I. POWER OF CONGRESS. COMMERCE, I—II, a. 1. Power to regulate interstate commerce vested in Congress is the power to prescribe the rules by which it shall be governed. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. less affect interstate commerce. Ouachita etc. ester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Packet Co. v. Aiken (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 379; GlouCt.) 352. 12. A State. can not regulate interstate commerce. Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. ton (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 306. S. Sup. Ct.) 31; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendle 2. The power of Congress is supreme over interstate commerce, unembarrassed by state laws. Id.; Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 13. A state tax upon interstate commerce is (U. S. C. Ct., N. J.) 411. S. P. cited in Bow-void. Re Hennick (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 66. S. P.. man v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 830. 833. 3. The failure of Congress to make express regulations indicates that the subject shall be free. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382; Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 308; Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 45; S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 829. 14. A state law imposing such tax is not cured by including in its provisions subjects within jurisdiction of State. Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 308; Re Hennick (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 70. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 834. 15. No State can impose a tax upon that por4. The control of navigable waters tion of interstate commerce which is involved constituting channels of communication be in the transportation of persons and tween States and foreign countries is within property, whatever be the instrumentality by commercial power of Congress. Cited in which it is carried on. Cited in Bowman v. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 829. S. Sup. Ct.) 388; S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chi-P. in Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U.S. cago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 840. Sup. Ct.) 382. 5. Power to regulate commerce between States extends to the erection of piers, bridges and all other instrumentalities of commerce which, in judgment of Congress, may be necessary or expedient. Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411. 16. The only state interference with the landing and receiving of passengers and freight which is permissible is confined to such measures as will prevent confusion among vessels and collision between them, and insure their safety and convenience and facilitate the discharge and receipt of passengers and freight. Id. 382. 6. Act of Congress of June 16, 1886, authorizing construction of bridge across Staten 17. State law requiring master of vesIsland Sound, known as Arthur Kill, is sel engaged in foreign commerce to pay cervalid under power of Congress to regulato in-tain sum to state officer on account of each terstate commerce. Id.; Decker v. Baltimore passenger brought from a foreign country & O. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. Y.) 434. is void. Cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 836. 7. Regulation of fares and freights for transportation between different States is within power of Congress. Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct 308. II. STATE POWERS AND RESTRICTIONS. a. Interstate Commerce Generally. 8. Interstate commerce consists of intercourse and traffic between citizens of different States, and includes the transportation of prop erty and the navigation of public waters for that purpose, as well as the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 830. 9. Transportation of property from one State to another is interstate commerce, whether carriers engaged in moving it or vehicles on which it is borne, cross line of State or not. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct. Or.) 28. 18. Wharfage is subject to local state laws, Congress having passed no Act to regulate it. Ouachita etc. Packet Co. v. Aiken (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 379. 19. Charges for wharfage graduated by tonnage of vessels using wharf are not open to objection that they are duties on tonage within meaning of Constitution. Id. it in no way concerns those who pay them charges to maintain, extend, light and po- sale, although they become thereby a part of 10. A transportation of goods under one contract and by one voyage from the interior of Illinois to New York is interstate com-vania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 311. merce. Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 31. 11. In absence of interference by Congress a State may carry on works of a local character, although they necessarily more or INTER S. 23. Illinois Act regulating transportation of goods under one contract to points beyond the State is unconstitutional. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.)31. 24. State tax upon gross receipts of railroads for carriage of freight or passen-over commerce must give way to supremgers into, out of or through State, is void. acy of national authority. Id. Fargo v. Stevens (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 51. 25. State tax upon earnings of sleeping car company engaged in transporting passengers from one State to another is void. Indiana v. Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. (Sup. Ct. Ind.) 798. S. P. cited in Wabash, St. Louis & P. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 37. 26. A state tax upon a steamship company upon gross receipts from transportation between different States, and to and from foreign countries, is unconstitutional. Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 308. 27. The capital stock of a foreign ferry company engaged in interstate traffic is not taxable by State. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. 28. A State may regulate the charges of public warehouses. Cited in Dis. Op. Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 44. 29. Indiana Statute regulating mode in which messages sent by telegraph companies, doing business in that State, shall be delivered in other States is void. Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 306. S. P. cited in Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 37. 30. Issuing policy of insurance is not interstate commerce. List v. Pennsylvania (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 784. b. License Tax upon Nonresidents. 38. Rhode Island, Public Statute, chap. 634, § 1, prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for sale is not obnoxious to Federal Constitution conferring exclusive power to regulate commerce upon Congress. State v. Fitzpatrick (Sup. Ct. R. I.) 713. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 835. 39. Iowa Code, § 1553, forbidding carrier to bring into State intoxicating liquors without first having certificate therein required is regulation of commerce and void. Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 823. 40. It is not legitimate exercise of police power. Id. 41. Prohibiting driving or conveying of certain cattle into State between certain days in each year is void as regulation of commerce, and is not legitimate exercise of police power. Cited in Id. 832. 42. Under police power, State may prohibit spread of crime or pauperism or disturbance of the peace; it may exclude from its limits convicts, paupers, idiots and lunatics, as well as persons afflicted with contagious diseases. Cited in Id. d. Foreign Corporations. 43. State Legislature may prescribe conditions upon which foreign corporation may do business, unless engaged in interstate commerce. List v. Pennsylvania (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 784; Indiana v. Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. (Sup. Ct. Ind.) 798; Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411. Cited in Barron v. Burnside (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 295. 31. A license tax upon nonresident merchants, drummers or agents is invalid. Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 45; Corson v. Maryland (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 44. Congress can confer upon a state 50; Re Hennick (D. C. Sup. Ct.) 66; State v. corporation powers not contained in its origPratt (Vt. Sup. Ct.) 299. S. P. cited in Bow-inal charter. Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. R. man v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 834. c. Police Regulations. 32. Arkansas Act, 1885, February 27, prohibiting greater charge than specified in bill of lading, and imposing a penalty for refusal to deliver on payment or tender of charges as shown in such bill, is within police power of State. Little Rock & F. 8. R. Co. v. Hanniford (Sup. Ct. Ark.) 580. 33. Police power of State defined and illustrated. Cited in ld. 581. 34. State cannot under cover of exerting its police powers substantially prohibit or burden interstate commerce. Cited in Boroman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 832. 35. State statute requiring locomotive engineers to be licensed is not regulation of interstate commerce. Cited in Id. 840. S. P. in Smith v. Alabama (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 804. 36. Fee to be paid by applicant for examination is not provision for raising revenue and is not tax upon transportation. Id. 804. 37. State statute which conflicts with common-law exercise of powers of Congress Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411. 45. Louisiana Constitution, § 236, providing that a foreign corporation shall have a place of business and an agent upon whom service may be made within the State, is void as a restriction on navigation. New Orleans & M. Packet Co. v. James (U. S. C. C. La.) 599. 46. Iowa Act of April 16, 1886, seeking to make the right of foreign corporations to transact business in that State dependent upon surrender of right to remove causes to fedBarron v. Burnside eral courts, is invalid. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 295. State by which created, so far as its right 47. A corporation is a citizen of the to sue and be sued in the federal courts is concerned. Id. III. LINES WHOLLY WITHIN STATE; CONNECTING LINES; OTHER SUBJECTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 48. The word "line" in the Act to Regu. late Commerce means a physical line, not a business arrangement. Boston & A. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co. 571. 49. Short road used as means of conducting interstate traffic in coal by companies owning connecting interstate roads is sub ject to Act to Regulate Commerce. Heck v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 775. 50. Such road must be accessible to interstate shippers on equal and reasonable terms, and cannot be used to discriminate between mine owners on its line. Id. 51. Knowledge of carrier, whose line is wholly within State, that the ultimate destination of freight is without State will not make it subject to Interstate Commerce Act. Missouri etc. Lumber Co. v. Cape Girardeau & S. R. Co. 607. 52. Bills of lading_over_connecting lines to points beyond the State, issued by a railroad whose line is entirely within one State, are subjects of interstate commerce. Re Annapolis, W. & B. R. Co. 315. 53. Interstate Commerce Act does not apply to carriage wholly within a State of property shipped from or destined to a point without, not in a foreign country. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. C. Or.) 28. 2. A release of liability by commercial travelers is not a good consideration for such discrimination. Id. 369. COMMISSION. (THE INTERSTATE COмMERCE.) See RULES; RULINGS. 54. Express business conducted by a 1. Commission has no jurisdiction in a case railroad company is within the Interstate presented involving agreement between TradCommerce Act; aliter as to independent ex-ers & Travelers Union and certain carriers, for press companies. Re Express Companies, 22, 317, 363, 448, 451, 456, 677. 55. Communication that bridge company discriminates against bicyclers. Re Kenton Wheel Club of Covington, 23. BRIEFS AND NOTES. Power of Congress; how far exclusive. Notes, 309, 851; 31, 786, 825; (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 45-53, 307, 382; (U. S. C. Ct.) 411, 427; (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 66-69. Power of Congress to regulate navigation. (U. S. C. Ct. N. Y.) 421, 435. State powers and restrictions. Note, 853. State tax upon interstate commerce is void. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 45–53, 307, 382; 779, 800; (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 65-69. It makes no difference whether such commerce is carried on by individuals or corporations. 801. Tax on fares is tax on passengers. 800. State quarantine laws do not derive validity from their adoption by Congress. 807. State police powers. Note, 853. State possesses power to adopt police regulations. 825. State laws prohibiting manufacture of intoxicating liquors are valid police regulations. 825. State may exercise its police power, even when it incidentally operates upon commerce. What is interstate commerce. 853. 806. Note, Transportation of passengers from one State to another is. 806. Business of ferriage between different States. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 384. allowance of extra free baggage to passengers presenting "baggage indemnity certificate" issued by such Union, under arrangement made prior to time when Act went into ef fect. Traders & Travelers Union v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 371. 2. The Commission has no authority to call a railroad company to account for a wrong effect. Holbrook v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. committed prior to time when Act went into 323. Act before violation thereof charged. Re Order of Railway Conductors, 18; Re Theatrical Rates, 18; Re Inmates of Nat. Homes, 73, 75. 3. The Commission can not construe the Commission will not pass upon the question of passes to the United States Fish Com mission. Re United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, 606. 4. In the absence of an actual case, the 5. The Commission has no power to make rates generally, but only to determine whether rates imposed by railroads are in confilict with statute. Thatcher v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 365. 6. The Commission has no power to enforce contracts, nor has it any general power Travelers Union v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 371. to manage business of carriers. Traders & 7. The Commission has only a limited power, expressly defined by the Act, to interfere to prevent wrong and oppression in specified cases. Id.; Re Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co. 605. 8. While the Act authorizes the Commission to permit exceptions, it does not authorize it to require exceptions. Thatcher v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 356. 9. Where the complaint does not state a case within its jurisdiction, the CommisTelegraphing from one State to another is. sion will not express an opinion. Re lowa (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 307. Foreign corporations; rights and priv ileges. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 295. INTER S. Barb Steel Wire Co. 605. 10. The Commission will not make any ruling where petitioner alleges legali ty of practice sought to be authorized. Re Export Trade of Boston, 25. 11. The Commission does not report cumulative evidence or mere details of evidence already embraced in substantial facts stated, upon which its findings are made. Riddle v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. 773. COMMON LAW. There is no common law of the United States distinct from the common law of Eugland as adopted by the several States, each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. Cited in Smith v. Alabama (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 808. COMMUTATION TICKET. See TICKETS, 6. COMPETITION. 7. In absence of statutory authority, one railroad company can sell tickets over road of another company only by agreement. Chicago & A. R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. 357. 8. The Act does not require one company to sell through tickets over road of another. Id. 9. Railroad companies may forbid their agents to receive commissions for sale of tickets over other companies' roads. Id. 10. The practice of one company's paying the agents of another company a commission for selling tickets over former's road is not reasonable or proper. Id. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See COM MERCE. 1. Arkansas Act, 1885, February 27, prohibiting greater charge by a carrier for transportation of freight than specified in bill of lading, and imposing a penalty for refusal to deliver on payment or tender of charges as shown in such bill, is not special legislation, nor a regulation of interstate commerce, but within police power of State. Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Hanniford (Sup. Ct. Ark.) 580. That there is competition in carriage of persons or property to or from a particular place, is a circumstance that justifies a carrier, un der section 4, to charge less for a long haul to or from such place, than a short one included therein. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct. Or.) 317; Re Southern R. & S. Asso. 278. COMPLAINT. TICE, I. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS. See EMINENT DOMAIN. CONNECTING LINES. See CHARGES Ct.) 296. AND DISCRIMINATION, V. See PLEADING AND PRAC 1. The Interstate Commerce Act only applies to such carriers as use a railway or a railway and water craft under common control or management for a continuous carriage or shipment of property from one State to another. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct. Or.) 28. 2. The Act does not apply to railroad wholly within State, joining with connecting steamers in independent although concurrent reduction of rates, unless goods are going to or from a foreign country. Id. 3. Burton Stock Car Company, which furnishes stock cars to shippers over railroad, does not exchange with or use cars belonging to others, and is not a connecting line entitled to equal facilities for interchange of traffic under section 3, par. 2, of Act. Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 329. 4. Such company is not unjustly discriminated against by refusal of railroad companies to pay same rate of milage for its cars as for ordinary freight cars. Id. 5. A carrier is not liable for rates made by a connecting road. Allen v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. 621; Crews v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 703. 6. Where in a proceeding against several connecting roads for violation of section 4, one claims that its only participation consisted in sharing in low charges on long haul, complaint should not be dismissed as against it. Boston & A. R. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. R. Co. 571. 2. An Act being general and uniform in its class to which it belongs, is not special. Cited operation, upon all persons coming within the in Id. 581. BRIEFS AND NOTES. Constitutionality of part of Act. (U. S. Sup. CONSTRUCTION. See ACT TO REGU CONTRACTS. The Commission has no power to enforce contracts. Traders & Travelers Union v. Phila, etc. R. Co. 371. CORPORATIONS. See COMMERCE, II, d. COURTS. See APPEAL AND ERROR. 1. The jurisdiction of federal courts cannot be affected by state legislation. Barron v. Burnside (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 295. by which created, so far as its right to sue and 2. A corporation is a citizen of the State be sued in the federal courts is concerned. Id. CUSTOM AND USAGE. That a railway company for some time paid cost of hauling coal from complainant's wharf to station is not ground for compelling such payment by the company. Proidence Coal Co. v. Providence & W. R. Co. 363. DAMAGES. A claim for pecuniary damages entitles the defendant to a jury trial, and the Interstate Commerce Commission will not consider it. Peck v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 775; Councill v. Western & A. R. Co. 292, 355, 638; Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 787. DEFINITIONS. See CHARGES AND DISCRIMINATION, 17; COMMERCE, 8, 33. Interstate commerce. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct. Or.) 28; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (Ú. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 830. BRIEFS AND NOTES. Interstate commerce; what is. Note, 853; EMPLOYEES. (U. 8. C. Ct. N. J.) 420. Power to regulate. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 420. DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS. Creation of, by Commission; auditor appointed. 354. DEPOSITIONS. Depositions may be taken as provided by U. S. R. S., SS 863, 864, without application to Commission. Rule 9 as amended. Appendix II, 843, 410. DEPOTS. Carriers cannot make the yards of a certain company their exclusive stock depot at a certain place, there being other stock yards near by charging lower rates. Keith v. Kentucky Cent. R. R. Co. 601. DISCOUNT. See REBATE. DISCRIMINATION. See CHARGES AND DISCRIMINATION. DISMISSAL AND ANCE. Section 2 of the Act prohibits giving of passes to particular persons; and the excep tion allowed in section 22 in favor of officers and employees of road does not include the families of such persons. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct.) 317. ERROR. See APPEAL AND ERROR. EVIDENCE. See DEPOSITIONS; TESTIMONY. 1. The burden of proof is on petitioner charging exaction of unreasonable rates. Harding v. Chicago etc. R. Co. 375. 2. In case of complaint for violation of section 4 of Act, the burden of proof is on the carrier to justify any departure from the general rule prescribed by statute, by showing that circumstances and conditions are dissimilar. Southern R. & S. Asso. 278. EXCURSION TICKETS. Re Rate at which excursion tickets are sold does not entitle milage ticket purchaser to DISCONTINU. complain of unjust discrimination if charged a higher rate. Asso. Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 393. EXPRESS COMPANIES. 1. Motion for, may be made at hearing. Rule 6, Appendix I, 843. 2. Leave should be granted to withdraw petition when petitioner alleges legality of practice sought to be authorized. Re Export Trade of Boston, 25. 3. Where no overt acts of misconduct on part of defendant railroad appears, the Commission has no discretion but to dismiss complaint. Holbrook v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 323. 4. Petition charging exorbitant rates will be dismissed where rates are reduced before hearing. Fulton v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 375; Harding v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 375. 5. The pleadings presenting issues of fact and no evidence being presented, the case will be dismissed. Leonard v. Union Pac. R. Co. 627. 6. Upon failure of complainant to appear at hearing, complaint will be dismissed. Jackson v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. 599. 7. Complaint for over charge withdrawn where complainants receipt in full settlement for over charges was shown by respondent. Stahl v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 314. INTER S. 1. Express business conducted by a railroad company is within the Interstate Commerce Act; aliter as to independent express companies. Re Express Companies, 22, 677. 2. Pleadings, etc. 317, 363, 448, 451, 456. FARES. See RATES. FEDERAL COURTS. See COURTS. FERRIES. See COMMERCE, 27. A ferry is a means of commercial intercourse between States, bordering upon dividing waters, and it must be conducted without imposition by States of taxes upon the commerce between them. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. FISH AND FISHERIES. The transportation of fish and eggs, distributed by the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, is within the exception of section 22 of the Act. Re United States Com mission of Fish and Fisheries, 609. |