47-I. C., tariff A-1003. The rates were also reduced to points on the Henderson Division of the I. C. between McClain, Ky., and Sulphur, and also to stations on the Dixon Branch. These are covered by L. H. & St. L. tariff No. 494. They have also reduced the rates to points on the Green River which is covered by supplement No. 3—I. C. tariff E1188. They have reduced the rates on canned goods from Owensboro to East St. Louis, and on carriage and wagon wheels from Owensboro to East St. Louis. This is covered by tariff No. L-3605. They afterwards reduced rates on catsup, catsup stock and tomato pulp from Owensboro to East St. Louis, covered by supplement No. 2 to tariff L-3605. The only reductions we have heard of the L. & N. making are those incorporated in Mr. Harrison's brief showing the proposed reductions in rates from Owensboro to points on the Henderson Division of the L. & N. We have received no tariff covering these reductions, and do not believe they have been put into effect. All the roads reduced the rates from Owensboro to all points in trunk line territory. They did this by applying the present Evansville differentials to the rate from Evansville, which made a reduction from one to three cents per hundred pounds. The rate on whisky from Cincinnati and Louisville to Owensboro was reduced very materially, but I have no copy of that tariff, so can not give you the reference.

The L. H. & St. L. reduced the rate on whisky from Owensboro to Henderson at our solicitation from thirteen cents to ten cents. They did this, however, because they had in a eleven-cent rate from Louisville to Henderson, and did not make the change until we called their attention to it.

This, I believe is all of the reductions that have been made since our complaint was filed. I have been trying to get all three of the roads to put me on their mailing list for changes and new issues, but have never been able to get them to say whether they would or not. I know they have not, because I am continually discovering issues that have never been received by this office.

If you desire a detailed statement in regard to these changes, please advise me and I will prepare it for you. Excuse delay in answering this letter, but I was under the impression that I had done so until looking over my files to-day.

Awaiting your further requests, and assuring you that we stand ready at all times to prepare any information for your Commission that is within our power to do, we remain, Yours truly, LAMAR HERNDON,

Traffic Manager.

CITIZENS OF PRINCETON, KY., Complainants.

VS.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Insufficient depot accommodation.

This was a verbal complaint made by a citizen of Princeton. Two members of the Commission visited Princeton and it was determined that the present depot is entirely inadequate for the accommodation of the shipping and traveling public at that point. A representative of the defendant company explained to the Commission that his company had already drawn plans and would without unnecessary delay erect a new and modern depot at this place, some question having arisen as to the proper location.

This matter has not yet been fully determined and is, therefore, continued.

KENTUCKY LUMBER CO., MAYSVILLE, KY., Complainants,

VS.

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate switching charges at Maysville terminals.

After an inspection by the Commission and an investigation of this complaint, a reduction of the switching charges complained of was made by defendant company, which reduction was approved by complainant, the Commission reserving the power to re-open the matter on its own motion in conjunction with other complaints involving switching charges at other points upon defendant's line and upon the lines of other railroads of the State.

E. H. STEELY, Complainant,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE AND C., N. O. & T. P. RAILROAD COMPANIES, Defendants.

Subject: Extortionate rates on crude oil, Williamsburg to Somerset, Ky.

It developed upon an investigation of this complaint that a rate of fifteen cents per hundred on crude oil was charged for the transporta

tion of this commodity from Williamsburg to Somerset, Ky. The Commission being of the opinion that this rate was extortionate, a reduction was made by the defendant companies from fifteen to eleven cents per hundred, and at request of complainant said reduction was approved, subject to further review by the Commission.

R. H. PERKINS, Complainant,

US.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rates on brick from Louisville to Corbin and Williamsburg, Ky., and from Berea to Corbin and Williamsburg, Ky.

This complaint was investigated by the Commission, and after a conference with defendant, an average reduction of 25 per cent. was made by defendant in the rates to and from the points indicated, which reduction was approved and the complaint dismissed, settled.

HENRY L. WOOD, Complainant,

VS.

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Insufficient crossings and want of protection to the traveling public at Olive Hill, Ky.

This complaint is now being investigated and is, therefore continued.

JAS. A. WALLACE, Complainant,

vs.

LOUISVILLE & ATLANTIC RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate coal rates from Beattyville to Irvine, Ky.

This complaint is now being investigated and is, therefore, continued.

The following complaints have been filed and are now being investigated by the Commission, viz.:

J. H. MITCHELL, CORBIN, KY., Complainant,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rates on lumber to Corbin, Ky., from points on the Knoxville Division.

JELLICO MINING Co., Complainant,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rates for the transportation of coal from Saxton, Ky., to Jellico, Tenn.

RICHARD ILES, SALT LICK, KY., Complainant,

vs.

THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: xtortionate rates on sand.

J. M. Ross, PRESIDENT ROCK CREEK COAL & LUMBER CO., SOMERSET, KY., Complainant,

VS.

THE KENTUCKY & TENN. R. R. Co., Defendants.

Subject: Failure to make rate on coal.

E. R. CHANDLER, CampbellsvILLE, KY., Complainant,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Overcharge on freight.

CENTRAL CITY COMMERCIAL CLUB, Complainants,

vs.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL AND LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANIES, Defendants.

Subject: Inadequate depot accommodations at Central City, Ky.

POTTS BROTHERS, TEATERSVILLE, KY., Complainants,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Insufficient switching accommodations.

T. M. LYONS & SON SIMPSONVILLE, KY., Complainants,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Defendant.

Subject: Extortionate rate on coal from Cannel City, Ky.

D. H BEARD, CANE VALLEY, KY., Complainant,

VS.

ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, Defendant.

Subject: Violation of the long and short haul clause of the Constitution and Statutes.

LOGAN KREGG, Complainant,

VS.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Complainant.

Subject: Extortion rate on coal.