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except such as shall be in itself a rate sheet of new rates established to take effect in the place of those which are withdrawn.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 A mere withdrawal of the rate sheet, or notice that it will be withdrawn, can have no legal effect whatever in such a case, because it is not any such proceeding as the law has provided for.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, 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? "Yours truly, "CHAS. A. JEWETT, Reply was made to this letter as follows: "CHARLES A. JEWETT, Esq., "Acting Secretary, etc., St. Louis, Missouri: "DEAR SIR: me. "WASHINGTON, May 21st, 1890. "Your letter of May 8th, addressed to the auditor of the Commission, is before 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, 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. "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. "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 respondence were or were not the correct legal views in respect to the obligations then in question before you. The questions seem to have been raised by a rate sheet, issued by the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, reducing rates from Chicago to points in the Indian Territory, and also from the same points to Chicago, which rates, by the terms of the rate sheet, were to take effect March 29 last. You say you did not receive a copy of the sheet covering this business, which is your authority for issuing a joint rate sheet, until the date named for it to become effective, and you, to cover the reduction in rates made an allowance for five days' notice, sending a copy of your rate sheet to this office. The question, as I understand it, is at what time the rates fixed by the new rate sheet took effect in fact; whether the companies in your association in making use of the rates thus reduced should treat them as effective from March 29 or only from the day specified by yourself, that is to say, with the allowance of the additional five days' notice after the issuing of your rate sheet. In order to determine a question of this nature it is necessary of course, to refer to the law regarding the making and publication of rate sheets. Referring to that it will be seen that two classes of rate sheets are provided for; first, those which relate to rates made by a carrier upon its own line; and second, those that relate to rates made by a carrier in conjunction with one or more other carriers; the latter being called in the statute, joint rates, fares, and charges. These latter, of course, are only made with the consent of the carriers over whose lines the persons and property are to be carried, for which the joint rates, fares, and charges are made. Now, where rates are exclusively over the line of one company the concurrence of another is, of course, not necessary; but I do not understand that there is anything improper or illegal in any carrier that has established any rates upon its own line giving rates to points upon the lines of other roads, making those rates by the addition of its own legally established rates to those which prevail, and which in the same way are legally established upon the lines of the other road. In other words, a combination of rates made in that manner is perfectly legal, and the publication of the combination by any one of the carriers, although it has not been agreed to between them, might not only be legal but be a great convenience to the public. Now, I do not understand from your letter whether the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway, in the new rate sheet issued by them, assumed to make any change in the rates established by any other company. It is consistent with the rate sheet that all they did was to reduce their own local rates, and then in making_rates to and from Chicago to add the prevailing legal rates beyond their own line. If this was all they did, and if they published their own reduced rates legally, they would not seem to have violated any law. Turning now to your own obligation and duty as joint agent of the Chicago and St. Louis Traffic Association, you are aware, of course, that this association is not a legal entity known to the law as such, it is not a corporation, and as an association it is in no way referred to, recognized, and legalized by the law. It nevertheless, as the Commission thinks, is properly in existence, and is no doubt found by the companies that unite in forming it to be a very great public convenience. It is especially convenient as an agent to put before the public in its territory the rates which prevail therein, as well as the rates which prevail from points therein to other points outside its territory, and the publications which it makes, by the authority of the carriers uniting in the association, appear to be legal if they are made with due regard to time of publication and other requisites. But now, in making a rate to a point outside the territory of the uniting roads upon the line of a road not a member of the association, if the rate is in fact made up only by combination of legally existing rates, the association, or you as its joint agent, or any members of the association, are not under obligation to publish for three days or ten days, according as the rates are reduced or raised, the rate thus given. In other words, such a rate is not a joint rate; it is a mere combination of local rates. The rates combined are supposed to have been legally published, and the combination can be made effective in your territory in making up your own rate sheets from the time when the publication was made on the part of any party that had made the rates with which you combine. Perhaps this statement is sufficient to cover the question you raise. It would have been much better if the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway had furnished you their tariff in time for you to make publication for the proper time in advance, but I do not see that they were under any legal obligation to do so; neither is it a matter of necessity that the rate thus made up by a combination of the legal rates should be filed in the office of all the roads over which the rates are named; it is for the convenience of the public that it should be so filed, but it is not required by law. The difference between combination rates and joint rates commonly is this, that joint rates are something less than the combination. To make them effective they must not only have the consent of all the roads in interest, but the joint rate sheet must also be posted in all of the offices to bind the roads uniting in making them. It is very proper, as I think, that joint rates should be made and published through the agency of associations like yours. The rate sheet you sent here is called upon its face a joint rate sheet; this does not necessarily determine that it is so in fact. Rates made by combination are perhaps most commonly called joint rates, though they are not the joint rates intended by statute. If these rates are joint rates in fact, that is to say, if they are agreed upon by the parties and are something different from a combination of the rates, the publication actually made by the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway, as indicated above, would obviously be insufficient. The roads for sometime past have been making what they call a "basing rate,” which may raise some questions hereafter; but I say nothing of that now, because your letter does not refer to it. PROPORTIONAL TARIFFS. The following is a copy of a letter addressed by the chairman of the Commission to an official of one of the freight associations who asks whether a carrier may make and publish a tariff covering proportional rates which are less than the local rates to the same point: JUNE 22, 1889. Sometime since you proposed to the Commission a question which you state as follows: "May a railroad company make a tariff which shall show and be only its proportions to be charged to a given point on traffic to further points, the rates in such proportional tariff being less than the local tariff of the same company to the same points." You illustrate the question with particular instances, but it is perhaps not important to repeat them here. The Commission has repeatedly held that it is not not necessary that the proportion a railroad shall consent to receive of a through rate should be the same as its local rate for transportation over an identical line. It is fully impressed that the proper transaction of the business of the country compels the acceptance in a great many cases, and perhaps generally of a less sum as the proportion of a through rate than is charged as a local rate, and that any ruling that the two must be identically the same would be as unfortunate to the commercial interests of the country as it would be to the railroads themselves. But in the case stated by you, you desire to avoid the making of through rates to the points of ultimate destination, and you hope to get a ruling that a carrier may make two rates covering exactly the same line and no more, which shall differ, the difference depending upon the fact that the freight is to be taken by another carrier in one case, at the point of delivery, and transported to a point beyond, while in the other case it is to be locally delivered. You are right in saying that the proposed arrangement accomplishes precisely the same purpose as the making of a through rate, and that it saves to the carriers cost and labor which would otherwise be needlessly expended, but the Commission does not see its way how this can be done under the law. The reasons for doubt are numerous, and perhaps it is not necessary to give them here; but I assure you that we have given the subject careful attention, with entire willingness to meet the wishes of the railroad companies if it were possible to do so. But at the very least we think that the point presented is doubtful, and that the companies who should make arrangements of the sort proposed, should understand that the Commission has doubts regarding their legality, and that risks are assumed in making them. The converse of the arrangement suggested by you has been proposed in other cases, and carriers have assumed to make, over their own lines, a rate less than their local rate upon property that is brought to them by other carriers, though they have no agreed through rate. Here, again, doubtful ground is occupied. The statute contemplates local rates and joint rates, but it intends, as we believe, that joint rates shall be agreed upon, and shall not be left to be made in the manner you suggest, or as they have been made in the cases just alluded to above. You mention the fact that the Commission has decided that a rate may be made by the addition of the locals. This, we think, is very clear, but in that case there is no reducing of the local to form a through rate not agreed upon as such in advance. REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE POSTING OF PASSENGER RATE SHEETS. [Letter of Chairman Cooley, of April 11, 1891.] DEAR SIR: Acknowledging your favor of the 9th instant, I have to say that as you state the facts I do not see but that your company, as to the cases to which the statement applies, is acting in entire conformity with the law to regulate commerce, and meeting its requirements. Lest, however, there may be some deficiency of statement, and to avoid all possible misapprehension, I will give more fully my understanding of what the law requires in regard to the posting of rate sheets. First. Every carrier subject to the law must post in its office, and keep posted, the rate sheets which show the fares and charges made from and to all stations upon its road, and must file the same with the Commission. This, I understand from your letter, you are careful to do. Second. If the carrier issues coupon tickets for the transportation of passengers, or gives bills of lading for the transportation of freights over the lines of other carriers, and the fares or rates are made by adding its own fares and rates to those of the carrier or carriers over whose lines the persons or property are to be transported, and which, like its own, have been duly posted and filed, I do not understand that this fact makes it necessary that the carrier should post in its own offices the rate sheets of such other carrier or carriers. Third. If one carrier unites with one or more others in making a rate which is made by some concession by itself, so that its proportion of a rate is less than its regular rate as published, I understand this to be a joint rate, which all the carriers uniting in it are under obligations to print, post, and file with the Commission and to keep posted in their offices. This is the only way in which the public could be properly informed concerning it. It is not made by the mere addition of rates which individual carriers make and publish, but is something different therefrom, and made by modifying the individual rates, and the notice you send would not in terms or to the common understanding apply to such a rate. I do not see that your letter applies to such a joint rate at all, and it is possible that you do not unite in making any, though I think this is very unusual for so important a line as your own. I trust now I have made clear to you what I understand the requirements of the law are in respect to the posting of rate sheets, and if not I shall be pleased to hear from you again. I note with great satisfaction what you say regarding the purpose of the road you represent to comply fully with the requirements of the act in the matter referred to, and I trust the management of your road will not limit this purpose to the mere publication and filing of rate sheets, but will extend it to all of the provisions of the act intended for the regulation of the carriers which are subject to it. Very respectfully, T. M. COOLEY, Chairman. UNIFORMITY OF TARIFFS AND CLASSIFICATIONS. But though the carriers make and file their tariffs as required by the aet, there is no general uniformity to the tariffs or to the classifications either in form or in general method of preparation. This is unfortunate for several reasons, but especially because the public, who have to deal with many carriers, are likely to be confused between the different methods of giving information, and possibly to be misled in some cases. The difficulty of making use of them for the purposes of the Commission is also greatly enhanced by want of uniformity. (First Annual Report I. C. C., 24.) * * CLASSIFICATION. A classification sheet is put before the public for general information; it is supposed to be expressed in plain terms, so that the ordinary business man can understand it, and in connection with the rate sheets determine for himself what he can be lawfully charged for transportation. (Hurlburt v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 2 I. C. C. Report, 120.) COMBINATION RATES UNDER SEPARATE CLASSIFICATIONS. "It is not at all surprising that the public fail to consult tariffs which confessedly do not give the rate which actually would be charged in a very great number of instances, and which are used in connection with a system of double classification to basing points, and thence to local points in both directions. There would apparently be no use for their doing so, as any information which they might gather from schedules so prepared would be of no practical value." (In re Tariffs and Classifications of Atlanta and West Point Railroad et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 19.) |