The amount of revenue derived from charging excess has no bearing whatever with us, but, as stated above, it is simply done to avoid the evil that would undoubtedly lead to injury to employees, or possibly others. Yours respectfully, T. M. EMERSON, General Freight Agent. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, COLUMBIA, S. C., October 4th, 1887. T. M. EMERSON, Esq., G. F. A. A. C. Line, Wilmington, N. C. DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 1st instant has been received. The Commission fully agree with you as to the advisability of preventing, not only the overloading of cars of lumber, but any other article. They respectfully state, however, that they do not consider your mode of preventing such abuses a proper one under the circumstances, and feel constrained to request a withdrawal of so much of your Circular No. 1767 as treats of this double charge. The Commission will cheerfully sustain you in any reasonable plan you may adopt to carry out your views which they feel would be authorized by law. Yours very truly, M. T. BARTLETT, Esq., Secretary, Columbia, S. C. M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary. WILMINGTON, N. C., October 5, 1887. DEAR SIR: I have yours of the 4th concerning Circular 1767. The question at issue is one of such serious nature that we are naturally anxious to adopt such rule as will prevent the overloading of cars. We have done everything in our power to prevent this evil, and the charging of double rates on excess seems to be the only way in which we can correct it; nor do we see where the rule works hardships on those who do not overload. With due respect to your honorable body, I would beg to state that I do not see wherein Circular 1767 is not in accord with the law. The law provides that rates shall be made in a certain manner, and rates made in accordance therewith on lumber apply to shipments in car load lots, and I feel that we are fully justified in charging penalty where more than a car load is loaded on one car, more especially when the object to be attained is to prevent serious damage to property and loss of life. If, however, you can suggest any other method that will accomplish the object, we will be more than happy to give it & trial, for, as stated in my previous communication, the amount of revenue derived is as nothing compared with the evils the practice of overloading may lead to. I will endeavor to be in Columbia within the next ten days, and will be pleased to discuss this matter with your Board. Yours truly, T. M. EMERSON, General Freight Agent. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, COLUMBIA, S. C., November 23, 1887. T. M. EMERSON, Esq., G. F. A. A. C. Line, Wilmington, N. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to your favor of the 5th of October in reference to overloading of lumber, I am directed by the Board of Railroad Commissioners to say they have delayed reply hoping to have had a personal interview. The Commission is anxious to assist you in every way in their power to remedy the existing evil, but do not feel that under the law as it now stands they have authority to approve of the double charge when excess of capacity is loaded on cars, The Commission has no other remedy to suggest except a refusal on your part to move any cars so loaded. Yours truly, M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary. Clifton Manufacturing Company against Richmond and Danville Railroad Company. CLIFTON, S. C., October 25, 1887. Col. D. P. DUNCAN, State Commissioner of Railroads, Union, S. C. DEAR SIR: I have been aware for some time that the Columbia and Greenville Railroad were carrying cotton from Greenville to Piedmont at 40 cents per bale-a distance of twelve miles. I wrote to Mr. McCleskey, Division Freight Agent of this Division, in regard to it and enclose his replies, from which you will observe that I obtained very little satisfaction. The Richmond and Danville Railroad charges us 10 cents per 100 pounds on all our cotton from Spartanburg to this place, a distance of eight miles-equivalent to 46 cents per bale. We consider that they are making a discrimination against us, and beg that you look into the matter for us. All we want is as low a rate as is given any one else for same distance, and only what we are entitled to by rates fixed by Railroad Commission. Yours very respectfully, Mr. L. L. MCCLESKEY, G. F. A., Atlanta, Ga. A. H. TWICHELL, Treasurer. DEAR SIR: Will you kindly inform me if we are not entitled to as low a rate of freight per bale on cotton from Spartanburg to Clifton, less than ten miles, as given by your line to other parties for ten miles? An early answer will greatly oblige, Yours truly, A. H. TWICHELL, Treasurer. ATLANTA, GA., October 5, 1887. Respectfully referred to A. H. Twichell, Esq., Treasurer, Clifton, S. C. Mr. L. L. MCCLESKEY, G. F. A., Atlanta, Ga. L. L. MCCLESKEY, D. F. A. CLIFTON, S. C., October 26, 1887. DEAR SIR: Yours of the 5th instant received. In reply would say that I have been informed that cotton is being carried from Greenville to Piedmont at forty cents per bale, the distance being eleven to twelve miles. We are charged, as you are aware, ten cents per 100, or forty-six cents per bale for eight miles. All we ask is as low a rate as any one else. Yours truly, A. H. TWICHELL, Treasurer. ATLANTA, GA., October 10, 1887. Respectfully returned to A. H. Twichell, Esq., Secretary, Clifton, S. C. I do not know what the special rates are on Columbia and Greenville, if any, as Mr. Cardwell has charge of that Division. L. L. MCCLESKEY, D. F. A. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, COLUMBIA, S. C., March 7th, 1888. A. H. TWICHELL, Esq., Treasurer Clifton Manufacturing Company, Clifton, S. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to your letter to Railroad Commissioner Duncan, of October 25th last, I am directed by the Board of Railroad Commissioners to request you to inform them whether the rate of ten cents per hundred pounds on cotton from Spartanburg to your place was reduced. The Commission has been informed verbally that it has been, but they wish documentary evidence to file in their office. Yours respectfully, M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary. CLIFTON, S. C., March 9, 1888. M. T. BARTLETT, Esq, Secretary Railroad Commission, Columbia, S. C. DEAR SIR: Yours of the 7th instant received. The rate on cotton from Spartanburg to this place was reduced from ten cents per hundred pounds to forty cents per bale, November 28th, 1887. Unfortunately for us, though, too late to be of any benefit to us this season, as we had about completed our purchase for the year. Yours truly, A. H. TWICHELL, Treasurer. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, A. H. TWICHELL, Esq., Treasurer Clifton Manufacturing Company, Clifton, S. C. DEAR SIR: I am directed by the Board of Railroad Commissioners to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 9th instant, and to thank you for same. I am also directed to request you to inform the Board whether you purpose taking any steps to recover the amount paid by you in excess of forty cents per bale from the time the forty cent rate from Greenville to Piedmont went into effect to the time your rate from Spartanburg was reduced. Yours very respectfully, M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary. CLIFTON, S. C., March 15th, 1888. M. T. BARTLETT, Esq., Secretary Railroad Commission, Columbia, S. C. Yours truly, OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, A. H. TWICHELL, Esq., Treasurer Clifton Manufacturing Company, Clifton, S. C. The rate of forty cents per bale on cotton from Greenville to Piedmont went into effect September 28th, 1887. Yours truly, M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary. CLIFTON, S. C., May 23, 1888. Mr. M. T. BARTLETT, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, Columbia, S. C. DEAR SIR: I enclose to you copy of claim I sent in to the Richmond and Danville Railroad for overcharges on cotton from Spartanburg to Clifton, from September 28th to November 28th, in excess of what they were charging Piedmont Manufacturing Company from Greenville. I also attach copies of remarks attached to claim as it was returned to me. We certainly are entitled to as low a rate as given by them on any other division of their road, and hope that the Board can be of assistance to us in the matter. A. H. TWICHELL, Treasurer. Yours truly, [Copy.] R. & D. R. R. Co. CLIFTON, S. C., April 23, 1888. TO THE CLIFTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Dr. For difference between rate per bale on cotton charged Clifton Manufacturing Company from Spartanburg and rate given to Piedmont Manufacturing Company from Greenville, from September 28th to November 28th, 1887, inclusive, 3,337 bales, at five cents, $166 85 [Copy.] Mr. P. H. ADAMS, Claim Agent, West Point, Va. CLIFTON, S. C., April 23, 1888. DEAR SIR: I send you under separate cover a claim with bills of lading for overcharges on cotton to this point from Spartanburg, between September 28th and November 28th. Your line gave a special rate of forty cents per bale to the Piedmont Mill from Greenville on September 28th, date given me by our Board of Commissioners. After making complaint to the Commissioners of the discrimination against us, the Richmond and Danville Railroad gave us the same rate November 28th. You will see the justice of our claim without any further remarks from us. Yours truly, A. H. TWICHELL, Treasurer. [Copy.] Mr. L. L. MCCLESKEY, D. F. A., Atlanta, Ga. DEAR SIR: Please note letter from claimants April 23d, and advise me what rate should be used in the settlement of this claim. Very truly, WEST POINT, VA., May 11, 1888. [Copy.] Respectfully referred to J. H. Drake, Esq., G. F. A., Washington, D. C. P. H. ADAMS, G. C. A. CLAIM NO. 427-3 F. I put in rate of forty cents per bale on cotton Spartanburg to Clifton on November 29th, 1887. I did this after consulting with you. I did not do this at the instance nor by the direction of Railroad Commissioners of South Carolina, as I never heard from them touching this matter, though a complaint may have been filled. I prefer that you decide on the merits of this claim. L. L. MCCLESKEY, D. F. A. ATLANTA, GA., May 15, 1888. [Copy.] From L. L. McCleskey, May 15th. Claim Clifton Manufacturing Company for overcharge on cotton from Spartanburg. Respectfully referred. P. H. ADAMS, Esq., G. C. A., West Point, Va. I do not see that these parties have any claim whatever. We reduced the rate on cotton from Spartanburg, but it was not intended that it should apply on any shipments that had gone forward. I cannot see on what ground the claim is made, as the reduction was a matter of our own choice. J. H. DRAKE, G. F. A. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 17, 1888. [Copy.] Mr. J. N. PATE, Agent, Clifton, S. C. DEAR SIR: Please note letter of Mr. Drake next attached and explain this matter to consignees, having them withdraw claim. Please return all papers for my file. Very truly, WEST POINT, VA., May 19, 1888. P. H. ADAMS, G. C. A. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, COLUMBIA, S. C., May 28, 1888. Col. PEYTON RANDOLPH, General Manager R. & D. R. R., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to the correspondence of the officials of your company with the Clifton Manufacturing Company, copy of which is enclosed, as to the difference in rates on cotton on your roads from Greenville to Piedmont and from Spartanburg to Clifton from September 28th to November 28th, 1887, it appears to the Commission that this is such discrimination as is prohibited by the law. See General Statutes of South Carolina, Sections 1440 to 1443 inclusive. Be pleased to let us hear from you on the subject. Yours respectfully, M. L. BONHAM, Chairman Board Railroad Commissioners. WASHINGTON, D. C., June 5th, 1888. Hon. M. L. BONHAM, Chairman Board of Railroad Commissioners, Columbia, S. C. Yours truly, Major PEYTON RANDOLPH, General Manager, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Replying to yours May 31st, and returning herewith papers on above subject, it seems that in the case of rates from Greenville to Piedmont we, for a long time, resisted a reduction because we thought it was illegal unless corresponding reduction was made for equal distances all over the line, overlooking the fact, and to which the Commission at that time called our attention, that such reduction from other points was not necessary for distances 12 miles and under. Circumstances did not justify the reduction between Spartanburg and Clifton until November 29th, 1887, but the claim made by the Clifton Manufacturing Company is for five cents per bale from September 28th to November 28th, 1887; the former date being, as I understand, when the rate from Greenville to Piedmont went into effect. The Commission endorse the claim of the Clifton Manufacturing Company and say: "It appears to the Commission that this is such a discrimination as is prohibited by law." * * * * · Your attention is called to Rule No. 1 of the South Carolina Commission, taking effect September 15th, 1883, as originally published by them and reading as follows, viz: "The Commission is required by the General Railroad Act' to determine what shall be the limits of longer and shorter distances,' and 10 miles has therefore been fixed as the usual limit for a change of freight rates; but the railroads may, if they so desire, for intermediate distances, adopt rates also intermediate between those given in the table." The above order was amended by Circular of the South Carolina Commission, dated October 4th, 1883, reading as follows: * 2. To Freight Rule 1 add the following: Stations not over two (2) miles beyond the upper limit of any ten (10) mile group may be included in such group.' With this addition Rule 1 will read as follows: "The Commission is required by the General Railroad Act' to determine what shall be the limits of longer and shorter distances, and ten miles has, therefore, been fixed as the usual limit for a change of freight rates, but railroads may, if they so desire, for intermediate distances, adopt rates also intermediate between those given in the table. Stations not over two (2) miles beyond the upper limit of any ten mile group may be included in such group." This amended rule is now in effect. It is therefore clear that our rates were not unreasonable or such a discrimination as contemplated by the law and by the order of the Railroad Commission. In addition to this, the business is in entirely different directions and on separate and distinct roads, except that the Commission have ruled that all of our system in South Carolina must be considered as one road. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, Col. PEYTON RANDOLPH, General Manager R. & D. R. R., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 5th instant, with enclosures referring to claim of the Clifton Manufacturing Company, has been received. Rule 1, and the amendments thereto, of October, 1883, are correctly cited by your Traffic Manager, but they do not authorize a railroad company to make a discrimination in rates between shippers of a "like quantity of freight of the same class being transported over any portion of the same railroad of equal distance." Nor can a railroad company charge more at any point on its railroad than at any other point on the same railroad." The business being in "different directions and on separate and distinct roads " makes no difference, the law (instead of the Commission) providing that "the road of a corporation shall include all the road in use by such corporation, whether owned or operated under a contract or lease by such corporation." Referring to Mr. Drake's remark that "the reduction was a matter of our (your) own choice," it is well to state here that the rate from Spartanburg to Clifton was reduced on our verbal suggestion to some of your officials that you were making a discrimination against Clifton in the rate charges. After careful consideration of your views, the Commission feel constrained to adhere to the opinion expressed in their communication to you of the 28th ultimo. Yours truly, M. L. BONHAM, Chairman Board R. R. Commissioners. RICHMOND, VA., September 8, 1888. M. L. BONHAM, Esq., Chairman South Carolina R. R. Commission, Columbia, S. C. DEAR SIR: Reply to your letter June 9th to the General Manager has been so long unavoidably delayed-first, by reason of my absence, and then by reason of the General Manager's—that we hesitate now to delay the matter any longer by discussion, although entirely convinced of the correctness of our views, and in which we believe you will concur. Rather than appear to be delaying the matter (the amount involved being small), we are perfectly willing to pay the claim, if you so prefer it, and discuss the issue afterwards. I call your attention to Rules 1 and 4, and your construction of these rules at meeting held in your office in August or September, 1886, when the question of Mr. Hammett's rates from Greenville to Piedmont was being discussed. We had overlooked your revised order, and it was Mr. Hammett who first called our attention to it. The Commission, however, first called Mr. Hammett's attention to it, and he informed us of their having done so. This order was, by the Commission at that time, construed to mean that under the minimum distances, to wit, 12 miles or less, the railroads could fix rates for intermediate distances without affecting other rates. In our correspondence with Mr. Hammett on this subject, before the rate was reduced, we construed the order just as you now construe it. In conference with the Commission on the subject, the construction that we understood to be given to it was that for distances under 12 miles we could change the rates without affecting any other points of equal or less distance anywhere on the line. Mr. Hammett could by reason of the wagon competition then existing get lower rates between Greenville and Piedmont than our rates. Between other points of the same or less distances this wagon competition might not exist, and in the case of the Clifton Manufacturing Company did not exist; and it was for this reason that we reduced the rates for Mr. Hammett, understanding that the Commission sustained this view of the case. If we are wrong about this, it will be necessary for us to revise our short distance rates, and we had rather do that than continue the discussion, which really has little revenue in it, but may prove a serious inconvenience to manufacturers who may by necessity be forced to employ wagon service instead of the better facilities that the railroads can give, because, perhaps, they can do the work cheaper that way. I would like to hear what your final conclusion in the matter is. SOL HAAS, Traffic Manager. OFFICE OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, SOL HAAS, Esq., Traffic Manager, Richmond, Va. DEAR SIR: The Commission, replying to your letter of the 8th instant, say, with entire respect, that they see no sufficient reason to change their views as contained in their letters of 28th May and 9th |