before crossing Cowenhoven's lane. The company also promised to see that its cars were protected with proper life-guards.

On May twenty-fourth James E. Dubois of Blythebourne complained against the Brooklyn, Bath and West End Railroad Company, alleging that it was not keeping its agreement relative to stopping cars at Cowenhoven's lane crossing, as given above. On May twentysixth the company answered, through its president, Benjamin Norton, that so far as he knew, the arrangements heretofore made relative to Cowenhoven's lane crossing were being carried out, and that he would give the complaint immediate attention and issue the necessary orders to have the agreement complied with.

By the Board.

XIX.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF ISAAC G. SANDS V. THE PHILADELPHIA, READING AND NEW ENGLAND RAILROAD COMPANY.

February 26, 1894..

On January 20, 1894, Isaac G. Sands, of Stanfordville, N. Y., complained against the Philadelphia, Reading and New England Railroad Company, alleging improper condition of fences, and dangerous crossing under a bridge on his farm. On February sixteenth the company answered that the proper officer had been instructed to examine into the matter, that the crossing would be widened and otherwise improved and that Mr. Sands' cause for complaint would be removed. On February twenty-sixth Mr. Sands, replying to the answer of the company, said if the repairs were made as contemplated it would be satisfactory. Nothing further having been heard from Mr. Sands the case was ordered closed.

By the Board.

IN THE

MATTER OF THE

XX.

COMPLAINT OF JOSEPH P. HIGGINS V. THE BROOKLYN AND BRIGHTON BEACH RAILROAD COMPANY.

February 27, 1894.

On September 12, 1893, Joseph P. Higgins protested to this Board by letter against the removal of the flagman from Avenue C, in Flatbush, on the line of the Brooklyn and Brighton Beach railroad.

On September nineteenth the company replied, through its president, James Jourdan, stating that the flagman was removed on September fifth, because his services were no longer required at Avenue C, Flatbush, which is simply a country road and seldom used.

An examination of the locality was made by the inspector of the Board, who reported that a flagman was unnecessary at the point named during the winter; whereupon the complaint was dismissed.

By the Board.

XXI.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF F. Friedleben v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, LESSEK OF THE NEW YORK AND HARLEM RAILROAD.

March 2, 1894

On October 23, 1893, Mr. Friedleben, by letter, complained against the character of the station maintained by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, at Washingtonville, on the line of the Harlem railroad.

Mr. Webb, third vice-president of the company, replied that steps would be taken to place a small station at Washingtonville, with as little delay as possible.

By the Board.

IN THE MATTER

XXII.

OF THE COMPLAINT OF RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF CHESTERFIELD, ESSEX COUNTY, v. THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL COMPANY.

March 2, 1894.

A numerously signed petition from the residents of the town of Chesterfield, Essex county, was presented to the Board on August twenty-third, requesting the Board to cause a passenger and freight station to be located at Douglass by the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company on the line of the New York and Canada railroad, in the town of Chesterfield.

The complaint was transmitted to the company and an answer received from Vice-President H. G. Young on September seventh, in which he stated that no station had been erected at that point owing to the fact that the business does not warrant it. Considerable correspondence was had in relation to the matter, and an inspection was made of the premises by the inspector of the Board, in which he reported that the residents of the vicinity of Douglass would be willing to erect a freighthouse if the company would lay a short spur of track alongside the building, the residents to donate land for that purpose.

On February sixteenth, Mr. Young replied that the company would, substantially carry out the recommendations of the inspector, and would enter into an agreement with the residents of the locality, and provide for the stoppage of a certain number of passenger trains each way at the point named. Proceedings in the matter of the complaint were thereupon discontinued.

By the Board.

XXIII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF RESIDENTS OF ALBANY v. THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL COMPANY.

March 23, 1894.

Complaint was made on March 8, 1894, by A. Picard and others, alleging the removal of flagmen from dangerous crossings in the city of Albany.

Upon notification of the complaint the company replied that the flagmen would be forthwith restored.

By the Board.

XXIV.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF C. W. STAPLETON V. THE NEW YORK, ONTARIO AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ALLEGING INSUFFICIENT STATION ACCOMMODATIONS AT RANDALLSVILLE.

March 28, 1894.

On reading and filing the complaint of C. W. Stapleton dated February 25, 1894, alleging inadequate accommodations at the passenger station at Randallsville, N. Y., on the line of the said road, the report of the inspector of the Board dated March twenty-fourth, the papers submitted on behalf of the railroad company, and after due consideration of the evidence taken at the hearing had herein, a transcript whereof is duly filed in this office; and after hearing C. W. Stapleton on behalf of the said complainant, no one appearing in opposition. thereto; and it appearing that the allegations of said complaint are well founded,

The Board recommends that the New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company alter and repair its passenger station at Randallsville so as to afford adequate accommodations for the traveling public and that separate closets be furnished for men and women within thirty days from the date hereof; that upon failure so to do the secretary is directed to transmit the proceedings taken herein and all papers relating thereto to the Attorney-General, with the request that he institute proceedings to enforce this recommendation.

The above order was promptly complied with by the company.
By the Board.

XXV.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF MESSRS. RICHMOND & JAMES THE FITCHBURG RAILROAD COMPANY, RELATIVE TO INSUFFICIENT AND DANGEROUS STATION ACCOMMODATIONS AT HOOSICK.

April 12, 1894.

On January 22, 1894, Messrs. Richmond & James, of Hoosick, complained to the Board of Railroad Commissioners relative to the insufficient and dangerous passenger and freight accommodations at the village of Hoosick on the line of the Fitchburg railroad.

On January twenty-ninth an answer was made by the company to the aforesaid complaint, in which it was stated that the company had under consideration the matter of passenger and freight stations at Hoosick and would take some action in regard thereto as soon as practicable.

This answer not being satisfactory to the complainants, a public hearing was had before the Board at its office in Albany on March seventh, at which appeared in behalf of the complainants LeGrand B. Tibbitts, W. F. Babcock and others, and in behalf of the company J. H. Morris and M. P. Snyder.

An adjournment was had to March nineteenth, A. H. Hawk, E. A. Richmond and M. W. Gower appearing for the complainants, and T. J. Hamilton, M. P. Snyder and A. J. Cheever for the company.

As a result of this hearing, the inspector of the Board was ordered to make an examination of the locality and report what remedy, in his judgment, should be applied. Under date of April second, the inspector reported as follows:

"The present accommodations of the temporary station and freighthouse at Hoosick are not good. A freight car is utilized as a freighthouse, and the southerly end of Mr. Sherwood's storehouse, about 300 feet south of the highway grade crossing, has been partitioned off and is used as a waiting-room. This room is substantially ten by fourteen feet in extent. The sittings are not sufficient or comfortable. The room is poorly ventilated and not properly cared for. The old station, some 300 feet northerly from the highway, was burned some two or three years ago. It was near the eastbound track and not wisely located owing to the sharp curve at this point and its distance from the westbound track and the highway. The railroad officials have been somewhat perplexed in deciding upon the best location to meet all the requirements; your inspector was informed of this fact during the last regular inspection in 1893. If the new station were located upon the company's land, near Mr. Sherwood's office, it would not seem advantageous as regards safety or accommodations to the patrons of the road, as nearly nine-tenths of the passengers from this point are westbound and the sharp curve immediately north would obstruct the line of vision materially, so that through eastbound trains would barely be observed in time to prevent accident. . The village being entirely upon the east side of the railroad presents another vital objection to this plan. The above objections would also seem to hold true should the south west corner of the highway and railroad enter into consideration, beside the necessity of obtaining private land. The present temporary location, considering the position of the tracks and that one man is obliged to attend both the passenger and freight departments (which will probably be the case for years to come), is perhaps the handiest from a railroad business standpoint, but the danger to life and property and lack of hauling conveniences in passage to and from the highway are very great and should, it would seem, be lessened. A passenger and freight station combined, located upon either the northeast or southeast corner of the highway and railroad would greatly lessen the chance of danger and accident to patrons, accommodate the greatest number of passengers (being on the village or westbound side), greatly facilitate hauling and handling freight to and from the village, and necessitate

but little, if any, modification in the layout of tracks. The southeast corner would seem to be most preferable, when the church, value of land, highway crossing and position of existing tracks are considered. The land necessary to be taken for station purposes upon the southeast corner need not be great. The company now own nearly twenty feet from the track to the fence line and their land increases in width going south; an ordinary village lot in extent would be ample to purchase or obtain by process of law, and your inspector would suggest that steps be taken without delay by the railroad company looking toward the erection of a modern combined passenger and freight station upon the southeast corner as referred to above."

This report was considered at a meeting of the Board held on the eleventh of April at its office in Albany, at which the report of the inspector was adopted, and the Board recommends that the Fitchburg Railroad Company erect and maintain an adequate passenger and freight station at Hoosick, in accordance with the suggestions of the inspector, and in case said company refuses or neglects to comply with the terms of this order with reasonable diligence, such proceedings thereon as may be necessary for the enforcement of these recommendations and the protection of the public interests will be taken under the provisions of section 160 of the Railroad Law.

The company subsequently, in a communication signed by its president, stated that it was desired to bring the east and westbound tracks together and build a new station on land now owned by the company. The president also stated that if plans to the above effect, which would be submitted, were not satisfactory, the above order would be carried out. Pending the submission of plans of the proposed change the enforcement of the order has been suspended.

By the Board.

XXVI.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF G. M. TREMAIN V. The Lake SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

April 20, 1894.

On March twenty-seventh G. M. Tremain of Brocton, N. Y., entered complaint against the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad Company, alleging unsafe condition of a culvert at Brocton. On March thirty-first, the company answered that an investigation of the culvert would be made, and on April twenty-first, a further communication was received, stating that the arch over the roadway near Brocton, complained of by Mr. Tremain, was found to be in good, safe condition and although some of the stones were cracked they were not loose; that the arch had been pointed up with Portland cement a short time before; that the master mason of the road stated that the arch was in good condition and that there was no settlement anywhere. The answer of the company was forwarded to Mr. Tremain, and nothing further being heard from him the complaint was dismissed.

By the Board.