No. 9.

PITTSBURGH PRODUCE TRADE ASSOCIATION vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

This association requested the Commission to advise it whether the Pennsylvania Railroad Company could properly collect storage on cars in the State of Pennsylvania in addition to the charge for demurrage, regulated by an Act of Assembly approved May 24th, 1907.

In reply to the original inquiry, the Commission advised that the matter was one that could be decided only after a hearing and investigation. It was further suggested that pending the filing of a formal petition for consideration of this subject, the association should ascertain fully the grounds upon which the Pennsylvania Railroad Company claimed the right to make such a charge as that complained of. And, also, whether or not the question was one which might properly come under the jurisdiction of the Inter-State Commerce Commission.

This matter was later presented in a formal way to the Inter-State Commerce Commission, and is still pending before that tribunal.

No. 10.

J. BELMONT MOSSER vs. BIG LEVEL AND KINZUA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant brought to the attention of the Commission the statement that the Big Level and Kinzua Railroad Company had, beginning January 23rd, 1908, failed to comply with the provisions of the act of April 5th, 1907, limiting the rate of fare for carrying passengers to two cents per mile, and that the company was charging fifty cents for carrying passengers twelve miles, between Kane and Mount Jewett, Pennsylvania.

The Commission advised complainant that the matter of the enforcement of the two cent fare act had been placed by the Legislature with the county in which the violation of the act occurred. But that if complainant was of the opinion that the rates of fare demanded or collected were unjust, excessive or unreasonable, and would so advise the Commission, the matter would be taken up by it.

There was no reply made to this communication.

No. 11.

JOHN L. FRECK vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

This complaint was made verbally at the office of the Commission, and was to the effect that there had been an overcharge in connection with the shipment of an automobile from St. Louis, Missouri, to Millersburg, Pennsylvania, shipment traveling via Vandalia Lines and the Pennsylvania Railroad.

Notice was given the complainant that this being an interstate movement the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, and he was advised to bring the same to the attention of the Inter-State Commerce Commission.

No. 12.

BUSTLETON IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA vs.
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY and PHILADELPHIA
AND READING RAILWAY COMPANY.

COMMITTEE FROM THE BUSTLETON IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIA-
TION, for Complainant.

W. I. SCHAFFER, for The Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Through a Committee specially appointed for the purpose this Association petitioned the Commission for a recommendation for a revision of the passenger train schedule maintained by each of the respondent companies between the city of Philadelphia and Bustleton Station. In addition the Commission was asked to recommend that the station and platforms of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at Bustleton be put in good condition and so maintained.

The petitioners further asked that the Commission recommend the construction of a shelter shed on the inbound track at Bustleton Station, Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company.

The principal feature of this complaint was the lack of any service over either of the above named lines after six o'clock in the evening, and further the allegation that the existing schedules of both roads were so arranged as to make the service inconvenient and insufficient for citizens residing at Bustleton Station. The answer of the respondent companies to this petition and complaint was in each instance that the amount of traffic was not sufficient to warrant the putting on of additional trains or an increase of any character in the accommodations furnished, and that the operations were conducted at a loss.

Hearing was held in this matter at the office of the Commission, April 8th,

1908.

After consideration of the original petition and complaint the answer of the

companies and testimony taken at the hearing, the Commission made the following recommendation:

"That the Pennsylvania Railroad Company should so alter its schedule as to operate a train leaving Bustleton at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning and making direct connections for Philadelphia; also for a train leaving Philadelphia at 5:13 P. M., making connections through to Bustleton.

"The Commissioners further recommend that the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company arrange to stop train No. 516 at Bustleton Station."

The management of both of the respondent companies accepted the recommendation of the Commission and put the same in force.

No. 13.

P. H. SCHAUM vs. PHILIPSBURG RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant brought to the attention of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth the charge that the Philipsburg Railroad Company was collecting three cents per mile for passenger fare on its road.

The communication was referred by the Attorney General's Department to this Commission. After considering the same the following communication was sent to complainant:

"Your letter of March 3rd, 1908, addressed to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and acquainting him with the fact that the Philipsburg Railroad Company is charging three cents per mile for passenger fares, was laid before the Pennsylvania State Railroad Commission today. In reply I am directed to state that this Commission does not have charge of the enforcement of the two cent fare act. The act provides a method of enforcement (see pp. 59 pamphlet laws of 1907.) Section two of the act provides that any railroad company charging, demanding or receiving any more than two cents per mile for the transportation of any passenger or person is subject to a penalty, payable to the county where such illegal charge is made, and recoverable by said county."

No. 14.

A. T. JACKSON, Jr., vs. BIG LEVEL AND KINZUA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant in this case communicated with the Governor of the Commonwealth, bringing to his attention the allegation that the Big Level and Kinzua Railroad Company was charging approximately four cents per mile for carrying passengers over its line.

This communication was transmitted to the Commission by the Governor of the Commonwealth and after considering the same the Commission directed that the following communication be sent to complainant:

"Your letter of March 4th, 1908, addressed to Hon. Edwin S. Stuart, Governor of Pennsylvania, was laid before the Pennsylvania State Railroad Commission at its meeting to-day. In reply I am directed to state that this Commission does not have charge of the enforcement of the two cent fare act. The act provides the method of enforcement. (See pp. 59, pamphlet laws of 1907). Section two of the act provides that any railroad company charging, demanding or receiving any more than two cents per mile for the transportation of any passenger or person is subject to a penalty, payable to the county where such illegal charge is made, and recoverable by said county."

No. 15.

D. A. FLOTO vs. BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.

This was a complaint that the respondent company was maintaining in the town of Meyersdale, Somerset county, Pennsylvania, a grade crossing over a public highway which was a menace to the citizens of the town; that although frequently petitioned to provide safety appliances or other form of protection at said crossing, the railroad company had declined to do so; that petitions addressed to the company by citizens as well as by the Councils of the borough, had not been even acknowledged. Complainant requested that the Commission take the matter up, investigate and make a recommendation.

After considering the same, the Commission advised the complainant as follows:

"The act creating this Commission only authorizes it to determine as to the necessity for such gates, watchmen, or other devices at grade crossings, where such crossings are those of one common carrier with another, and does not include a crossing of public roads by the railroads.

"Why crossings of this character were omitted from the act is not apparent, and it is possible that before long the act may be amended, so as to include some supervision over public road crossings.

"Until this is done, however, the Commission does not seem to have any authority in the matter.

"It is possible that if public sentiment is with you, as it perhaps is, you could, by persistent application to the railroad company, succeed in getting some such protection as you desire.

"This Commission would be very glad to take the matter up if it were authorized so to do."

No. 16.

HIRAM VANDYKE vs. WINFIELD RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant here made inquiry of the Commission as to the right of this railroad to charge certain fixed sums for the transportation of freight; also

right of the respondent company to charge demurrage at the rate of $2.00 per diem.

Complainant was advised, after consideration of this matter, that the Act of May 24th, 1907, fixing the rate of demurrage charges, would prohibit the railroad company from legally collecting, in addition to those prescribed by law, any additional charges, and that all charges should be in accordance with this Act.

With regard to rate charged by the company for transportation of freight, complainant was advised that his letter did not furnish the Commission with sufficient information to make it the basis of a complaint; that the province of the Commission extended only to determining whether the rates charged were excessive or unreasonable, and that before expressing an opinion on this matter they must have additional and complete detail, as well as afford the railroad company an opportunity for a hearing.

Complainant was advised that if he desired such investigation to be made, he should file a complaint furnishing the Commission with additional information.

No. 17.

PENNSYLVANIA CLAY COMPANY vs. OHIO RIVER JUNCTION RAILROAD COMPANY.

THOMAS M. PATTERSON, for Complainant.
WILLIAM A. McCONNEL, for Respondent.

Complainant in this case was a manufacturing corporation, engaged in the manufacture of clay products, having two plants located on the line of the respondent company. The Ohio River Junction Railroad is a line 4.7 miles long, built from a connection with the tracks of the Pennsylvania Company (Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad), just east of Conway, Beaver county, Pennsylvania, to a point called Wallace City, northward.

The complainant had two factories on this line, one about one-fourth mile from the intersection of the Ohio River Junction Railroad with the Pennsylvania lines, the second one about one mile from the same point.

It was alleged that by reason of the character of the roadbed and equipment of the respondent company, the services rendered were so poor and inadequate that it was impossible at times to operate plants belonging to complainant.

The answer of the company to this complaint was that the allegations of the complainant were untrue with regard to the amount of service alleged to be required, also with regard to the charge that the service was so poor and inadequate that it was at times impossible to operate its plants; also that the roadbed was such as to make operation dangerous; also that there had been any violation of the laws of the Commonwealth with regard to railroads or of the charter obligations of the company. It was further set up that the operation of the railroad and its equipment was sufficient to meet the traffic demands and all that could be expected with the existing income of the road.

Before arranging for a hearing in this matter the Commission had a personal investigation of the situation made by its marshal.

Hearing was held April 8th, 1908, and testimony taken.