producing books where many entries were involved, might be avoided by petitioner, as by requiring statements of specific charges and facilities during specified period, or taking depositions by consent in advance of hearing.

As to proceedings for taking testimony and the production of books and papers, see this case, in which the commission said that there was a very manifest difference between ordering the production of books and papers of carriers directly interested and those of other parties, strangers to the proceeding. It was said in this case that the books of defendant carrier as to the rates charged, the facilities furnished and the general movements of freight were in the nature of semi public records, and statements should be made therefrom on request as promptly as practicable. (See this case for what is required for an order for the production of books and papers.)

As to the general pr wers of the commission in compelling the production of books and papers, see section 12, supra.

§ 363 (275). The rulings of the commission as precedents.The rulings of the, commission are based so distinctively upon the special facts of the cases submitted that the doctrine of judicial precedent has only a limited application. Thus in deciding a case against one or more carriers charged with making rates which are unjustly discriminating in a certain line of traffic, the decision may not apply at all to the rates in other sections where facts may be altogether different. 2 I. C. C. R. 365, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 245. One case can seldom be an exact precedent for another, for ach traffic situation presents points of difference, and each complaint must be judged upon its own peculiar facts. 8 I. C. C. R. 409.

A rate may be unreasonable at one time, and through changed conditions may become reasonable at another time, even before the conclusion of the litigation as to the reasonability of the rate. See conclusion of opinion in Nebraska Rate case, 169 U. S. 1. c. p. 550, 42 L. Ed. 819 (1898).

The essentially shifting character of the conditions under which orders of the commission are made, that is, administrative orders regulating the conduct of the business of the carrier, and not involving payments for reparation, is recognized in the provision of the following section that such orders continue in force for a period not exceeding two years.

SECTION 14.

3-364. Commission's report of investigation.

365. Amendment of the section..

366. The changed relation of the commission to the courts. 367. Procedure before the commission.

368. Reports of decisions.

§ 364 (276). Commission's report of investigation.-SEC. 14. (Amended March 2, 1889, and June 29, 1906.) That whenever an investigation shall be made by said commission, it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall [Commission must make report of investigations, stating its conclusions and order.]

state the conclusions of the Commission, together with its decision, order or requirement in the premises; and in case damages

[Reparation.]

are awarded such report shall include the findings of fact on which the award is made.

All reports of investigations made by the commission shall be entered of record, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the

[Reports of investigations must be entered of record. Serv-
ice of copies on parties]

party who may have complained, and to any common carrier that may have been complained of.

The Commission may provide for the publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted

[Reports and decisions. Anthorized publication competent
evidence.]

for public information and use, and such authorized publications shall be competent evidence of the reports and decisions of the commission therein contained in all courts of the United States and of the several states without any further proof or authentica

[Publication and distribution of annual reports of Commis→
■ion.]

tion thereof. The commission may also cause to be printed for early distribution its annual reports.

§ 365. The amendments of the section.-Under this section, before the amendment of 1906, the commission was required to "report its findings of fact upon which its conclusions were based," and these "findings of fact" were made prima facie evidence thereafter as to all judicial proceedings as to every fact found. Under the section as amended in 1906, the findings of fact are required to be reported only in case of an award of money damages; and these are the only cases in which such find

ings are made prima facie proof for any judicial proceedings, see infra, section 16. In other cases, the commission's report is only required to state its conclusion with its order.

§ 366. The changed relation of the commission to the courts. Under the act before the amendments of 1906, it was said by Justice Jackson in the Kentucky and Indiana Bridge Case, 37 Fed. 567 (1889), the first important decision under the act, that the commission could be regarded as the general referee upon each and every circuit court of the United States upon which the jurisdiction was conferred of enforcing the rights, duties and obligations recognized and enforced by the act. This was a case under the original act, and orders of the commission were not enforcible without the approval and assistance of the courts. In several cases the supreme court commented upon the fact that the act attributed prima facie effect to the findings of fact made by the commission. See East Tennessee, etc., Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 181 U. S. 1, 45 L. Ed. 719 (1901); and L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 44 L. Ed. 309 (1901).

Under the act as amended, it is only in the case of an award of money damages that the findings of the commission are made prima facie evidence in judicial proceedings, and those are the only cases which require a proceeding and judgment in court. The supreme court, however, has ruled with respect of the administrative orders of the commission, that the findings of fact made by the commission and concurred in by a federal circuit court, would not be disturbed unless the record established that a clear and unmistakable error had been committed. See Illinois Central R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 206 U. S. 441, 51 L. Ed. 1128, May 1907, enforcing an order of the commission. See also 10 I. C. C. Rep. 505; and the Baltimore & Ohio Coal Case, supra.

§ 367. The procedure before the commission.-In order to determine a claim of reparation for the charge of an unreasonable rate, the commission must decide what rate should have been charged, that is, what is a reasonable rate, in order to determine the amount of damage to which the party is entitled. As to the procedure of the commission in claims of reparation, it was ruled that the complainant must make proof of his damage (8 I. C. C.

R. 158); that all the carriers on the route need not be before the commission (6 I. C. C. R. 378), and that speculative damages will not be allowed. 5 I. C. C. R. 97, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 740. Nor will the commission consider claims not arising out of the duties imposed by the Act. 4 I. C. C. R. 265, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 278. It is sufficient for the complainant to consult the published schedule of charges, and he is entitled to recover thereon the excess over such schedules charged him. 7 I. C. C. R. 255. See also as to conclusions of commission as to its jurisdictions in matter of awarding reparation. 5 I. C. C. R. 84, 3 Int. Com. Rep. 711.

The subjects of reparation was discussed by the commission in the case of the Independent Refiners Association, 6 I. C. C. R. 378, 7 I. C. C. R. 513. In this case claims of reparation were allowed to be filed in the same proceeding by the individual shippers who were members of the complaining association. The circuit court however for the western district of Pennsylvania, 82 Fed. 192 (1897), refused to enforce this order, holding that each complainant had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. Thereafter in the case of the Cattle Raisers Association of Texas, 10 I. C. C. R. 83, the commission held that in view of the unsettled state of the law as to the recovery of claims of reparation, the members of the complaining association should file intervening petitions, each for his own demand.

While there is no requirement in the act that carriers complained of shall produce all of their evidence before the commission, and in numerous cases parties have reserved such evidence until hearing was had in the courts on proceedings instituted by the commission to enforce their orders, the supreme court has said that this was not the proper procedure (162 U. S. 1. c. 196, 40 L. Ed. 935), but that all the testimony should be submitted to the commission for their determination of the questions of fact. The commission has ruled that it is not required to report the details of evidence, but only its findings of fact. See 1 I. C. C. R. 490, 1 Int. Com. Rep. 773, where it said that the report and findings of the commission upon evidence related only to the ascertainment and presentation of all the material facts necessary to clearly and justly present the merits of the controversy, and the commission therefore does not report evidence which is only cumulative, or which is immaterial or irrelevant, or show details of evidence all embraced in the substantial facts stated upon which

the findings and conclusions of the commission are made. As to the effect of the commission's findings upon the questions of reparation in view of the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury, see infra, sections 15 and 16.

§ 368 (280). Reports of decisions.-The provision for the publication of the reports of the commission was added to the section by the amendment of 1889. There were originally two series of reports containing the opinions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Interstate Commerce Reports, cited as "Int. Com. Rep." were published by the Lawyer's Co-Operative Publishing Company of Rochester, New York, and included not only the reports of the commission but also the proceedings of the commission, and the reports of decisions of the courts on interstate commerce questions. The Interstate Commerce Commission Reports, cited as "I. C. C. R.," were first published by L. K. Strouse & Co. of New York.

The Lawyer's Co-operative Publishing Company purchased the other series and continued the publication of what was then the old series of reports of the commission up to and including Volume XIII, June, 1908. Since that time the publication has been assumed and carried on by the government printing office at Washington which has published the reports from Volume XIV to Volume XX, Volume XXI being now (Oct. 1911), issued in advance sheets. The reports now published are cited as I. C. C. R. The five volumes of the discontinued Strouse Series contain the same cases included in Volumes I to IV of the Co-Operative Series.

The reports contain not only the written opinion or reports of the commission but also a list of the cases disposed of by the commission without printed report during the time covered by the volume. Volume XV (1910), contains an appendix and a table of commodities, the transportation whereof was considered in the reports of the commission from Volumes I to XV, that is, during the years 1887 to 1909.

In addition to these published reports of what may be termed the formal opinions of the commission, it issues from time to time, reports of "conference rulings" of the commission, which are made in conference on questions informally raised or submitted in correspondence. It also issues from time to time, as