tion to the magnitude of the case. Whatever the rights of the parties are, they can enforce them in a suit at law; and it is understood that they propose to enforce them against the sleeping-car company. But the Board has discussed the subject at length, mainly on account of the principles involved, and the positions taken by the respondents. Finally, it seems that where sleeping-cars are advertised, and travellers are induced to rely upon the promise of advertisements for such accommodations, extra cars ought to be kept on hand, sufficient in number to supply the deficiency caused by the ordinary chances of railroad operation. And in winter, when the chances of detention are many, and when the number of cars needed for active use is small, there seems to be no reason for such deficiency as existed in this case. The Board recommends that this apparent defect in rolling-stock be supplied at once; and it also recommends, that, if the conductor or other agent of the sleeping-car company shall, in future, attempt to deprive passengers of the rights for which they have contracted and paid, the Fitchburg Railroad Company shall exercise its undoubted power to insure to such travellers the performance of the contract which both companies have made with them. By the Board. WILLIAM A. CRAFTS, Clerk. JAN. 12, 1881. OTIS COMPANY AND GEORGE H. GILBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BOSTON & ALBANY RAILROAD COMPANY. THIS was an application of the Boston & Albany Railroad Company for a revision of the opinion delivered June 18, 1880 (Twelfth Annual Report, p. 209), recommending a reduction of freights for large quantities of coal carried from Palmer to Ware. The Board found, at the original hearing of this case, "that the other great roads of the State have one rate for car-loads, and a lower rate for cargoes or for some large amount, generally fixed at a hundred tons." This practice seemed reasonable, because "wholesale transactions furnish a reasonable ground for a reduction of rates." And the Board recommended a reduction of at least fifteen per cent for cargoes or large quantities. The views of the respondents are set forth in the following letter to one of the petitioning parties: — BOSTON, Dec. 24, 1880. The George H. Gilbert Manufacturing Company, Gilbertville, Mass. understand that they did not decide that the rates were too high in themselves, but that, if the rate per car-load was proper, then the charge for cargo lots was too high. We understand "cargo" lots to mean the contents of a vessel or barge brought to us at Palmer in one unbroken lot; that is to say, if there are four hundred tons in the vessel consigned to any one person, the cars on which the coal is loaded must be brought and delivered to us at Palmer in one lot in order to get the new rate. If received by us in broken quantities, then the car-load rate shall prevail, no matter whether you bought a cargo or not. The delivery to us determines the rate, and not the original shipment to New London or Norwich. With this understanding of the recommendations of the Commissioners, we are ready to adopt the schedule proposed by them, although we believe their decision is wrong in principle. Yours truly, ARTHUR MILLS, G. F. A. The Board is now asked to revise the former finding, or to declare that it shall only apply to actual cargoes, being the entire contents of a vessel, and those cargoes delivered at Palmer each in a single lot. The Board declines such revision: (1) The natural meaning of the original decision is, not only that cargoes shall be carried at reduced rates, but that large quantities less than cargoes shall be so carried. The Board found in use the phrase 66 cargo rates," meaning, not the whole contents of a vessel, but some large quantity, usually fixed at a hundred tons, but fixed by one road doing a large business at fifty tons. No discussion of the dictionary meaning of the word "cargo" is necessary. The meaning of the opinion was that it was reasonable to fix a lower rate for large quantities than for single car-loads. (2) It would be unreasonable to make the rate depend upon the fact that the whole contents of a vessel were or were not delivered at once; for this does not affect the question of cost of transportation. Vessels bring various quantities, a hundred and fifty tons, five hundred, fifteen hundred. It is not cheaper to transport a hundred and fifty tons which arrived at New London, filling one little schooner, than to bring one-tenth of the contents of the largest "three-master.” Yet this is the proposition of the Boston & Albany. Indeed, it offers to carry a hundred and fifty tons, filling one vessel and delivered in one lot, at a lower rate than two hundred or three hundred tons delivered to it in one lot, but forming part of a cargo at New London. It would be just as reasonable to make the rate depend upon the rig of the vessel, or the color of her paint. (3) It would be more unreasonable to require the whole contents of a large vessel to be delivered at one time in order to receive low rates; because it would be more difficult and expensive to transport a very large quantity than to handle a hundred tons. It was clearly stated by the representatives of the Boston & Albany, at a hearing on this question, that, with the facilities at the place of delivery, it would be awkward to receive and handle a whole cargo of the usual size. It was clearly shown that it was preferable to have such lots as the petitioners have than to receive larger quantities. Yet they now ask that this inconvenience to them shall be the condition precedent to a reduction of rates. This also disposes of the question a third lower rate shall be fixed for a thousand tons. (4) It was urged that there was no affirmative proof that it is cheaper to transport a hundred tons than ten. But it is a general rule that such wholesale transportation is cheaper; and the practice of other roads confirms that rule, and calls for testimony to prove an exception in this case. It was asked, also, why a lower rate should be paid for ten cars than for nine, or for nine than eight. The Board has not fixed the number, but advises the company to fix it. And the reason for assuming some definite amount is the same that prevails in all such transactions. The line between wholesale and retail must be drawn at some point. It is always necessary to fix arbitrary rules when the acquisition of a right or privilege depends upon numbers or figures of any kind. A man can vote when he is twenty-one years of age. A youth aged twenty years and three hundred and sixty-four days cannot vote. The absurdity supposed in this case applies as well to the law governing suffrage. The other arguments against the decision of the Board were answered before. The Board changes the language of its former decision to avoid misconstruction arising from the use of the word " cargo," but adheres to the true meaning of that opinion. And considering that it is usual and reasonable to adopt a rate for large quantities, such as are usually shipped to the petitioners, lower than for single car-loads, it is adjudged that such a reduction of rates for such transportation of coal from Palmer to Ware and Gilbertville would be reasonable and expedient to promote the accommodation of the people, and that the rates now charged for this transportation are unreasonable. And a reduction of at least fifteen per cent is recommended. By the Board. WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk. JAN. 31, 1881. PETITION OF JOSEPH F. BOYD AND OTHERS FOR A REDUCTION OF FARES ON THE BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD BETWEEN BOSTON AND MELROSE HIGHLANDS. THE petition asks the Board to recommend that the price of quarterly, monthly, and package tickets may be the same to Melrose Highlands as to Melrose. The price of single tickets is now the same, although the Highland station is a half-mile farther from Boston. Prices are now fixed as follows, on and after March 1: The ground of the application is, that this road, like the Eastern and some others, sometimes conveys passengers different distances in the same town for the same price, and that single tickets are sold for Melrose and Melrose Highlands for the same price (twenty cents). And it is true that in some cases these roads do adopt this practice, although it is not always followed. The demand is nominally for "equality," but it is really for inequality. The petitioners ask to ride at lower rates than their neighbors of Melrose. They ask that the Boston & Maine Railroad shall carry them a half-mile for nothing. The Boston & Maine now charges (for package tickets) just one cent for the half-mile between the two stations. This is their usual rate for that distance. The Board is requested to recommend the Boston & Maine to remit this cent. And the reason given is that the company, in some instances, carries passengers from station to station gratis. The Board declines to make this recommendation. The fact that this company and others, for convenience or for any reason, forbears at some places to exact a higher rate for a little longer haul, does not entitle the inhabitants of other places to demand this as a right. Neither does the fact that single tickets to the two stations are the same in price give any right to have other tickets the same. When a ticket is wanted for Melrose Highlands, the Boston & Maine managers do not think it worth while to add a cent to the twenty cents which they charge for taking a passenger to Melrose. They do think it worth their while to add ten cents when a package of ten tickets is sold; and it is reasonable that they should do so. The law secures "reasonable terms; " and in general it is " reasonable" to determine the fare for like service by the length of the route. If equality were what is understood by the petitioners, it would authorize travellers over this road to demand a reduction of one cent from any fare that they might be called to pay; because one cent represents half a mile, and the people of Wyoming are carried the half-mile from Malden gratis. Stress was laid on the fact that the station is in the same town with Melrose station, and it seemed to be admitted that if it were in Stoneham, as it used to be, no case would be made out. But the cost of operating a road is not affected by the existence or non-existence of town lines; and fares depend upon cost. Some of the petitioners expressed the opinion that the fares were too high; but no reason or testimony was given to sustain that opinion, and it was evident that the mistaken idea of equality was the foundation of the petition. The price of package tickets has already been reduced, after conference with the Board, from a dollar and sixty cents to a dollar and thirty-five cents. The inconvenience as to the name of the station has also been remedied, and no further recommendation is made. FEB. 14, 1881. By the Board. WM. A. CRAFTS, Clerk. PETITION OF THE SELECTMEN OF STOCKBRIDGE FOR BETTER STATION ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE HOUSATONIC RAILROAD AT STOCKBRIDGE. THE hearing in this case was fixed for Feb. 15. The railroad company did not appear. The allegations of the petition were fully sustained by the proof. The Board, having recently inspected the station, did not think a view necessary. The station is small and inconvenient, and not properly furnished. Its use as a freight depot adds to its inconvenience. The platforms are frequently crowded with bulky freight, so as to make their use not only troublesome, but dangerous. The height of the platform is also objectionable. The spot on which the station is placed is often overflowed, so that it is a mere slough; and it is so situated that the highway is frequently blocked with cars. Indeed, it is said that it is necessarily obstructed with cars for a period exceeding that allowed by law. The Board recommends that a passenger station be erected as soon as may be, sufficiently large to accommodate the travelling public in the season of travel, and that it be furnished with such conveniences as the pub |