That on the 24th of February, 1886, said company advanced the rates from said Hancock to said stations, to the following: Fish's Eddy, $2.60 per ton, or $31.20 per car of twelve tons. That the village of Walton, on said railroad, is twenty miles north of Hancock station over a heavy grade, and consequently is twenty miles further from each of the aforesaid stations than Hancock is. And your petitioners respectfully show upon information and belief, and allege the fact to be, that the rates at present charged from Walton on flour, feed and grain are as follows, by car load: Fish's Eddy, $1.80 per ton, or $21.60 per car. Thus making the local rates for more than twice the distance about two-thirds the price charged from Hancock. That the principal business in flour, feed and grain at Walton is done by the firm of Babcock & Kimball; that John Babcock, one of the members of said firm, is a roadmaster on said railroad, and it is reported that Mr. Anderson, the general freight agent of said railroad, also has some interest, as to which latter matter we have no direct knowledge or information. Your petitioners represent that such discrimination in freight is ruinous to their business done upon said road and to all other business of the kind done from Hancock aforesaid. And it seems to us scandalous and illegal. And your petitioners pray that your honorable body will take cognizance of the matter and do therein what the law of the case will permit in furtherance of justice. Dated March 1, 1886. (Signed) The answer of the railroad was as follows: CRARY, HALL & CO. To the Honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of New York, Albany, N. Y.: GENTLEMEN In answer to the complaint of Crary, Hall & Co., of Hancock, N. Y., against the New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, I have to say, that the rates stated by them to have been charged prior to February 24, 1886, and the rates established on the 24th of February, 1886, and the rates from Walton are correctly stated. The complainants deal in flour, feed and grain, and are located at the village of Hancock, which is upon the line of the Erie railway as well as that of this company, and the complainants procure their grain from the West by way of the Erie road, but what arrangement they have with that company I am unable to state. They are competitors with firms in similar business upon the line of the New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company who procure their stock from the west by way of our road. It was the intention to fix the tariff on this class of goods so that the cost to the local dealer upon the line of our road would be the same by either route, and so that the wholesale dealer who would receive his supplies by way of the Erie road would not have any advantage over the wholesale dealer on our own line, the rate being based upon the established rate from Chicago for grain with the local tariffs added for distribution. A careful revision of the tariff of February 24th disclosed the fact that the figures made for Hancock on car load lots were inaccurate, and the rates from Hancock have consequently been revised so that the cost for transportation by either route at the stations named in the complaint is the same. There is no foundation whatever for the allegation that Mr. Anderson, our general freight agent, has any interest whatever in the flour, feed and grain business carried on by the firm of Babcock & Kimball, Walton, or in any business of any kind upon the line of the New York, Ontario and Western railway. John Babcock, roadmaster in the employ of this company, purchased an interest in the elevator at Walton for the benefit of his son, but he being a minor it was necessary for Mr. Babcock to take the title in his own name until the boy should become of age. The rates, however, were established without any reference to the fact that Mr. Babcock was interested in this business, but solely for the purpose of protecting the interests of the New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, and of the dealers upon the line of its road. While no unfair advantage was given or intended to be given to Mr. Babcock's firm in this matter, I am sensible that the connection of any employee with a business of this character may give rise to such inferences as have evidently been drawn by the complainants, and immediately upon receipt of the complaint I notified Mr. Babcock that he must either dispose of his interest in this business or withdraw from the service of the company. Acting under this instruction he has since discontinued the grain business at Walton, and is endeavoring to sell the real estate which he had purchased for its accommodation. (Signed) J. E. CHILDS, It thus appears that the railroad company of its own motion has promptly removed all cause for suspicion that any of its officers are interested in the elevator business at Walton and receive special favors in consequence of their connection with the railroad. There was no evidence to show that Mr. Anderson, the general freight agent, had any pecuniary interest in the matter whatever. At the hearing, however, an affidavit was subinitted from J. B. Hauck, a resident of East Branch, to the effect that the Cadosia Milling Company of Hancock, since February 24, had been given the same rates of freight from Hancock to East Branch and to Trout Brook (C0 cents and 67 cents per ton respectively) as had been charged previous to that date; whereas other parties had been charged since February 24, from Hancock to East Branch and Trout Brook, $2.80 and $3.20 per ton, respectively; thus discriminating most unjustly in favor of the Cadosia Milling Company and against other shippers. Mr. Anderson seemed to be somewhat in doubt as to the truth of this allegation, but did not deny it. Mr. Kerr admitted the injustice of the discrimination if true, and promised to have it promptly rectified, which the Board assumes will be done. The question narrows itself down, therefore, as to whether the railroad is justified in imposing a "protective tariff" on grain, etc., shipped from Hancock, in order to compel dealers to receive their grain by way of Oneida over the line of the New York, Ontario and Western railroad, rather than by the Erie railroad, a competing line. The case is similar in many of its aspects to that of George Q. Moon & Co. against the New York, Ontario and Western Railroad, to which reference is made (see page 73 of Third Annual Report Board Railroad Commissioners, vol. 1). The railroad submitted a statement showing the tariff from Walton and Hancock to other points in existence previous to February 24, that which went into effect on that date and a further revision made in March. As it differs somewhat from the statements made in the written complaint it is herewith given for reference. It purports also to show the through rate from Chicago per 100 pounds to certain points: PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1886, TARIFF OF FEBRUARY 24, 1886, REVISION OF MARCH, 1886. Hancock revised. L.C.L. C. L. L.C.L. C. L. L.C.L. C. L. L.C.L. C. L. C. L. C. L. 10 39 14 6 40 1.40 10 38 13 6 25 125 10 36 567 11 67 34 5 60 9 60 34 860 9 60 * * * ** ** ** ** 99 99 = 92 $0 38 $6 33 0 40 $6 78 80 40 $8.00 80 40 73 695 67 39 7 17 117 40 40 7 43 10 1 43 15 41 42 $6 78 3 00 15 1 78 40 40 15 38 Rates in heavy type are local rates from stations. Rates in ordinary type show through rates from Chicago to stations with "arbitrary's " and local rates added. 66 The through rates" given are for grain by way of IIancock. When grain comes by way of Oneida, however, the rates are materially less. For instance, to Eist Branch, by way of Oneida, the through rate is twenty-five cents to Oneida and eight cents arbitrary, making thirtythree cents in all instead of thirty-nine. The New York, Ontario and Western also gets a percentage of the twenty-five cents under its arrangement with the New York Central. The theory of the tariff as stated in the answer of the road is that the final rate to any receiver of grain, etc., on the line of the New York, Ontario and Western shall be the same, whether such grain comes by way of Oneida, over a long portion of the road, or by way of the Erie to Hancock and thence over only a short portion of the road. This theory does not hold out in fact, however, as it makes a material difference to the receiver whether the grain comes by way of Oneida or Hancock. The fact appears to be that the remuneration is equalized to the railroad, whether the grain comes by one route or the other. It appears to be true that the rate to the retail dealer or consumer is equalized by which ever route grain comes, provided it is stopped on the way and redistributed. For instance the through rate to Walton by way of Oneida is thirty cents-twenty-five cents plus five cents arbitrary. If grain is there stopped and re-shipped to East Branch nine cents local rate is charged, making thirty-nine cents in all. If it comes by way of the Erie to Hancock it is assumed that it has paid twenty-five cents to that point. Fourteen cents is there added to East Branch, making thirty-nine cents as before. The argument of the road is in effect as follows: Hancock is a competing point upon the Erie road and upon the New York, Ontario and Western. The Erie is a trunk line, and gives receivers of grain at Hancock the benefit of through rates from the west-say twenty-five cents per one hundred pounds. The New York, Ontario and Western is a local road and cannot deliver grain to receivers at Hancock at twenty-five cents. It has made an arrangement with the New York Central, however, by which grain from the west is delivered upon its line at Oneida, the intersecting point, at twenty-five cents per one hundred pounds. When the grain is consigned to local points as, for instance, East Branch, the New York, Ontario and Western charges an additional sum for its haul called an "arbitrary," and also receives a certain percentage of the through rate. A receiver of grain at East Branch would pay thirty-three cents freight per one hundred pounds for grain shipped to him from Chicago if it came by way of Oneida. If it came over the Erie to Hancock and thence to East Branch, he would pay twenty-five cents to Hancock, and fourteen from Hancock to East Branch, making in all thirty-nine cents. The road claims that, if it did not make these apparently high charges from Hancock and from other points where intersected by trunk lines, it would merely distribute grain short distances for the benefit of such lines; that by reason of its sharing with the New York Central in the through rate, it can deliver at reasonable rates to consignees who receive by way of Oneida; that if it did not enforce a protective tariff at Hancock and at corresponding points, receivers by other roads at such points would drive out of business traders and millers on its own line. The complainants on the other hand insist that their advantages of being at a competitive point should not be entirely nullified; and that freight charges "should not be greater from Hancock to the first five stations east or south than it is from Walton to said stations, Walton being twenty miles further than Hancock from each of said stations.' OPINION OF BOARD. The Board holds in this case that the railroad is not justified in charging a greater sum for freight from Hancock to points east or south specified in complaint than from Walton or Oneida to the same points. That it should be permitted to charge an equal sum for the short as for the long haul seems to be permitting the principle of self protection to be exercised to the fullest extent compatible with the road's duties as a common carrier in this case. The road is intersected by the Erie road, and those living at Hancock cannot justly be called upon to forego all the advantages of dwelling upon a trunk line where they can receive through rates, and thus to bear the whole burden of the New York, Ontario and Western's unfortunate position. Therefore the Board is of the opinion that a greater "arbitrary over and above through rates should not be imposed on freight shipped from Hancock to points east and south thereof specified in complaint than from Oneida or Walton to the same points. And again, the Board is unable to see how the railroad company can maintain its freight tariff without becoming involved in precisely the discrimination alleged in the case of the Cadosia Milling Company. Suppose, for instance, that that company should receive its grain by way of Oneida, should grind it and should then desire to distribute to East Branch. If charged the same rates as others who had received grain by the Erie, it would be paying local rates in addition to "protective tariff rates." In order, therefore, to do justice, from the railroad standpoint, a difference in the rates from Hancock to East Branch would have to be made, depending upon whether the grain had reached Hancock by way of Oneida or the Erie. CONCLUSIONS. For the above reason, and for those stated in the somewhat similar case of G. Q. Moon & Co. v. The New York, Ontario and Western heretofore quoted, the Board is of the opinion that the railroad should not charge more for grain, etc., shipped from Hancock to points east and south thereof, embraced in the complaint, than from Walton or Oneida to same points, and so recommends. By the Board. WILLIAM C. HUDSON, Secretary. The company not complying with the above, the matter was presented to the Attorney-General. XXX. CITIZENS OF NUNDA v. THE LACKAWANNA AND PITTSBURG RAILROAD COMPANY. June 15, 1886. This was a petition of citizens of Nunda praying that the Lackawanna and Pittsburg railroad should be compelled to be operated over a portion of its line which had been abandoned on September 1, 1885. It was set forth the line run from Swain's to Nunda Junction, passing through the village of Nunda; that it was not op-rated except that the Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia Railroad Company ran a train each way daily from Nunda to Rochester- - a passenger train which carried no freight; that no other train ran from Nunda to Nunda Junction and none whatever from Swain's to Nunda; that |