West Philadelphia to private sidings within the Gray's Ferry District, while on shipments consigned to public sidings the rate was three cents per hundred. It was alleged that this practice was discriminatory.

The answer of the railroad company was that the practice was correctly reported, and that the reason for the difference in charges was that the movement from warehouses to a private siding involved simply the cost of transportation, the facilities being furnished by the owner of siding, while in movements from warehouses to public delivery sidings the railroad furnished an additional terminal service.

Commission has ordered a hearing on this matter.

No. 110.

G. H. BONNER vs. PHILADELPHIA RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY.

This was a complaint that the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company had failed to enforce a recommendation of the Commission, prohibiting the carrying of passengers on the front platforms of closed cars.

The answer of the company was that it was making every effort to enforce the recommendation of the Commission, and furnished copies of rules put into effect following said recommendation, and that if the complainant would furnish specific information, giving date and number of car upon which the infraction of the rule occurred, proper punishment would be imposed.

On being advised by the Commission of the nature of the traction company's answer, complainant informed it that the same was satisfactory.

Case marked closed.

No. 111.

J. E. SLOYER vs. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant alleged that in January, 1905, he had purchased sixty trip ticket over the Pennsylvania Railroad between West Chester, Pa., and Malvern, Pa., and that by reason of a snow storm he was unable to use the same for a period between January 18th and 21st; also that he had requested the agent of the company at West Chester, Pa., to furnish him transportation to Malvern via. Philadelphia, but that he had declined to do same except upon payment of the full rate. Claim was made for $6.50.

The case was dismissed with the advice that the Commission had not taken cognizance of complaints concerning occurrences prior to January 1, 1908, at which time the act creating the Commission became effective.

No. 112.

W. D. BLACKBURN, ET AL. vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

The petitioners in this case were residents of Imler, Reynoldsdale, Fishertown and other places on the Dunnings Creek Branch, Bedford Division, the Pennsylvania Railroad. Complaint set forth that the existing passenger train service maintained by this company was insufficient for the needs of the community and requested a revision of schedule.

Answer of the railroad company has not yet been filed.

No. 113.

HERBERT M. BUSHONG vs. UNITED TRACTION COMPANY OF READ ING.

Complaint was made that the respondent company failed to keep its cars in fair sanitary condition; that passengers were compelled to ride in those portions of cars in which light freight was carried; that expectorating on the floor of cars was not prohibited, and that dogs were carried in those portions of cars reserved for passengers.

The answer of the Traction Company was that light freight was carried, but in separate compartments, to which passengers were not admitted; that if dogs were carried they were required to be consigned to the smoking compartment; that the company made every effort to keep its cars clean and in good condition and that the offense complained about was not due to failure of the company to provide proper regulations, but to the carelessness of passengers; that with regard to expectorating, the company would be pleased to have the commission make an order prohibiting this offensive habit, and would do everything in its power to make the same effective.

The complainant was advised of the nature of this answer, also that the Commission proposed taking up with the Department of Health the issue of a recommendation concerning expectorating.

Respondent company was asked to and did furnish plans showing construc tion of cars used in its service.

Case pending.

No. 114.

COLBORN BROTHERS vs. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complaint was made that on a shipment of incline rollers, Stewarton, Penn'a, to Webster, Penn'a, travelling via the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, an overcharge had been made by reason of failure of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad to properly route the same. This complaint has not yet been answered by the respondent company.

No. 115.

E. L. WATTS vs. LEBANON VALLEY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.

Complaint was made that the respondent company failed to maintain waiting rooms and stations at Lebanon, Penn'a, and other points on its interurban lines; that adequate facilities were not provided for passengers at the rush period of the day by reason of which fact ladies frequently suffered damage to clothing; that cars used by respondent company were not kept clean and in a sanitary condition.

The answer of the respondent was, that there was no law or custom requiring street railway companies to maintain waiting rooms or stations and to do so would be beyond the possibility of the company's income; that the company could not discriminate as to passengers during the rush hour or any other period; that the cars of the company were kept clean and in good order. Case pending.

No. 116.

HAYES RUN FIRE BRICK COMPANY vs. NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

This complainant alleged that on shipments of brick and other clay products consigned by it to points on the Pennsylvania Railroad, shipments originating on the line of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, it was compelled to pay an arbitrary rate of fifty cents per net ton greater than was paid

by competitors shipping to the same destination where freight originated on the line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, this practice constituting a discrimination.

The answer of the railroad company to this complaint has not yet been filed.

No. 117.

H. M. WHITAKER vs. PITTSBURGH, SHAWMUT & NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant filed complaint with the Commission that this Company was charging a rate of five cents per mile for passenger transportation on trains between Croyland, Pa., and Hallton, Pa.

Complainant was advised that there was pending before the Commission a case involving the right of a railroad company, chartered under the Act of 1868, to charge more than the rate fixed by the Act of 1849, and that his case would be considered in connection therewith.

No. 118.

LOUIS INGRAM, ET AL. vs. BEAVER VALLEY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.

Complaint was made that this company failed to properly mark cars so as to show the routes they traveled and that cars marked to travel certain routes frequently failed to do so.

The answer of the street railway company to this complaint set forth that in but two instances during the year had cars failed to complete their circuits as scheduled, these occasions being due to extraordinary circumstances; that as to marking of cars so as to show routes travelled, the policy of the company was to follow this practice.

Case pending.

No. 119.

MRS. EMILIE V. FITZWATER vs. LEHIGH VALLEY TRACTION COMPANY and BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.

This complainant, a property owner residing in Springfield township, Montgomery county, Penn'a, complained that the Lehigh Valley Traction Company permitted the Bell Telephone Company, a foreign corporation doing business

in Pennsylvania, to string its cables and wires upon poles erected by and in use of the said traction company; that it was proposed to do so on poles located in front of complainant's residence, this being contrary to law and the rights of private citizens.

Case pending.

No. 120.

WILLIAM MASON, ET AL. vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

This was petition of citizens of Dauphin, Dauphin county, Penn'a, asking that a change be made in the existing passenger schedule of the Northern Central Railway Company so that a night service between Harrisburg, Penn'a, and Dauphin, Penn'a, could be secured.

After receiving the petition, notice was given to the Commission by the railroad company that the change petitioned for would be made, effective January 4, 1909.

No. 121.

CORRY HIDE AND FUR COMPANY vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

This complaint was that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company had charged storage on a shipment of hides, delivery of which to complainant had been delayed by reason of a quarantine regulation; that when it was found that the shipment was not subject to quarantine, storage charges were remitted. Complainant claimed railroad company was exceeding its powers in making charge for storage.

Commission advised that railroad companies, under decisions of the courts, had the right to collect storage charges for whatever time goods may remain in their custody after a reasonable opportunity had been afforded the owner to remove the same.

Case dismissed.

No. 122.

P. P. GRIFFIN vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Complainant in this case alleged that the Pennsylvania Railroad, when asked to reconsign to Montoursville, Penn'a, a point on the Philadelphia & Reading