12. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company against Pennsylvania Company. Complaint alleges refusal to afford complainant equal facilities for receiving through traffic to Saint Louis and Kansas City; refusal to sell tickets for those points over complainant's road and discriminating against complainant to its injury. May 23, 1887. Complaint filed. June 3, 1887. Answer filed. June 16, 1887. Hearing. Opinion by Schoonmaker, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Rep'ts, p. 86.) Same dispositión as of No. 11. 13. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company against New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. Complaint alleges refusal to afford complainant equal facilities for receiving through traffic to Kansas City; refusal to sell tickets for that point over its own and complainant's road; attempting to coerce the traveling public, and discriminating against complainant to its injury. May 23, 1887. Complaint filed. June 3, 1887. Answer filed. June 17, 1887. Hearing. Opinion by Schoonmaker, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Rep'ts, p. 86.) Same disposition as of No. 11. 14. Boston and Albany Railroad Company against Boston and Lowel! Railroad Company; Concord Railroad Company; Northern Railroad Company; Central Vermont Railroad Company; Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. Complaint alleges violation of section 4 of the act in charging a greater sum from Boston to Saint Albans, Vt., than from Boston to Canada and western points over the National Dispatch Line. May 24, 1887. Complaint filed. June 27 to July 2, 1887. Answers filed. August 5, 1887. Intervening complaint by Vermont State Grange filed. (See No. 68.) September 1, 2, and 3. Hearing at Rutland, Vt. Opinion by Cooley, Chairman. (1 I. C. C. Rep'ts, p. 158.) Held, That railroad companies over whose roads a fast freight line operates and which divides its expenses and receipts are responsible for its action in making and filing rates, and must at their peril see that its charges upon traffic over their roads are in conformity to law. Held, further, That no justification for the greater charge for the shorter haul is made out by the defendants on the facts shown. Ordered, That defendants immediately cease and desist from charging or receiving a greater compensation for a like kind of property for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance. 15. Boston and Albany Railroad Company against Boston and Lowell Railroad Company; Concord Railroad Company; Northern Railroad Company; Central Vermont Railroad Company; Ogdensburgh and Lake Champlain Railroad Company: Complaint alleges violation of section 4 of the act in charging a greater sum from Boston to Ogdensburgh, N. Y., than from Boston to Detroit, Mich., over the rail and lake line of defendants. May 24, 1887. Complaint filed. June 27-July 2, 1887. Answers filed. Sept. 1, 2, and 3, 1887. Hearing at Rutland, Vt. Opinion by Cooley, Chairman. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 158.) 16. Providence Coal Company against Providence and Worcester Railroad Company: Complaint alleges illegal discrimination in allowing a discount to large shippers and in charging different rates from different termini to the same points on its line. May 25, 1887. Complaint filed. June 13, 1887. Answer filed. June 19, 1887. Hearing. Opinion by Cooley, Chairman. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 107.) Held, That an offer to give a discount to any consignee who within a year shall receive a specified amount of freight (30,000 tons) is void; and if a discount is made to one dealer in pursuance of it all others will be entitled to a like dis count. Held, further, That defendant is not at liberty to make higher charges from Providence than from East Providence to common points and would be chargeable with unjust discrimination if it should do so. Ordered, accordingly, that the defendant cease and desist, etc. 17. Michigan Central Railroad Company against Chicago and Grand Trunk Railroad Company: Complaint alleges discrimination in favor of commercial travelers by selling them thousand-mile tickets at $20 each while charging $25 for the same tickets to other persons. May 25, 1887. Complaint filed. June 6, 1887. Answer filed. June 15, 1887. Hearing. Opinion by Morrison, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 147.) Held, That a railroad company which sells mileage tickets must sell them impartially to all the public who apply for them. Held, further, That while the issuance of mileage tickets is authorized by section 22 of the act, that section does not relieve the carriers from the requirements of reasonableness and impartiality as to rates charged for such tickets. Defendants ordered to cease and desist, etc. 18. Louis Larrison against Chicago and Grand Trunk Railway Company: Complaint alleges discrimination in favor of commercial travelers, as in No. 17. May 25, 1887. Complaint filed. Opinion by Morrison, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 147.) 19. Charles W. Keith and Edward W.Wilson, partners as Keith & Wilson, against Kentucky Central Railroad Company; Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Saint Louis Railway Company: Complaint alleges refusal to afford reasonable and proper facilities for receiving and forwarding live stock and subjecting the complainants to the payment of terminal and discriminating charges not imposed on other shippers of like kind of property. May 26, 1887. Complaint filed. June 10 to 21, 1887. Answers filed. Opinion by Morrison, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 189.) 20. E. B. Raymond against Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company: Complaint alleges unjust discrimination and violation of section 3 of the act. May 26, 1887. Complaint filed. June 13, 1887. Answer filed. Sept. 13, 1887. Hearing at Minneapolis. Opinion by Morrison, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., 230.) Held, That rates not unreasonably high of themselves can be so adjusted in their relations to each other as to cause undue preference and advantage. Also, that charges established for different divisions of a carrier's road, which are so adjusted as to divert trade from one locality to another, create unreasonable preference, notwithstanding some of such rates are not wholly voluntary, but are the result of competition. Adjustment of rates accordingly ordered. 21. William H. Councill against Western and Atlantic Railroad Company: Complaint alleges assault and discrimination on account of complainant's color. May 31, 1887. Complaint filed. Opinion by Morrison, Commissioner. (I. C. C. Repts., -.) Held, That the Commission will not go into the question of money damages, because it can not give a jury trial, which the defendant is entitled to have under the seventh amendment to the United States Constitution, and that it is not authorized to award counsel and attorneys' fees, which a court may do under the eighth section of the act to regulate com merce. That colored people may be assigned separate cars on equal terms, without disadvantage to either race and with increased comfort to both. That the complainant had paid the same fare as other firstclass passengers, and it was only fair dealing and common honesty that he should have the security and convenience of travel for which his money had been taken. That the car furnished was only second-class in comforts for travel, and the road must furnish colored people who buy first-class tickets accommodations equally safe and comfortable with other first-class passengers. 22. Street's Stable Car Line and John W. Street against Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company and fifty-three others: Complaint alleges extortion, discrimination, and failure to provide and furnish suitable live-stock cars to shippers. June 3, 1887. Complaint filed. June 15, 1887. Further proceedings suspended by request of complainants. 23. George M. Jackson against St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Company: Complaint alleges discrimination and excessive freight charges, June 8, 1887. Complaint filed. June 28, 1887. Answer filed. Oct. 12, 1887. Hearing. Memorandum by the Commission. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 184.) It appearing that the charge in question had been reduced prior to the filing of the complaint, and the petitioner not appearing, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. 24. B. S. Crews, J. E. Schoolfield, and D. S. Overbey, individually and as members of the committee on transportation of the Danville Chamber of Commerce, against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company; Virginia Midland Railroad, controlled and operated by the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company: Complaint alleges excessive freight charges and discrimination against Danville, Va. June 8, 1887. Complaint filed. July 18, 1887. Answer filed. Nov. 14, 15, 1887. Hearing on depositions, oral testimony, and arguments. Dec. 1, 1887. Case under advisement. 25. James H. McMullan, E. B. Benson, J. W. Williams, J. D. Matheson, A. F. Brown, J. J. Linder, and A. R. McCurry, as committee of the Board of Trade of Hartwell, Ga., against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company: Complaint alleges discrimination against Hartwell and undue and unreasonable preference to Elberton, in violation of section 3 of the act. June 9, 1887. Complaint filed. July 18, 1887. Answer filed. Sept. 22, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by the petitioner. 26. W. L. Ray, C. R. Sanders, and Harry T. Rumbough, as citizens of Hot Springs, against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company and its connecting line, the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway, controlled and leased by the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company: Complaint alleges unjust discrimination in passenger rates against Hot Springs, N. C. June 9, 1887. Complaint filed. June 30, 1887. Answer filed. July 18, 1887. Hearing. An arrangement being made in the presence of the Commission establishing rates satisfactory to the petitioners, no further proceedings were had, but the case was held open for future application if desired by complainants. 27. Boards-of-Trade Union of Farmington, Northfield, Faribault, and Owatonna against Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company: Complaint alleges unjust and unreasonable freight charges, subjecting complainants to undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage. |