93. Merchants and Manufacturers' Association of New Orleans, La., against Vicksburg, Shreveport and Pacific Railroad Company: Complaint alleges violation of section 3 of the act by unjust discrimination against the mercantile interests of New Orleans in favor of shippers in New York and Philadelphia. Nov. 2, 1887. Complaint filed. 94. Lincoln Board of Trade against Burlington and Missouri River Railroad and its owner, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company; Southern Pacific Railway Company; Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company; Denver and Rio Grande Western Railway Company: Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the act in the establishment of rates and collection of charges on traffic from Chicago to Lincoln as compared with those from Chicago to Louisville and Omaha; and from San Francisco to Lincoln as compared with those from San Francisco to Omaha and Chicago. Nov. 11, 1887. Complaint filed. (See Nos. 43, 80, 82, 95, 96.) 95. Lincoln Board of Trade against Missouri Pacific Railway Company: Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 of the act in the establishment of rates from Saint Louis and Lincoln as compared with those from Saint Louis to adjacent and competing points in Nebraska, also as compared with former rates, and with those from all other points on defendant's lines outside of Nebraska to Lincoln. Nov. 11, 1887. Complaint filed. (See Nos. 43, 80, 82, 94, 96.) 96. Plummer Perry & Co. against Union Pacific Railway Company and Southern Pacific Railway Company: Complaint alleges unjust discrimination and undue and unreasonable prejudice against complainants, and against Lincoln, Nebr.; excessive charges; interruption and stoppage of property; and entering into an agreement and combination to evade, disobey, and violate the act to regulate commerce. Nov. 11, 1887. Complaint filed. Dec. 1, 1887. Answer of Union Pacific Railway Company filed. (See Nos. 43, 80, 82, 94, 95.) 97. New Orleans Cotton Exchange against Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company, or Queen and Crescent Route: Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 of the act, favoring Boston and Lowell, Mass., and New York as against New Orleans in the transportation of cotton. Nov. 11, 1887. Complaint filed. Nov. 25, 1887. Amended complaint filed. 98. Euclid Martin, W. A. L. Gibbon, Robert Easson, and W. F. Griffiths, as committee of freight bureau of the Omaha Board of Trade, against Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company; Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company; Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company: Complaint alleges unlawful discrimination and undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage against Omaha in favor of Chicago. Nov. 16, 1887. Complaint filed. 99. Riddle Dean & Co. against New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, and lessee of the New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio Railroad; Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, and lessee of the Pittsburgh, McKeesport and Youghiogheny Railroad : Complaint alleges stoppage of complainant's coal in transit; refusal to furnish cars; withdrawal of joint tariff, and refusing to furnish cars during ten days thereafter; and advancing rates without ten days' notice, as required by law. Nov. 26, 1887. Complaint filed. 100. John Henry Nicolai, trading as Eagle Oil Works, against Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Complaint alleges excessive rates on petroleum. Nov. 28, 1887. Complaint filed. 101. John W. S. Brady and George T. Parkhurst, jr., co partners, trading under the firm of J. Parkhurst and Co., against Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Complaint alleges excessive rates on petroleum. Nov. 28, 1887. Complaint filed. 102. Delaware State Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry against New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad Company; Delaware Railroad Company; Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company; Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Complaint alleges unjust and unreasonable charges; granting favors by rebates and false-weight schedules; undue advantage to particular localities and violation of section 4 of the act in favor of Norfolk, Va., and points south, as against shippers and places in the Delaware Peninsula. Dec. 2, 1887. Complaint filed. 103. John H. Walker and others, retail merchants of Rockport, Ind., against Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company; Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company; New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company; New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 of the act in placing less than car-load quantities in a higher classification than car-loads. December 2, 1887. Complaint filed. APPENDIX C. Copies of letters and other documents. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, DEAR SIR: The Interstate Commerce Commission acknowledges the receipt from you of a communication asking for its opinion upon the questions following: (1) Is it lawful under the interstate commerce Act for a common carrier to offer to make special rates to individuals in order that such individuals may offer and make proposals to this Department for the transportation of Indian supplies? (2) Whether the transportation over the lines of common carrier of Indian goods for and on behalf of an individual with whom a contract may be made by this Department for their transportation from place of purchase to ultimate destination will be considered and held as "the carriage, storage, or handling of property at reduced rates for the United States" under section 22 of the interstate commerce act. The facts upon which the questions arise are given in your communication, and appear to be the following: That the Government contracts for the delivery of supplies needed for the Indian service at New York, Chicago, and other points, and then advertises for bids for the transportation of the supplies from the points of purchase to the points where they are to be made use of. This is a sufficient statement for the purposes of an answer. The Commission directs me to say to you that it does not understand it has any general power to construe the statute under which it is organized, for the purpose of guiding or controlling the actions of individuals in either private business or public duties, except when complaints under the law are brought to its attention, or when relief which it is in its power to grant is prayed. The Commission has therefore uniformly declined to express opinions on abstract questions of construction or request of private citizens or organizations, deeming it alike proper and prudent to do so. Deference to a Department of the Government inclines the Commission to make an exception of your request, especially as a doubt regarding the rights of the Government might seriously affect the bids for transportation which are to be called for. Coming to the questions, then, I am further directed to say that in its view the statement made by you of the facts constitutes of itself a complete answer. The supplies, as you show, are delivered to the Government at points designated, and they are then transported at the cost of the Government to points where they are to be made use of. The transportation is therefore "for the United States," in the words of the interstate commerce law, and it is immaterial that it is done by contract 10638 I C- -8 113 ors when the Government receives the benefit of the free or reduced rates, as it must be presumed to do when the bids are made in reliance upon the expectation that such rates will be granted. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, T. M. COOLEY, Chairman. WASHINGTON, April 16, 1887. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE WALKER, Commissioner. } An application in writing has been made to the Commission for its answer to the following questions, propounded on behalf of the Order of Railway Conductors: 1. Are railway companies prohibited from issuing free transportation to the immediate families of employés of their own railways? 2. Are railway companies prohibited from issuing free or reduced transportation to officers of associations composed exclusively of railway employés while those officers are temporarily out of railway service and exclusively employed by those associations? 3. May railway companies issue passes to employés of other railways on the application of the employé, or must such application come from the officer of the company by which he is employed? 4. May railway companies issue free or reduced transportation to those who make railway service their business or trade while temporarily out of employment and in search of situations? 5. May railway companies provide free transportation for delegates to the annual conventions of an association composed exclusively of railway employés upon certificates from the officers of the association that they are such representatives? 6. If free transportation may be furnished to representatives described in question 5, must all such representatives be actually in the employ of some railway, or may it include those who may be temporarily out of employment, and those temporarily engaged in other employments as officers of such association? 7. If free transportation is provided for delegates described in question 5, may it include members of the immediate families of delegates? 8. If free transportation or reduced rates are provided for the representatives of any one association, must the same be extended to all others which are composed exclusively of railway employés on application? Another application has been made to the Commission on behalf of the Traders' and Travelers' Union, stating the system under which an additional allowance of free baggage has been heretofore carried by commercial travelers, subject to written agreement for registry and indemnification, which system the Commission is requested to examine carefully, "and advise us if there is any reason why a railroad company, desiring to do so, should not enter into such an arrangement to grant, under stated terms, an increased allowance of free baggage." |