« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
request of the people of Hubbard, but the following correspondence shows they did not succeed:
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
ST. PAUL, October 17th, 1891. B. A. Mantor, Esq., Hubbard, Minnesota :
DEAR SIR: Herewith enclosed please find copy of letter dated Oct. 14th, • to the commission, from the general solicitor of the Great Northern Ry.
Co., which states that said company is constructing a side track at Shell River, and that it declines to put in the side track at the point where the Co. road intersects the railroad between sections 11 and 14, T. 139, Range 39, as requested by the petition, which you sent to the commission some time ago.
We desire to say that we regret this decision of the company. The commission has used its best endeavor to secure for your people the side track you asked for, and has urged the company to comply with your request.
The commission is of opinion that it cannot make an order for the side track asked for by your people, for the reason that with a side track at Shell River, the distance between Park Rapids and such station will be less than six miles; and if we should make the order the company would appeal to the courts, and we think our order would be set aside.
The law of 1887, creating the commission, section 3, subdivision (c) provides, that “where stations are ten miles or more apart, the common carrier when required to do so by the railroad and warehouse commissioners, shall construct and maintain a side track for the use of shippers between such stations."
This is the only authority that the commission has for making such an order.
It appears plain to us that if we should order a side track at the point desired by your people, the company would answer that the stations, Park Rapids and Shell River are less than ten miles apart, and that such order would be beyond the power and authority of the commission.
Entertaining this view of the law governing the case, we are compelled ourselves to deny the request contained in the petition referred to.
Yours very truly,
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY LINE, L
ST. PAUL, MINN., Oct. 14, 1891. Hon. George L. Becker, Chairman R. and W. H. Commission.
DEAR SIR: I do not know whether the general manager has informed the commission, orally or otherwise, as to the act of the company in reference to constructing a side track on the Park Rapids line at a point intermediate Shell River and the station this side.
I have received a note from the general manager's office, he being ab. sent, stating that the company has ordered the construction of a side track at Shell River and that it is being constructed, or will be shortly commenced, and that it does not feel justified in constructing the side track at the other place.
F. R. PETTIT, CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE, MINNEAPOLIS,
DEMURRAGE CHARGES. The following shows the status of this case at present. No action has been determined upon with reference to the position of the Great Northern company.
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
ST. PAUL, October 1, 1891.
DEAR SIR: In the matter of the complaint of a committee of grain receivers and millers of Minneapolis, dated Sept. 23d, against the Terminal Dispatch Association on account of changing its rule with reference to cars of grain held out for reinspection so as to impose a demurrage charge on such cars, even if the grade is changed. The commission gave both parties in interest a hearing in this matter at Minneapolis on Sept. 29th last, and after duly considering the subject, it was unanimously resolved by the commission to-day: "That the commission recommend to the Terminal Dispatch Association, that Rule 6 of Circular No. 27, taking effect Sept. 15, 1891, issued by you as chairman, which reads as follows:
No time will be allowed free of charge for cars of grain held out for inspection' be striken out and the following substituted therefor, to-wit: "Sixth. If local freight agents are notified on the day of inspection, one day will be allowed free of trackage and car rental on cars of grain received from country stations, on which reinspection is called, provided a change in grade is allowed by the state inspector.""
By the Commission,
THE TERMINAL DISPATCH ASSOCIATION. I
St. PAUL, OCT. 6, 1891. Š A. K. Teisberg, Esq., Secretary State Railroad and Warehouse Commission:
DEAR SIR; Replying to your favor of Oct. 1st, in the matter of complaint made by grain receivers and millers, Minneapolis, in reference to rule imposing charge on cars held out for reinspection.
At the regular monthly meeting of this Association held yesterday, I was instructed to advise you that the recommendation of the Commission was acceptable to the roads in interest-with the exception of the Great Northern railway, whose representative demurred and declined to accept the ruling,—and that the rule allowing free time where the grade had been changed on cars held for reinspection would be put into effect at once, and also that all charges collected under the rescinded rule would be refunded.
Further to enable the lines to judge of the results of the substituted rule, the grain men were advised, that it would continue in effect until January 1st, 1892.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY LINE,
ST. PAUL, MINN., Oct. 20, 1891. Hon. Geo. L. Becker, Chairman Railroad & Warehouse Commission, St.
DEAR SIR: The decision of the Terminal Dispatch Association of Minneapolis to accept the recommendation of the commission in reference to charging demurrage upon cars held for re-inspection was not concurred in by the Great Northern Railway Company.
Its non-concurrence, as I understand it, was stated in a communication received by the commission from the association. The position of the Great Northern in the premises was stated by General Manager Mohler at the hearing in Minneapolis, and also in an interview had by him with the commission. No written or formal statement has been made.
At the suggestion of the general manager, and with a view of submitting in a formal manner the reasons for the action of this company in the premises, and not with any view of criticizing the action of the commission, I submit the following:
There is a pressing demand for cars for shipment of grain, especially wheat, throughout the entire line of this company in Minnesota and Dakota. The demand for cars is greater and more presistent than in previous years, not only because of the large crop, but because of the demand for cars for track loading.
Complying with the suggestion of the commission the company has issued a circular directing its agents to furnish cars for track loading, and it supplies cars for that purpose to the extent of its ability.
Any effort on the part of the company to avoid detention and to keep its cars moving is an effort in conformity with the rules it has published, and in aid of a very large public interest as well as its own interest. All this is plain.
The statute provides, as I understand it, for inspection of grain, and for an appeal to the commission from the inspection. I have overlooked, if it exists, any provission of the statute providing for re-inspection. Reinspection does not seem essential or incidental to inspection. Cars are detained for the purpose of inspection. It is had and announced as a completed work. To this extent the delay of cars is for the benefit of the entire public engaged in shipping or handling grain. Rates of transportation are adjusted in the view and with the understanding that cars are to be detained for the purpose of inspection. This is a matter which enters into the general question of adjusting rates for the public.
Presumptively the inspection is correct. The rules of the commission, as I understand it, and not the statute provide for re-inspection. To the extent that the rule is reasonable it should be observed. That it is reasonable in itself, and that it was made with a view of giving a chance to correct possible errors is not questioned. Practically re-inspection is demanded in a majority of instances for the purpose of the delay involved in the detention of cars for re-inspection, and to make store-houses of cars for twenty-four hours pending contingency of market and of sale. This is evidently so for the reason that when a demurrage charge was first imposed, it had the effect of lessening demands for re-inspection
Under the rule in question charging $2.00 demurrage, the demands for re-inspection were less frequent, and the company was able to obtain its cars for return to those demanding their use in the country in much less time than in previous years.
By persistent effort the company has been able to facilitate the unloading and handling of its cars to such an extent as to enable it to supply the public demand by furnishing from 100 to 150 cars per day more than it has been able to furnish in previous years.
Sometimes re-inspection is demanded by parties feeling aggrieved, and the result proves favorable to their claim. Conceding that re-inspection is reasonable and proper, is it reasonable that railroad companies having held their cars for inspection for the benefit of the general public, and under rates of transportation made for the general public, should also hold their cars for re-inspection for the benefit of a few who are unwilling to rely upon the correctness of inspection once had?
The delay for inspection is in effect twenty-four hours, and for reinspection the same.
Having detained cars for inspection, being willing to hold them for reinspection under the rules of the commission, such re-inspection at the best being asked for only as to a small proportion of the cars, is it not ust that parties demanding re-inspection should do so with the under
standing that they are to pay for the use of the car while it is being held for the purpose of a favor to them, and not for the benefit of the general public?
While a few individuals are accommodated and benefitted by the detention of cars for re-inspection, the general public and the company are losing the benefit of the use of the cars during the period of such detention.
The inspection department is well conducted. There is little reason for demanding re-inspection, and when had and the cars are detained for the purpose, the party at whose instance it is held should obtain it subject to a reasonable charge for the use of the car in the meantime.
The demurrage charge of $2.00 is but a small part of the value of the use of the car. The necessity, however, of paying such charge has limited the demand for re-inspection and will have a tendency to limit it to cases where the demand is made in perfect good faith, and in all such cases whether the grade is changed or not, the party demanding the favor and taking the chance of the benefit of re-inspection should be made to pay a reasonable sumn for the use of the car. The loss of its use during the period incidental to re-inspection should not be imposed upon the public or the company.
This letter is written, as I have stated, not with any view of criticising the recommendation of the commission, or the action of the Terminal Association, but for the purpose of placing on file and with the commission, a more formal statement than has heretofore been made of the reasons the company has for maintaining its position of non-concurrence with the action of the Terminal Association. Yours truly,
M. D. GROVER,
N. M. & J. M. STOWE, OF WADENA. IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED REFUSAL TO FURNISH CARS. On the 18th day of September, 1891, the commission being at Wadena awaiting the arrival of a passenger train, we were called upon by a Mr. Stowe, of that place, who stated that he was an independent buyer of wheat at that point, and that he could not get cars to ship the grain purchased by him.
Upon inquiry it was learned that he had no warehouse, and that his practice was to buy wheat of farmers and load the same into cars for shipment.
He was advised that he was not in a position to order cars for shipment of grain, unless he had the grain on hand ready for shipment when his demand was made; that he should procure a house suitable for storage purposes as near the station as possible, and that when he had a carload on hand he should make his order for a car; if it was refused, he should notify the commission, who would undertake to see that his rights as a shipper were protected.
Nothing more was heard upon this subject until the morning of Sept. 26, when the following dispatch was received by the secretary of the commission:
WADENA, MINN., 11-25, 1891. 76 A. K. Teisberg, St. Paul, Sec'y Railroad and Warehouse Com.:
House nearly full; plenty cars on side track; teams and men waiting to load wheat, but cannot get cars. What shall we do?
N. M. & S. E. STOWE.
To which the following reply was sent the same day;
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
ST. PAUL, September 26, 1891. ) Messrs. N. M. & S. E. Stowe, Wadena, Minn.
DEAR SIRS: Your telegram, dated Sept. 25, and received at St. Paul office 4:57 p, m., same day, came to my office this morning.
You say: “House nearly full plenty cars on side track, teams and men waiting to load wheat but cannot get cars, what shall we do?”
At Wadena there are two railroads; of which one are you complaining; what have you done to procure cars; give all the facts, dates and number of cars demanded; how many furnished you and when?
I enclose a circular sent out by this commission to the companies in relation to the distribution of cars; it gives the law and the views of the commission thereon. This circular was sent to one of you last Siti..!! also. You will understand this commission does not undertake to furnish cars, but it does propose to see that the companies obey the law in the · distribution of them.
For your guidance in making a complaint I also enclose copy of our rules and practice.
At 11.30 A. M. of the same day, the following letter was received at the office of the commission:
WADENA, Sept. 25, 1891. A. K. Teisberg, Esq., Secretary Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, St.
DEAR SIR: I have the house I used for storing grain in town full. The railroad company refuses to let me have cars, only to ship out if I want to quit business. The agent would let farmers have cars; I ordered one through them, loaded it. The general manager telegraphed agent it was his business to see that track buyers did not load in cars ordered by farmers.
I had second car ordered by farmers partly loaded; they closed car and sealed it today; manager telegraphed agent, as I supposed to allow me to load car, when I commenced to load part from teams, wheat bought on the street. They refused me cars, his instructions was to only allow me to load from the house, and only to clean up the house if I stop buying.
What is to be done in the matter? Have I any rights in the matter, or can the Northern Pacific exclude anyone from the use of their cars they see fit? Shall I ship out or keep the car of wheat in house to make the case?
Commissioners, when here, said, wire them and they would see that I had cars. I wired two of the commission yesterday and yourself today. Will you please advise me, as soon as convenient, if I have any rights to buy and ship from track? I do not wish to be bothered this way if I am in the wrong, but if I have a right to ship in that way, as I was imformed when the commissioners were here, I would like to have them enforced.
N. M. & G. M. STOWE.
Before our office was closed, on the same day, the following telegram was also received from the aggrieved parties: