Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-10-02
Work Before the. Interstate
Commerce Commission.
SAFETY APPLIANCES
RAILWAY COMPANIES WISH TO
BE GIVEN MORE TIME.
Meetings to Be Held in This City This
Month-Assignmen for
Other Cities.


come. and probably result In the settle
| ment of many important cases that are be-
| fore it for adjudication. Three lumber
| cases are of considerable Importance to
| various sections of the country, all Of the
! complaints being heard b. the commission
| In Atlanta, Ga, and the celebrated cases
| of the safety appliance act of March 2
| 1893, which have not yet been complied
| with.
| In the last named cases their purpose in
coming before the commission at this time
| is to obtain still further extension of time
| within which to comply with the provisions
of the law. An amendment to the original
| act was passed by Congress April 1. 1885,
| to become effective Septembev1 1903. An
application for extension was made to
| the commission and granted until October
| Is, 1903. The several railway companies
interested hold that they cannot comply
| with the law within the time specified in the
amendment and their side of the argu-
ment will be heard in Washington on the
18th of this month.
The law provides that safety brakes and
other appliances shall be installed on all
railroads engaged in interstate commerce.
| and that the locomotives shall be equipped
with driving wheel brakes. Some of the
roads claim that inasmuch as their rolling
stock is equipped with certain safety APP
planes at present more time than has
ma Ike the changes. On the other hand, it
| is claimed that ample time has already
been granted them in which to carry out
the obligations imposed by Congress.
Lines Wanting More Time.
The Boston and Maine railroad says in it's
petition for more time that it had up to
June 20, 1903. equipped 937 passenger cars
with master car builders couplers, out of
| a total of 1860 such cars, and that 657 en-
gines out of a total of 1O1O had been
equipped with automatic coupler They
complain that the traffic has been so great
that they could not lay off the cars to make
the alterations, and more time should be
granted them during the dull season at
the present time to enable them to comply
with the law, which they are endeavoring
to do. The extension asked is to February
90 1904.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company
makes application for extension in the
names of the following companies under it's
jurisdiction:
Northern Central Railway Company,
Philadelphia Baltimore and Washington
Railroad Company, West Jersey and Sea-
shore Railroad Company, Cumberland VAL
ley Railroad Company, Allegheny Valley
Railroad Company, Pennsylvania and
Northwestern Railroad Company, Western
New York and Pennsylvania Railway Com
pany.
Lines west of Pittsburg: Pennsylvania
Company; Pittsburg. Cincinnati, Chicago
and ST. Louis Railway Company; Cincin-
natl and Muskingum Valley Railroad Com
pany, Terre Haute and indianapolis Rail
road Company; ST Louis, Vandalia and
Terre Haute Railroad Company; Cleveland
and Marietta Railway Company: Toledo
Peoria and Western Railway Company and
each of the other companies included with
in the Northwest and Southwest sys-
tens. which are operated respectively by
the Pennsylvania Company and Pittsburg,
Cincinnati, Chicago and st. Louis Railway
Company.
The Company's Claim.
The claim of this road is that since the
passage of the act all new cars have been
equipped with automatic brakes, and all
cars whose probable life warranted or ijusti-
fed thorough repairs have been likewise
equipped in accordance with the law They
also claim that the work of SO equipping
their cars has been heretofore carried for
ward as eXpeditiously and rapidly as
vas consistent with the obligations resting
| upon them to keep in service and employed
as many cars possible in order to prop
erly accommodate the public by reasonably
| prompt handling of the business offered to
| them for carriage or shipment During the
| past few years the demands upon them by
| shippers have been very great, and the
| entire equipment has been and is now SO
| actively and continuously employed that
! the withdrawal from service of the cars
not yet equipped with power brakes Wouid
| be hardship upon shippers and would
| seriously and detrimentally affect their in
! terests and business. They claim, also,
| that the period between the passage of the
T act of March 2, 1903, and September l, 1903.
| the date which 1t is to become effective,
| is insufficient to enable them to fully equip
| their freight cars with power brakes, ana
| unless extension of time is granted
| compliance with the requirements or the
| act will be impossible, except at sacrlhce
of efficient and adequate service to shippers
| and the public.
The full list of cases assigned for hear
ing, with the places. follows:
Norfolk, Va, October 0, 10 o'clock am
| City Gas Company of Norfolk against Bal
timore and Ohio Railroad Company.
| Danville. Va, October TO- 10 o'clock a M
| Gardner & Clark against Southern Railway
| Company.
| Washington, D. c., October II. 10 o'clock
| a.m.-Hearng on application for extension
| of time within which to comply with the
| safety appliance act. Cincinnati Chamber
| of Commerce ct al. against Baltimore and
| Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company ct
| al; argument.
| Atlanta, Ga, October %, 10 o'clock AM
H. H. Tiff ct al. against Southern Railway
| Company ct al: Central Yellow Pine Asso-
citation against Illinois Central Railroad
| Company ct al. October %, 10 O'Clock a m
-Farrar Lumber Company against South
ern' Railway Company ct al. 1.-TWO cases).
| October 20, 10 O. clock a.m.-Georgia Peach
| Growers Association against Atlantic Coast
Line Railroad Company ct al. October 80,
| 10 o'clock a.m.-Fuller E. Galloway against
| Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
ct al; La Grange Board, of Trade against
| Clyde Steamship Company ct al; John w.
Blackman, jr., against Southern Railway
| company; John w. Blackman, jr., against
| Columbia, Newberry and Laurens Railroad
Company. Chicago, Ill. November 8, 10
| o'clock a.m.-Wiliam Wrigley, Jr., & Co.
| against Cleveland, Cincinnati. Chicago and
| St Louis Railway Company ct al; Edward
| G. Davies against Pere Marquette Railroad
Company ct al. in the matter of allow
ances to elevators by the Union Pacific
Railroad Company. November 10, 10 o'clock
AMIN the matter Of rates on grain and
| grain products over the Chicago, Milwaukee
| and st. Paul Railway (rate advance cases.;
| in the matter Of class and commodity rates
| from st. Louis to Texas common points
over the Missouri. Kansas and Texas rail-