This announcement respecting times and places of hearing and method of procedure is subject to change or enlargement in the discretion of the Commission.

of the Act of Congress entitled "An Act to transportation of property between stations on Regulate Commerce," by the Southern Rail- their respective lines where more is charged for way & Steamship Association, an organization a shorter than for a longer haul, which shall composed of the following railroad companies, be greater than the rates in force and charged lines and systems and steamship lines operated and received by said carriers, respectively, on in connection therewith, to wit: Alabama the 31st day of March, 1887, schedules of Great Southern Railroad; Atlantic & West which have been filed with the Commission. Point Railroad Company; Central Railroad of It is made a further condition of this order, Georgia; Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas That a printed copy hereof shall be forthwith Pacific Railroad Company; East Tennessee, publicly posted and kept with the schedule of Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company; Geor- rates, fares and charges at every station upon gia Railroad Company; Georgia Pacific Rail- the lines of said common carriers where such way Company; Louisville & Nashville Railroad schedule is by law required to be posted and Company System; Nashville, Chattanooga & kept for the use of the public. St. Louis Railway Company; Norfolk & West- And it is further ordered, That the Commisern Railroad Company; Port Royal & Augusta sion convene at Atlanta on April 26, 1887, and Railway Company; Richmond & Danville thereafter at Mobile on April 29, at New OrRailroad Company; Rome Railroad Company; leans on May 2, and at Memphis on May 4, Savannah, Griffin & North Alabama Railroad for the consideration of the subject matter of Company; Seaboard & Roanoke Railroad Com- said petition; at which places and times said pany; South Carolina Railway Company; South common carriers or any of them may appear & North Alabama Railway Line; Western and present application for said relief, with eviRailroad of Alabama; Western & Atlantic Rail- dence in support thereof, which applications in road Company; Atlantic Coast Line System; each case must show the precise relief desired, Baltimore, Chesapeake & Richmond Steamboat the facts upon which the same is claimed, and Company; Boston & Savannah Steamship the extent to which relief from the operation Company; Clyde's steam lines; Merchants & of said section of said Act is asked for. And Miners Transportation Company; New York at the same places and times any persons inter& Charleston Steamship Company; Ocean ested in opposing any such applications may Steamship Company; Old Dominion Steamship also appear and be heard; and at any time prior Company-common carriers subject to the pro- to May 6, 1887, the Commission will receive visions of said Act,-for authority to charge less printed or written communications in support for longer than for shorter distances in certain or in opposition to the relief asked by said pecases; that is to say, for the transportation of titions. property from and to Boston, Providence, New York City, * etc. ** and points southerly therefrom, *** and certain of said railroad companies, lines and systems having also severally made application for like authority so far as said points are reached by them respectively; and said common carriers having presented as a reason for granting their said application the existence of water and other competition, claiming that the same cannot be met, except by maintaining the rates heretofore established to and from the said points, which are alleged to be too low to enable said common carriers to carry on business if applied to said local intermediate points; and further, claiming that great disturbance of business will occur if present traffic arrangements and rates are immediately changed; and it appearing to the Commission after investigation of the said petition and the facts presented in support thereof, to be a proper case for a temporary order authorizing existing rates to be maintained for the time being, until the Commission can make a complete examination of the matters alleged in said petition as reasons for relieving said common carriers from the operation of said section of said Act; It is ordered, That the said application be and the same hereby is granted temporarily; subject to modification or revocation by the Commission at any time, upon hearing, or otherwise; and the said common carriers are hereby temporarily relieved from the operation of the fourth section of said Act, to the extent specified in the recitals of this order, and for a period not greater than ninety days from this date; subject, however, to the restriction that none of the said common carriers, while this order remains in force, shall in any case charge or receive compensation for the

(April 5-7, 1887.)

Re SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO. Applications to the Commission for special exception under the Act will be granted only after investigation of thefacts, upon a verified petition formally presenting a case.

THE following telegrams were received and
sent by the Commission:
San Francisco, April 4.
To Judge T. M. Cooley, Chairman:
The question is before us, in competition with
the Suez Canal route for business with China
and Japan, whether we can make competing
prices through to Atlantic ports at less rates
than local rates charged; say from San Fran-
cisco to New York, the line from China and
Japan being a continuous one in connection
with the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Rail-
ways.

The question is also before us of making, in competition with Cape Horn and the Isthmus of Panama, a railroad rate that permits shipments between San Francisco and Atlantic ports, those rates (in order to meet competition) being necessarily lower for a longer distance than those charged for a shorter, and far below what would be a reasonable rate for the service performed.

We construe the fourth section of the Interstate Commerce Act practically to be in substance the application to interstate commerce of the common-law principle that the shipper avail himself of competition, and that a less rate may be charged for a longer than a shorter distance, providing more could not be obtained. If the right of competition is recognized as be-destined to points east of Detroit and St. Clair tween the carrier and the shipper, our carrying business will not be interrupted; but otherwise we shall be unable to compete for the Chinese and Japanese trade with the Suez Canal, and also unable to compete with the water routes by Panama and Cape Horn for business originating in California. We await your construction. Leland Stanford.

The operation of section 4 of the Act suspended for ninety days, as to the traffic the Southern Railway & Steamship Associa of the petitioner between certain points.

4. May railway companies issue free or re- | a power conferred by the statute, would carry duced transportation to those who make rail- with it no judicial efficacy or sanction; in fact way service their business or trade while tem- it would be no more useful to the public or porarily out of employment and in search of the carriers than the opinion of other men upon situations? the same points.

5. May railway companies provide free transportation for delegates to the annual conventions of an association composed exclusively of railway employees, upon certificates from the officers of the association that they are such representatives?

6. If free transportation may be furnished to representatives described in question 5, must all such representatives be actually in the employ of some railway, or may it include those who may be temporarily out of employment, and those temporarily engaged in other employments as officers of such association?

Two sections of the law confer power upon the Commission to entertain and decide applications and petitions.

Section 4 empowers us, upon application by a common carrier, to authorize such common carrier in special cases to charge less for longer than for shorter distances over the same line, and also to prescribe the extent of relief from the operation of the former part of the same section which a designated common carrier may from time to time enjoy. A number of petitions have been filed under this section, the consideration of which is at the present time engaging the attention of the Commission; and nothing said in this opinion is to be treated as in any manner bearing thereon. It is obvious that applications like those of the Railway 8. If free transportation or reduced rates are Conductors and the Traders and Travelers' provided for the representatives of any one as- Union have no relation whatever to the duties sociation, must the same be extended to all imposed upon us by section 4. And this is the others which are composed exclusively of rail-only section of the law which the Commission way employees, on application? has power to suspend or relax.,

7. If free transportation is provided for delegates described in question 5, may it include members of the immediate families of delegates?

Another application has been made to the Section 13 authorizes complaints to the ComCommission on behalf of the Traders and Trav-mission, and confers jurisdiction to entertain elers' Union, stating the system under which the same. It provides that any person, etc., an additional allowance of free baggage has "complaining of anything done or omitted to been heretofore carried by commercial travel- be done by any common carrier subject to the ers, subject to written agreement for registry provisions of this Act in contravention of the and indemnification; which system the Com-provisions thereof, may apply to said Commismission is requested to examine carefully, "and sion by petition, which shall briefly state the advise us if there is any reason why a railroad facts.' company, desiring to do so, should not enter into such an arrangement to grant, under stated terms, an increased allowance of free baggage." These two petitions, presented by highly respectable organizations and raising questions of immediate practical importance, are representatives of a large number of similar applications which have been made to the Commission for its construction of provisions of the "Act to regulate commerce" as applied to the various points at which those provisions touch the customs of the past. They have been selected simply because they indicate the general character of all, and enable the Commission to announce certain conclusions to which it has arrived respecting its jurisdiction and its powers.

Notice and opportunity for answer having been given, unless satisfaction is made, an investigation is required. Upon such an investigation the Commission will necessarily entertain the consideration of the question whether the conduct complained of is or is not in contravention of the provisions of the law; and if it so adjudges, it is authorized to issue a notice enjoining the carrier from further violation of the law, and to award reparation for the injury done, or both.

But neither the Railway Conductors nor the Traders and Travelers' Union complain that any common carrier has violated the law. On the contrary, they both aver that the railroad companies do not now violate the law, and do not wish to do so. The conductors say that It is obvious, from the tenor of such applica- they fear they will not receive free passes as tions as these, which reach us by every mail, heretofore; and the traders and travelers say that the impression is generally prevalent that that they fear commercial travelers will not be this Commission has power to construe, inter- allowed free transportation for 150 pounds of pret and apply the law, by preliminary judg-extra baggage, as was allowed last year. They ment. We are continually appealed to for de- present no complaint of anything done or omitcisions in advance as to whether common ted in contravention of the provisions of the carriers, said to be willing to adopt certain methods of dealing with respect to interstate commerce, can do so without subjecting themselves to the penalties denounced by the statute for violation of its provisions.

A careful reading of the "Act to regulate commerce," under which this Commission is organized, will show to the petitioners and others who have made similar applications that no jurisdiction has been given us to answer questions like those under consideration. An expression of our opinion upon these subjects at this time, being neither a duty imposed nor

Law.

If a railroad company should issue a pass to a conductor and his family to attend the approaching convention, or should transport 300 pounds of baggage free for a commercial traveler under the registry and indemnity system, and some person, feeling aggrieved, should make complaint of unjust discrimination, it would then be proper for the Commission to entertain the question of whether such conduct was or was not in violation of the Law, and if so, whether it was or was not within the exceptions stated within section 22. Complaints

may also be presented if the charges made by the carriers are not considered reasonable and just. But until questions of this kind come before us in the way clearly indicated by the statute, it would be worse than useless for us to express opinions or give advice.

We should not only lay ourselves justly open to the charge of assuming unwarranted authority, but should also run great risk of involving all concerned in what the courts might afterwards hold to be breaches of the law by hasty and ill considered conclusions, based upon ex parte statements and arguments. Although it might be desirable, or at least convenient, in respect to any piece of new legislation, to have a tribunal established to which inquirers might apply for instruction and advice respecting the meaning of the law and its application to suggested "circumstances and conditions," a moment's reflection will show that no such tribunal could be properly erected. Congress has not taken the management of the railroads out of the hands of the railroad companies. It has simply established certain general principles under which interstate commerce must be conducted.

a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court, and collected with the costs in the case. It is also true that section 10 imposes a fine of "not to exceed $5,000" upon common carriers and their officers, agents and servants who willfully do or cause to be done, or willingly suffer or permit to be done, any prohibited act, etc., upon conviction in a District Court of the United States. The civil remedy described in section 8 adds an attorney's fee to the existing common-law right of an injured party, to recover the full amount of his damages, a condition of affairs which cannot greatly alarm corporations disposed to fair dealing; while the criminal remedy given in section 10 obviously pertains to intentional violations of the law, and is in these cases to be graduated by the court according to the enormity of the offense.

Good faith, exhibited in an honest effort to carry out the requirements of the law, will involve reasonable and fair minded officials in no danger of damages or fines. The elasticity of the statute in their favor is noticeable. The unjust discrimination of section 2 must be "in a like and contemporaneous service in the transIt has enacted in section 1 that all charges portation of a like kind of traffic under substanfor interstate transportation shall be reasonable tially similar circumstances and conditions." and just; has prohibited in section 2 all manner The preference or advantage of section 3 must of unjust discriminations; has forbidden in sec- be "undue or unreasonable." Throughout the tion 3 all undue and unreasonable preferences; Act, as it now stands, in confessedly experihas required in the same section reasonable and mental form, there is exhibited an obvious and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic, a generous purpose to allow to the corporations and has prohibited in section 5 the pooling of ample scope in the conduct of their business as freights. That, in substance, is the Interstate common carriers for the people, and fair conCommerce Law. There is nothing novel in these sideration of every reasonable claim, while inprovisions. They simply bring back the busi-sisting upon just, impartial, open and consistness of the common carriers to the well settled principles of the common law. Yet no one can deny that there was urgent need of their statutory formulation. Alleged difficulties in putting them in operation only disclose examples of the extent to which they have been violated in the past.

These sections of the Act are expressed in plain words. A construction must be given to them in the first instance by the carriers and their patrons. When a course of conduct has been adopted of which complaint is made that it violates the law, the decision of the question will rest with the courts or with the Commission, as the complaining party may elect. This is the orderly method in which all legislation is administered and applied; and the statute in question presents no exception.

One more suggestion may properly be added. It appears from the numerous petitions that have been laid before us for preliminary advice, many of them obviously upon the suggestion, if not by the procurement, of the carriers themselves, that common comment on the law by the carriers and those who have heretofore enjoyed special favors at their hands describe the system of penalties which the law provides as extreme, and the risks imposed upon unintentional and unwitting violators of its provisions

as enormous.

Such comment seems to us neither fair nor just. It is true that section 8 provides that for violation of the law, and for failure to do an act which the law requires, the offending common carrier shall be liable to the injured party for the actual damages sustained, together with

ent rates of charge to which every citizen shall be subject alike whose situation is the same. Surely the people could not ask for less.

The language and the tenor of the Act wholly fail to justify railroad managers, if any such there be, who refuse to accept responsibilities, decline to offer rates, neglect to announce conditions of traffic, embarrass the customary interchange of business and impose stagnation upon trade while they "stick in the bark" of the phrases and expressions of the law, inventing doubts and imagining dangers. It is still more unjustifiable for railroad companies to make use of the general clauses of the law, ignoring its modifying and enlarging words and formulas in order to impose additional burdens upon localities, trades, professions, manufacturers, consumers, classes of travelers or employees, straining and repressing every construction in favor of the corporate treasury, and quoting the new law as their authority for all manner of petty exactions. The powers of the Commission are entirely adequate to cope with such conduct, the existence of which is not affirmed, although it has been somewhat publicly suggested. The same statute which enacts that charges for like service shall be uniform to all also provides that charges in every case, and for every kind and class of service, shall be reasonable and just.

As the law is practically applied it is seen to contain many elements of advantage to the economical and profitable management of the business of the carriers, which they have not been slow to apprehend and take the benefit of. The Commission ventures to express the hope