upon one and the same road. See Rule 1, page 39, Commissioners' Report for the Year 1896, which reads as follows:

***All connecting railroads, which are under the management and control, by lease, ownership or otherwise, of one and the same company, shall, for purposes of transportation, in applying this tariff, be considered as constituting but one and the same road, and the rates shall be computed as upon parts of one and the same road, unless otherwise specified.'

The same rule applies also on shipments from Wilmington and points on the Carolina Central to Raleigh and Augusta and Raleigh and Gaston points. It is the order of the Commission that you conform to this rule, and that the rates be made up accordingly. On the Raleigh and Augusta Railroad you are allowed 15 per cent above the standard, but this does not make a rate as high as the rate allowed the Carolina Central, and the rate from Carolina Central points to Raleigh and Augusta points should not be higher than the mileage rates for distances as per Carolina Central rate. H. C. BROWN, Clerk."

The Traffic Manager replied as follows: "To H. C. BROWN, Clerk.

'Does not the Board err in its ruling as to the application of fertilizer traffic No. 78? While it is true that many of the individual officers are one and the same, still it is a fact that each of the separate roads pay each of the said individual officers a part of the salaries, and that the transactions carried on over the different lines are separately accounted for by the different roads, each of which have distinctive boards of directors. stockholders, and separate ownership in that respect generally.

“Each of these properties are entitled to make their earnings, in accordance with the authorized traffics, and although under the same management nominally and for the purpose of economy in expenditures and economical management, are handled to an extent through the same individual, but each individual draws salary from each of the companies, and in that way is a distinctive representation.

By reference to the Eleventh Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, page 111, you will find a decision by Mr. Justice Fields, sitting as Circuit Justice, which is cited by the Interstate Commerce Commission, whereunder it is held that a railroad company in carrying between points in the same State by a route which passes through another State is as clearly engaged in commerce among the States while operating in the second State.'

The Commission held that the State of New York is without power to authorize the construction of a route from a point in that State through the State of New Jersey to New York City, or to control the operation of such a route, or to regulate charges made thereover, etc.

This would seem to settle the question as to rates between points on the Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad and Roanoke and Tar River Railroad, in North Carolina. which traffic would be handled via Boykins, Va. I will be glad if you will bring this matter to the attention of the Board again, pointing out the facts as stated by me above, in regard to separate boards of directors, separate organizations, separate stockholders, and generally a separate interest, not overlooking the fact that there is a separate capital devoted to the building and maintaining of these properties. and that said capital should have opportunity of earning a fair, a reasonable return on business handled from a station on one road to a station on another road, and because of the economy in the management which enables it to be conducted by the same individual officers, although each of the roads pay the officers its specific share of remuneration, that for that purpose and in the effort to keep rates lower,

because of economy in the management, the individual stockholders and owners, and the bond issue, interest on which issues has been met. should not be made to suffer. I presume these facts were not before the Board when the ruling referred to was made, or they would doubtless agree with me that in this case and under these conditions their freight rule No. 1 should not attach."

Defendant desired a hearing on the matter, and at a session of the Commission August 30th, 1898, this case was called, when Traffic Manager H. W. B. Glover and J. C. MacRae, counsel, were present and heard. The Commission having carefully considered the case in all of its bearings, is of the opinion and so adjudged that the defendant comply with Rule 1 of the Commission, and that the rates on fertilizers be made up accordingly on all shipment of fertilizers to and from points over the roads comprising the Seaboard Air Line System.

August 30, 1898.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ON THE RELATION OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION

VS.

SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY.

Revenue Charge of One Cent by the Southern Express Company.

At a session of the Commission July 13th, 1898, the following order was issued: "Complaint having been filed before the Railroad Commission that the Southern Express Company has exacted and continues to exact and collect from shippers a higher rate of charges than that allowed under their published tariffs, it is ordered that the said Southern Express Company show cause before the Railroad Commission, if any it can, on July 29, 1898, why the penalties for such overcharges be not enforced, as set forth in section 26 of the Railroad Commission Act. It is further ordered that the said Express Company furnish to this Commission a sworn stateinent of the number of shipments made since July 1, 1898, to July 29, 1898, on which such overcharges have been made.”

The defendant, in answering this order, says:

The order of the Commission recites that a complaint has been filed before the Railroad Commission that the Southern Express Company has exacted, and continues to exact and collect from shippers a higher rate of charges than that allowed in their published tariffs, and it is ordered that the Southern Express Company show why penalties shall not apply.

The Southern Express Company, through the undersigned, expressly denies that the Southern Express Company has enacted or collected a higher rate of charges than that allowed in their published tariffs.

The name of the complainants is not stated in the notice, nor the place at which the alleged act is said to have occurred, therefore we have no information upon which to base an investigation to learn whether or not any errors have been made in such charges.

Clerical errors in either overcharging or undercharging on the part of our em

ployees are possible, but our employees have no instructions to vary from the regulation charges as published.

In the order of the Commission it is further ordered "that the said Express Company furnish to this association a sworn statement of shipments made since July 1, 1898, to July 29, 1898, in which such overcharges have been madə."

Not being aware of any overcharges, and not being in possession of any information that would enable me to investigate any claim or allegation that overcharges occurred, I am unable to furnish any such statement as required in the order.

This cause came on for hearing at a session of the Commission August 30, 1898, F. H. Busbee and D. Bignion representing defendants.

The Commission having fully considered the answer of defendant, and argument of counsel, is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction of all matters of overcharges by the express companies, and that the charge of one cent required by the company from the shipper is an overcharge in each and every case. The Commission is further of the opinion that the charge of one cent appertains directly to the transportation of the package, and in the opinion of the Commission is a part of the transportation charges.

It is further ordered that on and after the 7th day of September, 1898, the Southern Express Company shall place and pay for the revenue stamp on all shipments as required by law.

Whereupon, the Southern Express Company makes application for leave to increase its rates between points in North Carolina, heretofore prescribed by the Comsion as being just and reasonable, to the extent of one cent on such shipments to cover the additional expense imposed by the United States Revenue Act of 1898. Petition is denied.

August 30, 1898.

WILMINGTON TARIFF ASSOCIATION

VS.

ATLANTIC COAST LINE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SEABOARD AIR LINE, ATLANTIC AND NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.

This was a petition asking that the Commission issue its order requiring the defendant railroads to issue interchangeable mileage ticket books at $25.00 for 1,000 mile tickets, and 2,000 mile tickets at $40.00.

This petition was read at a session at Raleigh September 30, 1898, and it appearing that inasmuch as this matter of mileage tickets had been previously heard, and no new facts presented other than had been passed upon, it was the opinion of the Commission that a ruling at this time should be denied, and it was so ordered. Case dismissed.

September 30, 1898.

L. A. VEST

VS.

SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY.

Damage.

Complainant filed claim for damage on shipment of oysters from Suffolk, Va., to Haw River, alleging negligence in handling and delay in delivery.

Complaint was served and answer filed, saying that the damage sustained had been paid. Closed.

September 30, 1898.

A. J. McKIMMON

VS.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

Excess Charge for Failure to Purchase Ticket.

Plaintiff filed his complaint September 1, 1898, alleging that on August 24th he was at Reidsville, and desiring to board the train passing for Danville, waited at the hotel until he heard the train blow and then went to the station and found the agent had closed the ticket office. The conductor, for a distance of 24 miles, charged him 95 cents for a second-class ticket, or an excess of 30 cents for failure to have ticket.

Plaintiff demands the refund of 30 cents.

A letter was addressed to complainant as follows:

"I hand you copy of rule in regard to buying of tickets before boarding trains, etc., which reads as follows:

8. Where a railroad company has provided agents and offices, ready and open for the sale of tickets, and the passengers, for want of proper diligence, fail to supply themselves therewith before getting on the train, then 10 cents additional for each passenger 12 years old and over may be demanded and collected for all distances not greater than 10 miles, and 20 cents in like manner for all distances not less than 10 nor greater than 20 miles, and 30 cents in like manner for all distances over 20 miles. Half these rates for each passenger over 5 years old and under 12 years may in like manner be demanded and collected: Provided, however, offices at way stations may be closed one minute before the arrival of trains.'

It would seem from the rule that if you were not at the depot more than one minute before the arrival of the train, the conductor was justifiable in charging you an excess."

At a session of the Commission September 30, 1898, no answer having been received from the plaintiff, it was adjudged that no further action be taken. Closed. September 30, 1898.

A. B. CRAVEN

VS.

NORTHAMPTON AND HERTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.

Freight Rate on Lumber.

This was a complaint for excessive freight rate on lumber and logs over defendant's road.

At a session of the Commission September 30, 1898, this case was thoroughly investigated and considered by the Commission, and it appearing that the defendant was charging no higher rate than that heretofore approved by the Commission, and which appears not to be excessive, it is adjudged that the case be dismissed. September 30, 1898.

TAR RIVER OIL COMPANY

VS.

WILMINGTON AND WELDON RAILROAD COMPANY.

Overcharge.

Complaint for overcharge on gin, gear cylinders, shipped from Tarboro to Atlanta. Complaint was served August 26, 1898, and answer filed September 20, 1898. through H. M. Emerson saying that voucher had been made for the overcharge of $6.12.

At a session of the Commission September 30, 1898, it appearing that defendant had refunded to plaintiff the overcharge, and that no further relief was demanded, case was closed.

September 30, 1898.

OAKDALE COTTON MILLS

VS.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

Overcharges and Delivery of Freight.

Plaintiff alleged overcharges on numerous shipments and negligence on part of defendant in tracing lost freights.

This complaint was served on defendant with request that the matters complained of have an immediate investigation and that plaintiff be given satisfaction.