Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

sary in order to place the bridge in safe condition for operation. Awaiting receipt from the railroad company of complete plans and drawings, showing the character of work proposed to be done, this matter is still pending.

No. 68.

R. R. BOGGS, CHAIRMAN, RAILROAD COMMITTEE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE DIVISION, TRAVELERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA vs. HUNTINGTON & BROAD TOP MOUNTAIN RAILROAD AND COAL COMPANY.

Complaint was made to the Commission that the Huntingdon & Broad Top Railway Company was charging three cents per mile for the transportation of passengers.

Complainant was advised that the provisions of the act of April 15th, 1907, fixing the maximum amount which a railroad company might charge for the transportation of any passenger or person at two cents per mile, made special provision that the penalty for the violation of the act was payable to the county and was recoverable by the county where such illegal charge was made, and that, therefore, the enforcement of the act was without the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Complainant was further advised that the Commission could receive a complaint that the rates of fare are excessive, and after investigation make recommendation.

This communication was unanswered.

No. 69.

A. V. KAISER & COMPANY vs. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COM

PANY.

Statement was made to the Commission that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company maintained near Holmes Station, Delaware county, Pa., a grade crossing which was a source of great danger to residents and travelers. Also that it was frequently the custom of this company to allow trains to remain standing on this crossing for a considerable length of time, greatly impeding traffic. Request was made for information as to the law on this subject. The Commission called attention to the act of March 20, 1845, P. L. 191, and to the decisions of the courts thereunder.

No. 70.

MILLER ORGAN & PIANO COMPANY vs. PHILADELPHIA & READING RAILWAY COMPANY.

This complaint was that the respondent company charged a rate of $1.25 per ton on shipments of coal from Inwood to Lebanon, a haul of about twelve miles.

The complainant in this case was sent the proper forms for the purpose of filing formal complaint, but as this has not been done, complaint was dismissed.

[merged small][ocr errors]

OAK RIDGE COAL & COKE COMPANY vs. COAL & COKE RAILWAY COMPANY, OF ELKINS, WEST VIRGINIA.

This was a complaint regarding per diem allowance for service of cars between points within this State to points outside of the State.

Complainant was advised that this claim was not a matter in which this Commission could take jurisdiction, but, being an inter-State matter, should be brought to the attention of the Inter-State Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C.

No. 72.

PITTSBURG METAL BRAZING COMPANY vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had improperly classified a shipment of metal housings, Wheeling, W. Va., to Pittsburg, Pa., and that by reason of this classification the complainant had been overcharged.

This case was dismissed with the advice to complainant, that the shipment in question having been an inter-state movement, the matter was without the jurisdiction of the Commission. The complainant was advised to present the same to the Inter-State Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C.

No. 73.

MAX SOLOMON vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made that an overcharge had been made on two cars of scrap iron, Latrobe, Pa., to Glassport, Pa.

After considering the same, the complainant was advised that the matter of dispute as to the correctness of a bill, for the carrying of freight, was not one for consideration by the Commission, but should properly go to the courts.

No. 74.

JOHN C. WELLER, ET AL. vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made to the Commission by a committee representing discharged employes of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company that they were entitled to a return of the amounts paid by them into the Voluntary Relief Association, conducted under the direction of the respondent company. It was stated that the company required before employing, that every applicant for employment should pass an examination; also required all persons to sign a waiver of claims on the relief fund, and that the company deducted out of pay of employes regular sums per month, and that there was nothing on the pay check to show the amount of deduction for the purpose.

This complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with the following advice to complainants:

"The Pennsylvania State Railroad Commission had presented to it your complaint relative to the matter of Pennsylvania Railroad Voluntary Relief Department.

"The Act of Assembly creating this Commission, at Section VII, defines the power and authority of the Commission and, aside from the specific powers delegated to it, generally gives it authority on 'All matters incident to the performance of their (common carriers) public duties.'

"In the opinion of the Commission this section does not give it authority to investigate questions arising between common carriers and their employes."

No. 75.

I. H. DICKINSON ET AL. vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

E. M. GILBERT, for Complainants.

GEORGE STUART PATTERSON and WM. I. SCHAFFER, for Respondents.

Complainant, by counsel, brought before the Commission a petition, setting forth that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company maintained a line of railroad, known as the Atglen & Susquehanna Branch, passing through the borough of Quarryville, where complainants resided, and that they had never established any station or received and delivered any freight at that point, or handled any freight or passengers over the said line. It was further maintained that by reason of the failure of the respondent company to maintain a station and undertake the handling of freight or passengers, that petitioners were forced to ship their goods and to deliver by way of Lancaster, to Philadelphia and all points east of Lancaster, which caused a great increase of expense.

The answer of the railroad company admitted that it had not established any station or received or delivered or handled any freight or passengers at Quarryville, on its low grade line, and denied that to do so would be an advantage or convenience to the complainants, or the public in general. A conference between the representatives of the respondent company and complainants, together with their counsel, was held at the Borough of Quarryville, on November 7th, 1908, the same having been suggested by the Commission, and, as result thereof, an adjustment of the complaint of Aument & Company et al. against the Pennsylvania Railroad, and I. H. Dickinson et al. against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, was reached. Counsel for complainants in both cases so advised the Commission, and requested that no further action be taken on the complaints.

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, having filed with the Commission an agreement to put in force, effective January 1st, 1909, rates in accordance with this agreement, this case was marked closed by adjustment.

No. 76.

F. L. FERRELL vs. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant communicated to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania a complaint that the train service maintained by the respondent company on its Somerset & Cambria Branch was inadequate for the territory served in and about Boswell, Pa. Upon receipt of this matter from the Attorney General's Department, the Commission took the same up with the railroad company, and was advised that in connection with the revision of schedule, additions had been made to the passenger service on the branch line above referred to, which would materially increase the service afforded Boswell and sur

rounding territory. Complainant was advised of this proposed improvement of service and the case marked closed.

No. 77.

ARTHUR G. R. HEAL vs. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

This was a complaint that the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company had refused to refund a deposit of five dollars ($5) made in connection with the purchase of interchangeable mileage ticket No. 793,750. It developed upon investigation that the terms of the contract between the railroad company and the purchaser of ticket provided that a refund of five dollars ($5) would be made if the ticket were surrendered within eighteen months from the date of issue. It further developed that a ruling had been made by the Inter-State Commerce Commission that it was illegal to depart from the terms of a contract of this kind, and that this ruling was the basis of the railroad companys refusal to make refund. The complainant was advised that the case was dismissed for reason that the Commission had no authority to vary the contract made by him with the railroad company at the time of purchase of the said ticket.

No. 78.

E. P. HENWOOD, ET AL. vs. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY.

Petitioner, and a number of citizers of Skinners Eddy, Laceyville, Meshoppen, South Auburn, and other communities in Wyoming, Bradford and Susquehanna counties, asked the Commission to recommend the re-establishment by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company of a station formerly located at Skinner's Eddy, Wyoming county, Pennsylvania.

The answer of the railroad company to this complaint was that prior to April 1st, 1901, a station was maintained at Skinner's Eddy, Pa., and used by that community, together with the residents of section across the Susquehanna river from that point, the latter having access by means of a ferry; that station had been abandoned for the reason that one mile distant from this point, at Laceyville, Pa., a bridge over the Susquehanna river had been erected, while the ferry across the same river at Skinner's Eddy, Pa., had been abandoned. It was further averred that Skinner's Eddy was a very small settlement and that the country surrounding it was thinly populated and that conditions did not justify any passenger or additional freight train service

« AnteriorContinuar »