« AnteriorContinuar »
and research. But in the case of commercial slag there is a substantial difference, which seems to put it, in a measure, in a class by itself. Moving as it does for only short distances, and being a by-product which can be produced at only a few points in the state, and the further fact that the five complainants in this case, representing, perhaps, the larger proportion of the producers of slag who would be affected, we have thought it expedient in this proceeding to fix a uniform scale which we think should be adopted throughout Ohio.
Upon the testimony and the argument of counsel, to all of which the comission has given careful consideration, we find and so declare, that based upon a minimum carload weight of 45,000 pounds, except when the marked capacity of the car is less, in which case the marked capacity of the car will be the minimum weight, but in no case less than 35,000 pounds, the just and reasonable rates for transporting commercial slag within the state of Ohio are as follows: 10 miles and under...
25 cents a net ton 15 miles and over 10 miles. .28 cents a net ton 20 miles and over 15 miles. 31 cents a net ton 25 miles and over 20 miles. 37 cents a net ton 40 miles and over 25 miles. 42 cents a net ton 55 miles and over 40 miles. 48 cents a net ton 75 miles and over 55 miles.. .58 cents a net ton
and that all rates and charges published in the tariffs of the defendant carriers for transporting commercial slag, which are in excess of the aforesaid rates so found by the commission to be the just and reasonable rates are unreasonable and excessive; and an order will be entered declaring the aforesaid rates to be the just and reasonable rates for transporting commercial slag between points in Ohio, and requiring the defendant carriers to cease and desist from charging for said services a greater sum than the rates hereinbefore found to be just and reasonable.
Langdon, Commissioner, concurs.
No. 634–The Northwestern Ohio Railway Company, Complainant,
versus The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, Defendant. Dismissed.
(Dated, January 5, 1916.) This matter coming on for consideration upon the application of The Northwestern Ohio Railway Company, under Section 9125,
General Code, as amended May 27, 1915, to be relieved of the safety stop and flagging of its cars at the crossing of its tracks with a switch track owned and operated by the defendant, The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, in the village of Genoa, Ohio, and after due notice to said defendant and full hearing, and the commission, being fully advised in the premises, finds that said The Northwestern Ohio Railway Company should not be relieved from flagging its cars over said crossing. It is, therefore,
ORDERED, That said application be, and it hereby is dismissed.
No. 601—Henry Hizer, et al, Complainants, Versus The Coshocton
County Telephone Company, Defendant. No. 616—Scott Wright and E. E. Dickey, Complainants, Versus The
Coshocton County Telephone Company, Defendant. Ordered by the Commission that Defendant Make Improvements in its Equipment.
(Dated, January 4, 1916.) This matter coming on for consideration upon the separate complaints of Henry Hizer, et al, and of Scott Wright, E. E. Dickey, et al, residents of Coshocton County, Ohio, and patrons and subscribers of the defendant, alleging that defendant's facilities and service are inadequate and inefficient, and that its charges for the kind of service rendered are unjust and excessive, and defendant's answers thereto; and the parties to said proceedings, which hereby are consolidated, having waived a public hearing herein, and the commission having found that the service rendered by the defendant is inadequate, insufficient, inefficient and cannot be obtained by reason of the present condition of defendant's plant and facilities, and that certain repairs, improvements and additions should be made by defendant to its plant and equipment so that it may be enabled to furnish adequate, efficient and sufficient service to its customers, patrons and subscribers and to the public, it is therefore,
ORDERED, That said The Coshocton County Telephone Company be, and it hereby is directed and required to forthwith begin, and to complete within a period of four (4) months from the date of this order, the installation and construction of the following repairs, improvements and additions to its plant and equipment:
(1) Each and every pole line extending beyond the municipal limits of each exchange to be patrolled by at least two men, with the necessary material to make complete repairs, such as the following, wherever needed:
Renewing badly rusted wire.
(2) Visit each and every telephone connected to the system, test same for transmission and ringing, renew defective and broken parts and install new batteries wherever needed.
(3) Remove subscribers' telephones from existing grounded trunk lines connecting exchanges with the exchanges of other companies, and make these trunk lines full metallic.
(4) Replace the present switchboard at Plainfield with a new one, on which there shall be at least two pairs of cords equipped with repeating coils for long distance service.
(5) Equip at least two pairs of cords on the switchboard at Coopersdale with repeating coils for long distance service.
(6) Inaugurate and hereafter maintain a permanent record of all trouble and service complaints, showing the date and time the same were reported and the date and time cleared.
(7) Print and distribute, annually, a directory showing the names and telephone number of all subscribers. It is further
ORDERED, That said The Coshocton County Telephone Company report at the close of each month the progress of such repairs, improvements and additions, by exchange districts, and, at the close of the period hereinbefore fixed therefor, its full compliance with the provisions of this order.
CALENDAR January 31
1:30 p. m. Application of Oakwood Light and Water Company to issue bonds. February 1
9:00 a. m. Appeal of Montrel Bros. & Company from Elmore rate ordinaece.
10:00 a. m. Appeal of Dayton Gas Company from rate ordinance. February 2
9:00 a. m. Ripley Brick Company vs. N. & W. Railway Company et al. February 34
9:00 a. m. Joint application of Clinton Air Line Telephone Company and Greenwich Farmers' Telephone Company to sell and buy.
Application of Greenwich Farmers' Telephone Company to issue stock. 10:00 a. m. Peter Julius et al. s. Y. & S. Street Railway Company.
1:30 p. m. Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Telephone Company vs. Interurban Railway & Terminal Company. February 4
9:00 a. m. Application of Dresden Electric Light Company to issue stock.
11:00 a. m. Joint application of Cleveland, Southwestern & Columbus Railway Company and Crawford County Gas & Electric Company to buy and sell.
The State Liquor Licensing Board Cannot Act for and Instead of
the County Liquor Licensing Board, in the Granting or Revocation of a License, or in the Granting or Rejection of an Application for Removal, Except in pursuance of the Provisions of Section 1261-24 General Code-Where a County Liquor Licensing Board Has Granted or Revoked a License, or Where it has Granted or Rejected an Application for Removal of a Licensee, the State Liquor Licensing Board Cannot Upon its Own Motion Reverse or Revoke Such Action—(Sections 1261-53 and 1261-24, General Code.)
No. 1151—(Opinion Dated January 6, 1916.) The State Liquor Licensing Board, Columbus, Ohio.
Gentlemen: Yours under date of December 22, 1915, is as follows:
“We desire to submit statement of facts that have arisen in two instances involving the same principle, and to request your opinion as to the power exercised by the state board.
“The first instance is a case arising in Hocking county, where the firm of Hogan & Murphy, licensees, was granted a renewal for which application was made in September. Protests were made by a church congregation whose building was near that of the saloon, and it was claimed by them that the proximity of the saloon was detrimental. The local board ignored the protests and granted the license. The matter was then brought to the attention of the state board by the protestants, and, although schools and not churches are specifically mentioned in the law, the state board felt that the proximity of this saloon was undesirable to the church and directed the county board that no license should be granted to Hogan & Murphy except upon condition that the saloon should be removed to another location in the business district of Murray City. This condition was agreed to and the following contract was entered into between Hogan & Murphy and the Hocking county board:
" "This agreement made and entered into this twenty-second day of November, 1915, by and between Hogan & Murphy, a partnership, party of the first part, and The Hocking County Liquor Licensing Board, party of the second part, witnesseth: ‘That, whereas, said party of the first part has heretofore
made an application for a saloon license to carry on a liquor business on part of lots 56 and 57 in the village of Murray City, Hocking county, Ohio;
‘And, whereas, by a ruling of the State Liquor Licensing Board, it is made necessary to remove said business because of its proximity to the First M. E. Church of Murray City, Ohio;
‘And, whereas, said party of the second part has granted a license to carry on said business on said parts of lots 56 and 57, as described in the original opplication therefor;
‘Now, therefore, it is agreed by and between said parties that in consideration of the granting of said license according to the application therefor, said party of the first part hereby agrees that within ten days from date hereof it will remove its said business from said lots 56 and 57, as described in said license, to some other suitable place in aid village of Murray City, Hocking county, Ohio, approvable to said party of the second part.
"In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands at Logan this twenty-second day of November, 1915.
(Signed) Hogan & Murphy, per Hogan. “The Hocking County Liquor Licensing Board, per W. H.
White, Pres.' “At the time the license certificate was granted, permission was given to the licensees, Hogan & Murphy, to have until December 12 to effect their removal. On the twelfth of December the licensees neglected and rfusd to take any steps towards moving and repudiated their agreement, whereupon the state board sent an inspector to Murray City and removed the license from the walls of the saloon, notifying the proprietors to close their doors, which was done.
"The second case arises from the city of Cincinnati. A license was applied for in September by one Jacob Pittner, which lisence was granted thereafter by the Hamilton county board, the location being at 33-35 West Court street. Thereafter the licensee made application to remove to a building at the southwest corner of Ninth and Vine. Protest was made against this removal by the congregation of the Ninth Street Baptist Church and it developed that this congregation had for two years, on file with the Hamilton county board, what purported to be a permanent protest against the placing of a saloon at this location, which was very near the entrance of the church on Ninth street, the saloon on the corner racing on Vine. The protest against the removal was overruled by the local board, which granted the removal license. The licensee proceeded to improve the property and has possibly involved himself in some expense. The protestants, the Ninth Street Baptist Church congregation, represented by Rev. John Herget, its pastor, brought the matter to the attention of the state board, which, after investigation of the matter, passed the following resolution: