Railroad Commission of Kentucky.

Annual report of the Railroad Commissioners of Kentucky, Volume 30 online

. (page 21 of 34)
Online LibraryRailroad Commission of KentuckyAnnual report of the Railroad Commissioners of Kentucky, Volume 30 → online text (page 21 of 34)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

enforce the provisions of this section by imposing the same pen-
alties for violations thereof as is provided in section 820 of this
act for said violations of said section."

Complainant then prays that an order be entered by the Railroad
Commission requiring defendant to transport and deliver coal from
points on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company's line east of
Lexington, in the Elkhorn and Ashland Coal & Iron Districts in Ken-
tucky, and the Kanawha District in West Virginia, to all points be-
tween Lexington and Louisville at $L10 per ton, and that said con-
tract between defendants be declared illegal, null and void in so far
as same conflicts with the rights of the complainant and other shippers.

The defendants each filed a demurrer to plaintiff's petition and
complaint ; and also each filed a motion requiring complainant to elect
against which defendant it will prosecute its complaint. The contract
dated March 23, 1895, was filed as evidence in the case. The case was
argued by complainants, and also by counsel for defendants, and was
afterwards briefed by both sides for the benefit of the Commission.

The Commission has carefully read and considered the complaints
made, including the contract between the two defendant companies,
and the briefs of each side arkl the authorities there cited, and is of
the opinion that by the execution of the contract dated March 23,
.1895, the defendant, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, acquired
a joint interest of the use of the road between Lexington and Louis-
ville for a term of 100 years for the purpose, and only purpose, of
running its through train, both passenger and freight, to and from
Lexington and Louisville via Christiansburg and Shelbyville. By this

Digitized by VjOOQIC


contract the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company did not buy the fee
simple title to any part of the road (belonging to the Louisville &
Nashville Railroad Company, but only purchased the use of it under
certain restrictions which are contained in the contract.

The Court of Appeals^of Kentucky said, in the case of Louisville
& Nashville Railroad Cc«npany vs. Breeden's Administrator, 745, 111

"The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company did not re-
linquish to th« Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company the pos-
session or control of the road. The contract quoted and filed
is nothing more than a traffic arrangement."

Again the Court of Appeals in construing this contract in the case
of Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Company, 27 Ky., page 497, said as follows :

"The contract between the two railroad companies prohibits
the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company from doing any local
passenger or freight business from points between Lexington
and Louisville; that is to say, that by the terms of the contract
the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company acquired the right to
run its through trains bnly over the road in question, and all
business originating on the line between Lexington and Louis-
ville, not including either of those points to the other, was to
belong to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company exclusive-
ly, except passenger fares from points where the Chesapeake &
Ohio Railway trains might be obliged to stop on account of rail-
road crossings, train orders, water, etc., in which event that Com-
pany was to receive 25 per cent of such fares and the Louisville
& Nashville Railroad Company 75 per cent thereof."

In the light of these decisions of the Court of Appeals of Ken-
tucky, the Commission is led to the conclusion that it has no power
to compel the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company to deliver coal at
points between Lexington and Louisville, and that no obligations rest
on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company to deliver coal at said
points under the law and under the provisions of its contract. The
Commission undoubtedly took this view of the contract in the case of

Digitized by VjOOQIC


R. F. Peake, and others, vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, decided June 27, 1901.
In that case the Commission said:

"The public has the right to the use of local pa&senger and
freight train service over this line from Shelbyville to Christians-
burg, and it is the duty of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Company to either furnish this accommodation 'by the operation
of its own trains, or to so reform its contract with the Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway Company that the latter Ccwnpany may perform
this service."

In that case the Commission clearly recognized the fact that the
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company could not, under the provisions
of this same contract, perform the services applied for in that case,
and the same kind of service which is applied for in this case.

The next question raised by complainant is that the contract
dated March 23, 1895, is null and void and should be cancelled in so
far as it prevents the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Con^any from
delivering coal hauled from points east of Lexington to Lyndon, Ken-
tucky, Lakeland, Kentucky, and other points between Lexington and

Under section 792 of the Kentucky Statutes it provides that when
two railroad companies use the same line of road-way in the operation
of their trains, they shall afford along such road- way reasonable and
proper facilities for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of pas-
sengers and property without discrimination in their rates and' charges.

The shippers at Lyndon, Lakeland, and other points on the line
of road between Louisville and Lexington are entitled to the same
reasonable and proper facilities for receiving, forwarding and deliver-
ing of passengers and property without discrimination in rates and
charges as they were prior to the execution of the contract dated
March 23, 1895. The running of its through trains by the Ches-
apeake & Ohio Railway Company over the leased line did not give
any unusual or extra advantages to the people, traveling public and
shippers who live on this line between Lexington and Louisville, nor
does the contract executed March 23, 1895, excuse the Louisville 5
Nashville Railroad Company from doing its full duty toward the
shippers and the traveling public.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company must furnish rea-
sonable and proper facilities for receiving, forwarding and delivering
of passengers and property at rates which are in themselves reason-
aible. When it fails to do this it .should be condemned not only by this
Commission but by the Qourts.

The Commission is of the opinion that a through rate of $1.00 on
coal is not such a discrimination in rates or charges in favor of Louis-
ville and against points between Lexington and Louisville as is con-
templated by Section 792 of the Kentucky Statutes, and as will war-
rant the Commission in declaring the contract between the Louisville
& Nashville' Railroad Company and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
Company null and void. Under the well settled law of the country,
Louisville, Kentucky, is a basing point and is entitled to a less freigHt
rate than Lyndon and Lakeland.

The complainant charges that the rates now collected, and received
by the defendant, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, to all of
said points between Lexington and Louisville from each of said
designated points for the transportation of coal, are extortionate, un-
just and unreasonable. This part of the complaint will be further
investigated by the Commission, and if the rates on coal in and of
themselves are unreasonable, unjust' and extortionate, then an order
will be made reducing said rates to what the Commission considers
a reasonable charge for such services.

(Signed) A. T. SiLER, Chairman,

McD. Ferguson,
L. P. Tarlton.

Azbill-Strossman Coal Company, of Winchester, Kentucky. Rate
on coal from Kilgore, Kentucky, to Frankfort, Kentucky. Settled.

Kentucky Supply Company vs. Cincinnati Southern, and Louis-
ville & Nashvill-e Railroad Con-jpanies, relative to car capacity.

T. L. Bush — ^Relative to extending time for charging storage
on freight after forty-eight hours arrival at stations. Dismissed.

Mayor of Madisonville, et al., vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Company. Inadequate depot facilities. Dismissed settled.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


Residents of Depoy vs. Illinois Central Railroad. Inadequate depot
facilities. Complaint dismissed.

Citizens of Delaplain, Scott county. Abandonment of station at
Delaplain by discontinuing agency at station. Pending. (Dismissed

By Citizens of Heath for depot. Under advisement. (Dismissed
settled, 1909.)

Citizens of Delaplain, Scott county, relative to depot facilities.
Order in favor of complainants.

Messrs. J. F. and S. L. Dodds Co., Hickman, Kentucky, vs. N. C.
& St. L. Railroad Company. Rates on grain. This matter was
taken up with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and was disposed
of as follows, bv Commissioner Harlan :

"February 1, 1908.
''The Railroad Commission of Kentucky,

"Frankfort, Kentucky.
"Dear Sirs: —

"I have the honor to hand you herewith a copy of a letter

"which I have just addressed to Messrs. J. F. and S. L. DodJs

"Company, of Hickman, Kentucky, in relation to their informal

"complaint which was presented to this Commission with your letter

of January 13th.

"Very respectfully,
(Signed) Jas. S. Harlan,
Enc. Commissioner."


"February 1, 1908.
V. F. and S. L, Dodds Co.,

"Hickman, Kentucky.
"Dear Sirs :—

"Your informal complaint of the rates on grain published
"by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company

Digitized by VjOOQIC


"from Hickman to various poinits in the south and southeast,
"was presented to this Commission by the Railroad Commission
"of Kentucky. I at once took the matter up with the traffic of-
"ficials and I have juist received their reply, the siAstance of
" which I here quote:

*Up to a comparatively recent date there was no oc-
. 'casion for through rates on corn from Hickman to Missis-
*sippi Valley territory, there being no business moving from
'Hickman, so far as we were advised, to the territory in
'question. The rates quoted Messrs. Dodds by our Assistant
'General Freight Agent in his letter of December 12th were
'made on lowest combination. Upon receipt of advice from
'Messrs. Dodds that they would probably have shipments
'of corn to move from Hickman to points in the territory
'involved, we arranged to provide joint through rates by
'the publication of advance notice No. 37 to Supplement No.
'3 to our Southeastern Tariff No. 4, Amendment No. 90
'to I. C. C. 1273-A, issued January 13, 1908, effective Feb-
'ruary 22, 1908. This supplement provides for through
'rates on corn from Hickman to all points in the territory
'in question. A copy of this tariff has been furnished
'Messrs. J. F. and S. L. Dodds Company, and a copy has
'also been filed with the Commission.'

"I trust that you will find the new adjustment of the rates
"entirely satisfactory. But if the cause of your complaint is not
"entirely removed I shall be very glad to hear from you further.
I Very respectfully,

(Signed) Jas. S. Hari^an,

. Commissioner."

Louisville Veneer Mills vs. L. & E. Railroad Company and Ohio
& Kentucky Railway Company. Dismissed without prejudice.

W. C. Bland vs. I. C. Railroad Company. Relative to condition
of crossing at City of Uniontown, Kentucky. Order requiring re-

Broadhcad-Garrett Co. vs. Mountain Central R. R. Co. Exorb-
itant freight rates on logs. Dismissed at request of complainants.

Digitized by VjOOQIC


F. M. Hutchison, et al, vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company.
Relative to establishing crossing belk near Henderson. Order in
favor of complainants.

Henderson Elevator Company vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Company. Relative to car service bills. Pending. (Decided, 1909,
favor complainant.)

Citizens of Campton vs. Mountain Central Railroad Company.
Complaints as to all rates of said company. Decided for defendant.

Crescent Coal Company vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Com-
pany. Relative to switching. Pending. (Dismissed, 1909.)

Citizens of Hopkinsville vs. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Com-
pany and Illinois Central Railroad Company. Depot facilities. Pend-
ing. (Dismissed, 1909 — request of complainants granted by res-

Louisville Board of Trade vs. The Railroads of Kentucky.
Louisville Board of Trade, Plaintiff.


The Railroads of Kentucky, Defendant.


The Louisville Board of Trade respectfully represents to your
honorable Commission that the action of your Commission in hereto-
fore exempting certain places in Kentucky known as "common points"
from the operation of the long and short haul law of Kentucky as
embodied in Section 218 of the Kentucky Constitution and Section
320 of the Kentucky Statutes has not prevented .said law from ser-
iously crippling the commercial and industrial interests of the State
of ^Kentucky, and that in order to give full relief to those interests
it is necessary that every point in the State should, in the making
of rates, have the benefit of its proximity to the nearest common point.
The plaintiff further represents that the fact that it has been un-
lawful for the railroads of Kentucky to be governed by that principle

■ Digitized by VjOOQIC


in the making of rates has caused the long and short haul law to op-
erate as a discrimination against the husiness interests of Louisville
and of the State of Kentucky in favor of the business interests of
other States, and especially of the cities of other States just beyond
the Kentucky border, and has caused the loss of many hundreds of
thousands of dollars annually to the merchants, producers and man-
ufacturers of the State of Kentucky.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that your honorable Com-
mission so far relieve the railroads of Kentucky from the operation
of said long and short haul law as to authorize them to make rates
based upon the 'lowest combination."

(Signed) :\rcCH0RD. HixEs and Norman,

Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Louisville, Ky., Nov. 24, 1908. '


The Commission having heard the application of the Louisville
Board of Trade for an order relieving the railroads of Kentucky from
the operation of the long and short haul law to the extent of per-
mitting them to make rates based on the lowest combination, and
having fully investigated the same, does hereby relieve the railroads
of Kentucky from the operation of said law as embraced in Section 218
of the Kentucky Constitution and Section 820 of the Kentucky Statutes,
to the extent of permitting said companies to make rates based on the
lowest combination in all cases in which such lowest combination
would give a lower rate than that which would otherwise apnjy.

Quicks Run & Ohio River Turnpike Co., vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Railroad Company. (Settled.)

Kentucky Supply Co. vs. L. & N. Railroad Co., relative to charges
for maximum car capacity. Dismissed.

Citizens of Fallsburg vs. C. & O. Ry. Co., relative to depot at

Fuller's Station. Pending. (Di^niis'^ed, 1909.)

Lawlon Sand and Suj^ply Co. vs. C. & O. R y Co. and L. & N.
R. R. Co., rcl.'itivc lo rates on sand. Tygart to Paris, Nicholasville
and Richmond. Pendini^-. (Di •^missed, 1909.)

Digitized by VjOOQIC


Lawton Sand and Supply Co. vs. C. & O. Railway Co. Rale on
sand, Tygart to Frankfort. Adjusled.

W. O. Howard, Hendricks, Ky., relative to extension of time for
charging storage. Pending. (Dismissed, 1909.)

George Faulkner and others vs. C. & O. Ry. Co. and L. & N. R. R.
Co. Rate on coal, Peach Orchard to Sparta, Ky. Withdrawn.

^Irs. Kate Stoughton vs. C. & O. Ry. Co., Depot facilities at
Burgess. Dismissed.

J. E. Byrley vs. L. & N. R. R. Co. Extortionate passenger fare.

Nanz Floral Co. vs. L. & N. R. R. Co. Discrimination. Pending.
(Dismissed, 1909.)

W. E. Allen vs. Illinois Central Railroad Company. Inadequate
depot facilities. Pending (Dismissed, 1909.)

Citizens of Erlanger, ct aL, vs. C, N. O. & T. P. Railroad Com-
pany. Discontinuing passenger service. Pending. (Dismissed, 1909.)

Citizens of Bardstown Junction vs. Louisville &' Nashville Rail-
road Company. Inadequate freight depot facilities. Pending.

Commercial Club of Paris vs. Louisville & Nashville and Frank-
fort & Cincinnati Railroad Coni])any. Ina(le(|uate depot facilities,
landing. (Dismissed, 1909.)

Citizens of Georgetown vs. C. X. O. & T. P. Railroad Company.
Inadequate depot facilities. IVndiiig (Settled, 1909.)

J. W. Kitchen Lumber Co., Ashland, Kentucky, vs. Morehead
& North Fork R. R. Co., relative t(^ rates on lumber. Referred to
rate clerk. Pending. (Dismissed, 1909.)

Frank Stafford vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. This complaint

Digitized by VjOOQIC


grew out of overcharge on shipments of baled hay. Case was referred
to Rate Qerk, and satisfactory adjustment reached by refund to
plaintiff by defendant of all overcharges claimed.

A. J. May, et a/., vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., relative to in-
adequate depot facilities at Prestonsburg, Kentucky. Referred to
rate clerk, and investigation ordered. Pending. (Dismissed, 1909.)

>" Complainants.


A. J. May, County Attorney of Fi<oyd County'
J. P. Harris, County Judge of Fi<oyd County,
WiLi< H. lyAYNE, Mayor City of Prestonsburg,
J. M. Weddington, City Councilman,
O. P. Powers, City Councilman,
Hiram Laferty, City Councilman,
W. H. Jones, City Councilman^
J. Polk Harris, City Councilman,


Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company Defendants.

To the Honorable, the Kentucky Railroad Commission :

Your petitioner, A. J. May, County Attorney, and James P. Harris,
County Judge of Floyd County, Kentucky, come and represent and
state that they are interested in securing for their constitutents, the
citizens of Floyd county and the traveling puhlic, more convenient
passenger depot facilities at Prestonsburg, Kentucky, for various rea-
sons hereinafter stated.

Your petitioner and complainants, WiU H. Layne, J. M. Wedding-
ton, O. P. Powers, W. H. Jones, Hiram Laferty and J. Polk Harris,
for complaint against the defendant herein, state that they are the
Mayor and Caty Councilmen of the city of Prestonsburg, Kentucky, and
as such are interested in securing more convenient and better passen-
ger depot facilities for their constituents, the citizens of Prestons-
burg, Kentucky, and the traveling public, for the various reasons
hereinafter stated, to-wit :

That the present freight and passenger depot jis now established

Digitized by VjOOQIC


and located is inconvenient, and! so located as to be difficult to get to
and from by persons traveling from the city of Prestonsburg to said
depot; that it is located on the North side of Middle Creek, and
the opposite side of Big Sandy River, a distance of one-half mile or
more from the city, and a like distance from a high-way bridge Span-
ning Big Sandy River.

That pa&sengers traveling on the trains going east, during the
late fall, winter and spring months are required to get off the trains
at this distant station and walk on the track of the defendant, many
times in front of moving trains, and that for half or more of the dis-
tance to be traveled, there is absolutely no way of traveling except on
the railroad track and many times in front of moving trains. That
immediately after leaving the depot, as now located, travelers must
pass over a very high railroad bridge crossing Middle Creek and
continue upon the tracks of the defendant ; that during the winter and
spring months, in fact, all the year, except in sunmier months, pas-
sengers are forced to go all this distance through almost impassable
mud and water, or walk upon the track of defendant, as hereinbefore
stated, and many times at a very late hour in the night and without
light by which to travel ; that there is no hack line or other means of
ready transportation for baggage from said depot to the city, and the
only means of transporting such ba'ggage is (by railroad trucks, or by
such passengers as are able to carry the same.

The petitioners and complainants would further represent and show
to this Honorable Board that a highway bridge constructed of steel
upon concrete piers, has recently been built across Big Sandy River at
a point near the center of the city so as to connect the main, principal
part of the city with the defendant's line of railroad, and that adjacent
to the end of said bridge is ample room and a convenient place at which
to construct a passenger depot upon the defendant's right of way and
that said high-way bridge is strong, substantial, .safe and well-built,
with passenger foot-path in addition to the driveway, and that by the
construction of a passenger depot and baggage station at the west
end of said bridge, the danger to human life and the many incon-
veniences of the public and those desiring to travel upon defendant's
trains would be practically elimiinated. That the United States Mails
are carried by messenger from the present depot along defendant's
track to and across said bridge to the city of Preston»l>urg, and on
account of the difficulties and inconveniences resulting from the loca-

Digitized by VjOOQIC


tion of the said depot and the method of transiK>rting said mails, anJ
the volume of mail to be carried, they arrive at the city post office very
late at night during winter months and many times so late that the
people of the town do not get their mails.

Wherefore plaintiffs pray that necessary orders and decrees of the
Commission be entered, requiring the defendant, Chesapeake & Ohio
Railway Co., to provide a suitable passenger and waiting room, to-
gether with all necessary rooms for baggage, etc., at the west end of
the Prestonsburg bridge. They pray for costs and for all other proper
and appropriate relief, to which they may be entitled.

(Signed) A. J. May,

Att y for Plaintiffs.
State of Kentucky,
Floyd County.

The affiant, O. P. Powers, says that the statements contained in
the foregoing petition are true as he verily believes.

(Signed) O. P. Powers,
Subscribed and sworn to by O. P. Powers this the 13th day of
October, 1908.

(Signed) Claude Stephens,

Examiner Floyd Co., Ky.
Investigation of the above complaint was held at Ashland,
Kentucky, where proof was taken by order of the Commission,
after which briefs were filed by complainants and defendant, and
the Commission went upon the ground and made personal investi-
gation. (See order dismissing complaint, 1909)

Strak.tit Creek Coal Minixo Co., . . . Complainant

vs. Rate on Coal.
h. &. N. Railroad Co., Respondent

T. J. Anderson and Wm. Low,

Attorneys for Complainant-

Wm. G. Bearing,

Attorney for L, & X. Railroad Co,

Digitized by VjOOQIC


Blue Grass Traction Company Plaintiff.

vs. Relative to interchanging of cars. — Physical con-

Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway

Company Defendant.

Order favor complainant, entered February 5th, 1909.

W, Clark and Others Complainants.

vs. Rate on Coal, Pleasant, View, Ky., to Williamsburg, Ky.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co Respondent.

Dismissed settled.

E. G. AsHER, Revenue Agent, Bell County, Ky Complainant.

vs. Assessment of railroad property.
Straight Creek Coal & Coke Co Respondent.


East Tenn., Coal Co Complainant.

vs. Claim for damage to ventilating fan.

L. & R. R. Co. Respondent,


Carlisle Milling Co ^.Complainant

vs. Rate on empty flour barrels Cincinnati to Carlisle.

L. & N. R. R. Co Respondent,

Dismissed with directions to take same up with Interstate Com-
merce Commission.

J. B. Walker.

vs. Relative to separate coach law not observed between Bur-
gin and Lexington.
L. & N. R. R. Co.

Information given to Mr. John R. Allen, Coninionwcalth's Attor-

Online LibraryRailroad Commission of KentuckyAnnual report of the Railroad Commissioners of Kentucky, Volume 30 → online text (page 21 of 34)