Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

great privileges and advantages which they had secured from the people and from the State and, in 1906, the office of the Commissioner of Railroads and Telegraphs was abolished and the Railroad Commission of Ohio, to consist of three members, was created.

The Commission organized in August, 1906, and immediately proceeded upon the discharge of its extensive and important duties. During the five years of its existence as the Railroad Commission of Ohio, decisions in one hundred and thirty-nine formal cases were rendered. These cases covered the fixing of rates, rendering of better service, furnishing improved facilities, demurrage regulations and the equitable distribution of cars, and necessitated the taking of testimony, extending, in some instances, over periods of more than thirty days, the hearing of arguments of counsel and the examination of authorities. Many disputed questions, involving the respective rights of the carriers and the public, have been settled by these decisions, and business is now conducted on the lines therein laid down. Four hundred and thirty cases of an informal character were decided, and other matters, of which no specific record was kept, but reaching into. the hundreds, were disposed of, either by correspondence or conference. Many of these matters were of a character to require formal complaint, but it has always been the policy of the commission to adjust all differences arising between the shipping public and the railroads as speedily and with as little friction and expense to the parties as possible. Where this was found impossible, either through lack of a desire to be fair on either side, or a difference in opinion as to the legal rights of the parties, formal investigations were made and such order issued as the facts developed warranted.

Two hundred and thirty-five grade crossing, two hundred and twenty-five overhead wire, sixty-seven overhead bridge, seventy-one approval of blocking for angles in frogs, etc., two hundred and twenty reparation claim, ninety-one approval of interlocking devices, four approval of fire extinguisher, and two derailing device orders were issued. Special permission to carriers to publish tariffs carrying reduced rates on less than statutory notice, was given in six hundred cases and, in addition, more than thirty-five thousand cars were inspected with regard to safety appliance equipment, and the roadbed and track of all steam and interurban roads in the State were inspected annually. This work has been performed at a minimum of expense, with the result of securing to the people better service, often at reduced rates, together with a greater degree of safety in the operation of the railroad properties.

Another result has been the creation and continued growth of a better spirit and more friendly attitude on the part of both the public and the carriers. The best informed and fairest minded railroad men

appreciate and approve the work of the Commission and the people generally are less critical and intolerant of railroad management than formerly. While the Commission has been called upon to reduce rates in a number of instances, yet the larger number of complaints is directed toward the service rendered, rather than to the charge for the service. The people are willing to pay for efficient service and do not deny the right of railroad corporations to a liberal return on their investment, both of capital and ability, and for service rendered, but they do rightfully demand efficient and prompt service; and, on the other hand, the carriers are recognizing in a greater degree and in a fairer spirit their obligations to the public and their amenability to law.

In other reports the Commission has had occasion to recommend new and amendatory legislation looking to a more speedy and efficient exercise of its powers. Some of these recommendations have been enacted into law and, invariably, the result has been beneficial. Some others, so far, have been overlooked. Quoting from last year's report, the Commission said:

"One of the most, if not the most disappointing features of this attempt to regulate commerce in this State through the medium of the Commission, is the delay incident to an enforcement of its findings and orders, by reason of the court procedure now in effect. An order made by the Commission upon the hearing of a formal complaint may be taken to the Court of Common Pleas upon error, appeal or by injunction. There the case may be heard de novo and referred back to the Commission for a recision or a modification of its order, or the case may take its weary course to the Supreme Court of the State, and possibly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Before a final adjudication of the questions involved is reached, the business affected thereby may be destroyed. The defendant, knowing of his right to introduce additional testimony upon an appeal from the order of the Commission, may find it to his interest to make only a nominal defense in the first instance, and the case tried in the Court of Common Pleas, so far as the evidence is concerned, may be entirely different from the case heard by the Commission. All of this results only in delay and can serve no good purpose to the public. The law should be so amended as to provide for the hearing of the case in the higher court upon the record made before the Commission and the appellant should be required to apply first for a rehearing before the Commission, setting out in full the grounds and reasons therefor, and in the event that a rehearing is not granted by the Commission, the

questions raised in the application for a rehearing should be the grounds, and the only grounds considered by the appellant

court.

"To further eliminate delay and simplify procedure the action should be taken direct from the Commission to the Supreme Court of the State. If there be found, at present, any constitutional inhibition against the passage of a law providing for such procedure, the opportunity for securing relief therefrom at the coming constitutional convention should not be overlooked or neglected."

So far, no relief has been afforded in that direction.

That suggestion of reform in procedure is again endorsed and it is further recommended, in the event that cases cannot be taken direct from the Commission to the Supreme Court, that the Circuit Court be abolished and the Supreme Court enlarged and authorized to hear cases in divisions, so as to insure a speedy determination of the rights of litigants.

On July 1st, 1911, the Railroad Commission of Ohio became, by legislative enactment, The Public Service Commission of Ohio, with jurisdiction extended to include every form of public utility.

Yours very truly,

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF OHIO.

O. P. GOTHLIN, Chairman,

J. C. SULLIVAN,

O. H. HUGHES,

Commissioners.

FORMAL COMPLAINTS

63. The Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Ashtabula Railway Company, Complainant, versus The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and The Erie Railroad Company, Defendants.

Complainant makes application requesting the approval of the Commission for a certain form of safety device, consisting of crossing gates and signals, which it is proposed to install at various crossings of its tracks with the tracks of the defendants, to the end that trains of complainants may pass over said crossings, without coming to a stop, at a speed of not to exceed twelve miles per hour; and further requests an order of the Commission directing the defendants to accept such devices and the operation of the trains of the complainant as contemplated, at eight crossings, located as follows:

Crossings of the tracks of the complainant with those of the two defendants at the Crab Creek Crossing near Youngstown, Ohio, and near the plant of the Mower and Reaper Works near Youngstown, Ohio; with the tracks of the defendant, The B. & O. R. R. Co. at Girard, Ohio; at Brier Hill, and at the Carnegie Company's steel plant at Youngstown, Ohio; and with the tracks of the defendant, The Erie R. R. Co. at Austinburg, Ohio; with an industrial track east of Girard, Ohio, and with the canal branch of said defendant at Girard, Ohio, of all of which crossings and proposed devices complainant submitted proper plans.

Upon being advised of the nature of the request of complainant, defendant companies refused their consent to the proposed arrangement and the Commission was requested by applicant to take no action. until the companies concerned could reach some agreement satisfactory to all parties. The case is, therefore, still pending.

71. The Pittsburg Vein Operators' Association of Ohio, Complainant, versus The Lake Erie, Alliance and Wheeling Railroad Company, The Erie Railroad Company, The Pennsylvania Company, The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railway Company, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, The New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, and The Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Defendants.

Assignment of this case for investigation is held in abeyance,

8

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »