What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
actual alleged allowed amount appears applied Atlantic Baltimore Boston carried carriers cars Central cents charge Chicago circumstances claim Commission commodities competition complainant connection consideration corn cost cotton court Crosse Danville defendant determined difference discrimination distance division domestic east effect export export rate fact flour follows force freight grain greater haul hearing higher Illinois intermediate Inters Interstate Commerce Kansas City less Louis Louisville lower Lynchburg Michigan miles mills Milwaukee Minneapolis Missouri Nashville operating original Orleans Pacific Palatka Pensacola Philadelphia points ports pounds practice present published question rail Railroad Company Railway Railway Company reasonable received reduction reference Regulate reported result River road rule Savannah shipments shipped shippers South Southern stations sugar tariff territory testimony Texas tickets tion traffic transportation United unreasonable violation Western York
Page 655 - She was employed as an instrument of that commerce ; for whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article of trade from one state to another, commerce in that commodity between the states has commenced.
Page 641 - States having jurisdiction in the locality where such violation shall have been committed, and it shall be the duty of such district 'attorney to bring such suits upon duly verified information being lodged with him of such violation having occurred. And it shall also be the duty of the Interstate Commerce Commission to lodge with the proper district attorneys information of any such violations as may come to its knowledge...
Page 641 - ... to be recovered in a suit or suits to be brought by the United States district attorney in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction in the locality where such violation shall have been committed...
Page 640 - January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.
Page 92 - That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this Act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance...
Page 672 - ... facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several lines and those connecting therewith, and shall not discriminate in their rates and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in like business.
Page 528 - All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transportation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection therewith, or for the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable and just; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
Page 713 - The State cannot justify unreasonably low rates for domestic transportation, considered alone, upon the ground that the carrier is earning large profits on its interstate business, over which, so far as rates are concerned, the State has no control.
Page 497 - What the company is entitled to ask is a fair return upon the value of that which it employs for the public convenience. On the other hand, what the public is entitled to demand is that no more be exacted from it for the use of a public highway than the services rendered by it are reasonably worth.
Page 352 - In order further to guard against any misapprehension of the scope of our decision it may be well to observe that we do not hold that the mere fact of competition, no matter what its character or extent, necessarily relieves the carrier from the restraints of the third and fourth sections, but only that these sections are not so stringent and imperative as to exclude in all cases the matter of competition from consideration in determining the questions of "undue or unreasonable preference or advantage,"...