Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk, 88.: June 27, 1887. Then personally appeared J. H. Benton, Jr., and made oath that he is attorney of the Northern Railroad, by which the foregoing answer is made, and that the same is true. Before me, Justice of the Peace. Answer Denying Joint Agreements. [Filed with Commission.] The New York and New England Railroad Company, one of the respondents in the above-entitled cause, separately answering such portions of the complainants' petition as it is advised it is important and necessary to make answer unto, says: That it is not true, as averred in the first paragraph of the said complaint, that the respondent with the other companies named therein form one connecting through line under joint traffiffic arrangements; that the respondent has no contract or contracts or traffic arrangements with the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company nor the Norfolk & Western Railway Company, nor with the Shenandoah Valley Railroad Company; that it has no contract or contracts or traffic arrangements with the respondents named herein whose railroads are located south of the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company; the lumber received by the respondent from points south of the Cumberland Valley Railroad is rebilled by said Cumberland Valley Railroad Company and again rebilled by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company at Harlem river. It admits that it has carried lumber at the rate of thirty-six cents per 100 lbs. in full car load lots, which it is informed has come from Johnson City, in the State of Tennessee, to Boston as aforesaid; but the respondent denies that it has carried any lumber from Atlanta, Ga., or any other points south of Hagerstown at a rate of thirty-four cents per 100 lbs. from such initial point to Boston; and it denies that it has charged or received any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of like kind of property under substantially similar circumstances and conditions for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance. It admits that it has carried lumber over this road which it is informed has come from Macon, in the State of Georgia, to Boston, at a rate of thirty-six cents per 100 lbs., and says that this rate was made by the initial road without consultation with this respondent. And the respondent, further answering, says the rate of thirty-six cents per 100 lbs. for transportation of lumber from Johnson City to Boston. a distance of 915 miles, which rate of thirty-six cents is less than eight mills per ton per mile, and which is divided among seven railroad companies, for which service this respondent is required to furnish expensive terminal facilities is not in itself an unreasonably high rate, and that said rate should not be reduced. This respondent denies each and all of the allegations of the petitioners' complaint not hereinbefore admitted or denied. NEW YORK & NEW ENGLAND R. R. COMPANY, (NOTICE.-Witness fees for attendance under this subpoena are to be paid by the party at whose instance the witness is summoned, and every copy of this summons for the witness must contain a copy of this notice.) ....." You are hereby notified that G. H. will be examined before C. D.. a (title of office or magistrate), at on the day of 190.., at ... o'clock in the .noon, as a witness for the above-named complainant (or defendant, as the case may be), according to act of Congress in such case made and provided, and the rules of practice of the Interstate Commerce Commission; at which time and place you are notified to be present and take part in the examination of the said witness. Dated 190... I. J. (Signature of complainant or defendant, or of counsel.) Railroad To A. B., the above-named complainant (or The...... Company, the above-named defendant; or to K. L., counsel for the abovenamed complainant or defendant.) Motion to Strike Out. [Filed with Commission.] INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. v. ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY. Comes the defendant company and moves the honorable Commission to disregard and strike from the files of this case the certain papers and documents described as follows: The sworn statement of Nelson L. Derby and others, dated April 18, 1887; filed April 23, 1887. The sworn statement of Nelson L. Derby and W. M. Holbrook, sworn to July 2, 1887, and filed July .., 1887. And for cause of motion the defendant says that said papers purport to be and contain evidence in support of the petition or complaint in this case filed. That the said testimony was taken without notice to defendant, and without opportunity to be present, or to cross examine the witnesses produced. That the testimony therein contained is irrelevant, immaterial and insufficient. Atty. for Defendant. Letter of the Commission. [Replying to inquiries as to procedure.] June 15th, 1887. DEAR SIR.-Yours of June 14 received. The rules of the Commission do not require a replication. It is intended that all its proceedings shall be in the simplest form consistent with a reasonable degree of certainty. Cases are considered as at issue when the answer is filed and copies served. If issues of fact are raised upon the answer by denials, or by allegations of new matter, it is the understanding of the Commission that the case stands for trial upon the questions of fact as well as of law; a day for hearing will be assigned on request of either party; witnesses can then be examined, if necessary, and argument made upon the law as applicable to the facts established by proof. The case can be presented by written or printed arguments if parties prefer to take that course. It is the desire of the Commission that parties agree upon facts relating to questions presented, so far as possible; and for this purpose stipulations in writing may be filed or oral concessions made on the hearing. In case parties cannot agree upon the facts and desire to avoid the expense of bringing witnesses to Washington, depositions for use before the Commission may be taken on notice to the other side, in the manner provided by sections 863 and 864 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Such depositions when taken should be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, who will open and file the same. If the taking of depositions is deemed necessary, it should be entered upon as soon as practicable after the service of the answer. For the Commission: Yours truly, EDW. A. MOSELEY, Secretary. APPENDIX C. TABLE FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS. 1. Interstate Commerce Act of Feb. 4, 1887, as Amended. SECTION 1. Superseded by § 1, Act of June 29, 1906. 2. Printed in § 941, supra. 3. Printed in § 941, supra. 4. Printed in § 971, supra. 5. Printed in § 991, supra. 6. Superseded by § 2, Act of June 29, 1906. 7. Printed in § 991, supra. 8. Printed in § 1091, supra. 9. Printed in § 10. Printed in § 1091, supra. 1091, supra, as amended March 2, 1889. 11. Printed in § 1031, supra. See § 24. 12. Printed in §§ 1031, 1041, 1091, supra, as amended March 2, 1889, and Feb. 10, 1891. 13. Printed in § 1041, supra. 14. Superseded by § 3, Act of June 29, 1906. 16. Superseded by § 5, Act of June 29, 1906. 16a. Added by § 6, Act of June 29, 1906. 17. Printed in § 1041, supra, as amended March 2, 1889. 18. Printed in § 1031, supra. 19. Printed in § 1031, supra. 20. Superseded by § 7, Act of June 29, 1906. 21. Printed in § 1031, supra, as amended March 2, 1889. 22. Printed in § 941, supra, as amended March 2, 1889. 23. Printed in § 1091, supra, added Act of March 2, 1889. 24. Added by § 8. Act of June 29, 1906. 2. Amendments by Act of Feb. 11, 1893. (Printed in § 1041, supra.) 3. Amendments by Act of Feb. 11, 1903. SECTION 1. Printed in § 1091, supra. 2. Printed in § 1091, supra. |