cial Club of the City of Louisville joined with the Commission in this investigation. It was alleged that carriers entering Louisville north of the Ohio river provided such transportation, while those entering the city from the south refused. The investigation disclosed the fact that this practice had been abandoned by all railroads entering the city of Louisville. Complainants have since joined in a written communication to all roads entering Louisville, requesting that such transportation be allowed.

ALVIN KARNES, Complainant,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Failure to furnish cars.-This complaint was investigated, and it developed that on account of the great volume of business and congested traffic, defendant had been unable to supply the necessary cars required by complainant for a number of days. Shortly thereafter the Commission was advised by complainant that cars were being promptly furnished, and he had no further complaint.

COMMERCIAL CLUB OF STANFORD, Complainant,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Application for electrical alarm signal.-Complaint investigated. Petition granted and signal erected.

J. C. LEWIS, Complainant,

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY, Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rate on all freight to Burnside.Complaint investigated and general reduction of three cents per hundred and new tariff issued.

GEORGE M. SMITH, Complainant,

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY, Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate demurrage charge on car of coal.— Complaint investigated and overcharge refunded.

JONES & TAYLOR, Complainants,

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY, Defendant.

Subject: Refusal to bill freight at tariff rate and to deliver on order of consignor.-Complaint investigated, and freight now billed and properly delivered.

GREAT WESTERN COAL AND COKE COMPANY, Complainant,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Failure to furnish coal cars and to transport cars of other companies when tendered. Complaint investigated. Cars now furnished and transported and complaint withdrawn.

PULLIAM & HOUSTON, Complainants,

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS N TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY Co., Defendant.

Subject: Claim for damage in shipment of printing press. -Complaint investigated and claim paid.

J. L. GRISSOM AND OTHERS, Complainants,

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS N TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY Co., Defendant.

Subject: Failure to issue tariff reducing rates as per agreement. Complaint investigated and tariff issued.

GRIGSBY & CO., AND C. R. BARNES, Complainants,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Petition to have the depot yards at Bardstown macadamized.-Complaint investigated and entire yard ma

cadamized.

CITIZENS OF BARDSTOWN JUNCTION, Complainants,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Petition for new passenger station. Complaint investigated and new depot constructed.

HOWES & HOWES, Complainants,

vs.

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Subject: Failure to transport freight through connecting carrier from White House to Pikeville.-Complaint investigated, and freight now transported.

A. J. COLE, LAGRANGE, KY., Complainant,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rate on tomatoes, Lagrange to Sparta, Ky.-Complaint investigated and overcharge refunded.

B. F. AVERY & SONS, LOUISVILLE, KY., Complainants,

vs.

BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY Co., Defendant.

Subject: Application for construction of bridge over alley in city of Louisville.-Application approved and bridge erected under restrictions contained in order.

GANO KELLY, GEORGETOWN, KY., Complainant,

vs.

FRANKFORT & CINCINNATI RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rate on coal.-Complaint withdrawn.

EATON, MCCLELAN & Co., Complainants,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Refusal to accept freight and cars from connecting carrier.-Complaint investigated; freight and cars now accepted.

JONES & TAYLOR, Complainants,

vs.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY, Defendant.

Subject: Unauthorized delivery of freight at station other than point of destination.-Complaint investigated; dismissed settled.

LOUISVILLE INTERURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY, Complainant,

vs.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY IN KENTUCKY, Defendant.

Subject: Application for grade crossing.-Complaint investigated; application refused. Under-grade crossing ordered at joint expense of complainant and defendant.

ATLANTIC & PACIFIC OIL COMPANY AND OTHERS, Complainants.

vs.

CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., AND CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants.

Subject: Extortionate rate on crude oil to Louisville, Cincinnati and other points.--Complaint investigated, resulting in general reduction and new tariffs.

ESTILL COUNTY OIL CO., Complainant,

vs.

THE LOUISVILLE & ATLANTIC, AND CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAYS, Defendants.

Subject: Extortionate rates on crude oil, Irvine to Somerset, Ky. After this complaint had been investigated, complainant notified the Commission that a satisfactory adjustment of the rate contended for had been made, and no further steps have been taken.

BLUEGRASS TRACTION CO., Complainant.

vs.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY IN KENTUCKY, Defendant.

Subject: Application for grade crossing at Paris, Ky.-Application approved after investigation, and grade crossing allowed under restrictions stated in order.

THOMPSON & GREEN, Complainants,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Overcharge on Coal.-Complaint investigated, overcharge refunded and complaint dismissed, settled.

LOUISVILLE BOARD OF TRADE, Complainant,

თა.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Application for exoneration of Louisville shippers from provisions of long and short haul sections of Constitution and statutes, at 150 points, and objections thereto by shippers at intermediate points. Upon the receipt of this application and petition and objection of shippers at intermediate points, the evidence offered by the Louisville Board of Trade and defendant railroad company was heard, and then the representative of the Board of Trade asked permission to withdraw its complaint with the privilege of again filing it in a different form, which request was granted.