The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-07-09
COMMISSION HEARINGS.
Roads Opposed 10 The Scheme 10
Run Local Freights Daily.
COMPL ANT AGAINST ONLY ONE ROAD,
The Denver Explained that the Condi-
tons Arose While It Was Moving Cat
tie from the Drouth Country.


which had been docketed for a hearing.
The first question taken up was a prop
osltion to compel the roads to operate
local freight trains daily The complaint
which caused the hearing came from sew
efai stations along the Fort Worth and
Denver City, ana stated that NO local
freights were run north on the road -or
ten days in May, causing delay "a
freight shipments
General superintendent Scott stated to
the commission that washouts caused a
delay in freight service. ana also that
great deal Of stock had been moved over
lhe road on account OF the droiIth and
mat caused local freight to lay over. He
sud that stock shipments had this year
been double what they were last year
and for that reason alone some snip.
ments were compelled to wait, Ii was not
tue Intention OF the road to allow sucn
conditions to remain. lie also said tnat
some OF the Memphis citizens who were
complaining never made any shipments
over the line at all Commercial sup
nentS are always promptly moved, ana
with this fact considered, certain other
shipments were held out. He opposed the
idea Of the commission making an order
Tor a local freight train daily, as ne
stated that one carload at times would
not be hauleld over the entire division.
He quoted from the record as to freight
shipments out of Amarillo for June,
which were only a trihe over 5000 pounds,
ard other towns along the road averaged
about l4OO pounds or freight monthly.
lie stated that a local" was being op-
Grated on his lime, up one day and down
the next as far as Amarillo.
Commissioner Mnyteld called his AL
tention TO the fact that a carload OF
freight was held In Amarillo for a week
Mr. Scott explained that the delay was
due to a washont OF the Santa Zee bridge
on the Canadian, but az soon ms repairs
were made the freight shipments were
handled. He gave as his opinion TINT It
would ne detrimental to the general traf-
lie to operate a local freight daily Ht
SAID that local freight shipments less than
carloads were not handled south Of ANA
rillo on through freights.
General Attorney George Clark, OF the
Texas Central entered protest against
the commissions proposed order OF lo-
cal freight daily, and stated that his road
operated q local freight every other day.
He gave MS his opinion that II road
scheduled u local freight every other day,
that II was compliance with the law
ARTICLE ABA Revised Statutes)
Division Superintendent ]. u. Lee Of
the Houston and Texas Central rail-
road stated that his road operated Il
Auptln and Llano. and would operate one
daily IF the business demanded it. lie
asked for an exception, should the COM
mission authorize nh order for local
IfelHnlS uAllN.
Superintendent Innes Of the Arkansas
Pass, explained the running OF a local
freight On the Kerrville branch for the
accommodation Of pleasure seekers during
the summer months This train runs daily
except Sunday. Between Yoakum ana
Houston, local freight Is operated every
other day. He never heard 81 any com
plants No TO freight shipments over his
line, and asked 10 be excepted.
General Superintendent Green OF the
Cotton Belt, said that his road was com
plying with the desires of the commits
sion as 10 local freights, and was OF the
! opinion that the proposed order of inc
commission would work a hardship on the
| roads generally In the State. me com
plant affected only one road, and TO MS
mind Il was clearly explained as III
times OF drouth 1t was Imperative to
| move cattle.
General Manager Conner OF the Frisco,
said the order would hamper the Fort
Worth and Rio Grande, ms at times when
1t was necessary. to move stock, other
freight had to lie over, He stated that
Mt times during the summer months,
business did not justify n local freight
each way daily, but he operated one daily,
when business demanded IT,, and when
business was slack, the train was an
nnlled He asked that his line be ex-
empted from the order
A. O. Pettihone. assistant 20 the general
manager Of the Santa Fee asked that his
| line he excepted from the commissions or.
| der.
Judge Perkins of tho Cotton Beit said
| me proposed general order would he a
| hardship to his line. rs the crop conditions
controlled Its excheuuer and when crops
were bad his line was poor, and could not
! afford 70 operate extra trains. He said
| that competitive territory had great deal
ronds row In competitive territory operated
! trains Mt loss and the Cotton Belt was
! In that class, He asked the commission. II
! II intended to promulgate a general order
| to frame II something like the follow.
! ing;
! Railroad companies are hereby re-
quired TO operate trains for the move
ment Of freight over nil parts Of their
| llneg. nj reasonable times. to he fixed
| nv published schedules, except when
! prevented hv strikes accidents or I'M.
train called for In the published sched-
| ule may he annulled when traffic con.
ditlons do not warrant its operation.
! commission against the order. saying that
! conditions presented themselves 10 his roa1 .
q time when \ was. impossible to handle
them, and that the situation would likely
never present itself again Tie contended
that II was not equity to legisate in favor
Of one class Of shipments to the detriment
| OF others.
He said the injured parties had their rem
| edy In court, and n they have been In
! tured by the road being unable 10 handle
! in court, and have them settled without
| n general order coming from the commits
| sion compelling roads to nut IN local daily
| frelghts when business did not demand II.
| General Manager Scott Of the Fort Worth
| and Denver again addressed the commits.
! sion, saving that this was the first time
! complaint Of this character was ever
registered against his line II was NOT the
! wish Of his company 10 avoid the running
| Of trains when II was necessary. This
ended the hearing and II was taken under
advisement.
ABoLISHMENT OF EXCEPTION.
The next question taken up was a propc.
sition 70 cancel portion Of item 200 OF
Texas exceptions 20 classification. which
reads as follows: ''Thc distribution Of car
load conslgnments, shipped to any individuas
other than a railroad agent or other rail-
road employe, to parties holding proper or.
ders from the consiRnee is recognized -
| Ihe question was brought 10 the attention
| OF the commission by the International and
| Nreat Northern, as under the eXceDtion
man could order carload of goods
and compel the railroad agent 10 deliver
| tho goods TO several different parties. when
| the goods were consigned to only one man
MT. Bartholomew wanted the exception
| Mr. Jones Of the Sunset lines favored
cancellug the order. but that would moi
| destroy the effect IVY
Mr., Farley said that n the execution was
cancelled IL would lnjure the iobhIng hust