It is therefore by the Commission ordered, That the application of the said Marshall County Power and Light Company be dismissed for the reason that the said Commission does not have control over the said light plant, to which order of the Commission the City of Blue Rapids duly excepts, and to which order of the Commission the said Mar shall County Power and Light Company duly excepts.

MARYLAND.

Public Service Commission.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF ALBERT M. GRIFFIN. ET AL., vs. NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

Case No. 555-Order No. 1136.

Decided April 7, 1913.

Inadequate Service-Discrimination against Interstate Commerce-Interference with Interstate Commerce-Jurisdiction of Commission-Additional Service.

Upon complaint as to the local train service between Baltimore and certain points north, asking for changes in the train schedule, the Commission found that the service afforded was inadequate, but that to make all the changes proposed would disarrange the existing schedules to an extent which the local traffic would not justify. It appeared, among other things, that it was the practice to side-track local train No. 200, for the purpose of allowing certain interstate trains to pass, whenever the latter trains were late. The Company contended that inasmuch as these were interstate trains, the Commission could not interfere with the Company's management of them or curtail its right to give them the preference over local traffic.

Held: That the published train schedule is a contract with the public, and the fact that a through train is late does not give its passengers a right to consume the time assigned to a local train and to subject the local passengers to inconvenience and delay for causes for which the local train is in no manner responsible.

That a train on time is entitled to precedence over a train that is delayed, and the fact that the delayed train is an interstate train does not alter the relative rights of passengers; and that the Company's practice in sidetracking train No. 200 is a discrimination in favor of interstate passengers which violates every canon of justice and is without warrant in law;

That an order of a state commission directing a railroad company to operate its local trains on schedule time is a proper exercise of its power and is not a regulation of interstate business, although it may incidentally result in somewhat prolonging the delay of an interstate train.

Ordered, among other things, That the Northern Central Railway Company cease from detaining train No. 200 in order to give the right of way to through or interstate trains which have been delayed at points beyond the point of origin of train No. 200; and that this provision shall apply generally to local trains operated by the Company.*

*Editor's headnote.

OPINION.

LAIRD, Chairman:

This is a petition signed by sixty-six persons residing along the road of the Northern Central Railway Company at points between Cockeysville and Parkton, "dependent on the trains of the said Railway Company for transportation to their places of business," praying for better train service. The stations interested in the petition, counting from Baltimore northward, are Ashland, Phoenix, Sparks, Glencoe, Corbett, Monkton, Blue Mont, White Hall, Graystone and Parkton.

The petition alleges that "to make the service what it should be would necessitate the said Railroad Company making Parkton the terminus for all local trains instead of Cockeysville, but if they have good reasons for refusing to do that, we ask that they be compelled to make the following changes in their schedule:

1. Start train No. 100 from Parkton, arriving at Calvert Station at 6.45 a. m.

2. Start train No. 104 from Parkton, arriving at Calvert Station at 7.45 a. m.

3. Make the "Milk Train" No. 200 Express from Cockeysville to Baltimore, putting off at Cockeysville passengers for intermediate points.

4. Make train No. 205 Express to Cockeysville and then local to Parkton.

5. Add one additional accommodation train to Parkton, leaving Baltimore about 9.30 p. m. and return.

The Company alleges in its answer: "That the changes in its train service between the city of Baltimore and Parkton asked for by the complainants are of such a character that they could not be made without such interference with passenger service on its lines, both through and local, as would cripple that service and do great injustice not only to its through traffic but to its local traffic to stations other than those between Cockeysville and Parkton, referred to in the complaint aforesaid, besides involving a great expense in addition to that of its present

service, which would not be justified by any possible return from the service demanded."

A hearing was held March 13th, 1913, and from the evidence it was made quite clear that to grant all that was asked for would dislocate the existing schedule of passenger and freight traffic to an extent which the local traffic from points between Parkton and Cockeysville would not justify, but it was also quite clear that the present accommodation is inadequate. The morning service from Cockeysville has trains No. 100 at 6.00, due at Calvert Station at 6.45; No. 104 at 7.10, due at 7.50; No. 200 at 7.38, due at 8.20; No. 70 at 8.04, due at 8.45, and No. 108 at 9.00, due at 9.40. From Parkton the present service is train No. 200 at 6.50, due at 8.20, and No. 70 at 7.31, due at 8.45. The evidence establishes the fact that there are a member of persons residing in the Cockeysville-Parkton section who are engaged in business in Baltimore who need an earlier train than No. 200, that reaches the city at 8.20, and that even those who might be accommodated by this train are seriously inconvenienced by the further fact that No. 200 is rarely on time because it is side-tracked to let through trains No. 38 and No. 60 pass when those trains are behind time.

The Commission, after careful consideration, is of the opinion that to grant all of the changes asked for would disarrange the present schedules to an extent that the traffic on the Cockeysville-Parkton section of the road would not justify, and in detail found as follows:

1. That it is practicable to start train No. 100 at Parkton at about 5.30 a. m., instead of at Cockeysville at 6.00 a. m., its time of arrival at Calvert Station to be 6.45 as at present.

2. That it is impracticable to start No. 104 at Parkton and maintain its present time of arrival at Calvert Station, because it would seriously interfere with the operation of through train No. 60, and either delay that train or furnish irregular and unsatisfactory service on No. 104, itself.

3. That train No. 200-the "Milk Train"-should be run on its schedule time and should not be side-tracked to let No. 38 and No. 60 pass when those trains are late. This

matter is deferred, for discussion, in a subsequent part of this opinion.

4. That it is impracticable to make train No. 205, leaving Calvert Station at 5.10 p. m., an express to Cockeysville and then local to Parkton. This train has been operated for a great many years and is used more than any other train on the road. The bulk of the traffic on it is between Baltimore and Cockeysville, and in our judgment it should not be disturbed except for imperative reasons. To comply with the petition would require the operation of an extra local train to accommodate the Baltimore-Cockeysville traffic at this hour, and while such a train might follow No. 205 at a short interval of time and not seriously delay the time of arrival at destination, it would involve crowding the road and the expense of extra service to a degree which, as at present advised, we do not think the Cockeysville-Parkton traffic would justify.

5. That the present night service to Parkton is inadequate, being composed of train No. 207, leaving Calvert Station at 7.20 p. m., and train No. 3, leaving at 11.54 p. m. There are a number of persons who are detained in Baltimore by business and social engagements beyond the time of departure of No. 207, and No. 3 does not arrive at Parkton until 12.49 a. m. At present there is a train No. 121, which leaves Calvert Station at 10.30 and runs as far as Cockeysville. The Commission found it practicable to extend the run of this train to Parkton, with a possible change of its time of departure to an earlier hour.

After the Commission had reached these conclusions the Company made the following offer through its solicitor: The Northern Central Railway Company respectfully shows:

1. That since the above-mentioned complaint was filed, this Company's officers have endeavored to work out a plan that would give additional accommodation to travelers to and from Baltimore city using stations between Parkton and Cockeysville, with due regard to local travel at Cockeysville and points south, and to the through travel over the Company's lines and its freight traffic.