CAPT. F. W. WAGENER, Chm., &c. CHARLESTON, S. C., May 17th, 1889. DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your esteemed favor of 17th, and our Comm'n will take pleasure in carrying out your wishes; but any application to the Interstate Comm'n for redress of such grievance as you mention must be accompanied by a full statement of an actual case. They will not entertain general charges nor a supposititious case. If you can get up statement of actual shipment for each place, accompanied by evidence of the fact, and bills of lading showing rates, we will forward same with pleasure. Yours truly, EUGENE P. JERVEY, R. R. Com. of S. C. CHARLESTON, S. C., May 20th, 1889. MR. EUGENE P. JERVEY. DEAR SIR: Enclosed please find rates of freight, and you will notice that Wilmington is 10 cents per 100 lbs. less than Charleston. This is surely more than we can stand. Wilmington is our strong competitor. I trust you will be able to remedy this trouble at as early a date as possible. F. W. WAGENER. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, F. W. WAGENER, Esq., Chairman, &c., Charleston, S. C. DEAR SIR Referring to your letters of the 17th and 20th instant, respectively, to Railroad Commissioner Jervey, I am directed by the Board to suggest that you present your complaint to the Inter-State Commerce Commission. Should you prefer to have the State Commission forward it for you, they will, with pleasure, do so, as they did that of the Spartanburg Board of Trade vs. The Richmond and Danville R. R. et al. Referring to that case, the following extract from a communication to this Commission from Commissioner Bragg, of the Inter-State Commission, is quoted to you for your information: "This complaint is defective in failing to state the railroad companies that make the rates complained of in the complaint. This being a complaint under Section 13 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, approved February 4th, 1887, it is indispensably necessary to give jurisdiction to the Inter-State Commerce Commission that the complaint should state all the railroads that participate in making the rate complained of, as you will see by referring to said section, to which your attention is respectfully invited." M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary. Yours truly, Complaint of Irving Williams Against the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company for Refusal to Give Bill Lading from Winnsboro to New York, via Charleston, S. C. COLUMBIA, S. C., Dec. 17, '88. MESSRS. BONHAM, DUNCAN, AND JERVEY, R. R. Commissioners of S. C., Columbia, S. C. GENTLEMEN: I beg to enclose a copy of a letter this day addressed by me to the Asst. Gen'l. Fgt. Agt. of the R. & D. R. R. You will see by this that I have serions cause of complaint against them, which I respectfully ask you to take cognizance of. Very respy yrs, IRVING WILLIAMS. COLUMBIA, S. C., Dec. 7, '88. MR. D. CARDWELL, Asst. Gen. Freight Agent R. & D. R. R., Columbia, S. C. DEAR SIR: I have 150 B. C. at Winnsboro, which I bought from Messrs. Jones, Robertson & Co. I went there on Saturday to ship it, but your agt. refused to give me B. L. to New York, via Columbia and Charleston, claiming that he had no authority to do so. At my solicitation he wired you, but failed to obtain your permission. The Charleston steamers land so much nearer to our stores than any other line that it saves trouble and expense. In a personal interview with you this morning I gave you other good reasons why this particular lot should be shipped as I wish, but still met with refusal. What I asked as a favor I must now request as a right, a shipper having the right to designate the route by which hi goods shall be shipped. Respy yrs, IRVING WILLIAMS. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, D. CARDWELL, ESQ., G. F. A. R. & D. R. R., Columbia, S. C. DEAR SIR: We enclose you copies of a letter addressed to yourself and one to the Railroad Commission on the subject therein mentioned. The Commission begs you will let them hear from you as soon as you can, and in the meantime refer you to section 1514, General Statutes. Yours truly, M. L. BONHAM, Chm. Board R. R. Comm'rs. HON. M. L. BONHAM, Chairman, Columbia, S. C. COLUMBIA, S. C., Dec. 21st, 1888. DEAR SIR: I have your letter of the 17th, and in reply, beg to say that upon application for bill of Jading at Winnsboro, I offered a bill of lading to Charleston, with the rate to that point, as we have no rates nor arrangements for handling cotton for New York via Charleston from Winnsboro. Very respectfully, D. CARDWELL, Div. Frt. Agt. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, COL. T. M. R. TALCOTT, First Vice-Pres. R. & D. R. R., Richmond, Va.: The Commission respectfully requests you to give them your views in regard to this matter. Yours truly, RICHMOND, VA., Dec. 31, 1888. M. T. BARTLETT, ESQ., Secretary S. C. Railroad Commission, Columbia, S. C. The question is one upon the legal aspects of which I have not had the opinion of our General Counsel, and my conclusions in reference thereto may not be correct; but in the light of my past experience with such questions I think that the Railroad Commissioners of South Carolina will consider it a sufficient answer to Mr. Williams' complaint, if we say that our arrangements for the through inter-State business between New York and points on our line in South Carolina are not through Charleston, and that we have no agreement with connections which would make it practicable for us to give through bills of lading by that route to New York even if we desired to do so. If any reasonable objections could be urged by shippers to the route by which we afford them through bills of lading to New York (not as a matter of duty, we believe, but as a reasonable accommodation which we are very glad to secure for them), we would endeavor to find another and better route. I do not understand that Mr. Williams complains of the route we offer to New York. If his allusion to the proximity of his stores to the landing place of the Charleston steamers as saving trouble and expense means, as would reasonably be supposed, that he hopes to get some reduction in the through rate or rebate by handling his freight through Charleston, I can only say that if a through rate were made from Winnsboro to New York via Charleston, it would necessarily be the same as via West Point, and that any concession, allowance, or rebate at Charleston would be in violation of the law to regulate commerce between the States. Yours truly, T. M. R. TALCOTT, First Vice President. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, COL. T. M. R. TALCOTT, First Vice-President R. & D. R. R., Richmond, Va. The spirit of section 1514, General Statutes, seems to contemplate your being prepared for forwarding freights on equal terms by all connecting lines. As the freight, "if a through rate were made from Winnsboro to New York via Charleston * * * would necessarily be the same as via West Point," the Commission cannot understand why such rates could not be made for the accommodation of the public. It further seems to the Commission that you should make such rates, more especially as you make them to New York via Charleston from points on the Columbia and Greenville Division-a part of the Richmond and Danville corporation. (See section 1443, General Statutes.) Such rates your Company gives from stations on the Columbia and Greenville Division, and it is unjust discrimination not to give them from stations on the C. C. & A. R. R. The Commission does not learn from Mr. Williams' letter to Mr. Cardwell, or otherwise, that he, Williams, expects "any concession, allowance, or rebate," by sending his freights through Charleston. Yours truly, M. L. BONIIAM, Chm. Board R. R. Commr's. RICHMOND, VA., January 16, 1889. GEN. M. L. BONHAM, Chairman Board of Railroad Commissioners, Columbia, S. C.: DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 7th instant was received on my return here yesterday after nearly a week's absence. I am not advised of any law which requires transportation companies to make arrangements or partnerships with other transportation companies, for the purpose of giving the public the selection of all possible through lines to reach the same point; on the contrary, I think it has always been held that such arrangements were in the nature of a partnership, in which each member became responsible for the concern, and that, as is usual in such cases, persons corporate, as well as private persons, have a right to select the partners for whom they are to become, in a measure at least, responsible. It did not occur to me, nor do I see now, that Section 1514 of the South Carolina law, to which you refer, was intended, or could be construed to require, any transportation company in South Carolina to give a through bill of lading beyond the terminus of its own line. It merely requires the Richmond and Danville to promptly forward merchandise consigned or directed to be sent over another road, connecting with its road, according to the directions contained thereon or accompanying the same. These requirements pertain wholly to the direction of the freight, not to the giving of a bill of lading therefor. If Mr. Williams had insisted on the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company receiving his freight consigned to the South Carolina Railway, or to the W., C. & A. R. R. at Columbia, his instructions would have been obeyed, and a receipt would have been given him in accordance with Section 1513 of the South Carolina law; but I cannot see what right he has to demand that we shall make for his convenience arrangements with all connecting lines, whether solvent or insolvent, for all parts of our line. It is true that we do give through bills of lading from points on the Columbia and Greenville division of our road, an arrangement which was made during my former connection with this company, not that we then considered ourselves obligated to do it, but because this company desired to treat with liberality the South Carolina Railway, and not to divert from it all the business which it had previously controlled from the Columbia and Greenville Railroad. In view of recent developments it may be doubted whether the continuance of such an arrangement will be considered altogether consistent with sound business principles. I have endeavored to discuss this question with your honorable body on its merits alone, not on the basis of our legal rights; but since you charge us with violation of the law to regulate commerce between the States, by making unjust discrimination between stations on the Columbia and Greenville Division and stations on the Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad, we would prefer that you file your complaint before Judge Cooley, and his associates of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the law to regulate commerce between the States, so that we may make our defence before a court of competent jurisdiction. We make this suggestion with all due deference to your honorable body, feeling sure that you will recognize this question of rates on interstate traffic as one in reference to which we could not receive instructions from you without disrespect to the national Commission, to whom alone Congress has given jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to property shipped "from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia." Yours very truly, T. M. R. TALCOTT, First Vice-President. OFFICE OF RALROAD COMMISSIONERS, COL. T. M. R. TALCOTT, First Vice Prest. R. &. D. R. R.. Richmond, Va. The Commission considered that your Company was bound, under Section 1514, General Statutes, to ship the cotton by the line designated by Mr. Williams, to the extent of your connecting lines, and give bill of lading. And the Commission are further of the opinion that, had your management so desired, it could have issued to Mr. Williams bill of lading as he requested, wired either the Atlantic Coast Line or the South Carolina R'y. to protect the same, and the shipment would have gone forward without any delay or friction. But it appears your Company offered such bill to Charleston only, which he declined. The Commission made the point in their communication of the 7th inst. that your giving rates (and, of course, bill of lading) from points on the Columbia and Greenville R. R., a part of your system, and not also on the Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta R. R. (another part), was unjust discrimination, but did not claim the power of enforcing that opinion, and they do not see anything in the views you present to satisfy them that it is not unjust discrimination. The Commission often communicates with the railroad companies on matters of Inter-State Commerce with the hope of being able to adjust matters for citizens who present complaints, without the delay or publicity incident to filing each of their complaints before the Inter-State Commission. The Commission agrees with you and think your suggestion a good one, and they have to-day had a copy of the papers made, together with their views in the matter, and forwarded the same to the InterState Commission. Yours truly, M. L. BONHAM, Chm. Board R. R. Comm'rs. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, In the Matter of Irving Williams, Complainant, vs. The Richmond and Danville Railroad Company, as to Bill of Lading from Winnsboro, S. C., via Columbia and Charleston to New York. To the Inter-State Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C. This being a matter of inter-State commerce, the Commission respectfully encloses your honorable body the correspondence for your action and decision on Mr. Williams' complaint. Yours very respectfully, M. L. BONHAM, Chairman Board of Railroad Commissioners of South Carolina. IRVING WILLIAMS, ESQ., Columbia, S. C. INTER-STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, DEAR SIR: A complaint made by you against the Richmond and Danville Railroad Co. has been forwarded to this Commission by the Railroad Commissioners of South Carolina. As we understand the facts, you ter dered to that Company a consignment of cotton at Winnsboro, S. C., and directed that it be forwarded to New York by way of Columbia and Charleston on through bill of lading, and at the same rate made by the more direct route. The agent offered to forward to Charleston on local rates, but not otherwise, assigning as a reason that the Company had no arrangements for through rates by way of Charleston to New York except from points on the Columbia and Greenville Division. You complain that the refusal constitutes unjust discrimination. If the railroad company is legally bound to make through rates with steamship lines, your complaint may be well founded. The Commission has always understood, however, that the law did not compel this, but that the whole matter of whether such arrangements should be made by water lines was discretionary. If so, we do not see how the refusal of through bill could be unjust discrimination in any legal The Commission can certainly have no power to compel the making of through arrangements unless the law requires it. sense. It is further to be considered that if a shipper at Winnsboro can lawfully require what you asked for, another still farther north, say at Richmond, would seem to have the same right. But if the steamship line should claim the same division on a through bill, irrespective of the point from which the cotton came as it might well do-the result would be that the railroad company must carry to Charleston from Winnsboro, and from points still farther north, at the same aggregate sum as it gets from the much nearer points on the Columbia and Greenville Division. But to require this would hardly seem to be just. If you have conferred with counsel on the subject, perhaps you would like to have your counsel lay his views before us. If so, we should very much like to have him do so. Very respectfully yours, T. M. COOLEY, Chairman. COLUMBIA, S. C., Feb'y 6, '89. HON. T. M. COOLEY, Chairman Inter-State Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C. claim that the law does not require them to make rates with steamship lines may be correct, but the fact that they do it for shippers at other points on their system seems to be unjust discrimination. Greenville, S. C., is much further north than Winnsboro, and, of course, farther from Columbia and Charleston; and to give shippers from a point so much farther the option of route is most certainly discrimination. That they do this I know, as I have myself made shipments from there via Columbia and Charleston. This they do presumably because there is a competing line, and had they refused, I could have shipped via Augusta and Charleston, which would have done just as well. At Winnsboro there being no competing line, the shipper is at their mercy. This will soon be the case at Greenville, as they have purchased the competing line. Thus, you see, whenever they have full control they pay no attention to the wishes, interest, or convenience of the shipper, and a shipper at some neighboring town gets an advantage by being able to select one or two of three routes. He may get his goods through in half the time, and derive a great many other benefits. The fact that they admit giving through bills of lading from points on the Columbia and Greenville division, much farther north than Winnsboro-there are several stations this side of Greenville which are farther-is a strong argument against them. It seems to me that it gives an advantage to parties shipping from that section over those on the Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta division. All cotton shipped from this section to New York goes partly by water. The lot of cotton in question went, I think, via West Point, thence by water to New York. Frequently a shipper finds that such quantities of cotton are being shipped by West Point or by Norfolk as to cause very serious delay, and his cotton is piled up at one of those points for days, and sometimes weeks, when it should be in New York. He uaturally wishes to change routes, and if there is a competing line, he will; but if all routes are under the control of a combination whose interest it is to ship only one way, he is helpless. In the very case in question the failure of the agent at Winnsboro to comply with my request, delayed the shipment some fortyeight hours, causing the cotton to reach New York several days later than otherwise. I have not consulted counsel, as you suggest, but simply lay before you a plain, business, common sense statement of the case, and if the law furnishes no relief, surely there is a flaw in it. Steamship lines constitute a part of the transportation system of the country, and if the law does not compel through rates to be made when part of a route is by water, a great injury may be done, and proper competition be prevented. Very respectfully yours, (Signed) IRVING WILLIAMS. (Copy.) IRVING WILLIAMS, ESQ., Columbia, S. C. INTER-STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON. DEAR SIR Replying to yours of the 6th inst., I have only to repeat what I said in my former letter, that the Commission has not been given any power by law to require railroad companies to make arrangements for through lines and through rates with carriers by water. The only question that could therefore arise upon your application would be whether the Richmond and Danville in making through arrangements for one part of its system by way of Charleston and declining to make them for another part is guilty of unjust discrimination. The reply of the Company to such a charge would be that the arrangement it makes for Winnsboro aftd other towns by way of West Point, while more for its own interest, is equally convenient and beneficial to the general public to that made for the Columbia and Greenville division by way of Charleston. If the reply is well founded in point of fact, you could hardly contend that convenience as regards the location of your warehouse in New York would entitle you to demand a through rate by Charleston for yourself. You have an undoubted right to select that route for shipment, but I do not understand that that has been denied you; it is the through rate that is in dispute. As at present advised, therefore, I do not see that the Commission can aid you. T. M. COOLEY. COLUMBIA, S. C., Feb. 20, 1889. HON. T. M. COOLEY, Chairman Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington D. C. SIR: Yours of 15th inst. received. Permit me to emphasize the fact that Greenville, S. C., is over 100 miles further from Columbia and Charleston than Winnsboro is. If to give this B. L. to shippers from there and points on that division, via Columbia and Charleston, and refuse it to shippers on the Charlotte and Columbia division, is not unjust discrimination of the most flagrant nature, I must humbly confess my ignorance of the meaning of the term. The convenience of our warehouses in New York is a small consideration, and I called your aftention in mine of 6th to various considerations which would influence a shipper in selecting the route. It is not for the R. R. Co. to judge always what may be equally convenient and beneficial to the general public, as there is very frequently a radical difference of opinion between the public and transportation companies, and they have even |