то The Advance Bulletin supplements the Commission's bound volumes of :erstate Commerce Acts Annotated. This issue is number 12 of volume 1. A ber of Bulletins will constitute a volume; and the pages will be numbered secutively within each volume rather than within individual Bulletins. cilitate the location of subject headings, the Table of Contents of each lletin may ultimately be removed to form a cumulative table for the volume. e Bulletin is published bimonthly. Members of the public, attorneys and practitioners, the I.C.C. staff y consult the consolidated file from which the Bulletin is compiled in Room 64 of the I.C.C. Building. For cases which appear in the Bulletin only as considered or appealed, prior citations and annotations may be obtained by nsulting the consolidated file or by calling Mr. John F. McMorrow or Mr. bert A. Emery, (202) 275-7143. Material in this volume of the Bulletin will appear in Volume 22 of e Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated. Where a Bulletin case is marked with asterisk (*), its history may be found in the Table of Cases at the back the Bulletin. Volume 21 of the Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated is now available om the U.S. Government Printing Office (Stock No. 2600-00970) and may be dered from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, ashington, D.C. 20402, at $18.65 per copy, payable by check or money order O the Superintendent of Documents. The Advance Bulletin is prepared in the Annotations Unit under the rection of Mr. Jack R. Long, Chief, Reference Services Branch, Section of ase Control and Information, Office of Proceedings, Interstate Commerce Com ission, Washington, D.C. 20423. Comments and suggestions regarding improveent of the format of the Bulletin will be welcomed, and may be made in writing by calling (202) 275-7221. 1(4). DUTY TO FURNISH TRANSPORTATION AND ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES; DIVISION Carriers to Provide and Furnish Transportation 4. Jurisdiction of Commission and of courts.--Although the Commision has limited jurisdiction to enforce the common carrier duty required by 1(4) [Duralite Co., 339 I.C.C. 312; U.S. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 242 U.S. 08], there is no jurisdictional obstacle in proceedings which also involve esolution of issues under other sections of the Act.--Cancellation of RI&P & Soo Line Rates-Livestock, 340 I.C.C. 463 (467)*. What Embraced in Transportation to be Furnished 25. In general.--In this proceeding, Commission instituted an investigation into deficiencies of railroad freight service especially as regards the failure to meet schedules, terminal delays, erratic deliveries, unching of deliveries, and placing of cars unfit for use which were considered in some detail in Increased Freight Rates, 1970 and 1971, 339 I.C.C. 125.--Investigation of Railroad Freight Service, 341 I.C.C. 1 (3-8). $1(5). JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES Similarity of Services and Circumstances 223. Differences in rates warranted when transportation conditions dissimilar.--Complainant's allegation of unreasonableness is based entirely on the premise of similarity in the transportation characteristics of freight trailers and farm trailers. A comparison of these characteristics, set forth herein, proves complainant's premise clearly erroneous. Assailed rates on freight trailers not shown unjust or unreasonable or otherwise unlawful.United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 341 I.C.C. 22 (26-27). Commodity Description; Economic Trends; Sources and Destinations 350. Rates prescribed or approved.--Since proposed rate increases on southbound Alaskan fish products came almost immediately on the heels of the selective and substantial increases on the same products of February 1971, and respondents did not meet their burden of showing that the revenue contribution of fish products traffic is so poor as to justify another increase, the Commission's order excluded the products from the effect of the proposed increases.--Increased Rates and Charges, the Alaska Railroad, 340 I.C.C. 129 (162-63). Rates Based on Quantity of Traffic 518. Trainload rates.--Respondents' rationale for proposed cancellation of multicar rates on kaolin clay, that there was no competitive necessity for retention of a discount rate and that there were no cost savings experienced by them in the movement of large volumes of clay at |