« AnteriorContinuar »
That such increase of rates has been made by defendant, and actually put into effect by it, without, as these plaintiffs are informed and believe, the consent, order, or allowance of this honorable Commission.
Wherefore, the plaintiff's pray that, pending the examination of the matter herein complained of, the defendant be required to maintain its former schedule of freight rates first in this complaint set forth; and that the rate of freight upon such material, from Boulder Creek to San José, be fixed and maintained at such former rate, or at such rate, not exceeding the same, as this honorable Commission may deem reasonable.
WILCOX & PATTON,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs. San José, CAL.
County of Santa Clara.} James F. Cunningham, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is one of the plaintiffs in the above entitled proceedings; that he has heard read the foregoing complaint, and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his information or belief, and as to those matters that he believes it to be true.
JAMES F. CUNNINGHAM.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this twenty-eighth day of January, 1889. (SEAL
CHARLES F. WILCOX,
Notary Public. Service accepted this first day of February, A. D. 1889.
A. N. TOWNE,
RETURN OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. J. F. CUNNINGHAM, S. H. RAMBA, W. P. Young, C. C. Rogers, W. ALLEN, and ) GEORGE H. CHAPPELL, Plaintiff's,
Vs. The South PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants. The People of the State of California send greeting to the South Pacific Coast Railway Company,
the said defendant: You are hereby required to appear and answer in writing, under oath, within fifteen days from the day of service of this summons upon you, the complaint of the above named plaintiff's, filed before and with the above Board.
Said action is brought to obtain the judgment and decision of this Board, requiring you to maintain rates as in force previous December 1, 1888, between San José and Boulder Creek, during the pendency of this action; also to obtain a decision of this Board, requiring you to return to your rate previous to December 1, 1888, and that the rates to be fixed and maintained as then in force.
Given under my hand and seal of the Railroad Commissioners of the State of California, this thirty-first day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1889. (SEAL.]
V. W. GASKILL,
Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners. City and County of San Francisco.} I, Louis Montgomery, Bailiff of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, hereby certify that I personally served the within summons on A. N. Towne, General Manager of the South Pacific Coast Railroad Company, by delivering to him personally, in his office, in the City and County San Francisco, State of California, a printed copy of said summons attached to a printed copy of said complaint as attached hereto. Dated at San Francisco, this first day of February, A. D. 1889.
LOUIS MONTGOMERY, Bailiff of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of California.
GEORGE H. CHAPPELL, Plaintiffs,
The above named defendant (South Pacific Coast Railway Company), for answer to the complaint of the plaintiffs above named, herein filed, admits that it is a railroad corporation and is the owner of the railrvad line described and referred to in the complaint, but avers that the said railroad was, at the times charged in the complaint, and is, operated by the Southern Pacific Company of Kentucky, under lease from this defendant.
Defendant avers that that part of its said railroad which lies between San José and Boulder Creek, runs of necessity for most of the distance over a rough and mountainous country, through many tunnels and deep cuts, and over high embankments, trestlework, heavy grades, and short curves, and was very costly in its construction and is very expensive in its operation; and that between Felton and Boulder Creek it is a branch line, and essentially, and almost exclusively, used for the transportation of lumber and wood from Boulder Creek; and the cars used for this transportation from Boulder Creek have all to be returned from their destination to Boulder Creek empty, making a double transportation of trains and a single compensation for service.
Defendant further avers, upon its information and belief, that no schedule or rate for the transportation of lumber and wood from Boulder Creek to San José has been heretofore established by the Board of Railroad Commissioners, and therefore denies that this defendant, or its lessee, the said Southern Pacific Company, has ever, arbitrarily or otherwise, changed any established rates or schedule of freight charges between Boulder Creek and San José; but as to this, defendant avers that during the comparatively short time the said railroad has been in the possession of, and operated by, the said Southern Pacific Company, it was ascertained that the freight rate for lumber and wood over the said railroad, which had been generally accepted by its lessor and predecessor, were not properly adjusted and were not in accordance with the system and schedule of rates which had been adopted and established by the Board of Railroad Commissioners for like services over other railroads similarly situated in this State, and, therefore, the said Southern Pacific Company did, on or about the first day of December, A. D. 1888, adopt a system and schedule of rates for the transportation of lumber and wood over the said railroad, which was and is in accordance with, and within the limits of the system and schedule of rates which had previously been adopted and established by the Board of Railroad Commissioners for like services over other railroads similarly situated in this State.
That the system and schedule of rates so adopted was intended to adjust and equalize, and did adjust and equalize, the freight charges for lumber and wood over the railroad of the defendant, and between all the stations thereon; and while as to some classes of freight there was an increase of freight charges, in the rates previously accepted, as to others there was a reduction in those rates, and all were kept within the limits previously adopted and established by the Board of Railroad Commissioners, as aforesaid, for a like service over railroads in this State less costly in construction and less expensive in operation than the said railroad of this defendant; and it is of this that plaintiffs complain.
Defendant denies that the so called changed rate was or is in the form charged in the complaint, but avers that it was and is a percentage rate fixed upon the lumber rate as a basis, in which there was and is a reduction from the rate previously accepted.
Defendant denies that the so called old rate of freight was a fair or just rate, so far as the defendant or its lessee, the said Southern Pacific Company, is concerned, or that such rate was or is an ample compensation for the services rendered in such transportation; and denies that with the so called new rate in force the material described in the complaint cannot be manufactured at Boulder Creek and shipped to San José or elsewhere at any profit; or that the same will entail a loss upon the producers or shippers.
Defendant avers that Boulder Creek is not the only point on the said railroad from which lumber and wood are shipped, and that San José is not the only point on the said railroad to which lumber and wood are shipped, and that the system and schedule adopted, as hereinbefore charged, provide a general and just and fair rate on lumber, wood, and the material described in the complaint, between the different stations on the said railroad, and without discrimination.
Defendant denies that, relying upon the continuance of the so called old rates, plaintiffs or other inhabitants or property owners of Boulder Creek have invested large sums of money in the business of manufacturing the articles described in the complaint, and shipping the same by the said railroad to San José for sale; but as to this, defendant avers upon information and belief that whatever investments have been made by plaintiffs or others at Boulder Creek in the business of manufacturing the articles described in the complaint, were made for the purpose of selling the same to the best advantage, in the highest available market, and at the greatest profits; and while it is the intention and desire, and to the interest of this defendant and of its lessee, the said Southern Pacific Company, to encourage and aid all the industries on the line of its railroad, it is not fair nor just that one industry should be favored at the cost of another equally important, nor that one class of manufacturers should ship their products at the expense of another class.
Defendant denies that the adjusted and equalized rates adopted as hereinbefore charged, but called in the complaint the new rates, are unjust or extortionate, or are greatly or at all in excess of a fair compensation for the services for the transportation of the material described in the complaint, or are a direct or any injury or damage to the plaintiffs or the other inhabitants or property owners of the Town of Boulder Creek, or ought not to be allowed or approved or permitted to continue.
As to all other averments of the complaint not hereinbefore specifically admitted, referred to, or explained, the defendant generally denies the same.
And defendant avers that the matters charged in the complaint have not heretofore been considered or determined by the Board of Railroad Commissioners, and that neither the defendant nor its lessee, the said Southern Pacific Company, has intentionally or otherwise violated any decision, order, or rule of the Board of Railroad Commissioners.
Wherefore, having fully answered this, defendant prays judgment that plaintiffs take nothing by this action; and that the system, schedule, and rates now in operation and heretofore reported and presented be approved and established.
JAMES C. MARTIN, (Attorney for Defendant, South Pacific Coast Railway Company.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
City and County of San Francisco.} SA J. C. Stubbs, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is an officer and agent, to wit: the General Traffic Manager of the above named defendant, a corporation, and makes this verification for and in behalf of said corporation, defendant; that he has heard read the foregoing answer and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true.
J. C. STUBBS.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this fourteenth day of February, 1889. (SEAL.]
E. B. RYAN,
LETTER OF E. J, MARTIN.
SAN FRANCISCO, March 20, 1889. Mr. V. W. GASKILL, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners:
DEAR Sir: We beg to advise you that we have this day reduced freight on redwood, alder, willow, slabs, shingles, and box refuse, in carloads, as follows:
From Soquel, Loma Prieta, and Monte Vista to San José and Santa Clara, $1 50 per cord; present rate, $1 75. From Aptos to San José and Santa Clara, $1 45 per cord; present rate, $1 624. From Watsonville to San José and Santa Clara, $1 40 per cord; present rate, $1 50.
These reductions to date from twenty-first instant, and apply to all intermediate stations where rate is now higher. Yours truly,
E. J. MARTIN.
SOUTHERN , ),}
SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 1889. Mr. V. W. GASKILL, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners:
DEAR Sır: Referring to mine of twentieth instant, in regard to rates on wood from Soquel, Loma Prieta, etc., to San José and Santa Clara, we find it impracticable to put these reduced rates into force prior to April first. Yours truly,
E. J. MARTIN.
THIRTEEN PER CENT REDUCTION ON SOUTH PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY
DIVISION (SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY).
OFFICE GENERAL FREIGHT AGENT, SAN FRANCISCO, March 27, 1889. Mr. VARNEY GASKELL, Secretary State Board Railroad Commissioners, City:
Dear Sir: Herewith please find tariff on soft lumber, shingles, wood, etc., with circular modifying same.
I also inclose copy of rate notice, which it is proposed to put in effect April first, reducing rates on cordwood from Boulder Creek, Felton, Glenwood, and Laurel, to Agnews, Santa Clara, and San José. Hoping this will meet the approval of the Board, I am yours truly,
General Freight Agent.
Local Rate, No. 68.
SAN FRANCISCO, April 1, 1889. TO AGENTS: The following rates take effect this day:
Boulder Creek... Agnews
Redwood, etc. (cordwood), C. L... Boulder Creek Santa Clara and San José.. Redwood, etc. (cordwood), C. L... Felton...
Santa Clara and San José. Redwood, etc. (cordwood), C. L... Glenwood
Santa Clara and San José. - Redwood, etc. (cordwood), C. L... Laurel...
Santa Clara and San José. - Redwood, etc. (cordwood), C. L...
$1 75 1 50 1 45 1 40 1 35
REMARKS.- These rates will apply to intermediate points, where tariff is higher. For carloads and billing weights, see soft lumber tariff of December 1, 1888. Notify all parties interested at once.
General Freight Agent.
C. J. STEEPLE,
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC SYSTEM),
South Pacific Coast RAILWAY Division, GENERAL FREIGHT OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO, February 19, 1889. To AGENTS: Referring to special lumber tariff of December 1, 1888-On and after this date “split madrona" will take rate provided for pine and rough oak, viz.: 60 per cent of the rate on lumber. Please amend tariff accordingly. Notify all parties interested at once, and supply all having copies of said lumber tariff with copies of this circular.
The change will, of course, correspondingly affect maximum and minimum loads and billing weight.
C. J. STEEPLE, Assistant General Freight Agent.
DISMISSAL OF ACTION BY PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY.
Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California.
Come now the plaintiffs, above named, and move the honorable Board, above entitled, to dismiss the said action and proceeding; and the plaintiffs do now dismiss and withdraw their complaint herein.
WILCOX & PATTON,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
LETTER FROM CREED HAYMOND.
To the IIonorable the State Board of Railroad Commissioners:
GENTLEMEN: Inclosed please find stipulation, signed by Messrs. Wilcox & Patton, attorneys for James F. Cunningham et al. in the proceeding before your Board, wherein Cunningham et al. are plaintiils and the South Pacific Coast Railway Company is defendant, authorizing the dismissal of the action and proceeding, and withdrawing their complaint.
I am glad that the matter has been satisfactorily adjusted between the parties, and I have no doubt that this end has been reached through your own good services. Respectfully,
DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION.
The plaintiff in the above entitled cause having presented and filed with the Commission a written withdrawal of their complaint, and a request for the dismissal of the proceedings, and the defendant, by its atiorney, consenting thereto, it is ordered that the above cause be and the same is hereby dismissed.
Dated, May 15, 1889.
ORDER TO RAILROAD COMPANIES TO FURNISH REPORT.
The order issued by the Commission on March 15, 1889, and of which what follows is a blank form, was complied with by most of the corporations, but by some it was slighted, and in consequence some of the tabulated statements will be found incomplete and thus unsatisfactory. We are in hopes in future, that the railroad corporations will coöperate with the Board in its endeavors to give the public absolutely accurate statistics:
OFFICE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS,
SAN FRANCISCO, March 3, 1889.
Rail— Company: Blanks are herewith furnished for the annual reports to be made by you to this office for the year ending December thirty-first.
These reports are to completed and forwarded to the Board of Railroad Commissioners, Phelan Block, San Francisco, on the first day of July, 18–.
The facts and statistics deduced from the questions proposed are to be tabulated and incorporated into the printed report of the Commission.
It is absolutely necessary that each and every interrogatory should be answered, so that accurate and reliable statistics may be made from the several reports; and this Commission will insist that all questions be answered in full. By order of the Board of Railroad Commissioners.
WEILE vs. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY.
At a regular meeting of the Board on May 15, 1889, the case of Charles Weile, of Santa Barbara, vs. the Southern Pacific Company, came on for hearing.
The complaint, answer of defendant railroad company, and letter of the Secretary of Board, are as follows:
SANTA BARBARA, April 26, 1889. To the Honorable the Railroad Commissioners of the State of California:
GENTLEMEN: On or about the twentieth of March last, a shipment of olive trees was made to me from Pomona, weighing eight hundred and sixty-five pounds. The rate from Pomona to Santa Barbara is 71 cents, hence the total freight on the shipment would be $6 14. But I was compelled to pay $8 52, a difference of $2 38 in favor of the company. The explanation for the overcharge is, that where trees are shipped in bundles that do not weigh one hundred pounds, the freight thereon is collected on one hundred pounds; in other words, the company arbitrarily raises the weight of the shipment. This, of course, is a gross abuse, and is not supported by a shadow of reason, or right, or law. The absurdity of the thing must be apparent to the railroad even, if it is considered that were this shipment divided into eight hundred and sixty-five bundles, instead of twelve, the total assumed weight would be eighty-six thousand tive hundred pounds.
I have the honor to request, therefore, that you will investigate the subject and cause the amount unlawfully collected to be refunded. I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,