which are therein stated on his information and belief, and as to those matters that he believes it to be true. C. F. SMURR. General Freight Agent Southern Pacific Company. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this seventeenth day of February, A. D. 1891. E. B. RYAN, STIPULATION. Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California. GLENWOOD LUMBER COMPANY ET AL., Complainants, VS. THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (S. P. C. RY. DIVISION).) It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, that the petition and complaint on file herein be withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice, and the petitioners and complainants now hereby move the dismissal of said petition and complaint, and take leave so to dismiss and withdraw the same as aforesaid. ARCHER & BOWDEN, Filed in office of Railroad Commissioners, April 17, 1891. JAS. V. KELLY, Secretary. BEFORE THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, April 20, 1891. In the matter of the complaint of the Glenwood Lumber Company et al. vs. The Southern Pacific Company, the Secretary read a stipulation and motion to withdraw complaint on the part of plaintiffs. J. C. Martin, Esq., attorney for defendant, the Southern Pacific Company, appeared and assented to the stipulation and motion to withdraw complaint on behalf of his company, and upon motion of Commissioner Beckman, the complaint was dismissed. GEO. H. BENNETT vs. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Complaint was received from Geo. H. Bennett of Coalinga, Fresno County, Cal., April 20, 1891, complaining of insufficient mail service. Copy of same was served on the Southern Pacific Company. An answer was duly made by the Southern Pacific Company, claiming that they have complied with the contract made with the United States Government; that the Post Office Department has authorized only a tri-weekly mail service between Huron and Alcalde (Coalinga being an intermediate point), and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company is fully complying with all the requirements of the Post Office Department in the matter of carrying such mail. PETITION OF THE CITIZENS OF MIDWAY, ALAMEDA COUNTY. The following petition to the Southern Pacific Company, for a depot or platform at Midway, in Alameda County, was received by the company April 22, 1891: We, the undersigned citizens of Midway and surrounding country, do petition the Southern Pacific Company to build a depot or platform at this place, for the accommodation of those who may ship or receive freight. The old depot was destroyed by fire some time ago, and a new one or a platform is badly needed. The above petition was signed by twenty-five citizens living in the vicinity of Midway. The following is the reply of the Southern Pacific Company to the petition of the citizens of Midway for a depot or platform: To C. A. DOUGLAS, Midway: Answering your petition of April 21, 1891, relative to a depot or platform at your station, would say: I find that for the year 1890 the business of Midway was not quite fifteen cars of freight received, and three and one half cars of freight forwarded. That is including everything, so that the freight earnings of the station were not very much in excess of what it would cost us to build a platform. I have given instructions that the ground shall be leveled off at the track, so that a team can readily get to the door of a car, and it appears to me that that ought to be sufficient until the business at the station reaches greater proportions. May 9, 1891. Yours truly, A. D. WILDER, Division Superintendent. On July 12, 1891, the citizens of Midway, Alameda County, through C. A. Douglas, petitioned the Board of Railroad Commissioners for redress, setting forth that the Southern Pacific Company had refused to grant them a depot or a platform. The Southern Pacific Company was notified in due form, and on the fifteenth day of October the Southern Pacific Company made answer to said petition, substantially the same as that made to the citizens of Midway, and accompanied said reply with a tabulated statement showing in detail the volume of business done at Midway, as shown below: FREIGHT FORWARDED AND RECEIVED AT MIDWAY DURING THE YEAR 1890. At Midway 294,665 pounds of merchandise were received in 1890, and 69,595 pounds of merchandise were forwarded in 1890; amounting to nearly fifteen cars received and three and one half cars forwarded. DECISION OF THE BOARD. In the matter of the petition of the citizens of Midway, Alameda County, for a depot or platform, the Board having had the same under consideration and having made an investigation, upon motion of Commissioner Litchfield, the Secretary was instructed to notify the parties that the Commission did not feel justified in requesting the railroad company to comply with the demand made, in consequence of the small amount of business transacted at that station, and that it was not within the power of the Commission to order it done. PETITION OF HALL, LUHRS & CO. ET AL. The following petition was filed in the office of the Board of Railroad Commissioners on May 4, 1891: PETITION. SACRAMENTO, April 25, 1891. To the honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of California: The undersigned, engaged in trade or other pursuits that make it necessary to travel extensively on the railroads of this State, either in person or by agents, suffer great inconvenience, delay, and expense by reason of the small number of trains run by the respective companies upon which passengers are permitted to ride. While we realize that the rights and interests of the companies should be fully considered, and that they should not be asked to run trains at a loss merely for the convenience of the public, we do think they should carry passengers on all regular freight trains, as well as on passenger trains. If the economical and expeditious handling of their freight business will not admit of their affording the accommodations accorded passengers on passenger trains, we think a plan can be devised whereby they could place on sale freight train tickets, containing suitable provisions requiring parties desiring to avail themselves of the privilege, to obtain their tickets before the trains were due to arrive at such place, and conditioned that the purchasers thereof shall get on and off, at their own risk, at the point of embarkation and debarkation as the convenience of the company's business connected with the operation of the respective trains require. Also, have suitable provisions for freight train permits with same conditions, so that persons holding mileage tickets could avail themselves of the accommodations. Believing that you can place this important matter before the different companies in such light as will secure this valuable privilege, we are. respectfully. The petition is signed by twenty-five firms. ANSWER OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. SAN FRANCISCo, May 9, 1891. To the honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of California, San Francisco, Cal.: GENTLEMEN: I am just in receipt of a petition, under date of the twenty-fifth ultimo, signed by many patrons of our road, filed in your office on the fourth instant, and forwarded to the undersigned by your Secretary. Your petitioners urge the company to arrange for carrying passengers on certain freight trains, other than those now carrying them, as well as on all passenger trains, and they suggest a plan whereby the company could place the sale of freight train tickets, containing suitable provisions requiring the parties desiring to avail themselves of such privileges to obtain tickets before the trains are due to arrive, and conditioned that pas sengers shall get on and off these trains at their own risk at points of embarkation and debarkation, restricted to such conveniences as the business of the company's service connected with the operation of its respective freight trains might afford. Also, to issue freight train permits, with the same conditions, so that persons holding mileage tickets (recently put on sale for benefit and convenience of the traveling public) could avail themselves of freight train accommodations. However much we might feel disposed to oblige the traveling public in this respect, there are many very sound and reasonable objections to our carrying passengers on freight trains, which are probably not fully understood by your petitioners. In the first place, I need not offer any argument to demonstrate to the gentlemen forming your honorable body that our freight trains are not supplied with requisite vehicles for the ordinary convenient carriage of persons; nor to show you that the necessities in modern railway freight traffic require that it should not be burdened with the high responsibility incident to the movement of passengers. Caboose cars, so called, are constructed for the convenience of trainmen, in which they carry their working tools, to afford them a place of abode, both day and night, when away from their respective homes, and are, as is well known, entirely unsuitable for the accommodation of passengers; therefore, if we were to generally carry passengers on freight trains, it would involve the necessity of putting a passenger coach on each freight train. Furthermore, nearly all our trains are equipped with the latest modern appliances that have been invented within the past few years for the promotion of safety and for the purpose of expediting the movement of traffic, resulting in great benefit to shippers. As we load our locomotives to their full capacity on the several divisions, keeping as closely as possible within the lines of true economy, our freight trains in the valley are usually long and heavy, containing from forty to sixty cars, and when the automatic brake is applied to a long train of freight cars the forward cars naturally feel the force of the braking power first, the "slack" of the train closes up, thereby causing at times quite a shock to be felt upon the rear cars of the train, particularly in the caboose, since it is usually lighter than the other cars. This shock is greatly magnified when an emergency stop is necessary, though, in either case, the shock is oftentimes sufficiently severe to throw down and occasionally injure those unaccustomed to such rough usage. We, as common carriers, have learned from past experience that under the law we would be afforded no relief when we take passengers on other than passenger cars and trains properly equipped for such purposes. An unbroken record of our experience shows that there is a responsibility thrust upon the railroad company, and the latter is liable to be mulcted in heavy damages, regardless of any contract that may be entered into between the company and the individual for the protection of the former. As the statute does not compel the purchase of a ticket, many would refuse to do so, but even when a passenger accepts one, with full knowledge of its terms, as is proposed for the special issue to meet the demanded privileges, he assents to the rate of fare and time and manner of delivery therein stated; but the acceptance of such ticket would not relieve the railroad company from liability for loss or injury for want of the exercise of the highest degree of care, or failure to provide the usual and ordinary facilities for passenger traffic. Nearly all these through freight traffic trains are run "special;" in other words, not on schedule time, and they stop, as a rule, only for fuel, water, and running orders. This is essential in order that we may meet the requirements of rapid transit forced upon us through the demands of shippers. The service on the local freight trains, especially upon the valley lines, would render it even more hazardous to attempt to handle passengers thereon, for the reason that they are constantly taking on and setting out cars, causing frequent repetition of the shock herein before referred to; again, freight trains in stopping at stations leave the caboose quite a distance from the platform and station grounds, so that it would be practically impossible to handle with any degree of satisfaction the passenger or his baggage. It is well understood in the practical operation of a line of railroad that the exigencies of the business of the period render it impracticable for it to attempt to carry passengers upon freight trains, and at the same time serve the public with reasonable diligence and economy in the conduct of its freight business. There are between San Francisco (or, more properly speaking, Vallejo) and Calistoga, two passenger trains in each direction daily; Calistoga, Santa Rosa, Esparto, and Vallejo, two trains; San Francisco and San José, ten trains; San Francisco and Port Costa, nine; San Francisco and Niles, six; Davis and Sacramento, seven; Port Costa and Davis, five; Lathrop and Stockton, five; Niles and San José, five; Port Costa and Martinez, four; Tracy and Lathrop, four; Martinez and Tracy, three; Niles and Livermore, three; Tehama and Red Bluff, three; Sacramento and Colfax, three; Sacramento and Marysville, via Roseville, two; Marysville and Tehama, Marysville and Oroville, Davis and Woodland, Red Bluff and Redding, Colfax and Reno, Lathrop and Saugus, Colton and Banning, Saugus and Santa Barbara, Sacramento and Placerville, Lodi and Valley Springs, Goshen and Lemoore, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Pedro, Los Angeles and Santa Ana, all have two passenger trains each way daily; Los Angeles and Santa Monica, four; Los Angeles and Long Beach, three. Thus it will be seen that the company has from two to as many as ten passenger trains running on nearly all of its lines, daily, even over outlying sections where traffic is very light. Having a desire to oblige our patrons, so far as practicable, we will likely in the future, as we have in the past, extend freight train privileges over such portions of our line as considerations of safety and the requirements of the service will permit. With an expression of regret, however, that we are at the present time, for reasons herein indicated, unable to make this practice general, I am, Yours very truly, Filed in office of Railroad Commissioners, May 9, 1891. A. N. TOWNE. JAS. V. KELLY, Secretary. ARGUMENT FOR PETITIONERS. SACRAMENTO, May 11, 1891. To members of the State Board of Railroad Commissioners of California: I am this day in receipt of letter from the Secretary of your Board, transmitting through yourself letter from A. N. Towne, Vice-President and General Manager of the Southern Pacific Company, in answer to the communication presented by Hall, Luhrs & Co. et al., for the consideration of your Board, in conjunction with the Southern Pacific Company's representatives, with respect to freight train tickets, and have carefully noted Mr. Towne's statements. Without attempting to discuss the details of his reply, will say, solely with reference to the matter of convenience, that the accommodations specified by him will not meet the requirements of the people who signed the request forwarded to you. It is apparent from his letter that in the lower part of the Sacramento Valley and on the lines adjacent to San Francisco, the accommodations are much better than in that portion of the Sacramento Valley from Sacramento east and north. It is a fact that there are two passenger trains daily between Roseville Junction and Red Bluff; that is, there are two passenger trains each way every twenty-four hours; but for all practical purposes, there is but one. The Oregon through express train leaves here at midnight, passing through Roseville Junction and every other town between Sacramento and Redding before business hours, and the opposite of that train. south bound, passes between Redding and Sacramento after the close of business hours. Unless a traveler was prepared to leave Roseville Junction or Redding at the close of the day's business, so that he could go from Redding to Anderson, or to Lincoln from Roseville, at his first point, for the next day's business, that train is of no utility whatever. The points between Roseville Junction and Redding, with possibly the exception of going from Redding to Anderson or Cottonwood, can be made by but one train, to accomplish anything. If the traveler leaves Roseville Junction on the north bound Oregon train, he will get to Lincoln, where he must remain until about four o'clock the next day, or to put it more particularly, the same afternoon, as he will arrive at Lincoln about two o'clock A. M. Then he may take the Red Bluff accommodation and get to Sheridan, where he can probably get away in time to take the next night's Oregon train to Wheatland, at which place he must remain another day, when he can get to Marysville in time for supper. Gridley, Live Oak, Biggs, Nelson, Chico, Tehama, and other points upon that line have but one train per day, and every time a traveler gets off at one of those towns he is stranded for twenty-four hours, for all practical purposes, unless he takes a livery team, which is almost the universal practice; and it is this large expense of livery hire or loss of time that prompts the request that has been made. The same rule with regard to making points applies to the south bound traveler between Redding and Roseville Junction. With respect to the west side of the river, between Tehama Junction and Woodland, there is only one passenger train every twenty-four hours. From Redding north there is only one train every twenty-four hours. On the lines east from here, as far as Colfax, the accommodations are very fair, made so recently by placing on the local train from this point to Colfax; but from Colfax to Truckee, while there are two trains daily, there is practically but one, as they pass through the stations of Towles, Gold Run, Dutch Flat, Cisco, Blue Cañon, etc., after night, and after business hours. Accommodations between this place and Lathrop are very fair, but the lines I have specified are the ones in which the business men of this city are more particularly interested, and upon those lines the accommodations are absolutely inadequate. The small towns specified, viz.: Lincoln, Sheridan, Wheatland, Gridley, Live Oak, Biggs, Nelson, and such places as Blacks, Yolo, Williams, Germantown, Corning, and Kirkwood, are places where usually two or three hours will be all a traveling man requires, but the accommodations, as now afforded, mean practically twenty-hours in each town. This state of affairs is certainly worthy of the special attention of the company. For a long time passengers were carried on what was called the "Marysville local," which meant between this city and Marysville, but for some reason the privilege of riding on that train has been withdrawn. There are no privileges whatever given on the west side of the river, nor upon any freight trains, for that matter. It is hoped that your honorable Commission will not consider it too much trouble to lay this matter before Mr. Towne again, and ask his indulgence for a still further hearing. With respect to his statements as to the inconvenience, injury, etc., to passengers, and consequent risk to the company, I do not think his position is well taken. While I do not desire to be understood as volunteering a legal opinion on this subject, I will undertake to say that, in this matter of extending a special privilege to a particular class of trains, which are not passenger-carrying trains as a rule, that any reasonable provision for the protection of the company, as against the claims of parties whom it may" accommodate," will be fully upheld, so that it will not be liable for injuries, other than those that result from such carelessness as would make them liable under any circumstances that might be imagined, such as willful acts or gross carelessness in the handling of their trains, and they certainly do not want to be put upon record as saying that they run their trains in a way that would cover any such contingency. So long as the |