The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1910-03-26
.EXACII0N REASONABLE
SAYS MAJORITY
But Public Service Commissioner Jackson
Disants on Railroad Contracts
with Granite Men for
sidings.

with Granite Men for
sidings.
The Vermont public service commits.
sion, by majority, has decided that the
conditions exaeted by The Central Ner.
mont railroad from Bonazzi y Bonazi
granite manufacturers 81 Montpelier 10
return for sidetraek service, are reason.
\ ble. except as regards the valuation 81
trails furnished by the railroad as its
part of the contract The decision says
that The valuation should be $50, not
$780, per toni
Opposed to this is The minority opinion
of Commissioner S Hollister Jackson,
who says that the conditions demanded
/ by the Central Vermont railroad are un.
reasonable in the following PARTICULARS
reasonable in the following particular:
/ That condition which exempts the rail-
road company from liability for It's own
negligence.
The case is Of great concern TO other
granite manufacturer Bonazzi a Boz
lazzi had refused b sign such a contract,
and thc railroad threatened to withdraw
shifting privileges, bat reeeded from that
stand on request Of the commission.
The findings of Commissioners John
w. Redmond and Ei II. Porter are as
followss
eve find It is the intention Of the
petitioners 10 exact The execution Of this
contract from all users Of such side
tracks in Barre and Montpelier; that all
Of the railroads operating In this state
have cyacted from the users Of sueh
tracks the execution of contracts sub
stanfIaily ike the one here in question.
which. among other things, provides that
tho user Of such track shall furnish the
ties do the grading. and pay for the
labor required ii lis construction that
the railroad company shall furnish the
rails, switch material ete.s and that the
user shall pay the expense incident to
the future maintenance Of the track, pay
the railroad company ak per cent. per
annum on its cash Investment in such
track and assume the risk Of injury
damage by fire. Or otherwise, BY reason
Of the use thereof.
eve think that this contract cannot be
said to Be an unreasonable one, in the
circumstances; aud that. if the petitionee
af once proceeds 70 exact that OH users
Of such tracks execute It. there is no
discrimination.
''Bul we are satisfied that the petit
tionce has Ii this case capitalized its
investment at too high 4 figure. IN fix
ing ne annual rental for tho three and
oae.fonrth tons st rails used in this sid
ing. it has valued them az thirty dollars
ppr ton We find that this is unreason-
able; and that twenty dollars per ton
"a as high as they should figure this
item
"The parties are hereby ordered 20
act IN accordance with the views herein
expressed
Commissioner Iaekson's Opinion.
The dissenting opinion Of Commission
en- Jackson and bis reasons are as fol-
lowss--
u disagree with the eonelusioB that the
side track agreement A. q whole is not
unreasonable. for. te my mind, that part
which cyelnrls tHe railroad compauy
from liability fe9 Is own negligence is
unreasonable The railway company by
the terms of The proposed contract has
n its control the keeping 81 the side
track ID good repair and eaH recover The
expense thereof from the petitioners.
There is therefore no reason why the
side track should he detective sufelw
the railway company should respond for
damages resulting fHem defects in the
track over which i has such complete
oversight. Il would Be better for the
petitioners to pay out 70 the railway
company more money Tor track repairs
than 70 assume the loss from an accident
dua tn want of eHeh fpnafra
So, too. the condition Of the engines
and cars used hy tie railway company
and their use bg employees Is in the con
tr0l Of the railway company and for the
reason similar q that above stated the
railway company should respond for neg
ligence Ill their condition and use by
employees To save the company from
the consequences Of its own negligence
diseourages negligence. This exemption