ENTRY. This case came on this day to be heard; and it appearing that the complainant has not for the year ending June 30th, 1910, nor for any other year, filed a report as a carrier with the Commission, this case is, therefore, dismissed by the Commission upon its own motion for the reason and on the ground that said complainant has not the legal capacity to maintain this action. 122. The Aurora Sand and Gravel Company, a Corporation, Complainant, versus The Cleveland, Youngstown and Eastern Railway Company, a Corporation, Defendant. Dismissed May 24, 1911. The complainant says: That it is a corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business located at Cleveland, Ohio, and is engaged in the business of excavating and shipping sand and gravel. That the above named railway company is a common carrier, engaged in the transportation of persons and property by railroad between points in the State of Ohio, and that as such common carrier, said defendant is subject to the provisions of the laws of the State of Ohio relating to common carriers. That on or about December 10th, 1910, complainant made application to said defendant for a rate under which said defendant would transport cars of sand and gravel over its tracks from the junction of the Wheeling and Lake Erie Company's switch and said defendant's road in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, to the City Farm switch, a distance of about six miles and further, for a rate under which defendant would transport cars of sand and gravel over its track from the junction of the Wheeling and Lake Erie Company's switch and said defendant's road in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, to the junction of Kinsman Road and the private right of way of said defendant in or near Cleveland, Ohio. Said complainant further informed said defendant that the cars used in the transportation of said sand and gravel would be furnished by the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad Company and would conform to the rules governing car limitations issued by said defendant; that no car mileage would be charged by said Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad Company and that there would be no loading and unloading to be done by said defendant. That said defendant fixed a rate of $0.80 per ton for the doing. of the work herein set forth, which said complainant alleges is excessive, unjust and unreasonable. Wherefore, the complainant prays that the aforesaid defendant. be required to answer the charges herein and that after due hearing and investigation an order be made commanding said defendant to cease and desist from charging and demanding said excessive and unreasonable rate of $0.80 per ton for the transportation of said sand and gravel aforesaid and that said defendant be ordered to fix a reasonable and just rate to cover such transportation or upon its refusal so to do, that said Commission fix a rate to be so charged for the transporting of sand and gravel as set forth herein and for such other and further order as the Commission may deem necessary and just in the premises. Under date of May 24th, 1911, the following entry was spread in this case: It appearing that complainant does not desire any investigation of the issues raised in this case, the same is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution without further record. 123. H. H. Beaver, et al., Petitioners, versus The Erie Railroad Company, Defendant. Disposed of April 24, 1911. Following the service of a copy of a petition, reading: RICHWOOD, OHIо, March 11, 1911. To the Railroad Commission of Ohio: We, the undersigned, citizens of Union County, State of Ohio, do make this formal complaint and information against The Erie Railroad Company, to wit: That said Erie Railroad Company by its agents and employes have removed fences and cattle-guards along public roads and lanes. used by the public which the said Erie Railroad crosses, immediately southwest of Richwood, Claibourne Township, Union County, Ohio, contrary to laws made and provided in such cases, and to the great danger of stock, such as cattle and horses, and in fact all live stock, and the traveling public, who ride upon its trains. Therefore we ask that the said cattle-guards and fences be reconstructed and built and kept in good repair, as provided in sections 8913 and 8914, General Code of Ohio, (as to authority section 601). We respectfully ask that this matter be enquired into at an early date. and the statutes enforced. H. H. BEAVER, J. P. SIDLE, W. W. KINNEY, T. J. MULLIGAN, JAMES MANNESSMITH, IN. J. KINNEY, C. E. KINNEY, L. D. FISHER, the Commission, on April 24, 1911, spread the following entry: It appearing from a written statement of H. H. Beaver, complainant, dated April 15th, 1911, that defendant, The Erie Railroad Company, has constructed the necessary fences along the public road southwest of Richwood, Union County, Ohio, thereby removing the cause of complaint, this complaint is, therefore, dismissed without further record and without prejudice. 124. Alonzo M. Cross, Complainant, versus The Portsmouth Street Railroad and Light Company. Decided June 1, 1911. Alonzo M. Cross, for Complainant; Milner, Miller and Searl, for Defendant. ORDER. This matter came on for investigation upon the complaint of Alonzo M. Cross against The Portsmouth Street Railroad and Light Company, alleging discrimination by said defendant against the residents of Sciotoville and in favor of other points on defendant's line, especially the City of Portsmouth, in that the residents of said City of Portsmouth are permitted by defendant's fare-point limitation to ride a greater distance than are the residents of Sciotoville. Upon full investigation the Commission find that defendant's regulation as to fare-limit points is not unreasonable, and that said complainants are not unreasonably discriminated against. It is, therefore, ORDERED, That said complaint be and the same is hereby dis missed. 125. W. H. McGugin, Complainant, versus The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, Defendant. Decided August 10, 1911. FINDING AND ORDER. INADEQUATE FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE. The complainant herein, W. H. McGugin, says that he brings this action in his own behalf and also in behalf of that portion of the general public which has occasion to use defendant's railroad between Wellston, Ohio, and Ironton, Ohio, and alleges that said defendant. has heretofore, and is now failing and refusing to furnish to the public adequate passenger and freight service on its line at and between the points above designated. It appears that prior to March 5, 1911, the defendant maintained a published schedule providing for a passenger train, daily, except Sunday, leaving Ironton at 7:00 a. m. and arriving at Wellston at 10:50 a. m., and another passenger train leaving Wellston at 11:45 a. m. and arriving at Ironton at 3:30 p. m.; also a mixed train, which performed the work of a local freight train, but carrying also a passenger coach for the accommodation of passengers, leaving Wellston at 5:40 a. m. and arriving at Ironton at 10:10 a. m., and a similar train leaving Ironton at 10:55 a. m. and arriving at Wellston at 3:10 p. m. On March 5th, 1911, defendant discontinued said mixed trains and, in lieu thereof, put into service a certain local freight train leaving Wellston at the same hour, but with instructions to the crew not to go through to Ironton unless the round trip, including all terminal work at Ironton, could be completed within sixteen hours, which train does not carry passengers. Defendant admitted that it is regularly operating an extra train on practically the same schedule provided for said mixed trains, desig nating such trains on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays as a "through" freight train, and on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. as a "local" freight train. The railway company makes the defense that it is providing all the service that the business warrants, and that additional facilities and service would be unprofitable. The averments of the complaint were supported by the evidence. Not only does it appear that defendant has failed to provide a reasonable passenger train service to Ironton, the center of trading for the public residing along this branch of the defendant's system, but the testimony also developed the fact that the defendant is not providing a reasonably adequate service for the freight traffic offered for ship ment at Ironton to way points, or for the traffic offered at the way points for transportation to Ironton and other points. It may be that this division of defendant's system was not operated at a profit before the discontinuance of certain service on March 5th, 1911, but this fact alone cannot avail as a defense to the complaint. A railway company owes a duty, as a common carrier, to the public, and such company must provide reasonably adequate service and facilities at every point served by it. A railroad cannot demand that every branch of its system shall be operated at a profit before it will grant to that part of the public served by it additional service and facilities. The receipts of that part of defendant's system in question will not furnish the necessary light in this case, as it has evidently not been operated and managed so as to reasonably develop and encourage the traffic which naturally belongs to it, and which, under fairly favorable conditions would produce additional revenue to the road. There is a certain minimum service which every railroad, as a common carrier, must extend to the public which it seeks to serve, and this minimum service must be rendered whether the same be remunerative or not. It requires two days and one night for the patrons of this road who desire to reach Ironton, the principal business center, to transact any business and return to their home; likewise the freight traffic is neglected and train schedules badly arranged. Both freight and passenger traffic is inconvenienced and is obliged to seek transportation by means other than over defendant's line, to the great inconvenience and hardship of the traffic located in the territory which should be served by defendant. The Commission, therefore, find that the defendant, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, is failing, neglecting and refusing to provide reasonably adequate freight and passenger train service upon its Ironton Branch, in that its trains are not run either with sufficient frequency or regularity. It is, therefore, ORDERED, That the defendant, The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railway Company, be and it is hereby notified and required to provide reasonably adequate passenger train facilities to the public residing along its division extending from Wellston to Ironton, Ohio, by operating daily, except Sundays, in addition to the passenger train service now maintained, a passenger train leaving Wellston, Ohio, at about 5:40 a. m., and scheduled to arrive at Ironton, Ohio, at about 10:10 a. m.; said train to stop at each of defendant's stations between Wellston and Ironton, when signalled so to do, to receive or discharge. passengers, and by operating another passenger train daily, except Sundays, leaving Ironton at about 2:30 p. m., to be operated in a like manner to the first additional train herein required, and scheduled to arrive at Wellston at about 7:00 p. m.; and it is further. |