The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-11-20
DECISIONS
BY STATE
CORPORA
TON BOARD

The Corporation commission, al
though not holding court, is very nusy
this week II IS the policy Of the
Commission to decide as soon ss prac.
ticablo all cases heard and give com
plants Immediate relief when the law
so warrants.
The Commission adjourned yester
day for the November term ana is now
busily engaged in formulating orders
on all the crses heard at the session
just closed The members will be in
the different parts of the state next
week and win dispose OF all cases that
have been submitted in order to clear
mp the docket before assuming other
duties OF taking testimony on other
complaints.
The Commission announces the fol
lowing five decisions in causes heard
during the last TWO terms OF court.
BartlesVille lnterurban Railway Co.,
vs.. A. T. g. S. z. Ry. CO.
This complaint was filed to require
Tie defendant TO pe-mif the complain.
ant to oonstruct a street railway
across defendants road at Bartlesville
The defendant insisted Il was entitled
TO damages. The Commission holds:
1T is not the duty OF the Commits.
sion to determine whether or not the
defendant ls entitled to compensation
as for additional servltude or fer the
future maintenance OF the crossing.
lts jurisdiction only goes 10 the extent
OF determining the character and kind
cf crossing which should be made at
tie point of intersection, and to pre-
scribe pians and specifications ne
cessary TO insure the safety md con
yenience Of the general public"
In answer 10 defenlants objection.
the Commission says:
We do not see how all the elements
Of damage contended for by defendant
could be ascertained in a court prior
20 the orier of the Commission pre-
scribing the character and kind OF
crossing. anl IN some cases The loca-
tion OF such crossing. whether the
SAME should ne underground or over
A@ati The Constitution confers ex.
elusive jurisdiction upon toe Commits.
sion, subject 10 appeal. to determine
The character and kind of crossing.
aud when the plans, appliances and
methods for crossing are adopted by
the Commission II then becomes the
duty of The company destelns 10 cross
TO make a payment of proper comnen.
sation, II any be authorized by law.
before commencing work"
The Commission ordered the defen.
'ant TO permit ihe complainant to con.
st,uct the crossing.
Art S. Aamley vs.. A. r. g. s. r. Ry. Co.
This case WAS for the reduction of
rates for the hanlline OF Z, special
nhoiograph car transported from town
20 town IN which to do a photograph
business.
The Commission was not very favor
phle TO the idea of the use OF ihe faci
lities OF railroad for the purpose q.
doing a portable commercial business
IN competition with the established
business of the various towns TO en-.
courage this kind of business might
70 TO the extent Of conducting dry
goods or other business In a car.
The Commission afte. duly consid.
ering this case and all the attending
circumstances Is inclined TO agree
with the defendant that the encourage.
nent of gny kind of portable business
IN railroad s. not within The strict
l'ne OF the railroads public duties. and
I'VE rec 20 reason way II a photograph
EAR should operate its business along
he lines of a railroad. IN the way
complainant coniucts his business on
the same basis. and go from town 10
town without paving any taxes o,
without being any material suDpor.
o the government AMI greatly inter.