No. 22.

PETITION OF EAST BROAD TOP RAILROAD & COAL COMPANY. JOHN D. DORRIS for Petitioner.

This was a petition addressed to the Commission, asking that the Commission assist it in securing relief from the operation of the Federal "Safety Appliance Act," and setting forth as reasons therefor that the entire line of this railroad company was located within the State of Pennsylvania; that by reason of the gauge of its tracks its cars could not pass over any other railroad or outside of the county of Huntingdon; that by reason of the character of the grade and curves of the road, it was the opinion of the officers that greater safety could be secured by hand-brakes than by air-brakes; that by reason of the equipment in use for hauling freight on the road the installation of safety appliances would require remodeling of the equipment; that the petitioning company had never paid a dividend on its stock or interest on its bonds since 1885; that the petitioner was concerned lest proceedings be instituted against it by the Federal authorities; that the installation of safety appliances would work a great hardship to the stockholders of the company. Hearing was held in this matter, and Commission dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.

No. 23.

J. B. KELLER vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. WILLIS G. KENDIG, for Complainant.

Complaint was made to the Commission that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in handling cattle consigned to complainant at Mt. Joy, Penn'a., failed to observe any regular time; whereas, cattle consigned to Lancaster, Penn'a., a nearby point, were delivered by regular train; that by reason of this practice complainant suffered great inconvenience, and frequently heavy loss; that the train which carried cattle from Harrisburg to Lancaster passed through Mt. Joy and that cattle consigned to complainant could be cut out at Mt. Joy. Complainant set forth three specific dates upon which practices complained about had occurred; two of which dates were in the year 1905 and the third in the year 1908.

This complaint was sent to the respondent company for answer, advising that Company that the Commission took cognizance only of the complaint arising in the year 1908.

The answer of the respondent company was that the delay complained of in

the year 1908 was due entirely to an accident resulting in a derailment; that because of the requirement of the Federal law that cattle shall be fed at certain intervals, and that when unloaded for feeding they shall have five hours' rest before being re-loaded, these cattle, which would have been forwarded under ordinary circumstances at 9:00 o'clock of the previous day, were not forwarded until 12:20.

Respondent company further stated that during certain portions of the day it was impossible to run freight trains via the Mt. Joy route, on account of the number of passenger trains traversing it and that the stock siding at Mt. Joy station was co located that stock arriving from the west must be shifted to the westbound track before they can be delivered to the stock siding. Copy of answer of respondent company was sent to complainant. Complainant requested the Commission to make a recommendation, involving a change in the location of the stock siding, and also a revision of its facilities for handling live stock at Mt. Joy.

Commission made inquiry of the company as to the total amount of business for the year 1907 at this point, which was furnished.

The Commission was later informed in connection with this matter that a complaint of a similar nature, or possibly the same question, had been made before the Interstate Commerce Commission and decided. It was then ascertained that at the August term, 1906, of the Common Pleas Court of Lancaster county, a civil action by J. B. Keller against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had been entered, and after hearing and argument had been decided against the plaintiff.

As a result of this inquiry, the Commission advised the complainant that, inasmuch as two of the instances complained about had been adjudicated by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, and inasmuch as it was admitted by Counsel for the complainant that the third instance complained about was one for court action, there remained nothing calling for action by the Commission.

No. 24.

AMERICAN HIDE & LEATHER COMPANY vs. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY.

This was a complaint for a refund of a portion of freight charges paid on shipment from Meadville, Pa., to Curwensville, Pa Complaint was to the effect that, although there was in force a joint rate of fifteen cents per one hundred pounds between these points via. the Erie Railroad and the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway, the shipment complained of was delivered at the Erie Railroad Company without instructions, and instead of handling this freight over the shortest route, and at the lowest rate, shipment had been turned over to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, with which road the Erie Railroad Company had no through rate to destination.

It was pointed out that under the Inter-State law the railroad originally accepting freight for delivery at a point beyond its lines is liable for any loss resulting from misrouting.

The Commission ascertained that there had been no effort made to secure the adjustment of this matter by communication with the Erie Railroad Company, and suggested to complainant that this would be the proper procedure, and if any question arose as to the legality of the adjustment it could then be submitted to the Commission for a ruling.

Papers in the case were returned and no further action requested by either of the parties.

No. 25

HALPEN, GREEN & COMPANY vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY and PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY.

Complainant in this matter alleged that the minimum freight charges fixed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company were excessive, and that in the case of trade with New Jersey points it was a discrimination against the business interests of Philadelphia. Complainant asked that a ruling be made fixing the minimum charge at twelve cents, instead of twenty-five cents, as now in force.

This complaint was dismissed because the matter complained of was one beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission; complainant referred to the InterState Commerce Commission.

No. 26.

GEORGE W. WILLIAMS vs. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant alleged that the respondent company was maintaining on its Tioga Division at Lawrenceville, Tioga County, a passenger station which consisted of a box car, and did not furnish proper accommodations to the traveling public.

The adjustment of this matter was taken up by the Commission with the railroad company through correspondence, and after a lengthy period of negotiation an arrangement was effected, whereby the Erie Railroad Company would use the station and premises of the New York Central Railroad Company at Lawrenceville, Pa.

Complainant was advised of this fact, and informed the Commission that the adjustment was satisfactory.

4-27-1908

No. 27.

JACOBS CREEK COAL COMPANY vs. MONONGAHELA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made that: first, the rates charged by respondent company on coal consigned from points on its line to Uniontown were excessive, as compared with those maintained by other companies; second, that the rate charged on coal destined to points north and west was fifteen cents per ton greater than the Pittsburgh rate, and rendered it impossible for producers located along the line of respondent company to complete in the markets to the north and west; third, that the rates on coke were uniform on all the roads; fourth, that by reason of the quality of the coal lying along the Monongahela Railroad it was essential that the operators in said district enjoy a fair freight rate.

The answer denied that the rates charged for coal shipments originating upon respondent company's railroad were burdensome or excessive, but admitted that the quoted rate per ton on coal shipped from points on its road to Uniontown was correct, stating that said rate could not be reduced without injustice to respondent and its stockholders. It was further admitted that the complaint was correct in stating that a difference of fifteen cents per ton existed in the rates to points north and west between the Pittsburgh district and the Connellsville district, within which a large part of the territory traversed by the respondent company lay. But it was set forth that the difference in rates was just and reasonable.

The complainant was asked to furnish the Commission with a statement showing the points between which shipments occurred, as referred to in first paragraph of its complaint.

Information as to the group system of rates was furnished the Commission, together with a map showing the boundary lines of all railroads traversing group territory.

Owing to the failure of the complainant to reply to the communication of the Commission, requesting information which would enable it to determine this question, no action has been taken.

Case pending.

No. 28.

J. M. WALLACE vs. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY.

This was a complaint relative to the express rates between Pittsburg and Parnassus, Penn'a., alleging that the rates on bread were forty per cent. lower than on any other commodity; that the result was a hardship on ship

pers of other commodities. Complainant filed additional communication, alleging that the special commodity rates on bread were unfair to shippers of other commodities.

In reply, the Commission advised complainant that the principle of classification of rates by commodities was one recognized by all courts and commissions, and in the instance cited by him this classification did not constitute a discrimination.

Replying to this communication, complainant stated that previous to March 23, 1908, there had been in effect to points within a fixed radius in the city of Pittsburg special rates, which at the date mentioned had been increased, and that the resultant rates were excessive. Commission requested that complainant put this matter in the form of a complaint to the effect that rates were excessive.

Replying, complainant stated that he must decline to assume any personal responsibility for prosecuting the complaint or any expense, and that it would be more to his interest to pay the excessive charge than to make the expenditure to prove his complaint.

Subsequently the Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburg opened a correspondence with the Commission on this matter, which is still unconcluded

No. 29.

WELLSBORO CITIZENS vs. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

ROBERT K. YOUNG, Esq., for Complainants.

This was a petition of the citizens and merchants of Wellsboro, Tioga county, Pa., asking the Commission to investigate the conditions attending the operation of said road to this point, and particularly the character of service rendered, and that it recommend that this company operate all trains through to Wellsboro instead of sending passengers by branch trains from Stockesdale Junction; that the company should furnish Pullman car accommodations on at least one train in each direction a day; that the respondent company should furnish a passenger station with such conveniences as are necessary for the use of the traveling public; and that the respondent company should furnish additional accommodations over that portion of its line operating from Wellsboro to Antrim.

Subsequent to the filing of this complaint and before the same was acted upon, the Commission had an investigation made by its inspector, and after receiving report of same, the complaint was sent to the railroad company for its answer.

Case pending.