with its order of the date of March 8, 1888, and whether they be individual or joint tariffs the requirement of notice of any change therein is the same as in the case of other tariffs. Imported traffic transported to any place in the United States from a port of entry or place of reception, whether in this country or in an adjacent foreign country, is required to be taken on the inland tariff governing other freights. By order of the Commission.

EDW. A. MOSELEY,

Secretary.

ORDER OF THE COMMISSION OF MAY 1ST, 1889, RELATIVE TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGES IN RATES BY TELEGRAPH.

At a general session of the Interstate Commerce Commission, held at its office in Washington, D. C., on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1890:

Present: Hon. William R. Morrison, Hon. Augustus Schoonmaker, Hon. Walter L. Bragg, Hon. Wheelock G. Veazey, commissioners.

The following order was adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission: Whereas, the act to regulate commerce, amongst other things, provides that "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," and also authorizes and requires the Commission to execute and enforce the provisions of that statute:

And, whereas, some of the carriers subject to the provisions of that statute, recently, in giving notice to the Commission by telegraph of proposed advances or reductions in joint rates, fares, and charges, sometimes fail to give such notice for the requisite time required by the statute, and in some instances fail to forward to the Commission the printed tariffs evidencing the changes of which notice has been so given by telegram, and sometimes give such brief and indefinite statements in their telegrams relating to the proposed changes by reference to tariffs made by other railroad lines as to be unintelligible, and in other instances fail to state the points at, from, or between which such proposed changes are to be effective;

And, whereas, it is distinctly provided by the sixth section of said statute that it shall be unlawful under the penalties provided by said statute for any carrier subject to its provisions to make any advance in joint rates, fares, or charges, shown upon joint tariffs, except in the manner provided by said statute, namely, in case of an advance of rates that there must be "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 increase of rates, fares, or charges will go into effect," and further that "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 case of an advance of joint rates;"

Now, therefore, pursuant to said provisions of said statute, the Interstate Commerce Commission hereby orders and gives notice to every carrier subject to the provisions of said statute

First. That hereafter no notices of advances or reductions by telegraph containing any of the defects or omissions above specified will be recognized or accepted by the Commission as a compliance with the law. Every telegram sent to the Commission by any of said carriers announcing a proposed advance or reduction, as the case may be, must be given to the Commission for the full time in each instance provided by the statute, and must plainly state the changes proposed to be made in any such joint rates, fares, or charges appearing upon any of their printed tariffs in force, and the date when such changes are proposed to be put into effect, the name of the company or line making them, the official designation of the officer sending the telegram, and the telegram in every instance must be immediately followed by a copy of the printed tariff setting forth the changes proposed to be made, forwarded by mail to the auditor of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., to which printed tariff so sent must be attached a copy of said telegram announcing the changes proposed to be made and set forth in said tariff for the purpose of identifying the same.

Second. It is further ordered by the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the statute as aforesaid, that any of said carriers giving notice to the Commission by telegraph or otherwise of any proposed advances or reductions in joint rates, fares, and charges shown upon joint tariffs in force, shall, at the same time, post, for the information of the public, at each station upon its line at which such charges are proposed to be made, in two public and conspicuous places, a brief statement plainly setting forth all changes it proposes to make by advance or reduction in joint rates, fares, and charges as shown upon joint tariffs then in force mentioned in its telegrami

to the Commission, and the day when the same will go into effect and from and to what points on the line covered by said joint tariffs then in force it is proposed that such advances or reductions shall go into effect, which statement shall bear date the day that it is posted and be signed by the general freight agent or traffic manager or general passenger agent, as the case may be, of every company on whose road said stations are situated, and on the day when said joint tariff as so changed shall go into effect it shall be the duty of the carrier to post two copies of such joint tariff as changed by such advance or reduction in a public and conspicuous place at its depot at each station at which such changes are made as aforesaid, and keep the same so posted, as aforesaid, for public information.

Third. It is further ordered by the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of said statute and the occasional evils resulting from sending telegrams to the Commission by carriers subject to the provisions of the statute in reference to proposed advances and reductions of rates, fares, and charges upon their individual lines, which are not joint rates, fares and charges, and in which telegrams there are sometimes the same defects and omissions as above stated in regard to telegrams sent to the Commission relating to proposed advances and reductions in joint rates, fares, and charges, that so much of this order as declares that the Commission will not recognize or accept as a compliance with law telegrams containing such defects or omissions, shall apply also to cases of rates, fares, and charges made by a single company over its own lines alone, and telegrams in relation to the same must comply in their details and be forwarded to the auditor of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., in the same manner as telegrams are required to be sent in cases of proposed changes of joint rates, fares, and charges as above set forth.

Fourth. It is further ordered by the Commission that a printed copy of this order be served by the Secretary of the Commission mailing a copy of the same to each of the carriers referred to in this order, properly attested by the seal of the Commission. A true copy.

EDW. A. MOSELEY,

Secretary.

CIRCULAR OF MAY 24, 1890, CONTAINING CORRESPONDENCE IN THE MATTER OF CHANGING RATE SHEETS WHILE ADVERTISED CHANGES ARE PENDING BUT HAVE NOT GONE INTO EFFECT.

BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

In the matter of changing rate sheets while advertised changes are pending but have not gone into effect.

[Circular.]

As the question frequently comes up as to the authority of a carrier that has advertised changes in his rates to make further changes before those already advertised have taken effect, the following correspondence is published:

In September, 1889, the auditor of the Commission received from J. E. Galbraith, traffic manager of the International and Great Northern Railroad Company, a letter, of which the following is a copy:

"C. C. MCCAIN, Esq.,

"PALESTINE, TEX., Sept. 25th, 1889.

"Auditor, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C.: "DEAR SIR: Referring to our freight tariff No. 50-I. S., applying on cotton, issued September 16th, advances effective September 29th, we wish to make a further advance in some of these rates. Can we lawfully make these advances before the expiration of less than ten days from the time the advances named in the above tariff were effective, provided we give the necessary notice? If we issued that notice on, say, to-day, September 25th, could we lawfully make the second advances in these rates effective on any date between the 5th and 10th of October?

"Yours truly,

Answer was made to this letter, in effect, that the posting and filing of rate sheets establishing rates different from those at the time prevailing did not suspend the power of the carrier to make other changes at any time, and he might do so, provided they were made in conformity with the law; but, in order that they should conform

to the law, the posting and filing should be for the requisite period-that is to say, if the new tariff was an advance upon that then in existence the notice must be for at least ten days; if a reduction, for at least three days.

In August, 1889, the auditor received from G. Maclaine, secretary of the Southern Interstate Association, the following letter:

"Mr. C. C. MCCAIN,

"ST. LOUIS, Mo., August 22, 1889.

"Auditor, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C. :

"DEAR SIR: Will you kindly advise if notices of rates to the public can be withdrawn at any time prior to the date of effect, without violation of the interstate commerce law?

"Yours truly,

This letter was understood to ask substantially the same question as that of Mr. Galbraith, and answer was made to it that the rates could be withdrawn any time prior to the date of their taking effect without a violation of the law, it being assumed in answering that the withdrawal would be in accordance with the method which the law points out for that purpose, viz, by the substitution of a new rate sheet in the place of the one to be withdrawn, the new sheet conforming to the law and being published for the length of time required, according as it was an advance in rates or a reduction.

In March, 1890, the secretary received from Charles S. Fee, general passenger and ticket agent of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, a letter making inquiry upon this subject, as shown below, to which the following reply was made:

"CHARLES S. FEE, Esq.,

“G. P. and T. A., &c., St. Paul, Minnesota :

"WASHINGTON, May 21st, 1890.

"DEAR SIR: I find on my table, after returning from a long absence from Washington, a letter from you to the secretary of the Commission, making the following inquiry:

After having posted and filed with you notice of an advance or reduction in rates, can we legally remove this notice from our stations and advise you that the contemplated change would not be made, and thus avoid placing the new rate in effect?

66

"A proper answer to this letter demands some consideration of the purpose for which the statute requires that notice of changes in rates shall be given. No one, I presume, knows better than yourself that the power to make sudden changes in the rate sheets of railroad companies, and especially the rates for the transportation of grain, provisions, &c., as it existed before the passage of the interstate commerce law, was one which was subject to the grossest abuses, and that it was sometimes employed for fraudulent purposes; possibly by the agents of railroad companies themselves in some cases, though I trust not often, but certainly by outside parties who had the means of ascertaining contemplated changes before the public was made aware of them.

"Congress thought this a very serious evil, and therefore, in the framing of the interstate commerce law and by amendment thereto, it has undertaken to guard against it. To this end the law requires that in every case an advance in rates shall be publicly notified for ten days. Even in the case of a reduction in rates, which is commonly supposed to be to the advantage of the public, the change is not allowed to become effective until after three days' notification.

"When we consider that changes in the cost of transportation are likely to affect the market value of commodities largely dealt in-sometimes to the full extent of the changes themselves-we shall all agree, I think, that the statutory provisions are wise and just, and that the requirements of the statute ought, not merely because they are law, but in common fairness to the public, to be strictly observed.

"The method of giving notice indicated by the statute is quite as important as the time prescribed. This method is by the posting and filing a new rate sheet that shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule of rates to be displaced, and the time when the new rates, fares, and charges will go into effect. Nothing, therefore, is notice of a change in rates that does not contain these requirements. A mere notice that rates will be changed, but not informing the public what the new rates are to be, performs no office under the law.

"Your question is whether, after you have posted and filed a new rate, issued in conformity with the law, and have thus prospectively established new rates, you can not legally remove this notice from your stations, and, by advising the Commis

sion of your intention to that effect, nullify it altogether, and leave the condition of things as it was before the notification of change was given. On reflection I think you will see that such a method of proceeding would be open to all the objections that were found to exist in the old practice, and might as easily be employed for fraudulent purposes as could the power to make changes without notice, existing before the statute was adopted. You give notice, for example, of a reduction in rates to take effect three days hence. The public at once begins to take action with this notice in view. The price of commodities is at once to some extent increased. If now, after you have allowed this to be before the public for one day, or two days, or anything less than the full statutory requirement, you can then, by a simple exercise of volition, nullify it, you can not fail to see that not only is the purpose of the statute in requiring the notice to be given defeated in the particular case, but that the public is deceived, and very likely to some extent defrauded.

"A conclusive answer to your question is that the statute does not intend that advances or reductions of rates shall be effected in any such way. It contemplates no notice of withdrawal of advertised rates except such as shall be in itself a rate sheet of new rates established to take effect in the place of those which are withdrawn.

"If, therefore, a carrier would establish rates which are an advance upon those which he has already established to go into effect at a day named, but which has not yet arrived, he must do so by a new rate sheet published and to take effect in not less than ten days from the time of posting the same. If he would make a reduction in the rates which he has established to take effect at a future date, he can do so by a rate sheet showing the reductions, published and to take effect not less than three days from the time of publishing the same; complying, of course, in each case, with the requirement that the new rate sheet shall be filed with the Commission. A merc withdrawal of the rate sheet, or notice that it will be withdrawn, can have no legal effect whatever in such a case, because it is not any such proceeding as the law has provided for.

"Very respectfully yours,

"THOMAS M. COOLEY,

"Chairman."

On May 10th, 1890, the auditor received from Charles A. Jewett, acting secretary of the Southern Interstate Association, a letter of which the following is a copy:

"C. C. MCCAIN, Esq.,

"ST. LOUIS, Mo., May 8th, 1890.

"Auditor, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C. :

"DEAR SIR: Will you kindly favor me at your earliest convenience with a ruling on the following: An advanced rate being issued to-day effective the 23rd, what notice would be necessary in case a lower rate was promulgated three days hence, same being an advance over rate in effect prior to first issue referred to? Would it require ten days, applying to advance in rates, or only three days, applying on reduction?

"Your letter of May 8th, addressed to the auditor of the Commission, is before me. In reply I am directed by the Commission to say that in the case you suppose a ten days' notice is clearly required by the statute. This is very obvious, for what you propose to do is to advance rates which are in force at the time the notice is given, and it is not competent to do this under the statute without giving the full statutory notice of ten days.

"Of course when you speak of giving notice I understand you to refer to the making, posting, and filing of a new tariff.

"Very respectfully yours,

"THOMAS M. COOLEY,
"Chairman."

May 16th, 1890, the Commission received from John G. Taylor, general passenger and ticket agent of the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, the following telegram:

"AUDITOR, INTERSTATE COMMERCE,

"MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., May 16th, 1890.

66

Washington, D. C.:

"Circular No. 16, dated May sixteenth, 1890, taking effect May nineteenth, 1890, canceling circular No. 15, dated May fifteenth, 1890, issued to-day. Printed circular to you by mail to-night. "JOHN G. TAYLOR."

The reception of this was acknowledged, and afterwards the following letter was sent:

"JOHN G. TAYLOR, Esq.,

"WASHINGTON, May 21st, 1890.

"G. P. and T. A., etc., Minneapolis, Minnesota :

"DEAR SIR: Replying more fully to your telegram of May 16th than was done by the telegraphic response, I desire to call your attention to the fact that, under the statute, the method contemplated whereby a rate sheet is to be canceled after it has been once posted and filed and thus placed before the public as the statute requires, is by substituting in the place thereof another rate sheet covering the ground of the first. The statute does not contemplate the canceling of rate sheets otherwise.

66

Precisely what was done by you in the way of canceling the particular circular that you refer to we are not as yet informed, because we have not received the printed circular you say has been sent to us. Possibly in what you have done you may have intended to comply with the statute strictly, and you may have done so in fact.

"This letter is sent to you for the reason that in some instances it has come to the knowledge of the Commission that carriers have supposed they might withdraw rate sheets established by them by mere notice given to that effect, and have assumed, after giving such notice, to act upon the rate sheets previously in existence.

"Very respectfully yours,

"THOMAS M. COOLEY,

"Chairman."

These letters show the views held by the Commission upon the general subject to which they relate. A rate sheet once published and filed as the statute requires must come into effect in accordance with its terms unless it is superseded by some other rate sheet of which due notice is given to the public, and that notice, as above stated, must be given by the posting and filing of a rate sheet to take its place. It may, therefore, happen that a rate sheet notifying a reduction in existing rates may for a time be in force, although previous to its taking effect a new one has been established as a substitution, the new one not having come into effect as soon as the other because the ten days' statutory notice had not expired.

No notice is taken above of the case of a carrier withdrawing a rate sheet with the purpose of going out of the business to which it refers, none of the communications being understood to refer to such a case.

By order of the Commission:

THOMAS M. COOLEY,

Chairman.

EDW. A. MOSELEY,

Secretary.

The following expressions bearing upon the subject of tariffs and classifications, and the duties of carriers in relation thereto, have been collated from letters of the Commission, decisions, and the annual reports:

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOINT RATES AND COMBINATION RATES DEFINED.

[Letter of Chairman Cooley of May 24, 1890.]

MAY 24, 1890.

DEAR SIR: Auditor McCain has brought to my attention your letter of April 4, 1890, together with accompanying correspondence, which you transmitted to him for the purpose of ascertaining whether the views you had expressed in such cor