The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1906-10-09

actuating the majority of the Com
| mission in this decision were tullyse'
forth in an opinion rcnde.eG by tbs
| Associate Commissioners which !:
| herewith submitted and made par
g., hereof.
THE President of the Commission
dissented from the action of the aeso'
| ciate members. and his reasons there
| for are set forth in his Dissenting
opinion which is herewith submi'tee
and made a part hereof
Reduction OF Rates.
| "whilc the Associate Commissioner:
we're OF the opinion that the fact:
and the law did not warrant gen
eral reduction of freight rates In Ala
bama, they found upon an examina
ton of the various tariffs that there
| were some Inequalities, inaccuracies
and determinations existing In th'
rates applying in this state, ana ina
such might he corrected and ad1us
ted ordered the various railroad com
panies operating In the State to SUB
NIT to the Commission revised tar
ifs for approval.
| I'm compliance with this order Of
the Associate Commissioners revised
tariffs were submitted and approved
by them. All of the changes mace IN
such revised tariffs were reductions
| the COMMISSION III iip "f
proving an increase in rates.
During the period mentioned. many
orders relating to the repairing. al
terine and construction of depots were
made, the most important being the
| final order in reference to the con
struction Of the depot at Mobile IT
accordance with the act of the Legis
lature; and In reference to the con
struction of the union Iepot to be
| and No chville
and Southern Railway Companies, al
| DECATUR Alabama.
The Mobile and Decatur depots are
| creditable structures, and adequate t'
the demands OF these places.
Respectfully submitted,
"B B. Conner. President.
"W. c. Tunstall.
wv T. Sanders.
Associate Commissioners.
| or the other business transacted b.
the Commission yesterday. the most i'm
portant, perhaps, was the introduction
of case by the Wood-Dickinsoi
Lumber Company of Birmingham
against the Birmingham Southern
Railroad, protesting against excessive
switching charges. The statements D
the complaining firm were cid for In
vestigation, and will be reported upot
at the next meeting.
| For Depot mt Marbury.
The case of Jay Smith against the
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com
pany. to compel that road to build
depot at Marbury was also taken vi
| and disposed of. Associate Commits
sioner w. r. Sanders, took the position
that as there is depot at Mountain
| Creek, only a mile from Marbury, =
was not reasonable t. set a policy en-
forcing the erection of stations within
/ nf ~ in thinIE sci
| tied territory. otherwise. he though
the business of Marbury would justifj
enforcing the demand. Preslden
| Conner expressed doubt. Tho question
! was serious one, he thought. and h.
| believed the question of proximity tt
another station was the only que
" hich should raise doubt. The matt
was continued until the next meeting ii
| order to enable the members of the
| Commission to take more Intelligent
action.
| The application of citizens of .tIdcr-
vile to comel the Southern RAILWAY
| to erect depot at that place was de
MED. At Riderville, ii was shown
| nine tenths of the railroad business Is
furnished by tn Jackson Lumber com
rany. They company has facilities foi
carrying on this business, which arr
open to the other one-ttnth of the traf
iic The Commission felt it would no
be justified in ordering the depot.
Other Depots Ordered.
| 1t was ordered that the Southeri
| Railway build ~ depot at Piper.
| The Southern Railway was also or
dercd to erect nm umbrella shed at Dog
| wood Another ordcr made upon tn'
Southern Hallway was that it erect ,
platform and depot at Mulberry Tank
An order was made upon the Nash'
l Ifsal /