The thirty-seventh annual report of the Railroad Commission of Georgia, 1909

THE LIBRARY OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Gift of
Georgia Railroad Commision

pp
THIRTYSEVENTH
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION
of GEORGIA
OP

GEORGIA
I
PRINTED BY KOTE ft DAVIES CO ATLANTA
H WRNER HILL Chairman GEORGE HILLYER Vice Chairman
O R STEVENS
CHAS MURPHEY CANDLER
JOSEPH F GRAY
Commissioners
GEO F MONTGOMERY Rate Expert CAMPBELL WALLACE Secretary JAMES K HINES Special Attorney
i l
REPORT
OFFICE OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF GEORGIA
Atlanta April 1st 1910
To His Excellency Joseph M Brown Governor
Sib Since our last annual report the Commission has heard and decided many important questions some of which will be found contained under their own proper headings elsewhere in this report A resume of the work of the Commission for the past year has been so admirably expressed by Commissioner Candler in a recent address that we hereby incorporate a portion of his remarks in this report N
The Commission as enlarged by the Act of 1907 is now charged with the tremendously important duty of supervising and regulating all of the relations of every public service corporation in the State with the people whom they serve and to a considerable degree with the people whom they employ and the investors who buy their stock and bond issues Few have a full knowledge of the vast responsibilities and never completed duties imposed by law upon the five members of the Railroad Commission of Georgia or of the requirements made upon their time and abilities or the amount of labor and research demanded in their honest efforts to fairly and intelligently decide the important issues constantly brought to their consideration
The mere vastness of the financial interests involved and the disastrous results that may follow from an error of judgment however carefully and conscientiously rendered is a constant weight of apprehension upon an honest mind and heart only appreciated by those who have felt the responsibility
There are 227 public service corporations doing business in this State under the jurisdiction of the Commission with a total capitalization of 122811878000 Of these 79 are steam railroads 57 street railroads gas electric and water companies 64 telephone and telegraph and 27 compress companies These corporations serve nearly three million Georgians in every known way that modern civilization demands The gross charges collected of the people for these services approximate 5000000000 per annum
It is absurd to expect that uch varied and important services can be rendered without friction or difference between servant and the served either as to the sufficiency or efficiency of the service or the fair value thereof It is difficult to realize today how even in the beginnings of public service enterprises we lived as long as we did without actual disorders without some intermediary or arbitrator between the conflicting interests of two such classes and with the development and growth of public demands and services today it is impossible
4
to conceive that there can be those among served or servants who still doubt the wisdom of disinterested supervision or reasonable regulation by impartial governmental authority
As demonstrating the need of a forum where small and large differences alike can be speedily and inexpensively settled upon the complaint of corporation or individual of a bureau where authoritative information tending to and actually resulting in preventing acute differences from arising may be had without delay or fee and as showing the uses made of the Commission we point you to the fact that during the year ending December 31st last in response to inquiries and communications addressed to the Commission and in disposing of the same there have been sent from the office 19431 letters and communications
The office of the Commission has without the necessity of formal hearing or order during the past year received and disposed of 3000 complaints and inquiries It has formally handled and given hearings in and disposed of by orders 653 complaints and petitions Of these 67 related to passenger train service 10 to passenger tariffs 68 to freight service 94 to freight rates 194 to claims and complaints as to overcharges and demurrage ranging from a few cents to hundreds of dollars 53 to depots and stations 9 to side and spur tracks 15 to street car service and fares 10 to gas and electric light service and charges two of these involving all of the lighting and power service and charges of two cities directly and indirectly affecting the interests of 50000 people 27 to express service and rates 25 to telegraph and telephone service and rates 22 to stock and bond issues aggregating 17230100000 and 60 to miscellaneous subjects not included in the foregoing
This enumeration and classification however really gives a very inadequate idea of the character diversity or importance of the services rendered the people by the Commission
The railroads of this State handled in 1909 approximately twelve million passengers They have about 1500 freight and passenger stations in the State there are about 2250 separate articles embraced in the Commissions official freight classification and about 4500 in the Southern classification by the railroads so that it can be readily seen how many opportunities there are and in how many directions for difference and complaint in railroad transporta tion alone
There are approximately 65000 telephone stations in the State used regularly by possibly 350000 individuals there are approximately 100000 electric light and gas consumers in the State The street railroads of the State hauled during 1909 approximately fiftymillion passengers
There is not one of all this multitude of patrons of public service corporations who is immune from the possibility or probability of trouble annoyance or service unsatisfactory for one reason or another and not one however humble he or she may be who has not the right to come before the Commission without lawyer or brief but with a simple statement of facts and have the sovereign State through its commissioned agents give patient and impartial hearing to his or her complaint
The doors of the Commission are closed to no one They are open to all
5
every working day in the year and a formal vacation by the entire Commission is never considered
Hundreds of claims varying in amounts but aggregating several thousand dollars individually frequently too small to justify the employment of attorneys are investigated and adjustments secured or the lack of merit ih them shown to complainants
Often important principles legal or technical are involved where settlement means precedents which become useful guides for the future These services are valuable to the carrier as well as the shipper and in numerous instances avoid the necessity of investigation or explanation on the part of the carrier
Freight congestions especially in the cotton season frequently occur and during the past winter suggestions from the Commission in several instances have afforded immediate relief
Telephone subscribers street car patrons gas and electric light consumers in fact patrons of every line of public service have learned the value of intervention by the Commission in even small matters and constantly call for its exercise
The corporations themselves are not infrequently in dispute with each other and one or the other calls on the Commission so that in fact and to an extent wholly unrealized by even well informed citizens the Commission has become the great clearing house for complaints where differences are impartially arbitrated causes for litigation removed rights preserved and the performance of duties enforced
During nearly every month of the year the Commission through committees and individual members and by employed inspectors has had numerous actual inspections made of tracks equipments plants depots cars side and spur tracks in order that it might be kept informed of the physical condition of the utilities under its jurisdiction or be the better enabled to decide upon disputed questions in individual cases
It has required received examined and filed during the year from steam railroad companies 312 weekly reports of operations 576 monthly reports 220 special reports as to capitalization etc and 204 annual reports from all service corporations
The Commisison during the year has received examined and filed about 7500 rates and tariffs and has sent out 500 copies of its general orders 1200 rate circulars 3000 of its annual reports including all the railroad laws of the
State and the rates classifications rules and regulations of the Commission
2568 State railroad maps and 1714 blank sheet reports There has not been during the year a single appeal to the courts from any order decision or promulgation of the Commission nor has the Commission had to go into the courts for the enforcement of penalties for disobedience to or failure to observe any
order or rule in a single instance It is upon this record that the relations be I
tween the public service corporations of this State and the public are friendlier and closer today than for years as the result of fair laws and their firm but J honest and conservative administration But even with such conditions ex lsting we do not believe we have reached perfection or ideal conditions either1 in the enactment or administration
y s e 5
1
6
Rate adjustments are not yet complete nor altogether equitable or satisfactory especially as to some commodities
Discriminations particularly as to communities still exist but these we believe with the continued growth of enlightened public opinion will at no distant date be removed
In the interest of the public and the public service corporation additional legislation might be profitably considered
t
RECOMMENDATIONS
Possibly this Commission would feel some diffidence in volunteering recommendations such as below set forth but it will be observed that in the original act of 1879 by which this Commission was created it is provided that it shall be the duty of the Commission To recommend from time to time such legislation as they may deem advisable It has been suggested that this provision being the first historically of its kind has been copied or found its way into the act creating Railroad Commissions of other States and in fact is found in almost the identical words in the act of Congress subsequently enacted creating the Interstate Commerce Commission It has been found highly useful and is everywhere acted upon and sanctioned in practice Where defects exist in the law as must necessarily be the case in developing a system like this experience on the part of the body charged with administration of the law would be the first to discover such defects and it was in a wise intent for the public good that the framers of the act of 1879 inserted such a provision At all events it will be observed that these recommendations are made and submitted under the imperative behests of the statutes and we beg leave to add are the result of the earnest convictions of the utility and wisdom of the same
REQUIRING RAILROADS TO ISSUE THROUGH BILLS OF LADING ETC
Public convenience comfort and the proper facilities in the transportation and handling of freight and passengers demand that some progress be made along the line of issuing through bills of lading and the issuing of coupon passenger tickets and checking baggage through to destination Our courts have decided that under the law as it stands at present railroads can not be required to issue through bills of lading
The Commission therefore recommends that such legislation be enacted aswill confer upon the Commission the authority to require through bills of lading and the issuance of coupon passenger tickets and the checking of baggage through to destination in such cases where the ends of justice and public convenience requires It to be done
REQUIRING ONE RAILROAD TO ACCEPT SHIPMENTS FROM ANOTHER
Authority should be given the Commission to require one railroad to accept shipments of freight from another railroad where routing instructions are given It frequently happens that a shipper desires his freight to go by a certain route on account of terminal facilities of the last carrier and for other
7
reason But some carriers refuse to render or accept shipments where hy so doing it deprives them of the long haul But in declining to follow routing instructions the shipper is deprived hy the carrier of the terminal facilities at destination when by reason of those facilities the shippers commodity commands a more remunerative price It seems therefore that the carrier having those superior facilities should be required to accept freight and place same at destination at such points as will be more advantageous to the shipper A shipment of melons for instance originating on some road having no adequate terminal facilities at the point of destination is declined by the initial line to be turned over to a connecting road having such facilities at destination because the initial road will lose the long haul The cars arrive at destination and are placed a mile or two miles further from the desired point for unloading than would be the case if the connecting road having proper terminal facilities had received and delivered the ear at destination The shipper is very much injured by this refusal The Commission should have authority to exercise its reasonable discretion in requiring such service in a given case where the circumstances justify its exercise
MISQUOTING RATES
We also recommend that the Commission be given authority to make rules against the practice of misquoting rates It frequently happens that a rate is quoted to a shipper and the shipper acting on the faith of that quotation makes the shipment only to be informed when the freight reaches destination that the raie was quoted lower than it really was and the carrier demands and collects a higher rate The Commission should be given the discretion if it should appear that it was intentionally misquoted to fix a penalty by rule or otherwise for habitually misquoting rates
OVERCHARGES AND LOSSES IN FREIGHT
The Commission recommends additional legislation on the subject of overcharges and losses in freight Under the peculiar wording of the Act of 1907 with reference to this subject it is extremely difficult if not impossible to formulate a rule that would stand the tests of the courts That Act declares that it the Commission shall have authority to fix penalties for neglect on the part of Railroad Companies to adjust overcharges and losses or failure to decline to do so if deemed unjust in a reasonable time We recommend that this language be repealed and the following or similar language be substituted therefor
It the Commission shall have authority to order all railroad companies and other corporations under the jurisdiction of the Commission to pay all just claims for overcharges and losses and to fix penalties by rule or order or both for failure to pay when so required
TRACK INSPECTION
Nothing in connection with the transportation question is of more importance to the traveling or shipping public than Safety Surely the lives and property of the citizens of the State should he safeguarded as much as possible This is of vital importance and while the Commission has authority to inquire into the adequacy security and accommodation of the service the Legislature has as yet provided no fund put of which it could by a thorough system of inspections insure the safety of roadbed equipment and service of the various roads doing business in this State It is true the Commission has from time to time had inspections made in certain instances out of the contingent fund allowed the Commission But this fund is totally inadequate for the needs of the situation The inspections already made have been thorough and have added much to the safety and security of the traveling public With the limited fund on hand the inspector of the Commission has been able to go over but a few of the many lines in Georgia but on foot he has walked each track inspected and noted each bolt bar or tie broken or misplaced and the authorities informed by the Commission with detailed information as to the insecurity of roadbed rolling stock etc if such existed and they were ordered to place same in safe condition within a reasonable time In every instance to date the roads have cheerfully cooperated with the Commission in endeavoring to have such defects as existed remedied The result has been an incalculable benefit to the public in the way of safety and service and few if any wrecks have occurred on the roads inspected
This work could be extended with great profit to the public if the Legislature would only provide a permanent fund for an inspector not only of railroad tracks bridges trestles and equipment but also of electric light and gas light plants Experts are often needed by the Commission in passing upon complaints as to this branch of the public service
It is hoped therefore the Legislature will provide an adequate sum for these much needed purposes
STOCK AND BOND ISSUES
In some instances where the Commission acting under power conferred by the Act of August 22nd 1907 has authorized an issue of stocks or bonds by petitioning company or companies and they after obtaining approval therefor have not exercised this important authority or acted under it in any way caused doubtless by failure in negotiations change or death of parties or other intervening events
The Special Counsel Judge Hines has expressed the opinion that power of revocation for such nonuser does not exist under the present law
It would seem that according to the declared policy of the State such a high corporate power as to issue stocks and bonds and thereby increase capitalization ought not to slumber and be allowed to run on indefinitely and possibly for years without any report or supervision of the same by the State Circumstances and conditions will nearly always change as the years go by and what
9
may be expedient and wise in any given case today may become very unwise and inexpedient in even the near future
In order to remove all doubt on the subject we recommend that by appropriate amendment to existing law discretionary power be conferred on the Commission for revoking after hearing had the authority to issue stocks or bonds either or both where there has been heretofore or may be hereafter no exercise or bonafide part exercise of such power by the petitioning company or corporations within two years from date of the order or permission of this Commission authorizing the same
POWER PLANTS
The Act of 1907 enlarges and extends The Powers and Duties previously conferred by law on the Railroad Commission so as to include street railways and other public service companies therein severally mentioned and enumerated as set out in Section 5 of that Act concluding with the words Electric Light and Power Plants FURNISHING SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC
It has been found that under the wording of said section at least one such power plant is exempted from jurisdiction of the Commission by reason of th fact that it does not furnish power or service directly to the public but sells all its power to another party or company which latter furnishes the same to the public
There may be other cases where the same conditions exist and it would seem that as long as the language or wording of the statute remains as above quoted it is possible for every power plant to escape supervision in the same waythat
is by itself furnishing nothing to the public but selling its entire product to an intervening company as in the instance above quoted
These power companies are of great and growing importance they are calling for large stock and bond issues they have in some instances the power of eminent domain and in many ways they affect the public welfare and safety
There should be no doubt touching supervision over them by the State
We recommend that the law be so amended as that all electric light and power plants having the power of eminent domain whether owned or operated by an individual company or corporation other than municipal and whether their power or product be furnished to one or many persons or parties be placed under the jurisidiction authority and control of the Commission in the same manner and to the same extent as other public service companies or parties enumerated in the law
APPEALS
The Act of 1890 provides that whenever the Railroad Commission of Georgia upon investigating any Through Rate into or out of this State finds that such rate is excessive or unreasonable or discriminaatory in its nature it shall be the duty of this Commission to carry the same by appeal before the Interstate Commerce Commission It is doubtful whether the word Rate in said act refers to freight rates alone or whether the same includes also passenger rates or fares There are other matters over which by reason of the same occurring in
10
interstate commerce this Commission has no jurisdiction or direct remedial authority
It would seem obvious that wherever any citizen or community of this State suffers a wrong of the kind last named he or they ought to have relief by an appeal made through this Commission and in the name of the State taking the matters in question before the Interstate Commerce Commission just the same as where the wrong done consisted in the existence of an unjust or unreasonable Rate
We recommend that the existing law he so amended as that the remedy by appeal to the Interstate Commerce Commission shall exist not only as to any question of rate both freight and passenger but in all matters in which the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction and further that the making of such appeals in each particular instance be left to the discretion and best judgement of this Commission both as to the ground of appeal and as to whether importance of the questions at issue will justify the labor and expense of such appeal
Respectfully submitted
H Waener Hill Chairman
George Hillteb ViceChrmn
O B Stevens
Chas Murphey Candles
Joseph P Gray
Commissioners
Geo F Montgomery Rate Expert r i Campbell Wallace Secretary
11
STOCK AND BOND ISSUES
Elsewhere in this report will he found the rules prescribed by the Commission governing the application for authority to issue stock and bonds Upon receipt of an application for approval of stocks and bonds the Commission issues a preliminary order prescribing notice which the applicant shall cause to be inserted in newspapers published in the cities serving the territory through which or at which the petitioning company will be engaged in business and setting petition down for formal hearing Notice of the date fixedby the Commission for the hearing is given all parties likely to be interested and full oportunity given them to present whatever facts they might desire theCommission to consider At the hearing the proper officials of the petitioning company are sworn and examination made by the Commission as to the details of the purposes and necessities of the proposed issues
Investigation of all necessary books papers and other documents and other examinations are made as are necessary to furnish full information in the premises In every case where the desired issues are approved or whatever part thereof is approved the Commission in its order approving same requires the Company to report in detail within ninety days from date of order what disposition has been made of the stock and bonds allowed and if no disposition is made within that time such report is required every ninety days thereafter until disposition is made
CLAIMS
By reference to the statement of formal complaints petitions etc appearing elsewhere in this report it will be noted that the Commission is called upon to handle claims of every description In many instances claimants have complained that their claims have been pending with the company complained against for months and not infrequently for one and two years and some times longer and that notwithstanding their repeated efforts to secure proper disposition the railway companies still refuse to dispose of them Oftentimes the Commission handles such claims and upon taking them up with the railwaycompanies at interest satisfactory settlement is secured within a few days This is accounted for by reason of the fact that the Commission thoroughly considers the papers and points out to the company complained against whatever rights claimants have if their rights are plain the Commission presents them to the defendant company and points out plainly wherein and to what extent correction should be made if the contentions of the claimants are not well founded they are so advised and usually withdraw the claims
Less trouble is incurred in the satisfactory disposition of claims for overcharge than probably any other class of claims and this Is due in a largemeasure to the fact that the extent of the liability of the defendant company is more easily ascertained in fact is fixed as there can be only one correct rate and the only requirement in such cases is to ascertain what the correct rateis covering the shipment out of which claim accrued When such claims are
12
filed with the Commission the papers are thoroughly examined the correct rate determined and the amount of the overcharge if any ascertained and a full statement of all of the facts in the case plainly pointed out to the company against which claim is filed In cases of overcharge claims against railroad companies unless there is a difference between shippers and the railroad company as to the proper classification of the article shipped the corect rate is easily applied Where the proper charges are brought into question by reason of difference of opinion as to what class the goods shipped should be rated if the shipment is intrastate or local to the state of Georgia and therefore within its control the Commission specifies the proper classification or rating and notifies the railroad company as to the basis upon which claim should be settled If the claim grows out of an interstate shipment the Commission handles same with the railroad company in an informal way advising it as to its opinion in the matter and requesting disposition accordingly If the railroad companies refuse to carry out its suggestions in such cases the Commission informs claimants of its inability to further serve them but always informing them of its readiness to assist them in prosecuting their claim before the Interstate Commerce Commission if that Commission has jurisdiction in the matter and if not in serving them in any other way that claimants might suggest
Claims for loss are handled in the same manner that is notwithstanding a lack of authority to require such claims paid the Commission always makes a thorough investigation of this class of claims and takes the same up with the campanies complained against furnishing them with the result of its investigation and urging the companies to give preferred attention to same
The same is true as to claims for damage but this class of claims is probably the most difficult to satisfactorily handle Some of the difficulties incurred in handling such claims grow out of the differences between the claimant and the defendant company as to the extent of damage sustained the claims oftentimes are made account of concealed damage or damage which was not detected until the goods were unpacked and after delivery was made and the defendant company held receipt for delivery in good order Many claims for damage are filed for goods lost or broken in transit which were shipped under a released valuation claimants contending for full value of goods lost or damaged In such cases the railroads decline to admit of liability beyond the value specified in the billlading while the shippers contend that the damage complained of and for which claim was made was the result of carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendant company and for which shippers could not be required to give release In addition to these questions there also arises from time to time differences as to the extent of damage due to the value of the goods at the time same were purchased and at the time they reached or should have reached destination claimants contending that the damage not only extended to the specific invoice value of the goods but also prevented them from obtaining the benefit of an increased market price etc Thus it will be seen that claims of this character are not always brought to a satisfactory conclusion but the Commission has nevertheless been instrumental in a large
I
13
number of cases in bringing about settlements of damage claims which were satisfactory to all parties concerned
Claims for penalty demurrage When claims of this character are filed the same are carefully reviewed in this office and a detailed statement made as to the application of the rule in question If the claims are filed account delay in transportation the Commission estimates the time which the railroad company was allowed within which to complete the transportation and serves the defendant company with a notice to show cause why the amount due shippers under its rules should not be paid And if the claim is filed account delay in giving notice of arrival delay in placing delay in forwarding delay in furnishing cars or under some other rule the correct amount of penalty due if any is found to be due is determined by the Commission and the matter taken up with the company complained against See briefs of files under the subject of penalty demurrage claims reference to which can be had under the Subject Index
Various reasons are given by the railroad companies why they should not be required to pay different claims filed by shippers under the reciprocal demurrage rules of the Commission In some cases the railroads decline to admit of liability because shippers sustained no actual money damage by reason of the delay that the movement out of which claim accrued took place at a time when the yards of the railroad company were congested or during a strike of its employees or that an accident to the car in transit rendered necessary certain repairs before car could be forwarded or that the railroad company alleged to be at fault exercised all reasonable diligence in transportation of the shipment and delivered same as soon as practicable
nre
The Commission has never recognized any of these reasons as sufficient to relieve the railroad companies of the penalties incurred by reason of failure to comply with its rules and with few exceptions each case of course being handled on its own merits has received as a sufficient excuse for delays only occasions which caused delays that were beyond the control of th transportation companies
Claims for refund of demurrage charges which claimants contend were improperly collected under the rules of the Commission are more easily disposed of as in such cases like claims for overcharge the Commission interprets its rule and applies same to the case in question and the railroad companies in nearly all instances promptly dispose of claims in line with the ruling of the Commission
DEPOTS AND SIDE TRACKS
Petitions for depots and sidetracks receive the same method of handling by the Commission While in these cases no special form of petition is required by the Commission it is desired always that same show all necessities for the facilities desired Each case of course stands upon its own merits and the conditions peculiar to each Some of the conditions concerning which the
14
Commission in every case desires information and which are investigated by It are as relates to petitions for depots the amount of business both freight and passenger done at the station where the facilities are desired the number of business firms manufactories stores and other business enterprises the population of the immediate community to be served including as well the surrounding country number of schools churches etc As relates to petitions for sidetracks so much of the above information as will tend to show the necessities for sidetrack facilities
Upon receipt of such petitions the Commission serves copy upon the railway company at interest calling upon it to show cause if any it can why the petition should be granted as in this way cases are often satisfactorily disposed of without the necessity of petitioners being put to the expense of coming to Atlanta to attend a formal hearing before the Commission If the defendant company in its response declines to admit the reasonableness of petitioners request and to provide the desired facilities or if said company within a reasonable time fails to make response the petition is set down for formal hearing and all parties at Interest so notified If at the hearing no satisfactory agreement is reached and the petitioners and railroad company are disagreed as to the main points of contention the Commission requests the Committee of the Board on Depots and Sidetracks to visit the point at which facilities are desired for the purpose of making a personal inspection of the necessities therefor
If upon consideration of the evidence and arguments submitted at the hearing and upon consideration of the report of the Committee of the Board when such report is made the Commission is of the opinion that the petition should be granted an order is issued in case of depots requiring the defendant company to file blue print of plans for such improvements as will meet the demands of the traveling and shipping public at the point at interest the usual time allowed by the Commission for filing blue prints being 15 days from date of the order If upon receipt of the blue print the Commission upon consideration thereof is of the opinion that the same contemplates adequate and comfortable accommodations blue print is approved and the railroad company ordered to construct depot in accordance therewith The usual time within which depots shall be constructed and opened for the use of the public being ninety days from the date of the order
In case of sidetracks where the Commission is of the opinion after due investigation that the track should be constructed an order is issued requiring that same be put in upon the usual terms upon which the railroad company at interest constructs and maintains sidetracks the time allowed for the construction of sidetracks depending upon the conditions surrounding each case ns to the length of the track to be constructed amount of work necessary in grading and other conditions peculiar to each case
As will be seen by reference to the statement of formal complaints and petitions filed with the Commission since its last annual report or since March 1st 1909 the Commission has been called upon to consider a large number of petitions for sidetracks and depots
RATE OR TARIFF DEPARTMENT
Effective March 1st 1908 the Commission appointed a rate expert as provided for by the Act of 1907 Since that date in addition to the work heretofore kept up the Commission has been endeavoring to complete a file of tariffs and while its tariff file is not yet as complete as will soon be the Commission is now prepared to furnish shippers all necessary information relative to rates and rules governing shipinents not only between points in Georgia but as to shipments moving into and out of the State
Prior to the filling of this new position it was impracticable to keep up even an incomplete file of tariffs as no one in the office of the Commission familiar with this line of work had time to devote to it We consider this branch of the Commissions work one of the most important in all of its duties To be able to furnish the citizens of this State with information as to rates both between points in Georgia and from and to interstate points promptly upon request therefor and to give such inquirers reliable informationsuch as they can act upon with assurance of correctnessis one of the most important services that can be rendered to the shipping and traveling public especially so since the question of transportation charges has come to be such an important item in the conduct of every business So as has been stated it is the desire and the purpose of the Commission to spare no time and work in building up this department of the office to that point where it will be of great demand and prove an invaluable convenience and assistance to the shippers of this State The office has always been called upon for information as to current rates classifications rules etc but since the creation of this new office inquiries of this kind have very largely increased
The duties of the Rate Expert however are by no means confined to the questions of rate quotations and furnishing information upon request but he is required to serve the Commission not only in matters of rates classifications and the like but in any other matters wherein his services may be required by the Commission He is required to attend all hearings involving rates either of railroads or other corporations subject to the control of the Commission and to furnish assistanc upon the consideration and determination of any and all questions coming before the Commission where his services are required
When it is considered that every railroad company is required to publish and post at each of its agencies a schedule of rates applying therefrom and that fifty odd railway companies in Georgia without reference to the great number engaged in interstate business not operating in Georgia but which handle Georgia business and in which Georgia shippers are interested are daily making changes in their tariffs by issuing supplements thereto an idea can be had as to the importance and necessity if a tariff file is to be kept up to date of having a man in charge of this work
Since the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission have been increased by Congress and that Commission has promulgated rules covering every feature of interstate transportation it is absolutely necessary for the
16
Commission to have some one in the office familiar with rates and rate matters to keep up with such questions if the shippers of Georgia are to have access to accurate and full information of the kind and able to secure same promptly whenever desired
The Commission from time to time has occasion upon its own initiative to investigate rates to and from particular localities and when complaints Involving rates either of railroad companies or other corporations subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission are received a detailed statement of all the facts in each case is desired by the Commission and same could not he had without the services of some one familiar with that kind of work
i
UOO
IIOQ
1800
V
eoq
300
TOO
eoo
oo
400
SO o
200
too
r

0
rff

j g Jv Li
EIM6EUA8TH J lMAHifrrrA
jlLr

1
IT
MoRctW
I
iffij

T STONiMf V 1041 1

1
V
111
tot
I J
J
ftas
A I ir
f
11
fit
In it

m
A
il 1
uVAN9fJ
IV5175
9
i
I
Covimuto t
lSot
Autovy V
KIIS3Sigi2 w tf
VSSTAmNT I SI588
We steppa Atlantic R RVc e nt RALof G a R V M
CHATTANOOGA roSAVANNAH thus
Atlanta WestPoi nt RRnwGeorgiaRR
WEST PONTto AUGUSTA
Atlantic Coast Line RailRoad
CMTTAHOO CHEEMVERtoSAVAUNAH 5AMIHZ HORIZONTAL LZ40 TEET VERTICAL
Union Pr t6 u

1 1 1 T i
1 1 1 1
1 i 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 I 1 1 1
cS
b
1 A 4 es
THomioX VTgV
r1 v aK 010
8ANinr
A 49 WO V U
I I I I
SCALE 1 INCH
48 if

Atade under direction of the Rairoad Commission of Georgia
b sAC
CIVIL CNCINBt
AHcmta 1308
ir K L
V 1
1 1
t 5
V ft i
r i
1 1 i
1 1
1 1
1 11 1
11 1 1
11 11 11 f 1
1
10SAa
ss
I a
i 7V
r V sy r
A o V
5 it 1
v Y
r
A TV
w
0i

oosify u MS
Aio y 4 4CS jf b
i7Vr
A e 5
2 Jf fi
fi If 7
5 5 2
fi
Si
M
1
VT
fThs map illustrates the splendid system ot interior navigation of the United States
OPINIONS of SPECIAL ATTORNEY
MEANING OF WORD ISSUE AS CONTAINED IN EIGHTH SECTION ACT APPROVED AUGUST 22 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 18 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of tbe 5th instant requesting me to furnish you with an opinion relative to what is meant by the word issue as contained in the eighth section of the CandlerOverstreet Act came duly to hand This section provides that It shall be unlawful for any of said companies or corporations to issue stocks bonds notes or other evidences of debt payable more than twelve months after the date thereof except upon the approval of said Railroad Commission
The term issue means the first delivery of the instrument complete in form to a person who takes it as holder
The ordinary and common accepted meaning of to issue is to send forward to put into circulation to emit as to issue bank notes bonds etc
4 Words Phrases Judicially Defined p 3778
Folks vs Yost 54 Mo App 5559 State vs Pierce 35 Pac Rep 19 22 55 Kansas 521 Germania Savings Bank vs Village of Suspension Bridge
21 N Y Supp 93100 73 Hun 590 Brownell vs Town of Greenwich
22 N E 27 114 N Y 518 4 L R A 685
It means disposed of for value
Potter vs Lanehard Fla 33 So 251259260
In contemplation of law bonds pledged by a corporation are just as much issued as when they are sold
Atlantic T Co vs Woodbridge Coal Irri Co 79 Fed Rep 842847 Wm Firth Co vs S Car L T Co 122 Fed Rep 569 574 59 C C A 73 Pfister vs Milwaukee Elec Ry Co 53 N W 27 28 83 Wis 86 Nat Foundry Pipe Co vs Ocento W Co 52 Fed Rep 2936 Mowry vs Farmers L T Co 76 Fed Rep 38 48 22 C C A 52
20
In my opinion to issue bonds and stocks is to sell them or pledge them The issuing of bonds and stocks takes place when the maker first delivers them to a purchaser or pledgee for value
There could be no doubt that the Commission has full authority and power to pass upon bonds and stocks which have not thus been issued prior to the passage of the CandlerOverstreet Act In cases arising prior to the passage of that Act the Commission has still the power and authority to investigate the issuing of these bonds If the bonds had been sold or contracted to be sold in other words if there was a complete contract of sale although the bonds had not been executed and delivered prior to the passage of this Act the Railroad Commission could not put a stop to the delivery of such bonds In other words if the maker had made a contract for their sale which a court of equity would compel the specific performance of then the Railroad Commission would be powerless to stop the transaction But in cases of this kind the Railroad Commission still has the power to look into any transaction for issuing of bonds to determine whether any such contract of sale has been made which would be binding between the parties and which a court of equity would decree to be specifically performed
In transactions prior to the passage of the CandlerOverstreet Act the Commission would still have the power and authority to interdict the delivery and disposition of any bonds or stocks which were not issued for a valuable consideration or which were fraudulently issued In other words the Commission could interdict the delivery of bonds or stocks which represent only water and nothir g of real value
I believe the above covers and possibly more than covers the opinion asked for in your letter Yours truly James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
DAMAGE RESULTING TO SHIPPER BY REASON DELAYED TRANSPORTATION

Railroad Commission oe Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
r i
October 24 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In re T H Tabor
I have your letter of the 2d instant enclosing letter of Mr T H Tabor and asking me to furnish you with whatever authorities covering the points raised that I can give
1 Where the carrier fails to deliver goods within a reasonable time ordina
21
rily the measure of damages is the difference between the market value at the time and place they should have been delivered and the time of actual delivery
Code Sec 3319 75 Ga 745 81 Ga 602 85 Ga 497
2 Where the carrier is notified either expressly by nature of the article or by actual notice of any special circumstances which make delay or loss of particular moment to the consignee the carrier is liable to respond in damages for all injuries which he might reasonably have foreseen would have occurred but unless such notice is given he is not liable further than is indicated above
2 A E Ency L p 907 Note 7 I C It R vs Cobb 64 111 128 V M
R R vsRagsdale 46 Miss 458 Gee vs L Y R R Co 6 H M 211 T W N W R R Co vs Lockhart 71 111 627 King vs Woodibridge 34 Yt 565 C P Q R R Co vs Hale 83 111 360 S T W Ry Co vs Pritchard 77 Ga 412
3 Mr Tabor will have to use all reasonable efforts to make these books bring all he can He could sell at auction if that were the best way to make them bring the most or he could sell at private sale He can not abandon the books and leave them subject to the order of the railroad
4 If the railroad will not settle with him his only redress will be to bring
suit against the company in the courts I return herein the letter of Mr Tabor Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
FLAG STATIONS SHIPMENTS TO
Railroad Commission op Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 24 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In re rights of shippers of freight to flag stations
Your letters of the 7th and 22d instants in which you propound the following question came duly to hand
Hlas the railroad the right to put off prepaid freight at the flag station in the rain and not pay damage that occurs to the stuff when it is raining at the time it is being put off The facts you give are meager Ordinarily it is the duty of the railroad company to carry freight to its destination notify the shipper and store the same safely until it is delivered to the consignee If the railroad undertakes to ship freight to a flag station and it is not known to the shipper that the company has no agent or warehouse at such station to receive
22
it the railroad company would be liable for any damages resulting from discharging and leaving the freight in the rain
The railroad companies may be excused from a strict compliance with these legal requirements as to the manner and other circumstances of delivery by an established and known usage of their own with reference to which the contract of carriage must be supposed to have been entered in as where goods are sent to a way or flag station at which it was known to the shipper the road had no warehouse but had been in the habit of putting off the goods upon the platform for consignees who were expected to be there present to receive them or to come for them immediately upon their arrival If the shipper knew that the railroad company had no agent or warehouse at the flag station and that shippers were to be there to receive their goods then the railroad company would have the right to discharge such goods at such station and the company would be protected from liability for any damages for such goods by reason of their being put off in the rain
2 Mathews Dickson Hutcheson on Carriers Sec 710 McMasters vs
Railroad 69 Pa St 374 Pindell vs R R Company 34 Mo App 675
57 Cal 462 66 Ala 167 58 Ala 95 66 Ala 167 89 Ala 534
The usage and custom of the railroad company in delivering freight at flag stations if universal and general or if known to the shipper will control on the subject of whether the shipper will be entitled to damages or not
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
BOND ISSUES BY GEORGIA CORPORATIONS OWNING PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Office of Special Attobney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 26 1907
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your favor of the 19th instant enclosingletter from J H Merrill Esq in reference to issuing of bonds on a railroad partly built In Georgia and partly built in Florida came duly to hand
In my opinion you have jurisdiction and supervision over the issuing of these bonds The company being a Georgia company it is subject to all the laws affecting Georgia corporations I think you have power to regulate the entire issue of bonds which this company desires to make and under the Act
23
of August 22 1907 increasing your powers it seems to me it would be your duty to do so
I return herein the letter of Mr Merrill
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
WHEN INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS BECOME SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION
OF THIS COMMISSION
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
November 4 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen You ask my opinion on this question When does a shipment of goods in carload lots from another State into this State cease to be interstate commerce and become subject tothe rules and orders of the Commission When the goods reach their destination in this State and are delivered to the consignee or the delivering carrier for a new consideration such as a switching charge after the goods reach their destination undertakes to take them from one point at destination and place them at another place they cease to be interstate commerce and become subject to the orders and rules of the Railroad Commission of Georgia
Rhodes vs Iowa 170 U S 412
McNeill vs So Ry Co 202 U S 543
Gulf C St F Ry Co vs Texas 204 U S 403
If switching was a part of the initial contract of carriage and the switching charge was a part of the charges of transportation embraced in said contract the shipment would still be interstate commerce and would not cease to be such until delivery to the consignee but when the goods reach destination and the delivering carrier then undertakes to switch the cars for a switching charge which is additional to the charges for transportation to destination the goods cease to be subject to the protection of the interstate clause of the Constitution of the United States
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
24
REQUEST OF SHIPPER FOR INFORMATION AS TO WHERE TO BRING
SUIT
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
November 21 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia i Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 16th instant enclosing letter from Mr J C Kelly came duly to hand It seems to me that this matter ought to be determined by Mr Kellys attorney and not by you The matter of advising litigants as to what jurisdiction in which to sue does not properly fall within the duties of the Railroad Commission of Georgia As you request that I let you hear from me with full information concerning this inquiry I will give you my views
The nature of Mr Kellys claim is not stated otherwise than being designated as a penalty claim Assuming that it is a claim falling either under section 1 or 2 of the Steed Act Georgia Laws 1905 p 120 where should an action for the recovery of such claim be brought
Unless the right to sue elsewhere is specially given vby statute suits against railroad companies in this State should be brought in the counties of their principal offices
C of Ga R R Co vs State 104 Ga 835
McCall vs C of Ga Ry 120 Ga 602
Actions for injuries to person or property shall be brought in the county where the cause of action originated and suits upon contracts shall be brought in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed
Code Section 2334
Mr Kellys claim does not come within either one of these classes but l think it may fall within another provision of law
If any railroad company doing business in this State shall in violation of any rule or regulation provided by the Railroad Commission inflict any wrong or injury on any person such person shall have right of action and recover for such wrong or injury in the county where the same was done in any court having jurisdiction
Code Sec 2197 121 Ga 54
This is a remedial statute and should be construed liberally
Giving it such construction it seems to me that Glascock superior court may have jurisdiction of the claim of Mr Kelly against the railroad company
However this matter is not free from doubt and section 2197 of the Code will have to be judicially construed before all doubt is removed Suit will lie In Richmond county Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
25
AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO EXAMINE BOOKS OF OCEAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
November 21 1907
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 18th instant asking my opinion upon your power to examine the books and records of the Ocean Steamship Company and the New England and Savannah Steamship Company came duly to hand
My information is that the Ocean Steamship Company and the New England Savannah Steamship Company are engaged in interstate commerce exclusively Assuming this to be true I do not believe that you have the power to examine or require the production of the books of these companies
Under existing laws you have no supervision over common carriers engaged exclusively in interstate commerce By section 6 of the Act of August 22 1907 enlarging your powers you are authorized to examine all books contracts records and documents of any person or corporation subject to their your supervision and compel the production thereof As you have no supervision over these two companies you have no power to examine their books contracts records and documents and can not compel the production thereof
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
WHAT CONSTITUTES PERSONAE BAGGAGE
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
January 5 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have copy of your letter of the 25th ult to Mr G C Stephens with the note thereto attached asking my opinion upon the question raised by Mr Stephens in his letter to you of the 18th ult
Is a saddle baggage
That depends very much upon whether the judge Vr juror who is to decide this question is a horseman A horseback rider acting as judge or juror would
26
hold that a saddle is baggage What would be baggage for one person strange as it may seem is not baggage for another person What is sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander
It has been held that one pistol is baggage and that two pistols are not baggage It has been held that fishing tackle is baggage the judge delivering this opinion doubtless being a fisherman It has been held that cloth not manufactured into clothing but intended to be so manufactured for the use of a traveler is baggage It has been held that bicycles are not baggage It has been held that a pointer or setter dog is not baggage
Our Supreme Court has given as clear a definition of what is baggage as I have been able to find It is as follows
By baggage is understood certain articles of necessity or personal convenience as are usually carried by passengers for their personal use What articles are usually carried by passengers is a question to be left to the jury under the direction of the court upon the consideration of the condition in life of the traveler his habits vocation and tastes the length of his journey and whether he travels alone or with his family and of the usage of the time and place and of the circumstances of each cause
Dibble vs Brown 12 Ga 217
If a saddle falls within the above distinction it is baggage If it does not it is not baggage Are saddles usually carried by passengers for their personal use or convenience Not being a horseman to any great extent I am inclined to hold that a saddle is not such an article as is usually carried by a passenger for his personal use or convenience and that it is not baggage in the sense of our law
I return herein the letter of Mr Stephens
See also opinion dated May 18 1908
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
PENALTY DEMURRAGE CLAIM GROWING OUT OF AN INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT
Railboad Commission of Geobgia Office of Special Attobney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
March 11 1908
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen W E Dunn Lumber Company vs Central of Georgia Railway Co I received your letter of February 8th in reference to the claim of plaintiff for demurrage against the Central of Georgia Railway Company In order to
27
get the exact facts I have taken this matter up with the W E Dunn Lumber Company
On December 7 1907 Boland Brothers shipped by the Central of Georgia Railway Company from Dozier Alabama a carload of lumber to the W E Dunn Lumber Company Atlanta Ga The lumber was originally loaded in car Central of Georgia No 11020 and eh route it was transferred to car Central of Georgia No 3568 This car of lumber arrived in Atlanta December 19 1907 and the Dunn Lumber Company paid the freight at the same time giving the orders for the car to be delivered to the Phenix Planing Mill The Central of Georgia Railway Company placed car Central of Georgia No 3568 on the proper sidetrack for delivery to the Phenix Planing Mill
In notifying the W E Dunn Lumber Company the railroad company gave notice of the arrival of Central of Georgia car No 11020 and did not give notice of the arrival of car Central of Georgia No 3568 By reason of this mistake the Phenix Planing Mill the consignee of the W E Dunn Lumber Company did not get this carload of lumber until January 2 1908
I am of the opinion that when this car of lumber although originally an interstate shipment reached Atlanta and the consignee paid the freight giving an order for its delivery at the proper sidetrack to the Phenix Planing Mill it ceased to be an interstate shipment became an intrastate shipment and was subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission
Rule one of storage rules requires the delivering line within twentyfour hours after arrival of freight at destination to give to consignee thereof legal notice of such arrival For failure to give such legal notice of arrival the railroad company at fault shall pay to the consignee so offended the sum of one dollar a day on carload shipments for each day during which the terms of this rule are not complied with As the railway company in this case gave notice of the arrival of a different car from that in which this lumber was shipped it amounted to no notice and it seems to me that the railroad company is liable under this rule to a penalty
The failure of the railroad company to comply with this rule subjects it to a suit for penalty Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
I
8
FKEE TELEPHONE SERVICE TO MUNICIPALITIES
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Office of Special Attobney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
April 14 1908
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 30th ultimo enclosing letter from Hon J L Hand of the 27th ultimo touching the business license fee for telephone companies in the town of Pelham came duly to hand My providential absence from the city has prevented an earlier reply
General Order No 10 prohibits all free telephone service but provides that the Commission will upon application and propet showing made authorize free service for public purposes according to the facts and lawfulness of the same in each particular instance
The ordinance copied in the letter of Mr Hand imposes a business tax upon each telephone exchange doing business in the town of Pelham and owning and controlling less than two hundred miles of line of 2500 and it has this provision And also free municipal telephone service within the corporate limits including four free telephones located first in the office of the mayor second in the office of the clerk third in the office of the chairman of the Water and Light Commission fourth at the water and light plant
Taking the literal sense of this ordinance it provides for free municipal telephone service within the corporate limits of Pelham for everybody including the four phones specially named Of course this would be a violation of general order No 10
This ordinance provides an occupation tax of 2500 upon telephone companies and also requires four free phones It will hardly do to say that this service is a part of the business license fee of the telephone companies for it does not say so Besides the town of Pelham can hardly collect its business license fees in services
This ordinance expressly provides for free municipal telephone service within the corporate limits of Pelham If we accept the face value of this language such service is prohibited by general order No 10 Often however the word free is used and it does not mean without consideration It is often used when there is an exchange of services Tax ordinances are strictly construed and as the town of Pelham has no authority to collect its taxes in services except its street taxes a construction will not be put upon this ordinance which makes this telephone service a part of the business tax of the telephone company So construing this ordinance it provides for free telephone service for public purpose and must receive the approval of this Commission
I herein return you the letter of Hon J L Hand Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission

29
TRANSPORTATION OF POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN BY STREET RAILROAD IN COLUMBUS GEORGIA
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
April 15 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In re Contract between Columbus Railway Company and City of Columbus in reference to fares of policemen and firemen
The Railroad Commission of Georgia shall make such just and reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for preventing unjust discrimination in the transportation of freight and passengers on the railroads in this State
Code section 2189
All unjust discrimination in rates or charges for the transportation of passengers is forbidden
Code section 2188
The letter and spirit of our laws require impartiality by railroads in their charges for the transportation of passengers In view of this law can the Railroad Commission approve a contract which provides that a street railway company shall charge policemen and firemen of the city of Columbus less than other passengers Why should a street railway company permit policemen and firemen to ride cheaper than other classes of people It is granted that they perform important public services Policemen guard the lives and property of the citizens of our towns and cities Firemen protect the lives and property of our citizens against fire and are engaged in an exceedingly hazardous business But these considerations do not entitle them to any special privileges from street railways The teachers of the public schools perfprm public services of the highest importance to the commonwealth Why grant these special privileges to policemen and firemen and deny them to the public school teachers Municipal laborers perform valuable services to our municipalities Why should they not be allowed to ride on the street railways free or for less than other people If this right is granted to one class of public servants why should it not be granted to all classes of public servants
A railway company can not grant lower rates to prospective settlers with the view of building up the country through which it runs
Smith vs Northern Pacific R Co 1 Int C Report 611
Persons belonging to the class known as commercial travelers are not permitted to ride over railroads at lower rates than are paid by other persons Whatever reasonable rates commercial travelers are made to pay other trav
30
elers may be made to pay To charge one more than the other is unjust discrimination
Larrison vs Chicago Grand Trunk Railway Co 1 I C Reports 369
Party rates and passenger carload rates lower than contemporaneous rates for single passengers constitute discrimination between persons entitled to transportation at legal rates and are therefore illegal
In the matter of Passenger Tariffs 2 I C Reports 649 Pittsburg C St
Louis Ry Co vs B O Ry Co 3 I C C Rep 465
Granting the members of the city councils and the clerks thereof on account of their official position free transportation as passengers is unlawful
Harvey vs L N R R Co 3 I C Rep 795
The same principle will apply in granting lower rates to members of the city council than to other persons
Railroads can not make any discrimination in favor of big bugs
Granting free passes to gentlemen long eminent in public services high officers of the State prominent officials of the United States members of the legislative railroad committees and such like persons is illegal
In re Carriage of persons free or at reduced rates by Boston Main R
R Co 3 I C Rep 717
In the transportation of passengers carriers are performing a public duty under franchises granted by the State and are subject to the rules of law which require absolute impartiality to all when the circumstances and conditions are the same
Beall Wymans Railroad Rate Regulation Sec 767
In my opinion this contract between the Columbus Railway Company and the City of Columbus is in violation of the law of the land and the rule of the Commission prohibiting unjust discrimination and charges for the transportation of passengers Under our law all must be fed out of the same spoon We can not have one spoon for policemen and another for municipal laborers We can not have one spoon for firemen and another for public school teachers All must be treated alike
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
N
31
W AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO REGULATE PASSENGER TRAIN
SCHEDULES
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
April 30 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In re Authority of Railroad Commission to compel the Wadley Southern Railway Company to make connections and restore old schedules
By section 6 of the Act of August 22 1907 it is provided that the Commission is authorized to perform the duties imposed upon it of its own initiative and to require all common carriers and other publicservice companies under their supervision to establish and maintain such public services and facilities as may be reasonable and just either by general rules or by special orders in particular cases
By section 7 of the Act of August 22 1907 it is provided that the Commission shall have power and authority to order and compel the operation of sufficient and proper passenger service when in its judgment inefficient or insufficient service is being rendered the public or any community
Under these provisions the Railroad Commission of Georgia can require all common carriers to establish and maintain such public service and facilities as may be reasonable and just and it has the power and authority to order and compel the operation of sufficient and proper passenger service when in its judgment inefficient or insufficient service is being rendered the public or any community
This it can do by general rules or special orders in particular cases
This legislation is constitutional In dealing with the power of the North Carolina Corporation Commission to compel a railroad to make connections with other roads and to furnish additional trains the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent case of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company vs North Carolina Corporation Commission 206 U S 1 held that railroad companies from the public nature of the business by them carried on and the interest which the public have in their operation are subject as to their State business to State regulation which may be exerted either direct by the legislative authority or by administrative bodies endued with power to that end
In this case the court further held that it is within the power of a State railroad commission to compel a railroad company to make reasonable connections with other roads so as to promote the convenience of the traveling pulv lie and an order requiring the running of an additional train for that purpose if otherwise just and reasonable is not inherently unjust and unreasonable because the running of such train will impose some pecuniary loss on the company
If a given service or schedule was such as to amount to confiscation if it would prevent the railroad company from earning a fair return on the value
32
of its property then the order of the Railroad Commission directing such service or schedule would be in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Otherwise the Commission has the authority to prescribe schedules for and to requir sufficient and proper passenger service from the Wadley Southern Railway Company and if it should be necessary to this end can require the Company to restore the former passenger schedule
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
LIABILITY OF CARRIERS FOR SHIPMENTS REMAINING IN DEPOTS
Railboad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
May 1 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I am just in receipt of your letter of the 20th instant enclosing letter from the Gailey Drug Company of Conyers Georgia As the Railroad Commission is without jurisdiction in this matter it can not grant any relief to the Gailey Drug Company and an opinion from the Commission on the liability of the express company to the drug company would be of no practical avail
Whether the express company is liable to the Gailey Drug Company depends upon the common law governing the liability of carriers When this package arrived and the drug company was notified of this fact then the liability of the express company as a common carrier ceased and it was only liable thereafter as a warehouseman The liability of the warehouseman depends upon whether it exercised ordinary care and diligence in keeping this package If it exercised such care it is not liable If it did not exercise such care it is liable
I enclose herein letter of the Gailey Drug Co Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
33
LIABILITY OF CARRIERS FOR SHIPMENTS DESTROYED BY FIRE AT
DESTINATION
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
8pedal Attorney
May 5 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 30th ultimo enclosing letter from Mr A A Joiner assistant cashier of Messrs J S Byron Sons came duly to hand
While it does not come within the province and duties of the Commission to furnish opinions of the kind requested inasmuch as this claim will probably come into the courts and inasmuch as the Commission has no jurisdiction over it I will briefly state my opinion out of my high regard for this firm
Our Supreme Court has adopted a narrower view upon the subject of the liability of a common carrier than is held in some other jurisdictions The rule of our Supreme Court is this Where goods are shipped by rail and arrive at destination within the usual time required for transportation and are then deposited by the railroad company in a place of safety and held ready to be delivered to the consignee on demand the companys liability as a common carrier in the absence of a contrary custom of trade as to delivery ceases and its liability as a warehouseman begins
See Allman vs Ga R R Bkg Co 95 Ga 775
Georgia Alabama Ry vs Pound 111 Ga 6
Under this rule of the Supreme Court when this car of cottonseed reached Byron and was put on the sidetrack ready to be delivered to the consignee on demand the liability of the railroad company as a carrier ceased In some other jurisdictions the rule is this A carriers liability does not end upon the arrival of the goods at their destination but continues until they have been accepted by or tendered to the consignee or have been placed in the usual and convenient place for delivery and the consignee has had reasonable time to remove them
See 7 Current Law p 539
Bowden vs A C L R Co A L A 41 So 294
Southern R R Company vs German National Bank 2 S W Ark 522
So far as I am advised our Supreme Court has never7 considered the question of whether a consignee should not have a reasonable time in which to remove goods after their arrival at destination before the liability of the carrier ceases Upon proper presentation our Supreme Court might enlarge the rule as above given and adopt the more liberal rule last stated
If the Supreme Court adheres to the rule above stated then the liability of the railroad company for this car ceased when it arrived at destination and
34
v
was placed on the sidetrack in a place of safety and held ready to be delivered to the consignee on demand Should the Supreme Court adopt the more liberal rule above stated then the question would turn upon whether the consignees had a reasonable time in which to remove these seed after the car was placed upon the sidetrack for that purpose
If the railroad company is not liable as a common carrier then the question would arise whether It was liable as a warehouseman That depends upon whether the railroad company exercised ordinary care and diligence in taking care of this carload of seed If the railroad company exercised ordinary care and diligence in protecting this carload of seed then it would not be liable as a warehouseman As the facts touching the origin of the fire are not given I can not give my opinion upon this subject If the railroad company was in no way responsible for the origin of the fire and exercised ordinary care and diligence in taking care of and protecting the carload of seed from this fire then it would not be liable Otherwise it would be liable Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO REQUIRE PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN TELEPHONE LINES
Railboad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
Railroad Commission of Georgia Atlanta Ga
May 7 1908
Gentlemen Your letter of the 16th ultimo enclosing a letter from the Moultrie Telephone Company and of the 9th ultimo came duly to hand
This letter raises this question Has the Railroad Commission of Georgia the power and authority to compel telephone companies to make physical connections and to interchange messages This is a big question
The Act of August 22 1907 enlarging the powers of the Railroad Commission of Georgia is entitled an Act to increase the membership of the Railroad Commission of Georgia to extend its powers and jurisdiction over telephone or telegraph companies or corporations or persons owning leasing or operating any public telephone service in this State
By section 6 of this Act it is provided that the Railroad Commission of Georgia shall have and exercise all the power and authority heretofore conferred upon it by law and shall have a general supervision of all common carriers telephone and telegraph corporations or companies within this State
It seems to have been the purpose of the Legislature to confer upon the Railroad Commission of Georgia the same power and authority over telephone com
panies which had been previously conferred upon it by law over railroad companies This is the general purpose and scheme of the Candler Act
Prior to the passage of the Candler Act there was no power conferred upon the Railroad Commission to compel the physical connection of railroads This could be done under section 2213 of the Code but no authority is thereby conferred upon the Railroad Commission to compel such connections Ry section 7 of the Candler Act the Railroad Commission has power and authority when in its judgment practicable and to the interest of the public to order and compel the making and operation of physical connection between the lines of railroad crossing or intersecting each other As the Legislature has conferred this power upon the Railroad Commission as to railroads only and has not given the Railroad Commission the same power over other public utility companies it would seem that the Legislature did not intend to confer upon the Railroad Commission the power to make physical connections between the lines of other companies such as telephones and telegraph companies So it is doubtful whether the Railroad Commission has the power to compel the physical connection of telephone and telegraph companies
By section 6 of the Candler Act the Railroad Commission has general supervision of telephone companies and is authorized to require all public service companies under their supervision to establish and maintain such service and facilities as may be reasonable and just either by general rules or by speciaL orders in particular cases This power is very broad It authorizes the Commission to require all common carriers and other publicservice companies under its supervision to establish and maintain such public service and facilities as may be reasonable and just If the lines of two telephone companies had the same terminus or connection and the public service required that they should interchange business under this broad power the Railroad Commission has power to require such service if it be reasonable and just If the public service demands the interchange of business between two connecting telephone companies and if such service was reasonable and just then the Commission is authorized to require the establishment and maintenance of such public service Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
se
STOCK AND BOND ISSUES BY LUMBER COMPANIES OWNING
RAILROADS
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
May 9 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 13th ultimo relating to the issuing of securities by the Perkins Lumber Company and enclosing your file on this subject including a letter from Judge J R Lamar and the petition of this company
I do not think that the CandlerOverstreet Act embraces the issuance of stocks and bonds by the Perkins Lumber Company The original Act creating the Railroad Commission refers to railroad corporations organized and doing business in this State under any Act of incorporation or general ActR of this State or under the laws of any other State doing business in this State Under this original Act the Coifimissioners were authorized to make reasonable and just rates of freight and passenger tariff to be observed by all railroad companies doing business in this State on th railroads thereof Throughout the original Act the jurisdiction of the Commission was confined to railroad corporations or companies
The CandlerOverstreet Act extended the authority of the Railroad Commission over certain other companies corporations and persons but lumber companies are not embraced in any of the classes over which this extended authority of the Railroad Commission is given
So I reach the conclusion that under the case of Ellington vs Beaver Dam Lumber Company 93 Georgia 53 which was cited by Judge Lamar this Commission has no jurisdiction over the issuing of securities by the Perkins Lumber Company
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
37
WHAT CONSTITUTES PERSONAL BAGGAGE
Raileoad Commission of Geoegia
Office of Special Attobney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
May 18 1908
p attToah Commission of Geoegia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen You wish my opinion on this question to wit Is an empty trunk baggage
This question arises upon a complaint to you that some of the railroads are refusing to check empty trunks
In a former opinion dealing with the question whether a saddle was baggage
I gave a general definition of baggage This general rule is that all articles which are usually carried by travelers for their personal use and comfort and suitable to their situation in life are baggage
What is baggage is often a mixed question of law and fact It is affected by the sex of the passenger What is baggage for a man is often not baggage for a woman and what is baggage for a woman is frequently not baggagefor a man For instance a razor can well form a part of the baggage of a man but it would be hard for a spinster to account for the possession of a razor as baggage A wig can well constitute a part of the baggage of a bachelor but it would be difficult for him to justify the carriage of a rat as a piece of his baggage and yet every maiden may take a rat as a part of her baggage
At most a trunk is only a receptacle for baggage Generally it must contain baggage to pass muster as baggage Ordinarily an empty trunk is not baggage for the reason that travelers do not usually carry empty trunks for their personal convenience and comfort
Yet under some circumstances an empty trunk may be baggage If carried for the personal use and convenience of the traveler and not for the purpose of trade and not as freight it would be baggage For instance a traveler might be at Boston and his duds at a laundry in Troy and the traveler might wish to take his trunk from Boston to Troy to get his clothing at the latter place to be used in a journey In such a case the empty trunk might be deemed baggage To answer your question definitely we would have to have the facts of each particular case Without such facts I can give the general rule Which is if an empty trunk is carried for the personal use and comfort of the traveler and becomes his station in life it would be baggage If it was carried for trade or other purpose than the personal use and convenience of the passenger it would not be baggage
See also opinion dated January 5 1908
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
38
RIGHT OF CARRIERS TO REQUIRE MARKING AND PACKING OF SHIPMENTS
Railroad Commission of Geoegia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
June 6 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 26th ultimo enclosing letter of Messrs Talmadge Brothers Company of the 25th ultimo in which you inquire whether or not it is the legal right of railway companies to demand that all shipments and each article composing a shipment where the same are not strapped or wired together be legibly marked
Under our law the common carrier is bound to receive all goods that he is able and accustomed to carry upon the compliance with such reasonable regulations as he may adopt for his own safety and the benefit of the public
Code section 2278 So Ry Co vs Watson 110 Ga 688
As the carrier has the right under our law to make such reasonable regulations as he may adopt for his own safety and the benefit of the public and as he may require compliance with such reasonable regulations before he receives goods for shipments the only question presented is whether a regulation requiring that goods shipped shall be legibly marked is a reasonable regulation for the safety of the carrier and the benefit of the public It seems to me that such a regulation is reasonable It protects the carrier and is for his own safety and it will benefit the public in preventing the loss mingling w miscarriage of goods
In cases like the shipment of meal and flour in less than carload lots this may impose additional expense upon shippers but in such cases if the regulation is just and reasonable shippers will have to comply with them If it is reasonable to require the package marked with the name of the consignee the name of the station town or city and the name of the State to which goods are shipped then the railway companies have a right to make such a regulation It is probably within the jurisdiction of the Commission to revise such a regulation if the same can be done for the mutual benefit of the carrier and the public
I return you herewith the file in this matter Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
CLAIMS FOR LOST SHIPMENTS
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
June 6 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 30th ultimo enclosing letter of Mr
J L Singer of the 21st ultimo I answer the questions of Mr Singer as follows
1 If a common carrier fails to deliver goods according to contract and they are lost he is liable for the value of the goods at the place of destination at which he engaged to deliver them deducting freight
Cooper vs Young 22 Ga 271
Taylor Co vs Collier 26 Ga 122
2 I think that the railroad company can reasonably require the original Invoice to be attached to the claim for damages for loss of goods While it would not furnish a measure of damages it would throw light upon the destination value of the goods lost
3 Where a judgment is obtained against the receivers of a railroad company
it can not be forced in the usual way but application would have to be made to the court appointing the receivers for an order to the receivers to pay the judgment f
I herein return the letter of Mr Singer Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
APPLICATION OF STORAGE RULES TO INTERSTATE EXPRESS SHIPMENTS
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
June 8 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 26th ultimo enclosing letter of Mr
B H Pope of the 25th ultimo in which you wish my opinion as to the right of the Commission to apply its storage rules to the shipment of goods from without the limits of this State to a point within this State by express
A shipment of goods never ceases to be a transaction of interstate commerce from its inception in one State until the delivery of goods at their prescribed
destination in the other This seems to be the rule as promulgated by the latest decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States A typical case on that point is that of McNeal vs Southern Railway Company 202 U S 543
My opinion is that your storage rules do not apply to such a shipment Your rules apply to intrastate shipments alone A shipment from another State into this State does not cease to be an interstate shipment until delivery
I enclose you herein the file in this matter Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
RIGHT OF CONSIGNEES TO REFUSE MISROUTED SHIPMENTS
Railroad Commission of Geobgia Office of Spcial Attobney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Spcial Attorney
June 19 1908
Railboad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have the letter of your chairman of this date enclosing copy of telegram from Mr J W Dillon in which he wishes to know if he has the right to refuse a shipment which reaches his place over an unauthorized route
When a carrier accepts goods to be carried with the direction on the part of the owner to carry them by a particular route he is bound to obey such direction and if he attempts to perform his contract in a manner different from that directed he becomes an insurer of the goods shipped
Second Matthews Dickinsons Hutchinsons Carriers Sec 612
If a common carrier deviates from the regular route and the goods are lost it is conversion
Phillips vs Brigham Kelly Co 26 Ga 617
Georgia Railroad vs Cole 68 Ga 623
If notwithstanding an unauthorized deviation from route the goods arrive on time at destination the consignee can not on account of such unauthorized deviation refuse to receive them and claim a conversion by the first carrier In such a case the consignee can recover from the carrier such damages as are the approximate result of the deviation Thus where in consequence of a deviation the consignee fails to receive prompt notice of the arrival of the goods their market value having in the meantime diminished it is held that he is entitled to recover from the carrier for such depreciation in value
Second Matthews Dickinsons Hutchinsons Carriers Sec 621
If goods be delayed by such deviation and damage results the first road is responsible therefor
Georgia Railroad vs Cole 68 Ga 623
My opinion is that Mr Dillon would not be authorized to refuse to receive these goods because of deviation of carriage from instructions but would be
41
entitled to recover any damage sustained by him by reason of such violation of shipping instructions In any event he would be entitled to recover nominal damages for a breach of contract of carriage although he could not show any such damage Yours very truly
James K Hikes
Attorney for Railroad Commission
CLOSING TICKET OFFICES BEFORE ARRIVAL OF TRAINS

Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Office of Special Attobney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
July 13 1908
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 2nd instant enclosing copy of letter from My John D Pope in which he wishes to know what is the legal course for a ticket agent to pursue when a passenger asks for a ticket after the arrival of a train at a way station canie duly to hand
It is the duty of railroad companies to keep their ticket offices open for the sale of tickets for a reasonable time before the departure of trains from all stations and it is the duty of passengers to use proper diligence to supply themselves with tickets before getting upon trains
Central R R Banking Co vs Strickland 90 Georgia 562
Under a former rule of this Commission it was provided that offices at way stations might be closed one minute before the arrival of trains and this rule was approved by our Supreme Court Railroad companies have a right to make a reasonable rule upon this subject and in my opinion a rule providing that passengers shall purchase their tickets before the arrival of trains would be reasonable at way stations where agents have other duties to perform In order to prevent friction between the public and railroad companies it would be well I think for the Commission to promulgate a rule providing that passengers shall purchase their tickets before the arrival of trains at way stations Such a rule would be just and reasonable both towards the railroad companies and the traveling public Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION OVER COTTON COMPRESS COMPANIES
Railboad Commission of Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
July 18 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In response to your request for my opinion upon the question What are your jurisdiction and powers over cotton compress companies I submit what follows as my opinion on that subject
This involves the construction of so much of the Act of August 22nd 1907 which enlarged the jurisdiction and powers of the Railroad Commission as is applicable to this particular subject The title of this Act is An Act to increase the membership of the Railroad Commission of Georgia to extend its powers and jurisdidetion over docks and wharves terminal companies cotton compress companies corporations or persons owning leasing or operating railway terminals or terminal stations over telephone or telegraphic companies or corporations or persons owning leasing or operating any public telephone service in this State and over street railroads and street railroad corporations companies or persons owning leasing or operating street railoads in this State over gas and electric light and power companies corporations or persons owning leasing or operating public gas plants electric light and power plants furnishing power to the public etc
Section 5 of this Act provides that the powers and duties heretofore conferred by law upon the Railroad Commission are hereby extended and enlarged so that its authority and control shall extend to street railroads and street railroad corporations companies or persons owning leasing or operating street railroads in this State over docks and wharves and corporations companies or persons owning leasing or operating the same over terminals or terminal stations and corporations companies or persons owning leasing or operating such cotton compress corporations or associations and persons or companies owning leasing or operating the same etc
Clearly by this Act the powers and duties which before its passage had been conferred by law upon the Railroad Commission were extended to cotton compress corporations and to all persons owning leasing or operating cotton compresses
Now what were the powers and duties which had been conferred by law upon the Railroad Commission prior to August 22nd 1907
1 The Commissioners were required to make reasonable and just freight and passenger rates to be observed by all railroad companies doing business in this State
2 They were required to make reasonable and just rules and regulations to be observed by all railroad companies doing business in this State as to charges at any and all points for the necessary handling and delivery of freight
43
3 They were required to make such just and reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for preventing unjust discriminations in the transportation of freight and passengers on the railroads of this State
4 They were required to make for each of the railroad corporations doing business in this State as soon as practicable a schedule of just and reasonable rates of charges for transportation of passengers freights and cars on each of said railroads
These duties and powers were embraced in the original act creating the Railroad Commission They were of force on August 22nd 1907 and are found in the
Civil Code Secs 2189 and 2190
This Commision has the power and it is its duty to make reasonable and just rates to be observed by all cotton compress companies doing business in this State for compressing cotton to make reasonable and just rules and regulations to be observed by all cotton compress companies doing business in this State as to charges for the receiving handling and delivery of cotton to make such just and reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for preventing unjust discriminations in the compressing handling and transportation of cotton and to make for each cotton compress doing business in this State as soon as practicable a schedule of just and reasonable rates of charges for compressing and handling cotton
If the Railroad Commission has not got these powers over cotton compress companies and persons owning leasing or operating cotton compresses then it is difficult to perceive that the Commission has any jurisdiction and supervision over cotton compress companies If the Commission cant prescribe rates for and prevent unjust discriminiations by cotton compress companies what has it to do with these companies If the Commission has not this right what has it it to do with these companies If the Commission has not this jurisdiction over cotton compresses it has no supervisin over them at all
In addition to these general powers the Commission has some incidental powers over cotton compress companies such as the right to inspect their books to see that the rules and regulations of the Commission are observed by these companies but I do not undertake to enumerate these incidental powers This opinion refers alone to the general and fundamental powers of the Commission over companies and persons owning leasing or operating cotton compresses
Yours truly

James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
44
TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES
Railboad Commission of Geobgia Office of Special Attobney to Commission
James K Hines
Special Attorney
Atlanta
August 14 1908
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 11th instant enclosing letter of King Hardware Company in which this company claims that the Atlantic Coast Line Railway Company refuses to carry for it loaded shells as freight The railroad company refuses this class of freight on the ground that it only runs mixed passenger and freight trains to the points to which the King Hardware Company wishes to ship these shells and that on its mixed passenger and freight trains explosives can not be hauled
By the common law a carrier is not bound to receive dangerous articles for transportation
Fish vs Chapman 2nd Ga 349 Johnson vs Middling R R Company 4 Exch 367 6 Cyc 367 Cal Powder Works vs R R Company 113 Cal 329 Tumell vs Pettijohn 2 Harr Del 48
So if the common law prevails in this State and if loaded shells are dangerous in their transportation then this company would be justified in refusing to transport them If they were not dangerous as contended for by the King Hardware Company then this company would be compelled to carry them
But is this the law now of force in this State This raises a very important question The Commission is vested by the Steed Act with full power and authority to make prescribe and enforce all such reasonable rules regulations and orders as may be necessary in order to compel and require the several railroad companies in this State to promptly receive receipt for forward and deliver to destination all freight of every character which may be tendered them for transportation
Ga Laws 1905 p 120
Language can not be broader The Commission is clothed with full power and authority to make and enforce all such reasonable rules regulations and orders as may be necessary in order to compel and require railroad companies in this State to promptly receive all freight of every character which may be tendered them for transportation All freights of every character includes all goods which may be tendered the railroad companies for transportation It seems to have been the purpose of the Legislature by this Act to change the rule of the Common Law and to clothe the Commission with power and authority to make the railroads of this State receive all freight tendered them for transportation
45
In pursuance of this Act the Commission adopted Storage Rule 10 which provides that whenever freight of any character proper for transportation whether in car load quantities or less is tendered to a railroad company at its customary place for receiving shipments and correct shipping instructions given such railroad company shall immediately receive the same and issue bills of lading therefor
Does the phrase proper for transportation in this rule exclude such freight as is dangerous to transport or does it mean that freight tendered for transportation must be properly packed and in proper shape for transportation In view of the Act upon which this rule is based which Act requires the Commission to compel the railroads to carry all freight of every character it should not be construed to exempt from its operation certain classes of freight but should be construed to require the transportation of all goods properly packed for shipment
This matter is not entirely free from doubt The King Hardware Company can test this matter by bringing a mandamus against this company to compel it to carry these loaded shells or could sue for any damage which it may have sustained by the refusal of the Company to transport this freight
The Commission can amend Storage Rule 10 so as to remove any doubt on this subject Besides the Commission can if it thinks this company has violated this rule refer the matter to the Governor for direction whether suit shall be brought under the Candler Act to enforce the penalty against this Company for disobeying this rule
I return to you herein the letter of The King Hardware Co
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
TRACK SCALES
Railboad Commission oe Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
August 14 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia i Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 11th instant enclosing letter of Mr
H G Shaw Madison Ga in which Mr Shaw asks you to take up the matter of having the railroads at Madison Ga put in adequate weighing facilities You ask my opinion as to what answer you shall make to Mr Shaws inquiry You are authorized by Section 6 of the Candler bill to require all common carriers to establish and maintain such public service and facilities as may be reasonable and just either by general rules or by special orders in particular
I
46
n
cases If the public service requires weighing facilities at Madison and you find it reasonable and just to provide such facilities then you have the power and authority to pass an order requiring the railroads to put in these weighing facilities
I suggest that you hear this application of Mr Shaw after due notice to all parties interested and determine whether his request is reasonable and just or not
I return herein the letter of Mr Shaw Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
MAXIMUM RATES FIXED BY COMMISSION
Railroad Commission op Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
August 17 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I am just in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant enclosing letters from Mr G E Smith Traffic Manager of the Georgia Northern Railway Company of the 6th instant letter from Mr H C McFadden President of the Fitzgerald Ocilla Broxton Railway Company of the 4th instant and letter from Mr J S B Thompson Assistant to the President of the Southern Railway Company of the 7th instant all referring to Circular No 340
Mr Smith wishes to know the reason which prompted the Commission for increasing the rate on compressed cotton from 7 cents per hundred pounds to 8 cents per hundred pounds I am unable to give him any information on this subject and the Commission can furnish if they see fit their reason for this increase
The other two letters wish to know whether the rates for compressing cotton are maximum rates General rule No 3 of the Rules of the Commission provides that all rates fixed by the Commission are maximum rates and that any company may charge less than the prescribed maximum rate under certain conditions therein provided
These conditions are tljat companies subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission shall charge all persons such lesser rate for like services and that a reduction at any agency or station must be followed by a reduction of the same percentage at all other stations on its line
Whether the Commission can make a fixed rate below which public service companies can not charge is a question which I am now considering and will furnish the Commission an opinion thereon at an early date I do not go into this matter at present because your letter does not ask for such opinion
Yours truly James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
47
FREE TRANSPORTATION TO WITNESSES IN CASES AGAINST RAILROADS
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
August 19 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 18th instant enclosing letter of Minier Wimberly Esq General Counsel of the M D S R R Company in which he wishes to know whether it is against the rule of the Railroad Commission to furnish transportation for witnesses in cases against other railroads to be used only to go to and return from the Court
Under the Hepburn Act a common carrier can give free transportation to witnesses attending any legal investigation in which the common carrier is interested Under this provision of the Hepburn Act which has been adopted by this Commission carriers can not grant free transportation to witnesses for other roads in legal investigations in which such carriers are not interested
I return herein letter of Mr Wimberly
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
FREE TRANSPORTATION TO FAMILIES OF EMPLOYES OF OTHER LINES
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
August 31 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 24th instant enclosing letter of J H Merrill Esq in which he wishes to know what persons in the service of common carriers are entitled to free transportation for their families
The Hepburn Act provides that no common carrier subject to its provisions shall give any free pass except to its employes and their families its officers agents surgeons physicians and attorney at law If this provision stood alone it would be manifest that only employes in the strict sense of that term would be entitled to free transportation for their families and that the officers agents surgeons physicians and attorneys at law would not be entitled to free transportation for their families
But in this Act there is this provision Provided That this provision shall
not be construed to prohibit the interchange of passes for the officers agents and employes of common carriers and their families
All parts of a statute must be construed together and effect be given to all its provisions if this can be done by any reasonable construction of its terms The intention of the lawmaking power must be diligently sought after If we stick to the letter of the first provision above quoted we would have Congress authorizing common carriers to give to the families of the officers agents and employes of other common carriers free passes when such corporations would be prohibited from giving free passes to the families of its own officers agents and employes This construction would be absurd
Construing both provisions together it is my opinion that common carriers can give free passes to the following families towit
1 To the families of its officers
2 To the families of its agents
3 To the families of its employes
4 Common carriers can interchange passes for the families of the officers agents and employes of other common carriers
Common carriers can not grant free passes to the families of their local surgeons physicians and attorneys at law The act seems to limit free passes to the families of their officers agents and employes
As this statute is remdiai and intended to wipe out the abuses of free transportation its provisions can not be extended by implication or construction
I return you herein the letter of Mr Merrill
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF OVERCHARGE
CLAIMS
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 20 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In Rer Claim of L H Warlick
I have your letter of the 17th instant enclosing proposed order in the above matter in which you ask my opinion on your authority to pass orders requiring railroads to pay overcharges to shippers
I do not think you have power to pass such orders In my opinion a railroad company would not subject itself to the penalty provided by law for disobedience of such an order of the Commission because you are without power to hear a claim for an overcharge and render a judgment for or against the claimant
In all cases where any railroad shall demand and receive for goods shipped
from within or without this State to any point in this State any overcharge or excess of freight over and beyond the proper or contract rate of freight and a demand in writing for the return or repayment of such overcharge is made by the person paying the same said railroad shall refund said overcharge within thirty days from said demand and if said common carrier shall fail or refuse to settle within thirty days or within said time to refund said overcharge or overpayment then said railroad shall be liable to said person making the overpayment in an amount double the amount of the overpayment to be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of the same
Code Sec 2316 Steward vs Comer 100 Ga 754
By the seventh section of the CandlerDverstreet Act you have authority to fix penalties for neglect on the part of railroad companies to adjust overcharges and losses or failure to decline to do so if deemed unjust in a reasonable time
Ga Laws 1907 p 72
Under this law you can fix penalties for the neglect on the part of the railroad companies to adjust overcharges and losses in a reasonable time When you fix such penalties your power and authority are exhausted
If Section 2316 of the Code is not repealed by the CandlerOverstreet Act then the person paying the overcharge can recover double the amount of such overcharge in any Court having jurisdiction If that section is repealed by said act then the person paying such overcharge can recover such penalty as you may fix either under section 9 of the CandlerOverstreet Act or under the general law
I do not think the Commission would be authorized to pass orders directing the payment of overcharges in particular cases unless expressly authorized by law While there are some general expressions in theCandlerOverstreet Act which would seem to make railroads liable for omitting to do any act matter or thing required to be done by an order of the Commission as is shown by the ninth section of this act such general expressions must be construed to mean that the railroads would only be liable for disobeying an order of the Commission for which provisin was made by law
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
50
POWER OF COMMISSION IN REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION OF SIDETRACKS
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 201908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 17th instant in which you wish to know if you have the power to require the location of sidetracks at points like the one near Andersonville on the Central of Georgia Railway Company where you have an application asking that this company be required to locate a sidetrack
The seventh section of the CandlerOverstreet Act provides Said Commission shall have authority to prescribe rules in reference to spur tracks and sidetracks with reference to their use and construction removal or change with full power to compel service to be furnished to manufacturing plants warehouses and similar places of business along the lines of railroads where practicable and in the judgment of the Commission the business is sufficient to justify and on such terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe In my opinion your power in this respect is not confined to prescribing rules with reference to spur tracks and sidetracks to manufacturing plants warehouses and similar places of business along the lines of railroads but clothes you with power to prescribe rules with reference to spur tracks and sidetracks with reference to their use and construction removal or change at points like the one involved in the application for the construction of the sidetrack near Andersonville The expression in this section towit With full power to compel service to be furnished to manufacturing plants warehouses and similar places of business along the lines of railroads does not refer to the power and authority to prescribe rules and regulations for the use and construction removal or change of spur tracks or sidetracks but clothes you with the additional power to require the railroads to furnish service to manufacturing plants warehouses and similar places of business along the lines of railroad in addition to your power and authority to have spur tracks and sidetracks built to such places In other words in addition to giving you authority t6 prescribe rules for the construction of spur tracks and sidetracks to such plants this section gives you the authority to compel the railroads to furnish service on said sidetracks and spur tracks to such plants
Under this section you have authority to prescribe rules for the use and construction removal or change of spur tracks and sidetracks generally
Under this authority you can prescribe rules for the construction of these tracks to manufacturing plants warehouses and similar places of business along the lines of railroads1 But as sidetracks to these plants would be worthless
51
without the proper service thereon to these plants the Legislature gave you power to compel the service on these tracks to these plants
Under this section you can prescribe rules for the construction of sidetracks at such points as that near Andersonville In addition you can prescribe such rules for the use and construction of spur tracks to manufacturing plants warehouses and similar places of business along the lines of railroads Then you can prescribe rules compelling the railroads to furnish service on these spur tracks built to such plants Under this section you can only require the construction and compel the service on these spur tracks and sidetracks where in your judgment the business is sufficient to justify their construction and use and then you can prescribe the terms and conditions on which the railroads are required to build these tracks and furnish the necessary service thereon
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO REGULATE NUMBER OF TRAIN CREW ON PASSENGER TRAINS
RattroAn Commission oe Geobgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 24 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga n
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 23rd instant enclosing letter from Ben T Brock Esq in which he inquires whether you have authority to consider and act upon a petition to require railroad companies in this State to put on extra brakemen or trainmen upon trains of unusual length where it is shown to be for the safety of employes and to the best interest of the Company In my opinion you have such authority but it should be exercised with great care and caution There is a very indistinct line between the supervision which you can exercise over railroads and the powers of the General Managers of railroads This line you can not cross It is a dead line beyond which you can not go
By Section ix of the CandlerOverstreet Act you have general supervision over railroads By the same section you are authorized upon your own initiative to require all common carriers to establish and maintain such public service and facilities as may be reasonable and just By the same section you are given authority to examine into the affairs of said companies and corporations and to keep informed as to their general condition their capitalization their franchises and the manner in which their lines are managed conducted and operated not only with respect to the adequacy security and accommodation afforded by their service to the public and their employes but also with refer
62
ence to their compliance with all provisions of law orders of the Commission and charter requirements By this last provision you are clothed by implication with the power to look after the security afforded by railorads to the public and their employes So if it should plainly appear to the Commission that additional brakemen or trainmen on given trains were necessary to the security of the employes in my opinion you would have authority under this act to require such additional service As above stated Ithink that this power should be very carefully exercised by the Commission It ought to be a plain case where you undertake to act in this matter
Yours truly
v James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO REQUIRE RAILROADS TO ALLOW TELEGRAPH COMPANIES THE USE OF ITS PROPERTY
Railroad Commission of Geobgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
October 26 1908
Railroad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In re Telegraph service at Martin Ga
Your letter of the 12th instant enclosing your file in the above matter came duly to hand I have carefully considered the order passed by you in this matter on May 22nd 1908 I do not believe that this order is valid
You required theSouthern Railway to allow the Western Union Telegraph Company to connect its wires with the office of the railroad agent at Martin In other words you required the railroad company to permit the Western Union Telegraph Company to use its property in the conduct of the latters business In my opinion this is taking the property of the railway company for public use without compensation and violates paragraph three of section one of article one of the Constitution of this State which declares that No person shall be deprived of life liberty or property except by due process of law
It likewise violates Par 1 of Sec 3 of Article one of the Constitution of this State which provides that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid So I am of the opinion that this order is void so far as the Southern Railway Company is concerned This order Is only conditional as to the Western Union Telegraph Company This Company is only required to establish and maintain a telegraph agency at Martin Georgia Upon the conditions named in this order One of these conditions is that the Southern Railway permit the Western Union Telegraph Company to connect its wires with the office of the railroad agent at Martin Another condition is that the railroad agent at Martin Ga
53
or some other competent telegraph operator shall accept the telegraph agency at that point upon the usual commission basis As the Southern Railway declines to permit the telegraph company to use its office and property at Martin in the way indicated in this order your order does not require the telegraph company to establish such agency
So it is not binding upon the telegraph company
By section 6 of the CandlerOverstreet Act the powers and duties conferred by law upon the Railroad Commission are extended and enlarged so that its authority and control shall extend to telegraph companies By section six of this Act you have and can exercise all the power and authority before its passage conferred upon the Commission by law and you have general supervision of telegraph companies By the same section you have the power and authority to require telegraph companies to establish and maintain such public service and facilities as may be reasonable and just either by general rules or by special orders in particular cases So under the authority of this act you have full power and authority to require the Western Union Telegraph Company to establish and maintain a telegraph office if the same is reasonable and just at Martin Ga but your order in this case is not absolute in its terms and is conditional If you find that the establishment and maintenance of a telegraph office at Martin is reasonable and just then you can pass an order requiring the telegraph company to establish and maintain a telegraph office at this place and such an order can be enforced under our law Such an order will have to be absolute and unconditional or based upon such conditions as the telegraph company can control
Yours truly
James Ki Hikes
Attorney for Railroad Commission
JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION OVER THE PULLMAN COMPANY AND SLEEPING CAR COMPANIES
Railboad Commissiok of Geobgia
Office of Special Attobkey to Commissiok
Atlakta
James K Hikes
Special Attorney
November 4 1908
Railroad Commissiok of Geobgia
Atlakta Ga I
Gektlemek I have your letter of the 30th ult in which you wish my opinion upon the question whether you have jurisdiction over the sleeping car rates of the Pullman Company and whether that Company is a common carrier or not
I find no statute Of this State placing sleeping car companies under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission The CandlerOverstreet Act extends the power and jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission to a large number of corporations but fails to name sleeping car companies By section six of this Act
54
the Railroad Commission of Georgia is given general supervision of all common carriers So the question arises is the Pullman Palace Car Company a common carrier This question first came before the Supreme Court of Georgia in the case of Pullman Palace Car Company vs Martin 95 Ga 314 and the Court in that case did not determine whether this Company was a common carrier or not In that case Justice Atkinson says According to the view we take of the questions made in this case it is unnecessary for us to determine whether in Georgia a sleeping car company should be held to the same degree of diligence as is imposed on an innkeeper nor whether it shall be adjudged to be a common carrier
The same question came up in Cates vs Pullman Palace Car Co 95 Ga 810 and Judge Lumpkin in that case says We shall not undertake in the present case to state definitely the precise relation existing between the sleeping car company and its patrons This question next came before the Supreme Court in the case of the Pullman Palace Car Company vs Harvey 101 Georgia 738 and in that case Chief Justice Simmons says The law as to the liability of sleeping car companies is not well settled Courts in different States have laid down different rules as to their inability Judges in the Federal Courts likewise differ
This question next came before the Supreme Court in Pullman Palace Car Company vs Hall 106 Ga 765 and on page 771 Justice Little who delivered the opinion of the majority of the Court says While there are decisions of a number of courts which have held sleepingcar companies liable to a passenger for the loss of his baggage as a common carrier and others which apply the law of liability as that of innkeepers the weight of authority as we understand it is that such companies are not liable as innkeepers nor as carriers for personal effects taken with the passenger into the car and of which he retains possession In this case the Court seems to hold that a sleeping car company is not a common carrier This question next came before the Supreme Court Pullman Company vs Sehaffner 126 Ga 612
It again came up in Pullman Company vs Green 126 Ga 142 and Justice Cobb in delivering the opinion says It is the duty of a sleeping car company to exercise reasonable care to guard the personal property of the passenger from theft and if for the want of such care his personal effects or some of them are stolen the company would be liable for such stolen values as a passenger might reasonably be expected to carry with him on his journey This is the rule of liability as settled by the decision of this Court and has been declared to be in accord with the weight of authority elsewhere
In support of this rule of liability Justice Cobb cites the cases hereinbefore mentioned
So it seems to me that the Supreme Court of Georgia has settled and determined that a sleeping car company is not a common carrier If it is not a common carrier it then does not come within the provisions of the CandlerOverstreet Act
Now does a sleeping car company come withAi the provisions of Civil Code Sec 2199 which defines the meaning of a railroad company To fall within
55
this section the company must own or operate a railroad or some part of one in this State or must do business as a common carrier upon some of the lines of railroad in this State
Now evidently tljis is causus omissus and that the framers of the CandlerOverstreet Act overlooked sleeping car companies but this omission does not authorize the Railroad Commission of Georgia to take supervision over these
companies
In my opinion you do have supervision and control of sleeping car rates m
those cases where a railroad owns and operates sleeping cars for the carriage
and convenience of its passengers
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
RIGHT OF RAILROAD COMPANIES TO CONDEMN LAND FOR SIDE TRACK
PURPOSES
Railroad Commission oe Georgia
Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
December 17 1908
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen In reply to your letter asking my opinion upon the question whether a railroad company has the right to condemn land for the purpose of building sidetracks I write to say that I think they have such power This power of course will depend somewhat upon the charter of the given railroad
Certainly all railroads chartered under the general law of this State providing for the grant of charters to railroad companies would have this right By this general law they are given the right to acquire purchase hold and use all such real estate and other property as may be necessary for the construction and maintenance of said roads and the stations wharves and terminal facilities and all other accommodations necessary to accomplish the object of said corporation and to condemn lease and buy any land necessary for its use
Code Sec 2167 Par 3
This power to condemn private property conferred by this general law is not exhausted by its first exercise but is coextensive with the necessities for which it was granted
Gardner vs Georgia Railroad Banking Co 117 Georgia 523
This last case qualifies the ruling made in the Alabama Great Southern Railroad vs Gilbert 71 Ga 591 in which the Court made the following ruling towit What a corporation first condemns buys or takes as necessary for its
franchises it will be bound by as its election and the charter rights will be thereby exhausted so far as the then existing charter vests it with power
In the case of the 117 Georgia this ruling is explained qualified and limited The true law upon this subject in my opinion is this A single exercise of the power of condemnation does not exhaust it if the future exercise of the power becomes necessary to accomplish the object for which the corporation was chartered Thus the power to condemn private property conferred by the charter of a railway company is not exhausted by its first exercise but is co extensive with the necessities to meet which it was granted
15 Cyc 576
It would be a disastrous rule indeed to hold that a railroad company must in the first instance acquire all the ground it will ever need for its own convenience or the public accommodation
Chicago etc R R Co vs Wilson 17 111 123127
The power of the railroad company to make necessary sidetracks means to make them when they become necessary otherwise it would be the power to make unnecessary side tracks Such a power may be exercised when necessary and hence is not exhausted by one exercise
St Louis etc Ry vs Petty 57 Ark 359369 20 L R A 434

So in my opinion a railroad company has the power to condemn property for sidetracks whenever the same becomes necessary for the proper discharge of its duty as a public carrier
Yours truly
James K Hikes
Attorney for Railroad Commission
CLAIMS FOR PENALTY DEMURRAGE FAILURE TO FURNISH CARS
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attoenet to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
January 6 1909
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 4th instant File 7672 in which you wish to know whether you have jurisdiction over the claim of the Rebecca Lumber Company against the Ocilla Valdosta Railroad Company for failure to furnish cars under the Steed Act
Section 2 of this Act provides the way in which a shipper can require the placing of cars by a railroad company and further provides that the Railroad Commission shall by reasonable rules and regulations provide the time in
which the car or cars shall be furnished after being ordered by the shipper and the penalty per day per car to be paid by said railroad company in the event such car or cars are not furnished as ordered The Commission has provided rules and regulations upon this subject
Section 3 of this Act provided that the railroad company would not be subject to the penalties provided by said Act until the Commission required such company to show cause why it was not subject to said penalties
Section 4 inflicted a penalty not exceeding 25000 upon any railroad company violating the rules orders or regulations so established by the Commission
Georgia Laws 1905 120
Sections 3 and 4 of the Steed Act were repealed by Section 11 of the CandlerOverstreet Act approved August 23d 1907
Georgia Laws 1907 72 and 73
So under this latter Act you have no authority to call upon the Railroad Company to show cause why it should not pay a demurrage claim of this character and in my opinion you have not now the authority to act upon the petition presented by the Rebecca Lumber Company Whatever right the Rebecca Lumber Company has against the Railroad Company must be enforced by a suit in the Courts If you were to pass an order in this matter fixing the amount of penalty if you find the railroad company liable such order would be a mere brutum fulmen
I return herein the file in this matter
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
PENALTIES FOR DELAYS IN ADJUSTING CLAIMS
Railboad Commission op Geobgia Office of Special Attobney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
January 29 1909
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen At one of your late meetings you requested me to furnish an opinion upon your power and authority to fix penalties for the neglect on the part of the railroad companies to adjust overcharges and losses and you requested me to submit rules governing this subject if I found that you had such power and authority
By the CandlerOverstreet Act approved August 23 1907 it is provided that the Railroad Commission shall have authority to fix penalties for neglect on the part of the railroad company to adjust overcharges and losses or failure to decline to do so if deemed unjust in a reasonable time
Georgia Laws 1907 page 77
58
As penal statutes are to be construed strictly the proper construction of this provision may be that you have authority only to fix penalties for the failure of railroads to do either one or the other of two things either to adjust overcharges and losses or to decline to do so if deemed unjust in a reasonable time Under this construction we would not have authority to fix a penalty for neglect to adjust overcharges and losses alone but would only have authority to fix such penalties for neglect to adjust these overcharges and losses or for failure to decline to do so In other words if the railroads did either one or the other they would comply with the statute and you could not penalize them
But When we consider the whole scope and purpose of the Act of August 23d 1907 this construction seems unreasonable It was the evident purpose of the Legislature to compel railroads to adjust honest claims and to decline to pay unjust ones within a reasonable time If the railroad company could avoid the penalty by either paying or declining to pay the statute would have very little effect in compelling the payment of just and honest claims within any reasonable time
While the question is not free from doubt I am inclined to think that you have authority to fix penalties both for the neglect on the part of the railroad companies to adjust overcharges and losses and for failure to decline to do so if deemed unjust in a reasonable time I have prepared and enclose herein two rules to cover both features
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
LAW FORBIDDING COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYES FROM IMPARTING OFFICIAL INFORMATION
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
February 3 1909
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen You ask me for an opinion upon the meaning of that provision of the Act enlarging the powers of the Railroad Commission which prohibits members and employes of the Railroad Commission from disclosing certain information
That provision is as follows
Any railroad commissioner of this State or any employee of said Railroad Commission who shall disclose or impart to any one except when legally called upon by a Court of competent jurisdiction any fact knowledge of which was obtained in his official capacity from or through any proceedings filed with the said Railroad Commission under this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
59
and subject to a prosecution therefor provided that this shall not apply to such facts or information obtained through public hearings or such as are not confidential in their nature and is contained in Sec 8 of An Act to increase the membership of the Railroad Commission of Georgia etc approved August 23d 1907
Ga Laws 1907 pp 72 77 78
What does this provision mean
This prohibition against disclosing information includes two classes towit first railroad commissioners and second employes of the Railroad Commission So the Railroad Commissioners and employes of the Railroad Commission are prohibited from disclosing or imparting the information mentioned in this section So far the matter is plain
The next inquiry is what information is under the ban of this law This prohibited information is any fact knowledge of which was obtained in his official capacity from or through any porceedings filed with the Railroad Commission under section 8 of this Act with the exceptions hereinafter noted
The facts thus put under the ban of secrecy must be learned from or through proceedings filed under Section 8 of this Act which is the section which gives the Commission authority over the issuing of bonds and stocks No other disclosures are prohibited
The members and employes of the Railroad Commission are prohibited from disclosing any facts knowledge of which is obtained from or through any proceedings filed with the Commission Whatever facts are learned from such proceedings can not be imparted to any one Whatever facts are learned through such proceedings can not be disclosed
The information which the members and employes of the Commission are prohibited from disclosing is as follows 1 Facts connected with the issuing of stocks and bonds 2 The knowledge of these facts must be obtained in his official capacity and 3 They must be learned from or through proceedings filed with the Railroad Commission
There are two exceptions to this injunction of secrecy First members and employes of the Railroad Commission can disclose all facts and information which are obtained through public hearings Second they can impart such facts and information as are not confidential in their nature
The first exception is plain enough Whatever is disclosed at a public hearing is public property The meaning of the second exception is not obscure If an applicant for the approval of an issue of stocks or bonds states or communicates to the commission facts in connection with proceedings for such approval confidentially then the members and employes of Commission can not divulge them If the communication is not confidential then the facts can be disclosed In other words whoever files with the Commission a proceeding seeking its approval of an issue of stocks and bonds or either case inform the Commission that the facts disclosed in connection therewith are confidential and such facts can not be disclosed unless they are subsequently brought out at some public hearing
Under this section of this Act the Commission for the purpose of determining whether it will pass an order of approval can make such inquiry or in
60
vestlgation hold such hearings and examine such witnesses books papers documents or contracts as it may deem advisable or necessary and in this way the Commission and its employes may through such proceedings gain knowledge of vital secrets of the corporation applying for the Commissions approval of an issue of securities Primarily this injunction of secrecy may refer to information so obtained iSuch information would be obtained through such proceedings
But such injunction of secrecy is of wider operation It prohibits the disclosure of facts knowledge of which is obtained from proceedings filed urith the Commission Would this prohibit the members and employes of the Commission from permitting persons interested or the public to inspect such proceedings or get copies thereof Should the Secretary of the Commission refuse to furnish a copy of such proceedings to persons interested or to the public
This is a penal statute and is to be construed strictly Permitting persons to inspect such proceedings or to furnish copies thereof to others would not be disclosing facts knowledge of which was obtained from such proceedings It would simply be furnishing the means of obtaining such knowledge as the members or employes of the Commission might have already obtained from the same
Besides there could hardly be any public hearing without a disclosure of these proceedings A public hearing necessarily involves a disclosure of the pleadings
This statute does not prohibit the disclosure of proceedings filed with the Railroad Commission but only the disclosure of facts knowledge of which was obtained by the members or employes of the Commission from or through proceedings filed with the Commission
I do not give any opinion on the validity of the provision
While this is true it might be well for the members and employes of the Commission not to disclose such proceedings except under direction of the Commission
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
61
FAILURE OF PASSENGER TO PROCURE TICKET
Railboad Commission of Geobgia Office of Special Attobnet to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
February 4 1909
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have your letter of the 3d instant File 6602 enclosing letter from Mr Hiram Mullis of the 2nd instant
Passenger Rule No 2 is the only rule promulgated by the Commission upon the subject referred to in the letter of Mr Mullis This rule provides that at all places where by the exercise of reasonable diligence the requisite tickets may be purchased it shall be the duty of all persons to provide themselves therewith before boarding trains as passengers and if at such a place the person stall board a train and has for want of reasonable diligence on his part failed to supply himself with the requisite ticket the railroad company may collect for each mile that may be traveled by such person without the requisite ticket in addition to the maximum prescribed rate one cent per mile additional in case of adults
I return herein the letter of Mr Mullis
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
RIGHT OF RAILROAD TO REFUSE SHIPMENTS IN BAD ORDER DUTY OF SHIPPER TO PROVE GOOD ORDER WHEN GOODS WERE OFFERED TO CARRIER
Railboad Commission of Geobgia Office of Special Attobnet to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
March 5 1909
Railroad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen File G FL
I have your letter of the 4th instant enclosing letter from Spence Drug Company in which you ask me to furnish you an opinion upon the matter referred to in this letter
I do not think it necessary for a claimant to furnish proof that goods shipped were in good condition when delivered to the carrier When a carrier receives goods and carries them over its lines the presumption of law is that they were received in good order
62
Southern Railway Company vs Waters Co 125 Georgia 520
This presumption can be rebutted
I think the carrier can give a bill of lading for goods not in good shipping condition In such a case the carrier can refuse to receive such goods but the carrier can waive this right and receive goods in bad shape
Yours truly
James K Hines Attorney for Railroad Commission
LIABILITY OF CARRIER WHERE GOODS ARE DESTROYED BY CYCLONEL
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Office of SpecialAttorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
March 23 1909
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen File G FL
I have your letter of the 20th instant enclosing letter from Messrs Paullin Vinson in which they wish to know if you have made any ruling on the question whether a railroad company is liable for injury to goods caused by cyclones So far as I am informed you have made no such ruling This is a question of law No excuse avails a common carrier for the loss of goods unless it was caused by the act of God or the public enemies of the State Code Sec 2264
Now what is the Act of God By the Act of God is meant any accident produced by physical causes which are irresistable such as lightning storms perils of the sea earthquakes inundations sudden death or illness
Fish vs Chapman Ross 2 Ga 349357 Wallace vs Clayton 42 Ga 443
Central Line of Boats vs Lowe 50 Ga 511
The Act of God excludes all idea of human agency
Fish vs Chapman Ross 2 Ga 357
If by any care prudence or foresight the thing could have been guarded against then it is not unavoidable and is not the Act of God
Central Line of Boats vs Lowe 50 Ga 511
Under these authorities of our Supreme Court a cyclone is the Act of God iMo human foresight care or prudence can prevent one It is irresistable It is the highest display of superhuman force and power
A man may dig a pit get in it and escape its force and fury but there is no escape for the railroad and its cars which are in the line of its track
63
In my opinion the railroad company is not liable to these gentlemen for injury to their car of acid which was struck and injured by the Cuthhert cyclone I return herein the letter of Messrs Baullin Vinson
Yours truly
James K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
DISCRIMINATION RIGHT OF SAVANNAH UNION STATION COMPANY TO DENY PRIVILEGES TO ONE BAGGAGE COMPANY WHICH IT EXTENDS TO ANOTHER SUCH COMPANY
Railroad Commission of Georgia Office of Special Attorney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
March 25th 1909
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen File 7270 The Atlantic Postal Telegraph Cable Company ys Savannah Union Station Company
I have your letter of the 11th inst in which you sent me the file in the above case and wish my opinion upon the question whether you can compel the Savannah Union Station Company to rent to the Atlantic Postal Telegraph Cable Company space in its depot at Savannah for the purpose of enabling this telegraph company to carry on its business in that place
The Savannah Union Station Company owns and operates the Union Depot in Savannah and undertakes to furnish a place where the several railroads can discharge passengers and their baggage and receive passengers and their baggage for transportation over these several lines of railways Sub mode this company is a carrier of passengers for hire It owes to the public the duty of furnishing suitable facilities for receiving and discharging passengers and their baggage It must furnish to all passengers alike and without discrimination these facilities Its property is impressed with a public use to this extent alone The public have no rights in this property except to this extent Its property is not a common for the use and enjoyment of all who may come along
This is the rule established by the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Railroad Commission of Georgia is bound by the law as expounded by our Supreme Court
The dominion of a terminal company over its depot and its appurtenances is uo less complete than that which every owner has over his own property
Such a corporation may exclude whom it pleases when they come to transact their own private business with passengers or third persons and admit whom it pleases when they come to transact such business
Fluker vs Ga R Bk Co 81 Ga 461
In its character as a common carrier and relatively to its duties and obligations arising therefrom the Savannah Union Station Company can not grant to
64
any person or persons rights or privileges which it refuses to others hut must treat all alike It must feed all its patrons out of the same spoon
Kates vs Atlanta Baggage Cab Co 107 Ga 636
As to matters involving no duty to the public the Savannah Union Station j Company in the management and control of its property may grant conces sions to some which it denies to others It can grant to a single corporation or individual the exclusive right to use space in its depot for the transmission of telegraphic information if it affords to all passengers alike proper and suitable facilities for entering its depot to purchase tickets and take passage and for checking of cars and affords to them like facilities for leaving its depot and obtaining their baggage on presenting checks therefor
Kates vs Atlanta R C Co 107 Ga 637
Atlanta Terminal Co vs Am Baggage Co 125 Ga 677
Hart vs Atlanta Terminal Company et al 128 Ga 754
It is private property between the carrier and those of the general public who have no occasion to use it for purposes of transportation
Donovan vs Penn Co 199 U S 279
Hart vs Atlanta Terminal Co 128 Ga 768
Much can be said in favor of the Georgia rule If this company can be compelled to furnish space in its depot for the Postal Telegraph Company it could be compelled to furnish space for any other telegraph company It could be compelled to rent space to the Telepost Company It could be compelled to furnish a place for all the telegraph companies to do business in its depot It is now customary to rent space for a restaurant in these terminal stations If the principle contended for by the Postal Telegraph Company is correct the Commission could compel the Savannah Union Station Company to rent space to all persons who wish to run a restaurant in its depot It is usual to rent space for a cigar soda water and news stand in these terminal stations If the principle contended for by the Postal Telegraph Company is correct the Commission could compel the Savannah Union Station Company to rent space for all persons who wish to conduct a cigar soda water and newsstand It is a common practice now for a terminal company to rent space in its depot for a barber shop If the principle contended for is correct the Savannah Union Station Company will have to rent to all applicants spaces for barber shops It is usual for these terminal companies to rent space to some express company for the conduct of its express business If the principle contended for is correct the Savannah Union Station Company would have to rent to all express companies who applied to it for space the right and privilege of conducting their respective businesses in its depot building
In this way this Company would have no space left for the conduct of its own business To adopt the opposite of the Georgia rule would subject the public to a great deal more annoyance and inconvenience than to adhere to the rule established by the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Supreme Court of the United States
It is my opinion that the Railroad Commission of Georgia has not the author
ity to compel the Savannah Union Station Company to rent space in its depot at Savannah to the Postal Telegraph Company for the purpose of enabling the latter company to conduct its telegraph business in that depot
Yours truly
Jambs K Hines
Attorney for Railroad Commission
FRHE TRANSPORTATION TO FAMILIES OF LOCAL ATTORNEYS
Railroad Commission of Georgia f Office of Special Attorney to Commission
Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
March 26th 1909
Railroad Commission of Georgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen I have received in due time your letter of the 12th instant enclosing letter of C S Reid Esq of Palmetto Ga and in which letter you request me to furnish the Board with my opinion as to the right under the law of the Atlanta West Point Railroad to issue the transportation referred to in the letter of Mr Reid
Oh October 29th 1907 the Commission issued General Order No 3 which provides that after the 31st day of December 1907 no railroad company or other common carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission of Georgia shall be allowed to issue or honor any free ticket pass or free intra state transportation for passengers between any points in this State except upon the terms provided for interstate free transportation by the Act of Congress approved June 29th 1966 known as the Hepburn Act
By the Hepburn Act a common carrier can give free transportation to its employes and their families its officers agents surgeons physicians and attorneys at law
In construing this provision of the Hepburn Act the Interstate Commerce Commission has held that a common carrier can not issue free transportation to the families of the local attorneys of railways
The Commission of Georgia has uniformly adopted as its construction of the Hepburn Act the construction placed thereon by the Interstate Commerce Commission
It is insisted by Mr Reid that this transportation is a part of his compensation for services rendered the Atlanta West Point Railroad Company as its local attorney in Campbell County and that for this reason it is not free transportation There is some merit in this contention but the construction put on the Hepburn Act by the Interstate Commerce Commission which construction the Railroad Commission of Georgia follows does not permit such compensation It is uncertain and indefinite It may amount to much or little
By adopting this contention local attorneys of railways might make con
66
tracts with railways by which such railways could issue transportation to any person or persons whom the local attorneys might designate other than members of their families as a part of their compensation for representing such companies in their immediate localities There is no difference in principle between issuing such transportations to the families of local attorneys than in issuing them to the servants and employes of such attorneys or to any other persons to whom the attorneys might wish such transportation issued
In my opinion it would be better for local attorneys to have provisions in their contracts of employment for the payment of their services in the coin of the realm and not in transportation to others than themselves and it is further my opinion that the issuing of such transportation is prohibited by General Order No 3 of the Commission
1 return herein the letter of Mr Reid
Yours truly
James K Attorney for Railroad
Hines
Commission
INTERCHANGEABLE MILEAGE RULES
Railboad Commission of Geobgia Office of Special Attobney to Commission Atlanta
James K Hines
Special Attorney
April 21 1909
Railboad Commission of Geobgia
Atlanta Ga
Gentlemen Your letter of the 12th instant enclosing letter from Judge John I Hall came duly to hand Judge Hall in his letter requests the views of the Commission on the propriety of issuing a coupon book and having the coupons exchanged for straight tickets when the holder of the coupon book desired to travel at the reduced rate
In your letter you ask me to furnish you my opinion upon this subject and upon the right of a carrier to expel a passenger failing to comply with the regulations requiring the exchange of the mileage coupons for a ticket
Carriers of passengers may eject from their conveyance all persons refusing to comply with reasonable regulations
Code Sections 2278 and 2296
Carriers of passengers may demand prepayment of fare
Code Section 2267
A carrier of passengers has a legal right to make reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of its business in the transportation of passengers
Southern Railway Co vs Watson 110 Ga 601
Now the question is whether the regulation constituting a part of the contract under which these mileage books are sold and by which it is stipulated that the mileage books will not be honored for passage except at nonagency
67
stations and at agency stations which are not open for the sale of tickets unless the coupons of the mileage hooks are exchanged for straight tickets is reasonable
In my opinion such regulation is reasonable
The purchaser of one of these thousand mile tickets from a railway company enters into a contract with that company One of the terms of this contract is that coupons from these mileage books will not be honored on trains except at nonagency stations and agency stations not open for the sale of tickets but must be presented at ticket offices and there exchanged for continuous pasqee tickets which continuous passage tickets will be honored for passage when presented in connection with the mileage books
This is a special contract by which the purchaser of a mileage book gets a reduced rate and he is bound by the terms of the special contract
Moses vs East Tenn Virginia Georgia R R 73 Georgia 356
Lewis vs W A R R Company 93 Ga 295
In the absence of such special contract such regulation might be void
Phillips vs Georgia Railroad Banking Co 93 Georgia 356
Before the i