Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

The facts elicited in the examination of this case lead to the conclusion that Oakton, though within the enlarged limits of Davenport, is a flag station; that the delivery of coal cars at Oakton is practically a train service and that the company, under the Commissioners' tariff, is entitled to charge the rate, 30 cents per ton. The conditions are, however, exactly the same as they were when the switching charges, made voluntarily by the company, were two dollars per car. The service really costs the company but little, probably less than any switching service of the same distance anywhere, as it is stated by every witness that for the last two years it is seldom the case that a freight train goes without a helper pushing it up the Oakton grade, which may or may not haul loaded cars up and empty cars back. The Commissioners have fixed a charge for switching and a charge for haulage of five miles or less; and as the matter stands, if this is a haulage the position of Mr. Cary is correct "that the charge is in strict accordance with the distance tariff fixed by the Board."

This rate of 30 cents per ton, or $5.60 per car, is claimed to be so great as to prohibit the delivery of coal from the mines, with which complainant does business, to Oakton.

It is a question whether the Commissioners should adhere to general rates for hauls under five miles, or take into consideration the circumstances and conditions affecting each case, and fix a rate for the service. To meet this question the respondent is hereby required to appear before the Commissioners at their office in Des Moines, Iowa, on the 30th day of September, 1890, and show cause why a rate of $3.00, or less, per car, should not be fixed for the service performed in hauling coal for complainant from Davenport station to Oakton station.

[blocks in formation]

Complainant, John G. Thomassen, has for the past four years been engaged in the business of carrying passengers in his omnibus to and from the railway station of the respondent, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Company in Pella. For many years prior to the time that complainant engaged in such business the firm of Wheeler & Wells were engaged in running an omnibus in Pella and are still pursuing said business. Until recently the bus first arriving at the station has made first selection of position, the bus next arriving taking second place.

The respondent company has lately issued an order requiring complainant to occupy the second place, and in the event of failure to comply with such order the order goes further and excludes complainant entirely from the depot grounds. The assignment proposed gives Wheeler & Wells an advantage, as passengers must pass their omnibus before reaching the omnibus of complainant. It is against this alleged advantage and discrimination that complaint is made.

The platform forms a right angle and it is in the angle next to the standing track of the train and next to the door of the station house that it is proposed to locate the omnibus of complainant's competitors. The position assigned to complainant has the further disadvantage in that there is but nineteen feet of space between the angle and the coal shed, and when the first place is occupied there is barely room to back in and necessitates the backing of from twenty to thirty feet, which is quite difficult with an omnibus heavily loaded with passengers.

The first order reads as follows:

"TO THOMASSEN BROS.-You are hereby notified that the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, as owners and lessees of the ground, by its division superintendent, J. C. Coombs, has passed upon the question between you and Wheeler & Wells as to stand for your respective omnibuses at the depot at Pella during the arrival and departure of trains at said depot, and it is ordered by the company that at such times and at any other time you are to back up your omnibus against the platform at the west end of the station house alongside the coal house there, and you are to occupy not more than the south half of the space between said coal house and the platform running west from the depot along the south side of the main line track, and you are directed to comply with this order if you desire to make use of the company's ground for that purpose.

"Dated this 22d day of July, 1890. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, by J. M. Cox, station agent."

The second order reads as follows:

"TO JOHN G. THOMASSEN-You are hereby notified that the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company require of you, that in coming upon said company's grounds at the station at Pella with your omnibus for the purpose of taking passengers to or from the said depot, that you occupy the ground assigned you by J. C. Coombs, the division superintendent of the said company, namely, not to exceed the south half of the space along the platform on the west end of said depot building at said station and between the platform along the south side of the main line track running west from said depot building and the coal house, and that you back up your omnibus against the said platform at the west end of the said depot building, and that unless you conform to the requirements of the said company in that respect, you are further hereby notified that you will be a tresspasser upon the grounds of the company in occupying any other place with your omnibus at said station, and that you will be dealt with accordingly.

"July 28, 1890. By order of J. C. Coombs, division superintendent. J. M. Cox, station agent."

In addition to the facts heretofore set out, it appears that Wheeler & Wells are carriers of the United States mails and of the United States Express Company, between the post-office and the express office in Pella and the station. Complainant avers that the mail and express is usually carried in a separate vehicle used for that purpose that is assigned to a point further down the platform.

The question of the right of a railroad company to regulate and conduct the affairs at its stations and upon its depot grounds is well settled.

The

following rule is laid down in Rorer on railroads, page 480: "A railroad company is bound to regulate and conduct its affairs at and on its depot grounds and buildings in reference to the quiet and comfort of those resorting to the same as passengers, or on other legitimate business.

* *

*

In the exercise of this authority and right they may exclude runners and solicitors of passengers, as hackmen and hotel solicitors, from their grounds, stations and buildings, etc."

In Thompson's Carriers of Passengers, page 350: "An omnibus proprietor who carries passengers and their luggage for hire to and from a railway station cannot maintain an action against the company for refusing to allow him to drive his vehicle into their station yard."

The law requires that every reasonable means should be used by carriers for the convenience, comfort, safety and protection of passengers, and that they may comply with these requirements it is necessary that they should have the right to exercise full and complete control over their depot grounds, station houses and platforms, subject only to legal limitations. To this end they may adopt and enforce such reasonable rules with reference to omnibusses admitted to the depot grounds as are calculated to preserve order and prevent friction and discord between the owners or drivers thereof that passengers may be well accommodated and not unnecessarily annoyed or discommoded.

A rule making assignments of different omnibus lines to special and fixed positions where their respective vehicles may be backed up does not appear to the Commissioners to be unreasonable. In making these assignments, however, due care should be exercised to place the parties applying for privileges upon as equal a footing as the circumstances will admit of, keeping in view section 4, of chapter 28, of the laws of the Twenty-second General Assembly, which provides that "It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make or give any preference or advantage to in any respect whatever."

*

*

any particular person

*

*

*

*

In this case Wheeler & Wells have been directed to back their omnibus into the angle and complainant is assigned space next adjoining and while it is true that complainant's vehicle is some eight or ten feet further from the door of the station house and train when standing on the track, it does not appear just how a better arrangement could be made for complainant, unless it was arranged to have him change places with his competitor. As to the objection raised that he is required to back in after his competitor has his omnibus in position he is not differently situated from Wheeler & Wells, who would also be required to back in if complainant's vehicle was first on the ground and in position.

The Commissioners from the investigation made in this matter can see no reason for their interference with the rules laid down by the respondent company and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Des Moines, Iowa, September 18, 1890.

APPLICATION FOR INCREASED RATES

BY THE

MASON CITY & FORT DODGE RAILROAD
COMPANY.

Commissioners' rates.

DECISION OF COMMISSIONERS.

On the third day of September, 1890, Superintendent Burdick and General Freight Agent Kelley of the Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company, appeared before the Commissioners in behalf of their road, asking relief from the order of the Board establishing joint freight rates, which became effective August 15, 1890, and whereby a reduction of twenty per cent is effected on the revenues of Iowa roads on freight passing over two or more lines.

The petitioners aver that the M. C. & Ft. D. road, which has been in operation since 1886, has not been a paying investment; that the branch between Lehigh and Ft. Dodge, which is used largely as a coal road, has never paid operating expenses; that its grades are heavy, not over eight cars being hauled over it at a time. In support of these declarations a detached statement of earnings and expenses is submitted. It is further averred that the M. C. & Ft. D. R. R. is exclusively an Iowa road; that by the schedule of rates established by the Commissioners May 13, 1889, a very material reduction of rates was made on all the business of its entire line; that a further reduction of twenty per cent on joint rates will reduce its revenues to such an extent as to seriously cripple the management of the road, and impair the efficiency of its service. The petitioners, therefore, believing that the joint rates established by the Commissioners are unjust and insufficient, ask the Board to permit them to charge the Commissioners' rates, in force January 1, 1890, on coal passing over the road between Lehigh and Carbon, and going over other roads.

This application for increased rates is resisted by the Corey Coal Company of Lehigh, and dealers in coal at Le Mars, and other points on the Illinois Central Railroad west of Carbon, the latter claiming that under the new joint rates they will be enabled to compete successfully against Illinois and other competitors in coal, with that shipped from Lehigh, and that increased sales of Iowa coal will be the result.

The Corey Coal Company claim that "it is the lack of business that puts the road on the basis they claim, if it is so, and not the price per ton they have been allowed to charge. Such being the case, it would not be doing justice to the coal operators, who have to compete with others located on through lines of road, to force them to pay an exorbitant freight rate in order to put the road on a paying basis.

"The line of the M. C. & Ft. D. is a short one, and consequently will not furnish a market for all the coal we can handle. We are compelled to seek a market for our product on the connecting lines, and in this we have been unsuccessful. Their charges are such that we cannot meet the prices other operators make on through lines, and hence we are deprived of the trade, and they lose the freighting which could be obtained if there was reasonable

joint rate established. We could easily double our output of coal, and the railroad could be hauling it, with the same expense."

DECISION.

The rates in controversy in this case were effective on the 15th of August, 1890. They were enacted by the Commissioners under the requirements of the statutes, and are regarded as reasonable. Under the Commissioners' original schedule of rates, on hauls over two or more lines the sum of the two locals was charged, each road exacting a terminal charge, thus making the rates on joint shipments excessively high, and in many cases prohibitory. The new joint rates are a reduction of the sum of the two locals of 20 per cent, and eliminate, largely, one of the terminals, and yet on the joint haul are considerably higher than for the same distance on a single line.

The petitioners have not complied with the order of the Commissioners, and are not making joint shipments under the new rates. They are, therefore, in no condition from experience to say that the joint rates are not compensatory. The statement of coal operators on their line and those of connecting lines are, that high joint rates heretofore have restricted the output and sale of coal, and limited the business of the road; that under the new joint rates these mines and coal operators would be enabled to successfully compete with Illinois and other dealers, and these interests be relieved from the disadvantages from which they have heretofore suffered,

That the joint rates may be fairly tested, and a thorough practical knowledge of them obtained, and whether the reduced rates materially increased the output of coal and business of the road, it is hereby ordered that the M. C. & Ft. D. R. R. put in force at once the rates complained of, and if not found compensatory, that a full report of the working of said joint rates be made to this Board in sixty (60) days from the taking effect of the same. Des Moines, Iowa, September 19, 1890.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. E. H. McGuire of Marengo, Iowa, made a complaint in several communications between June 6 and September 11, against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. They are definitely stated in a letter of September 3, 1890, as follows:

"Refusal to stop passenger accommodation trains at platform.

"I, E. H. McGuire, of Marengo, Iowa, do hereby complain against the above railroad company for refusal to deliver its passengers on freight

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »