"Moreover, an adjudication upon a petition for relief would in many cases be far from concluding the labors of the commission in respect to the equities involved, for questions of rates assume new forms, and may require to be met differently from day to day; and in those sections of the country in which the reasons or supposed reasons for exceptional rates are most prevalent the commission would, in effect, be required to act as rate makers for all the roads and compelled to adjust the tariffs so as to meet the exigencies of business while at the same time endeavoring to protect relative rights and equities of rival carriers and rival localities. This in any considerable State would be an enormous task. In a country so large as ours, and with so vast a mileage of roads, it would be superhuman. A construction of the statute which should require its performance would render the due administration of the law altogether impracticable, and that fact tends strongly to show that such a construction could not have been intended." If the advance of rates was ultimately decided to be reasonable, the carrier would have been deprived during the period of suspension of the additional earnings to which it was entitled, and under such a provision of law would be required to maintain, at enormous expense, a large force of attorneys to answer and defend these protests. It would confer upon the commission the powers now exercised by the courts, and the jurisdictions over the same subject by both the courts and the commission would necessarily produce conflict and confusion. The Supreme Court in the case of Texas Pacific R. R. Co. _v._ Abilene Cotton Oil Co. (204 U. S., 426), construing the ninth and twenty-second sections on the right of a shipper to apply to the courts for pecuniary redress for an alleged unreasonable rate held that, until the protested rate was condemned by the commission, there was no relief in the courts. This decision avoided a conflict of jurisdiction between the courts and the commission. It would lessen very greatly the value of the amendment of the act of June 29, 1906, which requires thirty days' notice in a change of rate, which was adopted, with a view of investing rate conditions with a greater degree of stability than formerly. Under existing law, the shipper is assured of that degree of stability, and can predicate his sales and purchases accordingly. Under the amendment, shippers would never know whether or not a rate is to become effective on schedule time, or at any future time. The effect of the amendment would, therefore, be to a considerable degree to nullify the permanency which this amendment to the act to regulate commerce sought to impress upon the law.