no freight was delivered at Nunda; that all freight consigned to Nunda was left at Nunda Junction exposed to the weather, there being neither station or freight house there, or else at Dalton, cach place being three miles from the village of Nunda and had to be hauled by teams.

The answer of the receiver of the company was that the portion of road from Swain's to Nunda Junction was leased from the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia Railroad Company, and had never even paid for train service; that the merchants and people of Nunda had never given the line to Swain's support and used the fact that the line was there to break down rates, throwing their business to other lines; that the town had the necessary accommodations by the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia railroad, and that he was endeavoring to give up the lease and had requested the owner to operate it.

Upon this answer, the Board cited the receiver to show cause on January 10, 1886, why that portion of the road from Swain's to Nunda should not be operated. On that date the receiver was represented by counsel, who presented an affidavit of John F. O'Brien, the general manager of the road, showing that all the rolling stock was held under a lease on the car trust plan from the Central Trust Company of New York city. That by reason of the surrender of the standard gauge rolling stock by the receiver under the order of the court, made upon application of the Central Trust Company, he had been unable to operate regularly the standard gauge division of the road, being without motive power; that he had then provided himself with motive power and he intended and believed he would be able to operate the Nunda road regularly. The counsel said that since January 8th the road had been operated and both freight and passengers had been and would be carried.

On February 22, 1886, the attorney for the petitioners informed the Board that during the month of January the road was not operated at all, that on the 4th day of February an engine was run over the road, and on the 12th, 16th and 19th of February a combination train was run and had not after that been seen. The wide difference between the promise of the attorney of the receiver and the performance, as shown by the attorney of the petitioners, was brought to the attention of the receiver, who replied by the general manager. officer said that he had operated the road regularly, according to promise; but with only a single standard gauge locomotive at his command, it was not possible for him to give a train service of more than twice a week. He acknowledged that the service was not satisfactory, but pleaded that there was no surplus money; and, as the road was in the hands of the court, he could not contract a debt in extending a service which did not bring in a revenue sufficient to pay for it.

The counsel of the petitioners retorted that the road could hardly expect it would pay to run cars as they were run, making no connection with other trains, so that if freight for Nunda arrives at Nunda Junction, it was left on the platform exposed to storm until the Lackawanna and Pittsburg train happened along. All such freight was sent for with teams.

Finally a hearing herein was had before Commissioner Kernan at Nunda, on June 1, 1886.

At the conclusion of the hearing the complainants requested that all proceedings herein be suspended for thirty days, the case then to be deemed settled satisfactorily, unless the complainants notify the Board that the grievances still exist:

This suspension of proceedings is made upon the understanding that the road will carry out the following improvements in its service as proposed by it, to-wit:

1. Continue the service recently inaugurated, or its equivalent, and run its trains on time.

2. Establish a suitable station for freight and passengers on the site of the old station at Nunda, with an agent and telegraph office therein. 3. Provide jointly with the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia road proper station facilities for freight and passengers at Nunda Junction, each road to bear one-half the expense of such station facili

ties.

The Board, therefore, recommended that the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia unite with the Lackawanna and Pittsburg Railroad Company in providing proper station facilities for freight and passengers at Nunda Junction, each road to bear one-half the expense

thereof.

H. BARNUM V. THE DELAWARE AND HUDSON CANAL COMPANY.

June 23, 1886.

Mr. Barnum complained that he was a passenger on a train leaving Albany destined for Plattsburgh, on May 25, 1886. At Whitehall the passengers were compelled to change into another car which was in "a very filthy condition," and had the appearance of not being cleaned in weeks;" that the weather being cold, a fire was asked for but the passengers were told they could not have one. He further complained that only one brakeman was allowed for three or four coaches.

The reply of the company was practically a denial of the charge. It stated the train referred to was made up at Albany where all cars were cleaned before sent out and that no change of cars was required before reaching Montreal. Investigation had failed to reveal any emergency that had on May 25th occasioned a change at Whitehall; that this train was made up of the following cars, to wit: One baggage, one drawing room and two coaches on which there were a conductor, baggageman and two brakemen.

This answer was sent to Mr. Barnum's address at Binghamton, with the request that he would answer within ten days. No reply was received by the Board, and after waiting a reasonable time he was again appealed to for reply. No attention was paid to this communication, and it is assumed that the complaint is withdrawn.

XXXII.

TIMOTHY T. DICK V. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY.

June 28, 1886.

Mr. Dick alleged that the Chatham trains of the New York and Harlem railroad had been, on May 27th, running for six days by one conductor instead of three a week, and that the conductor, Mr. McMickel, was worn out traveling two hundred and fifty-four miles a day while the company took off regular conductors to run cars to the races. The company replied by sending a copy of a letter addressed by the conductor in question to the general superintendent, in which he said that at the request of the general superintendent he had consented to make the trip from Chatham to New York and return, every day. except Sundays, until after the races, and proposed to do it. He was home every night, and it made only a difference of four hundred miles a week by two instead of three conductors doing the work; that he did not know Mr. Dick, and he had never made any complaint to any person of being tired.

Mr. Dick has made no reply to this answer, though twice requested to do so, and the Board presumes that he has withdrawn his complaint.

XXXIII.

JOHN D. WING v. THE NEWBURGH, DUTCHESS AND CONNECTICUT RAILROAD COMPANY.

June 30, 1886.

The decision of the Board in this case was printed in the report of the Board for the year ending September 30, 1885 (page 183), with the remark that the recommendations therein made had not been complied with as yet. Since that time they have been, and a depot building has been erected at the point indicated in that decision.

XXXIV.

C. S. WHITTAKER ET AL. V. THE NEW YORK, LAKE ERIE AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

July 3, 1886.

Mr. Whittaker early in the spring of 1885, complained upon behalf of himself and neighbors in Delaware county, having lands upon the line of the New York, Lake Erie and Western railroad, that the company failed to maintain the fences on the line of the road, and therefore were in violation of the statute. When the attention of the company was directed to this complaint it promised a prompt compliance with its obligations in the matter. In a short time the complainants informed the Board that the work of building the fences had been begun by the company, and the case was reported last year as closed.

On May 5, 1886, Mr. Whittaker again complained to the Board that the fences were all down on the line of the road, and that the company had begun the work of building only to abandon it. This complaint was in due time transmitted to the company with the recommendation that if the facts were as alleged therein, the company proceed at once to remedy the defect.

The reply of the company was to the effect that the matter had been thoroughly investigated, and that it was ascertained that the defective condition of the fences was due to the failure of the complainant to keep them in good repair as he was required to do by the terms of the deeds under which the company hold the adjoining property; that the proper officers of the company had been instructed to serve a legal notice upon the complainant requiring him to build and maintain the fences in accordance with law, and that he failed to comply to put them in proper repair, in accordance with the require ments of section 9, chapter 282, of the Laws of 1854.

The Board addressed a communication to Mr. Whittaker asking him whether the allegation made by the company was true, and whether a legal notice had been served upon him. To this communication no reply has been made.

XXXV.

INQUIRY BY J. G. JENKINS INVOLVING QUESTIONS AS TO LONG AND

SHORT HAUL RATES.

July 8, 1886.

Mr. J. G. Jenkins addressed the following communication to the Board:

June 16, 1886.

GENTLEMEN -I beg to call your attention to the enclosed letter from J. C. Anderson, general freight agent of the New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, and especially the matter referring to your decision. I shipped November, 1884, a car of lumber to Schenevus on the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company railroad, shipment from Oswego to Norwich by Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, from Norwich to Sidney by the New York, Ontario and Western. Mr. Anderson, to compel me to ship by his road set about making a lot of special rates against me, and when a car from Oswego was sent out on another road but touched his at all he would, if he found it, charge me many times the open regular rates, in order to force the trade to his road. My business has been and is commission, and I pay the freight to the different points, and I have conceived it to be to secure as low freight as possible, and when I could get a rate, say Oswego to Norwich, and add local from Norwich to Sidney, and by so doing could save to the party who sent his goods to me from five to eight dollars per car, I conceived it to be my privilege and duty to do it. The car I shipped November, 1884, was weighed at 30.000, and I was charged on the same

Norwich to Sidney..

The regular open rate is 80 cents per ton..

Overcharge

$36 12

$24

Mr. Anderson claims that under decisions by you, that you would sustain him in this, and I claim that he totally misunderstands the matter, and that you made no such decision; and I claim that he cannot charge me more than the regular open rates for the same kind of property. I am not now presenting this case for your decision, but I ask you to say whether or not your decision is as he states it. It is none of Mr. Anderson's business where the property went from to Norwich; he has only to do with it from Norwich to Sidney.

Yours truly,

J. G. JENKINS.

The following is a copy of the letter from the general freight agent of the New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, referred to in above letter:

J. G. JENKINS, Esq., Oswego, N. Y.:

DEAR SIR-Your favor of the 5th inst. in regard to overcharge claimed on shipments of lumber from Norwich to Sidney is at hand. I had supposed that this matter was settled. Inote what you say in regard to bringing the matter before the Railroad Commissioners, and would call your attention to their published decision in a number of similar cases in which they give authority to the railroads not to charge a greater rate for a shorter haul, but the same rate that we would have received from Oswego to Sidney, had the shipment been made over our own line. They would readily understand, of course, that your aim in shipping via. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western and Norwich was simply to break down our local rates for your individual benefit. ** * **

The reply of the Board was as follows:

J. G. JENKINS, Esq.:

*

J. C. ANDERSON,

General Freight Agent.

ALBANY, July 8, 1886.

DEAR SIR-In answer to your communication of June 16th, the Board encloses copies of decisions made in cases involving questions as to long and short haul

rates.

The Board has not held that one shipping as you do can be charged more than the regular local rates from Norwich to Sidney; nor that such rate shall be so high as to discriminate against a shipper from Oswego, who ships by the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western to Norwich, in favor of a shipper to Norwich by the New York, Ontario and Western. The Board has never held in principle that on goods delivered to it at Norwich for Sidney, the New York, Ontario and Western can charge as the local rate, the rate from Oswego to Sidney.

In the case of Crary, Hall & Co., the Board found the railroad charging a low rate on through shipments from the west via. Oneida and Walton to East Branch, and hence it held that the road ought not to charge more from Hancock to East Branch than the "arbitrary" from Oneida or Walton. It by no means follows that whatever the rate from Oneida or Walton to East Branch, the same can be charged for the shorter distance, or that in every case the road may charge for the short as much as for the long distance. That depends upon the circumstances, to be ascertained in each case.

By the Board.

WILLIAM C. HUDSON,
Secretary.