which a complaint is authorized to be made, to or before said Commission by any provision of this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under any of the provisions of this Act, or relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act. And the said Commission shall have the same powers and authority to proceed with any inquiry instituted on its own motion as though it had been appealed to by complaint or petition under any of the provisions of this Act, including the power to make and enforce any order or orders in the case, or relating to the matter or thing concerning which the inquiry is had excepting orders for the payment of money. No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant.

§ 357. The amendment of 1910.-This section was not amended until the act of June 18th, 1910. In its original form it provided for complaints by shippers, or their representatives, but made no provision for a complaint by a common carrier, and while authorizing an inquiry by the commission on its own motion, made no specific provision for the powers which the commission could exercise in such investigation made upon its own motion. Thus in the Harriman Case, supra, decided after the amendment of 1906, it was held that in such investigation the commission had no power of compelling testimony. The commission (see page 8 of report of 1909) had said that it was a question whether it could make an order under the fifteenth section in a proceeding instituted on its own motion under section 13.

The amendatory act of 1910 amends this section, providing for the making of a complaint by a common carrier, and also that the "commission shall have the same powers and authority to proceed in any inquiry instituted on its own motion as though it had been appealed to by complaint or petition under any of the provisions of this act, including the power to make and enforce any order or orders, in the case, or relating to the matter or thing concerning which the inquiry is had, excepting the orders for the payment of money."

In this connection also should be read section 9 of the act.

§ 358 (271). Procedure before commission-Parties.-This section regulating procedure before the commission has been liberally construed by the commission in furtherance of the

obvious purpose of securing a summary investigation and with only so much formality as was essential to justice. Dilatory proceedings are considered objectionable and a single speedy hearing is desired in every case. 1 I. C. C. R. 223, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 410.

Any person or association is entitled to complain either for himself or for any community in which he is interested. Many complaints have been made before the commission by local trade organizations interested in the locality or in specific industries. Thus the Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange was held a mercantile society within the meaning of the section and could maintain a proceeding without showing special damage to itself as a society. 4 I. C. C. R. 664, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 493. The Chicago Live Stock Exchange, whose members were engaged in the sale of live stock on commission in Chicago, was held entitled to maintain a proceeding to correct an unreasonable freight rate upon live stock from various points to Chicago, notwithstanding certain by-laws and proceedings of the association were claimed to be in violation of the Anti-Trust law. 7 I. C. C. R. 513. It is immaterial that such trade organizations are unincorporated. See also 10 I. C. C. R. 428.

The Forest City Freight Bureau, which admitted members upon written contract to perform certain services in return for an annual fee, is an association competent to bring a complaint before the commission. The fact that it must be able to answer in costs in case such should be awarded against it on appeal taken into the courts does not take away the right to bring a complaint under the act; 13 I. C. C. Rep. 109. It was therefore an "association" within the meaning of section 13 of the act.

The prior leave of court is not necessary to entitle a shipper to proceed against a railroad in the hands of a receiver. 6 I. C. C. R. 520. When one makes a complaint under the act to regulate commerce and sets up a personal grievance which he fails to prove before the commission, if a violation of law by the defendant appears, the commission can take the necessary steps to bring the violation of the law to an end. 1 I. C. C. R. 208, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 611.

As to parties defendant, it was held by the supreme court in Texas Pacific R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, supra,

that the owner of the portion of line over which through freight is carried is a proper but not a necessary party in a proceeding concerning the alleged discrimination between inland and import rates. The commission however has exercised the right to bring in all parties interested in a case. 4 I. C. C. R. 276, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 282, 5 I. C. C. R. 571, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 230.

The disposition of the commission to simplify its practice and procedure was illustrated in its ruling, 20 I. C. C. R. 486, in a case involving a demand for a switch track connection, which under the ruling of the supreme court under the statute then existing in force, could only be made by a shipper. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. D. L. & N. R. Co., supra. The complainant, an Electric Traction Company, in order to obviate this objection produced at the hearing two letters from shippers authorizing the application. The commission ruled that for all practical purposes this was sufficient to make them parties to the proceeding. See also 12 I. C. C. R. 483.

§ 359 (272). Pleadings and proofs.-A complaint concerning classification of rates should not be made against the classification committee or rate committee, but against the carriers who were represented by such committees, and the complaint should point them out by name. 4 I. C. C. R. 276, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 282. The commission has early announced and it has always insisted that it would not express opinions on abstract questions, nor on questions presented on exparte statements of facts, nor on questions of the statute presented for its advice, but without any controversy pending before it on complaint of violation of law. 1 I. C. C. R. 8, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 18. The commission will not consider the claim of a party for injury to goods resulting from delay, detention, etc., or from any cause not attributable to any violation of the provision of the act to regulate commerce. 6 I. C. C. R. 85. Where reparation is asked to the extent of alleged excessive charges, reasonable time is allowed for making proof of the amounts paid when the evidence adduced shows excessive charges without disclosing the amount of the excess. C. C. R. 335. The procedure is in the simplest form consistent with reasonable certainty. No replication is required. When the facts are not agreed upon, deposition may be taken upon notice or the hearing entered upon immediately after answer. Assign

ments of hearing are made upon the request of either party and parties are heard orally or on briefs, as they may prefer. See 1 I. C. C. R. 223, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 408.

When a carrier fails to answer the complaint filed, the commission takes such proof of the facts as may be deemed proper and reasonable, and makes order therein accordingly. 5 I. C. C. R. 663, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 318.

§ 360. Demand for reparation must be specifically stated.— In order to avoid multiplicity of actions and consequent unnecessary labor and expense, and in order that defendants as well as the commission might have due notice of the full extent of a complaint, the commission has announced that reparation will not ordinarily be awarded in a formal case attacking a rate as unreasonable or otherwise in violation of law, unless intent to claim reparation is specifically disclosed therein, or in an amendment thereof filed before the submission of the case. See 20 I. C. C. R. 612. The commission said in this case that it was not a court and added, "its proceedings partake somewhat of a judicial or semi-judicial character, but its work is distinctively administrative" and said further that it was obviously fair that a complainant be required to disclose his whole case, and the demands upon the time of the commission was so many and pressing that unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings could not be encouraged or even tolerated.

361 (273). Burden of proof.-The question of burden of proof has been construed in the matter of reasonableness of rates, section 1, discriminations, section 2, and unjust preferences, section 3. In general terms it may be said that the commission adopts the rules in regard to the burden of proof and the shifting of the weight of testimony in accordance with the established rules of courts of justice liberally and not technically administered. Thus the burden is upon the party making the complaint, 8 I. C. C. R. 561, and relief will not be granted without proof. 1 I. C. C. R. 185, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 627. But when the fact of a greater aggregate charge for a short or long haul on the same line is established, the burden is upon the carrier to justify such excess. 4 I. C. C. R. 104, 4 Int. Com. Rep. 348. But where the carrier makes application for relief under the fourth section,

he assumes the burden in the first instance. So where there is a departure from equal rates on several branches of a road, the carrier is called upon to justify. 2 I. C. C. R. 604, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 431. 8 I. C. C. R. 93, ruled that the burden is upon the carrier in all cases, where the departure from the rule of the law is made, to show clearly that his departure is justified, citing Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 862. When the facts justifying an apparent disparity in rates are peculiarly within the knowledge of the carrier (6 I. C. C. R. 1), the burden is on him; thus the carrier must justify the disparity between rates on grain and grain products. 3 I. C. C. R. 252, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 604.

As to the burden of proof on carriers as to the reasonableness of increase of rates, where such increase is made after January 1st, 1910. See section 15, infra.

The informal character of the procedure before the commission is illustrated by the case (9 I. C. C. R. 602) where the general freight agent of the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company referred to the commission a claim of a shipper for carload rating on a mixed carload of lemons and pineapples, it appearing that the tariff provided for a mixed carload of lemons and bananas and pineapples and bananas, but not for a mixed carload of lemons and pineapples, the general freight agent expressing his belief that the claim was equitable. The commission said that a matter submitted in this way should be treated as a complaint and answer; the railroad company should make answer and make reparation to the complainant for the rate above the carload rate.

When an important question is raised by the pleadings in a case, the determination of which will affect others quite as much as the parties before the commission, but the parties give their attention almost exclusively to other questions, and neither by the evidence nor in argument supply the commission with the information to enable it to be understandingly determined, the commission will decline to decide it, and leave the parties to bring it forward again as they may be advised. 1 I. C. C. R. 503, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 722.

§ 362 (274). Production of books and papers.-In 3 I. C. C. R. 186, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 584, the commission suggested the modes of procedure by which the inconvenience to defendant carriers of