 60, '63.
(i) The right to use exchange order
and mileage books is in the nature of a
privilege, and must be accepted with all
the lawful limitations that may be at-
tached. Eschner v. Penn. R. R" Co., 18
I. C. C. 60, 64.
(j) In extending the privilege of mile-
age, excursion and commutation tickets,
a carrier may attach to them conditions
as to the checking of baggage, purchase
of Pullman accommodations, etc., so long
as the conditions result in no violation of
any provision of the Act. Eschner v.
Penn. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 60, 64.
(k) Mileage, commutation or excur-
sion tickets, when published for sale,
must be open impartially to all. Weber
Club & Intermountain Fair Ass'n v. O. S.
L. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 212, 216.
(1) The Mormon Church held two con-
ferences each year at Salt Lake City
in April and October. Defendants at such
times granted round-trip tickets for the
price of one fare. During the October
conference, the state fair was also held
at Salt Lake. Ogden' held its fair dur-
ing the fall, and defendants refused to
grant round-trip tickets for less than a
fare and a third. From many points
north, east and west of Ogden, passengers
might make the trip through Ogden to
Salt Lake and back for less than the
round trip at one and one-third fare to
PASSENGER FARES AND FACILITIES, 6 (m) 8 (a)
523
Ogden. The statistics relating to the
movement of passengers through Ogden
to attend the fall conference at Salt Lake
as compared with the movement to r < r -
den for attendance upon the latter's fair
did not indicate that any great prejudice
was being worked against Ogden. HELD,
defendants were not shown to have un-
duly discriminated against Ogden. Ic
must ordinarily be left with the carrier
to determine the place, the time and
amount of an excursion rate, but it is
conceivable that by the granting of re-
duced transportation under the guise of
excursion rates the most serious and
unjustifiable discrimination might be
worked. The Commission is not pre-
pared to admit that under no circum-
stances could it inquire whether undue
discrimination had arisen from the issu-
ing of mileage commutation or excur-
sion tickets, but the statute itself author-
izes discrimination in permitting the is-
suance of excursion tickets, and it is only
in cases where this privilege has been
plainly abused that the Commission would
be justified in interfering. Weber Club
<fc Intermountain Fair Ass'n v. O. S. L. R.
R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 212, 216.
<m) Where no provision appears in
the tariff, either of the Penn. P. R. Co.
extending from Pittsburgh to New York,
providing for the issue of its mileage
books, nor of the Pennsylvania company
extending from New Castle to Pittsburgh
providing for an interchangeable mile-
age book, which in any way limits these
books to a local trip, a passenger from
New Castle to New York is entitled to
purchase a Pullman berth upon presenta-
tion of such a book. Kurtz v. Penn. R. R.
Co., 16 I. C. C. 410, 415.
(n) A mileage book is issued usually,
if not invariably, at a rate less than the
local fare, and in consideration of this
the railroad issuing the book may attach
to its use various conditions. Kurtz v.
Penn. Co., 16 I. C. C. 410, 416.
7. Party Rates.
(a) Special party rates cannot law-
fully be limited by carriers to particular
classes of persons, such as theatrical
companies and other special organiza-
tions engaged in giving public exhibi-
tions, but must be open to the general
public. Field v. S. Ry. Co., 13 I. C C.
298, 299.
(b) Complainant, a secret service and
detective organization, presented parties
of men in excess of ten for transportation
from Nashville, Tenn., to Evansville, Ind.,
an<J from Evansville to Nashville ani
were refused the ten-party rates which
defendant under its tariffs was offering
to other classes of passengers. Com-
plainant was obliged to pay the full in-
dividual fare on each man. HELD, the
tariff was unlawful in applying to certain
classes of passengers and not to others.
Reparation awarded on the basis of the
ten-party rates. Koch Secret Service v.
L. & N. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 523, 524.
(c) Complainant presented a party of
ten men for transportation and de-
manded the ten-party rates, which were
refused on the ground that such men, be-
ing engaged in secret service and de-
tective work, were not included in the
tariffs extending party rates to certain
classes of passengers. Complainant then
sent on only nine men, paying full indi-
vidual fares. HELD, although the re-
fusal to grant the fare was unlawful,
complainant could not recover, since it
did not actually send over defendant's
line the full ten men required to obtain
party rates. Koch Secret Service v. L.
& N. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 523, 525.
8. Validation.
(a) Respondents sold to a passenger,
on Sept. 10, 1909, a limited round-trip
ticket from Goldfield, Nev., to Omaha,
Neb., via the lines of the Las Vegas &
Tonopah R. R. to Las Vegas, Nev., the
San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Ry.
to Salt Lake City, Utah, the D. & R. G.
Ry. to Denver, Colo., the C. B. & ^.
Ry. to Omaha, Neb., and return via the
same route. The return portion of the
ticket was not validated at Omaha be-
fore being presented for the return pas-
srge, as required by the tariff and the
contract printed on the ticket. Through
error on the part of railroad conductors
the return portion of the ticket, although
not validated, was accepted by all of the
carriers, except the Las Vegas & Tono-
pah R. R., which refused to accept the
ticket for the portion of the journey from
Las Vegas to Goldfield, thereby com-
pelling the passenger to pay an additional
fare of $11.55. Effective Nov. 5, 1909, the
Las Vegas & Tonopah R. R. published
regulations which provided that when a
passenger was compelled to pay an extra
fare by reason of the non-validation of
a limited return ticket, it would refund
the amount so paid, providing all other
conditions of the contract of the ticket
524
PASSENGER FARES AND FACILITIES, 8 (b) 9 (a)
and the tariff under which it is sold were
complied with, and that satisfactory evi-
dence was furnished that the extra fare
was paid by the passenger. Similar rules
have been published by other respond-
ents. HELD, these rules appear to
be reasonable, and perhaps go further
to protect the passenger from his own
carelessness than the Commission would
be inclined to require. That this
regulation not having been in effect
at the time the passenger performed
the travel, she is claiming reparation
under a right which she did not
possess at that time. The Commission
will, therefore, decline to authorize the
carrier who sold the ticket to make the
refund. The Commission is further of
opinion that all carriers should estab-
lish regulations relating to refund of
excess amounts collected from pas-
sengers by reason of their failure to
validate round-trip excursion tickets
which shall be at least as favorable to
the passenger as those carried in re-
spondent's tariffs, above quoted. Non-
Validation of Limited Excursion Tickets,
19 I. C. C. 440.
(b) Where there is tariff authority,
it is no violation of the Act to require
validation of limited excursion tickets
and to charge validation fee therefor.
Riter v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C.
443, 444.
(c) The validating fee on limited ex-
cursion tickets is paid to the validation
agent. The Pacific Coast agencies are
maintained by the Transcontinental Pas-
senger Association, and the agencies ac-
count to the association for the fees
received. If the amount of these fees
exceeds the expense of maintaining the
agency, the surplus is transmitted to the
Transcontinental Passenger Association,
whereas, if the cost of the agency is
greater than the receipts in the way of
fees, the transcontinental association
makes up the deficiency. The expenses
of the Transcontinental Passenger Asso-
ciation itself, including these validating
expenses, are paid by the railroads be-
longing to that association in proportion
to the mileage of the railroads, according
to the testimony in this record. It fol-
lows, therefore, that under the method
of handling these validation fees, they
never find their way into the revenue
returns of the carriers to the Interstate
Commerce Commission. For the valida-
tion of tickets at the twenty agencies on
the Pacific coast during the period from
1901 to 1909, inclusive, over $290,350
must have been paid, which is nowhere
reported as a part of the passenger re-
ceipt of the railroads handling that busi-
ness. This is clearly wrong. In some
way those fees should find their way into
the accounts of the railroad. But the
circumstances that a proper account of
the fee is not given does not of necessity
stamp the exaction of it, or the method of
its exaction, as illegal. The complainant
contends that the manner in which these
validation fees are handled amounts to
a violation of the 5th section of the Act,
but the Commission is unable to see how
in the transaction as detailed in the testi-
mony, there is anything amounting to a
pooling of freight or .. division of earn-
ings. Riter v. O. S L. R. R. Co., 19
I. C. C. 443, 446.
(d) Defendants advertised an ex-
cursion rate of $42 for the round trip
from Salt Lake City to San Francisco.
At San Francisco complainant was re-
quired to pay an additional sum of 50c
as a validating charge. Tickets were
validated at an office quite distant from
the regular station and complainant in
searching for this office missed his train.
HELD, the purchaser should in all cases
be advised when he buys his ticket that
it must be validated and that a valida-
tion fee will be charged. These facts
should be plainly stated upon the face
of the ticket itself. Some tickets now
state the amount of the fee to be ex-
acted, while others state that a valida-
tion fee will be required in accordance
with the terms of the tariff. In all
cases upon the face of the ticket the
amount of the validation fee should
appear. Railroad companies should also
exercise great care in providing con-
venient places for the establishment of
validation agencies and in supplying a
sufficient number of agents so that what
occurred in the case of the complainant
can seldom if ever happen. Riter v.
O. S. L. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 443, 446.
II. DISCRIMINATION IN FACILITIES.
9. In General.
See Special Contracts, 5 (de) ; Tar-
iffs, 3 (d).
(a) The law will not permit deviation
from the services, facilities and privileges