ANSWER. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC SYSTEM), OFFICE GENERAL FREIGHT AGENT, SAN FRANCISCO, May 16, 1889. V. W. GASKILL, Esq., Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of California, Phelan Building, City: DEAR SIR: Acknowledging receipt of your favor of the eleventh instant, and returning herewith the complaint of Mr. Charles Weile. Inclosed please find western classification, which we use in Southern California, and which is used by every road shown on the title page of same. On page 40 of said classification you will find the following: "Trees and shrubbery, owner's risk, charges prepaid or guaranteed at company's option,. in bales, completely wrapped, each weighing one hundred pounds or over. First class. "Trees and shrubbery, owner's risk, charges prepaid or guaranteed at company's option, in bales, each weighing less than one hundred pounds. Double first class. "But in no instance will the charges on a shipment of bales weighing less than onehundred pounds each exceed the charges on same at estimated weight of one hundred pounds each at first class rate." If the western classification did not have such a clause shippers would tender us single plants, which require greater care and extra labor in handling, and, under the most favorable circumstances, the chances for damage would be greater than if several plants in one package, in a compact form, weighing one hundred pounds or over, were shipped. As we can handle a package of one hundred pounds or over at less cost than if separated in packages of five or ten pounds each, we offer as an inducement for such a package the lower rate, and charge double first class rate on the actual aggregate weight of a smaller package of trees. If, however, by using double first class rates on the actual weight we find we are charging more in the aggregate than we would by estimating each package at one hundred pounds and charging first class rates thereon, we use the latter. It was so in this case. First class rate from Pomona to Santa Barbara is 71 cents per one hundred pounds, and double first, $1 42. The actual weight of the shipment was eight hundred and sixty-five pounds, which, at $1 42, equals $12 28; while applying an estimate of one hundred pounds on each of the twelve bundles and using a rate of first class, or 71 cents, on the estimate of twelve hundred pounds, we find the charges to be $8 52, and this being less than the above at double first we collected $8 52, which is correct according to the classification and tariff in force at the present time. Very respectfully yours, DECISION OF THE BOARD. R. GRAY. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, CHAS. WEILE, Esq., Santa Barbara, Cal.: DEAR SIR: In the matter of the alleged overcharge on olive trees from Pomona toSanta Barbara, please find answer of General Freight Agent Gray, of Southern Pacific Company, in the premises. About a month ago Charles Weile, of Santa Barbara, filed with the Railroad Commission a complaint setting forth that he had been overcharged $2 38 by the Southern Pacific Company on a shipment of olive trees from Pomona to Santa Barbara. Yesterday Richard Gray, General Freight Agent of the Southern Pacific, filed an answer. He shows that according to the western classification system, which is used in Southern California, trees in bales, completely wrapped, over one hundred pounds each, take a first class rate; in bales less than one hundred pounds each they take double first class rates; but in no case shall the charges on a shipment of bales weighing less than one hundred pounds each exceed the charges on the same at the estimated weight of one hundred pounds each at first class rate. Mr. Gray then says: "If the western classification did not have such a clause, shippers would tender us single plants, which require greater care and extra labor in handling, and, under the most favorable circumstances, the chances for damage would be greater than if several plants in one package, in a compact form, weighing one hundred pounds or over, were shipped. As we can handle a package of one hundred pounds or over at less cost than if separated in packages of five or ten pounds each, we offer as an inducement for such a package the lower rate, and charge double first class rate on the actual aggregate weight of a smaller package of trees. If, however, by using double first class rates on the actual weight we find we are charging more in the aggregate than we would by estimating each package at one hundred pounds and charging first class rates thereon, we use the latter. It was soin this case. First class rate from Pomona to Santa Barbara is 71 cents per one hundred pounds, and double first, $1 42. The actual weight of the shipment was eight hundred and sixty-five pounds, which, at $1 42, equals $12 28; while applying an estimate of one hundred pounds on each of the twelve bundles, and using a rate of first class, or 71 cents, on the estimate of one thousand two hundred pounds, we find the charges to be $8 52; and this being less than the above at double first, we collected $8 52, which is correct, according to the classification and tariff in force at the present time." The rates being regular rates charged for such goods, the same will be sustained by the Commission. Yours truly, V. W. GASKILL. HEINEMAN vs. NORTH PACIFIC COAST RAILROAD COMPANY. At a regular meeting of the Board, held on July 19, 1889, the complaint. of Heineman, of San Francisco, against the North Pacific Coast Railroad Company, was referred to John W. Coleman, General Manager, for his explanation in the premises. The complaint, letter of Secretary of Board, and answer of General Manager Coleman, are as follows: COMPLAINT. 35 SUTTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, July 3, 1889. To the Honorable the Railroad Commissioners of the State of California, City: GENTLEMEN: The undersigned desires to call your attention to the reckless manner in which the North Pacific Coast Railroad Company run their passenger trains. I boarded one of their trains in Sausalito last Sunday, June 30, 8:30 A. M., took a seat in the fifth (last) car, which had no bell cord or any other appliance to stop a train with; besides, the baggage car, in the middle of the train, was so filled up with trunks, bicycles, etc., that there was no chance for anybody to pass through the train while in motion. I called the attention of the conductor of the train to this fact, and he replied, that there was lots of other things wanting what ought to be there (besides the bell cord). There was about ten to twelve cars in that train, and when we reached the down-grade between Whites Hill and San Geronimo, the conductor tried to stop the train, but could not do so until we rode at least five miles from the place he motioned to the engineer to slacken. If a wheel or rail had broken at any one place there, not a splinter of the whole train would have reached the next station, and probably five hundred people more or less injured, or killed. I again boarded the same day train, leaving Camp Taylor at 6:10 P. M., took a seat in the middle of train, and found no bell cord in my car. Taking the extraordinary curves this railroad describes along the hillsides of Marin County, it ought to be better equipped, as it is and ought to be run in a civilized community as ours with more consideration as to the personal safety of the patrons of the road. With best respects, I remain, gentlemen, Yours respectfully. LETTER OF SECRETARY. H. M. HEINEMAN. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, JOHN W. COLEMAN, Esq., General Manager North Pacific Coast Railroad Company, San Francisco: Yours very truly, ANSWER OF JOHN W. COLEMAN. V. W. GASKILL. NORTH PACIFIC COAST RAILROAD COMPANY, GENERAL OFFICES, 327 PINE STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, July 23, 1889. } V. W. GASKILL, Esq., Secretary Railroad Commissioners: DEAR SIR: Your communication dated nineteenth instant, with letter from one Heineman attached, has come to hand and secured due consideration. Waiving the question of the right of the Board to inquire into the method in which a railroad is operated, a duty which the law casts upon its officers, and for which they are held strictly responsible, I take the opportunity offered by the receipt of your letter to say I have fully investigated the matter referred to, and find that the train leaving Sausalito June thirtieth, at 8:30 A. M., was fully and properly equipped. Heineman held a ticket for Camp Taylor, and not for Alderney Station. The train stopped at San Geronimo Station, which is three fourths of a mile beyond Alderney, where he could have gotten off; hence no necessity of his going five miles beyond Alderney Station contrary to his wishes. In reply to Heineman's treatise on railroading, I can only say we have no bell cords of sufficient strength to hold a train intact in case of a broken wheel or rail. Yours very truly, JNO. W. COLEMAN, HIGH vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOTOR RAILROAD COMPANY. At a regular meeting of the Board held on October 30, 1889, the complaint of Gavin D. High vs. Southern California Motor Railroad Company, came on for hearing, and the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. COMPLAINT. SAN FRANCISCO, October 14, 1889. Mr. V. W. GASKILL, Secretary of State Board of Railroad Commissioners: DEAR SIR: While traveling through Southern California, as advance agent of "California on Wheels," I chanced to ride on the Southern California Motor Railroad Company's road, running between San Bernardino and Colton, a distance of about four miles. The single fare on that road from Colton to San Bernardino is fifteen cents, provided a ticket is bought at the Colton station. I did not buy a ticket at the station, because I jumped on the train while in motion between stations. Acting presumably under Section 15 of the Act of April 1, 1878, the company's conductor charged me an extra five cents. The section referred to provides that when passengers getting on at stations where tickets are sold, fail to buy tickets, the conductors may charge ten cents additional on all fares under ($1) one dollar, and ten per cent additional on all fares over one dollar. Samuel Merrill, President of the road referred to, was not in San Bernardino at the time, and as my stay was limited, I did not have an opportunity to ascertain under what law the Southern California Motor Railroad Company was operating its road. If the company is operating under the State law, permitting it to charge extra for failure to buy tickets at stations where tickets are sold, I would respectfully ask why the company has not complied with the law requiring State railroads to file an annual report with the State Board of Railroad Commissioners. If the company is operating under the street railway laws, I would respectfully ask why it is permitted to take advantage of Section 15 of the Act of April 1, 1878, and extort additional fare from tourists who, mistaking it for a street railway, get on without knowing that it has any ticket offices. These inquiries are of no personal interest to me, but are made at the instance of several business men of San Bernardino, who consider the new rule of the company an outrageous extortion, as it makes the fare between San Bernardino and Colton five cents a mile, against the spirit of the action of the Commission in fixing the maximum fare at four cents a mile. GAVIN D. HIGH. ILINCHTA vs. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. At a regular meeting of the Board held on October 30, 1889, the complaint of M. Ilinchta vs. Southern Pacific Company was read, and referred to Southern Pacific Company for adjustment. Complaint, letter of Secretary, and answer of Southern Pacific Company are as follows: Chairman Railway Commissioners: COMPLAINT. SAN FERNANDO, CALIFORNIA, October 22, 1889. GENTLEMEN: I ask your honorable body to kindly investigate the following complaint I hereby make against the Southern Pacific Railway Company: On October sixteenth I asked agent at San Fernando for three cars to load with hay for Los Angeles, and agent agreed to have cars in twenty-four hours. Acting on his word I commenced hauling my hay to depot and put it on platform, and no cars for me at the expiration of twenty-four hours. I again asked for cars on October seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, and still no cars. Each day agent promised to have cars that evening or next morning. Consequently my hay lay on platform of company until the rains set in, and as a matter of course all is damaged and is worth nothing. And therefore I ask your honorable body to see if the citizens of San Fernando can't have better railway facilities here and what damages I can get. I have been damaged to the amount of $300 worth of hay, besides my contracts to fill orders. This is not the first case of this kind. Hoping you will investigate this matter and let me hear from you at an early date, I have the honor to be, Yours very respectfully, LETTER OF SECRETARY. MIGUEL ILINCHTA. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, MIGUEL ILINCHTA, Esq., San Fernando, Cal.: DEAR SIR: Yours of twenty-second instant received, and contents noted. The matter that you speak of will be investigated and the result reported to you. Yours very truly, V. W. GASKILL, OFFICE OF THE BOARD ON GAUROAD COMMISSIONERS,} SAN FRANCISCO, October 30, 1889. Mr. RICHARD GRAY, General Freight Agent Southern Pacific Company: DEAR SIR: A communication was received on the twenty-fourth instant from Mr. Miguel Ilinchta, a copy of which is hereby appended, asking for certain relief therein stated. The Board this day referred the whole subject-matter to you for adjustment. Please give it your attention. Yours sincerely, V. W. GASKILL, Secretary. ANSWER OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC SYSTEM), ) OFFICE GENERAL FREIGHT AGENT, SAN FRANCISCO, November 8, 1889. Mr. V. W. GASKILL, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, Phelan Block, City: DEAR SIR: Replying to your favor of October thirtieth and returning correspondence as requested. We have carefully investigated complaint filed with the State Board of Railroad Commissioners by Mr. Miguel Ilinchta, of San Fernando, and beg to report the following facts: On the sixteenth of October Mr. Ilinchta ordered from our agent at San Fernando three large box cars to load with hay, stating, at the same time, that three cars would complete his shipment. The cars duly arrived, were loaded, and billed from Fernando on the nineteenth of October. Mr. Ilinchta then ordered three cars more, and our agent immediately made a requisition for them, and informed Mr. Ilinchta at the time that he couldn't advise him when the cars would arrive, but would get them as soon as possible. Mr. Ilinchta did not wait for the cars to arrive, but began hauling his hay to the depot, and piling it on the platform, until he had brought in about a carload, or one hundred and seventy-five bales. It commenced raining on the twentieth, and Mr. Ilinchta and his men left and did not show up again until after the storm was over. Our agent secured a car on the twenty-first or twenty-second, and held it twenty-four hours for him, but he did not put in an appearance, and the next time our agent was able to see him in person, he requested him to either ship the hay or remove it from the platform, but he refused to do either. Mr. Ilinchta's statement, that he was promised the cars twenty-four hours from the time ordered, is incorrect, as our agent was very careful to show him plainly cars could not be promised for any specified time; but orders were always filled with as much dispatch as possible. The claim filed is for $300; the quantity of hay damaged is estimated to be about ten tons, and we are informed that Mr. Ilinchta is selling his hay at $5 50 per ton, representing a total value of $55 for the hay claimed entirely damaged. I think the above outline of facts will fully answer the claimant's statement; for it is explained that the hay remained on the platform more through his own negligence than through any fault of this company. Yours truly, C. F. SMURR. WOODS vs. CALIFORNIA CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. At a regular meeting of the Board held on October 30, 1889, complaint of C. H. Woods vs. California Southern and Central Railroad Companies was read, and referred to General Freight Agent Hynes for his answer. Complaint, letter of Secretary, and answer are as follows: COMPLAINT. DAGGETT, CAL., October 20. Hon. P. J. WHITE, Railroad Commissioner, San Francisco, California: DEAR SIR: Mr. J. H. Crossman, of the State Board of Mineralogy, has kindly referred me to you to advise or assist in the settlement of an aggravated case of difference with the railroad company at this place. Briefly stated the case is as follows: In September last I was living at Alessandro, a little station north of Perris, on the California Southern Railroad. I desired to move to this place. The Alessandro agent gave me the rates of freight per hundred, 67 cents, or 43 cents by the carload, subject to no conditions. On these terms I shipped on the twenty-sixth of September, three thousand five hundred pounds of household goods. I left early on the morning of the twentyseventh for this place. The goods arrived here on the twenty-ninth instant; also the shipping receipt in due form, agreeing to rates of shipment at 67 cents per hundred. On demanding the goods of railroad agents at this place, they refuse me the goods unless paying $1 62 per hundred, which, as it would make over $30 difference in the rates, I was not prepared to pay. I at once wrote to S. B. Hynes, General Freight Agent of the California Southern Railroad, at Los Angeles, seeking relief from the unjust demands. I have waited now for a reply three weeks, deprived of the use of my household goods, thus subjecting me to considerable expense. If you can give me any advice or in any way assist in bringing the railroad company to keep their agreement, I will esteem it a great favor. I would be pleased if your Board could give this your immediate attention and favor me with an early reply. Respectfully yours, C. H. WOODS. LETTER OF SECRETARY. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, C. H. WOODS, Esq., Daggett, California: Yours very truly, V. W. GASKILL, ANSWER. CALIFORNIA CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY-CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, GENERAL FREIGHT AND PASSENGER DEPARTMENT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, November 5, 1889. Mr. V. W. GASKILL, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, San Francisco, California: DEAR SIR: I have your favor of October thirtieth, inclosing correspondence in the complaint of Mr. C. H. Woods, relative to overcharge on a shipment of household goods, forwarded by him from Alessandro to Daggett, California. I am pleased to say that we have satisfactorily adjusted this matter with Mr. Woods, and have refunded to him the amount claimed as overcharge. The overcharge resulted from his failure to have them shipped at owner's risk. The classification provides one rate for household goods at owner's risk, and another when transported at carrier's risk. It was doubtless Mr. Woods' intention to ship at owner's risk, and we have, therefore, given him the benefit of that rate; and I think everything is now satisfactory to him. Yours truly, S. B. HYNES, General Freight Agent. |