was such that it was impossible for complainants to keep in its employ skilled labor.

After considering this complaint, the Commission directed that complainant be advised as follows:

"The facts given in the complaint do not show such demand for additional or other train service as in the opinion of this Commission would warrant it in making such recommendation to the railroad company."

Case dismissed.

No. 38.

H. B. MCNULTY, ET AL. vs. CUMBERLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY AND CHAMBERSBURG & GETTYSBURG ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

J. A. STRITE, Esq., for Petitioners.

MESSRS. SHARP & ELDER, for Respondents.

The petitioners in this case, residents of the borough of Chambersburg, Franklin county, Penn'a, made complaint that the Cumberland Valley Railroad and the Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Companies had refused to permit the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company to use the crossing whereby the Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Company crossed the tracks of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company, although, under the terms of the franchise granted to the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company by the borough of Chambersburg, the last named company was given the right to the use of the said crossing.

It was further complained that before requesting the use of the crossing above referred to, the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company had endeavored to secure permission to cross at grade the tracks of the Cumberland Valley Railroad at another point.

In addition, it was alleged that the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company and the Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Company were largely owned by the same interests and officered by the same people, and that the management of both companies was in harmony.

Answer was made jointly by each of the respondent companies, and therein it was set forth, that, by proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county, at the instance of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company there had issued an injunction to prevent the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company from crossing the tracks of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company at grade, which injunction was still in force.

It was further stated that it was true that there had been negotiations between the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company and the Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Company for the use of the tracks of the latter company, and its crossing over the tracks of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company at grade. It was denied that the

Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Company was legally required by any ordinance to permit such use of its tracks.

In behalf of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company it was further stated that it had offered to construct, at its own expense, a subway under its tracks at a point in said borough and permit the free use of the same by the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company, and that if that offer had been accepted, access to the central portion of town would have been given the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company, but it was declined.

It was furthermore stated that a grade crossing over the tracks of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company at the point desired by the Chambersburg, Greencastle & Waynesboro Street Railway Company would be extremely dangerous, and that use by the said company of the present crossing of the Chambersburg & Gettysburg Electric Railway Company would greatly increase the danger of operation to the owning company.

A date for hearing was fixed by the Commission in this matter, but prior to that time counsel for the petitioners and the respondents filed with the Commission a joint request that the hearing on the matter be postponed to a date to be fixed by agreement of the parties, or upon a failure to agree, to be fixed by the Commission. Further action postponed.

No. 39.

EDUARD SCHENK vs. PITTSBURG & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made to the Commission in this case that the Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railroad Company was engaged in dangerous practice in connection with the loading of passengers in its main depot, city of Pittsburg, to wit: The locking of doors of cars and keeping the same locked until the conductor had collected fares.

The complaint was sent to the respondent company with the request that it advise the Commission as to its practice and also as to its view upon the alleged danger thereon, and whether practice could not be avoided. The answer of the respondent company was that in order to facilitate loading it was the practice at its main terminal in Pittsburg, to lock one door of each car; that no danger resulted from this practice and that the doors of cars were unlocked as soon as the train left the depot. Complainant was notified of the answer of the company and advised that unless prepared to prove the danger of the practice and the fact that the practice was not as represented, the Commission could see no reason for further action in the matter. The complainant in reply advised that he was ready to produce proof that the practice was not as described by the company in its answer to the Commission.

Case pending.

No. 40.

JAMES C. QUINN vs. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made that the respondent company maintained passenger train service between Wellsboro, Pa., and Antrim, Pa., the former being the county seat of Tioga county; that the present schedule was such that persons traveling from Antrim to the county seat were unable to return the same day, and that this practice was the cause of great expense and inconvenience to the public.

Subsequent to the filing of this petition, the Commission received a complaint from the citizens of Wellsboro, Pa., embracing much the same matter, and these two complaints are now being jointly considered.

The answer of the respondent company has not yet been filed.

Case pending.

No. 41.

DON C. HALL vs. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Complaint was made that the respondent company charged the complainant a greater amount than the regular passenger fare for hauling private car, Oil City, Pa., to Stoneboro, Pa.

This matter was taken up with the general passenger agent of the respondent company, who admitted that an over-charge had been made, and ordered refund to complainant of the amount.

Case closed by adjustment.

No. 42.

ELUARD SCHENK vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY and PITTSBURG AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint made that the rate charged by the two respondent companies on shipment of dump wagons (knocked down) from Washington, Pa., to Coraopolis, Pa., was excessive, and that the two respondent companies were discriminating against shippers located in Washington, Pa, and Coraopolis, Pa.

The matter was taken up with one of the respondent companies, with the result that the amount of alleged overcharge was refunded to the shipper, and the case satisfactorily adjusted.

Case marked closed.

No. 43.

EDUARD SCHENK vs. CENTRAL DISTRICT & PRINTING TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

Complaint was that the charge made by the respondent company for desk telephone service or extension line was excessive; that the respondent company refused to permit connecting up with a private branch exchange where subscriber failed to use two or more trunk lines, this practice being alleged to be ■ discrimination; that the rules of the respondent company relative to the cancellation of telephone contracts and telephone service were arbitrary.

This case was sent to the respondent company for answer. The company denied that the charge made for extension or desk phone sets wàs excessive. It was admitted that the matter of refusing to permit subscriber connecting up with a private branch exchange was as represented, but the respondent set up in defense that at least two trunk lines were necessary in order to prevent congestion of traffic.

Relative to the third portion of the complainant's statement, it was denied that there was any arbitrary violation of contract, but that where contracts had been terminated, it was after the subscriber had deliberately broken the provisions thereof, and after notice, and in every instance, refund was made of the unearned portion of the rental.

It was further stated by the respondent company that a representative had called upon the complainant and made explanation to him as to the regulations of the company, and that it was the understanding of the respondent company that these explanations were satisfactory. The Commission communicated with the complainant as to the facts with regard to this and was advised that telephone service rendered by the respondent company to complainant had been cancelled; that if this service was renewed that portion of the complaint would be satisfactorily adjusted. This was subsequently done and the complainant so advised the Commission

No. 44.

R. R. BOGGS, CHAIRMAN, RAILROAD COMMITTEE PENNSYLVANIA STATE DIVISION, TRAVELERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA vs. POTTSVILLE STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.

Complaint was made that the Pottsville Street Railway Company was charging a rate for the transportation of grips or packages, which was alleged to be unjust, unfair and in violation of the law.

The complainant in this case was advised that the matter was under the provisions of the act of April 22, 1907, P. L. 96.

No. 45.

A. NARDI'S SONS vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made that the railroad company charged for a heavier weight per box on shipment of oranges from Williamsport, Pa., to Philadelphia, Pa., than was made on shipment of the same goods from California to Williamsport, Pa.; also that charge was made for freight on ice put on the car by complainant to protect the fruit.

Complainant was requested to submit additional data, paid freight bills, etc. It being determined thereby that the rate charged was in accordance with the published tariffs and classifications, the Commission advised complainant as follows:

"Inasmuch as there is no complaint made by you that the railroad charged more than its published tariffs, or that the charge for carrying ice was in violation of the published regulations, and inasmuch as there is no complaint that the rates are unreasonable or excessive, there appears to be nothing for the Commission to do in the matter."

Case dismissed.

No. 46.

WILLIAM SCHNEARLINE vs. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.

This complainant, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, brought to the attention of the Governor of Pennsylvania, a statement that passenger coaches used by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company on its through train service from Pittsburg, Pa., to Washington, D. C., were not maintained in a proper sanitary condition.

This complaint was submitted to the respondent company, and its answer was that all the cars used in passenger train service were cleaned and the toilet rooms disinfected before leaving the depot, and that all coaches were fumigated at least once every thirty days, and every effort was made to maintain equipment in good sanitary condition.