SHORT NOTICE TARIFF ORDERS. Pursuant to the provisions of Public Service Commissions Law, Section 29, orders granting permission to companies to put into effect changes in schedules, rates, fares or charges, or joint rates within less than thirty days after publication at stations and filing with the Commission, were issued in substantially the following form: within its has days after publication made application in writing to this Commission under date of 1908, for permission to at stations and filing with this Commission, Now, upon motion made and duly seconded, it is stations and filing with this Commission the the days after publication at above mentioned. Tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 1. 1 3 363 Mar. 24 Long Island Railroad Company. Freight tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 81. (Tariff on 3 Permit granted to put Number of days' notice. Supplement No. 1 to its Long Island Railroad Company. Supplement No. 1 to tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 8. (Rates upon transportation of organizations devoted to fresh air or other charitable work.).. Tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 25 (Rate for a special car for exclusive use of persons between Long Island City and Edgemere.). ... Tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 90. (Rates for car track storage.).... Long Island Railroad Company. Tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. E-23. (Relating to: (1) empty Long Island Railroad Company. Supplement No. 3 to tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 64. Tariff P. S. C. 1 N. Y. No. 116. (Rate on oysters or Rate per head on cattle * Immediately after publication at stations and filing with this Commission. 1 3 15 25 2 1 1 5 NOTE. Orders Nos. 320, 581 and 648, while referring specifically to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, are applicable to other railroad companies and carriers within the jurisdiction of this Commission. *To become effective as to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company July 1, 1908; as to other companies, within ten days after publishing at stations and filing with the Commission. FRANCHISE MATTERS NOT ARISING ON SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF COMPANIES. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Removal of tracks in Fifty-second street, from Second avenue to the public dock, in the borough of Brooklyn. SIR. Referring to your letter of August 5th, addressed to Mr. Semple, in which you ask for an opinion as to whether the Commission should take up the complaint of Joseph N. Tuttle against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company in regard to the right of the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company to maintain tracks and store cars on Fifty-second street, Brooklyn, I beg to advise you as follows: From an examination of the files it appears that Mr. Tuttle's complaint, dated June 9, 1908, alleges that the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company wrongfully used the Fifty-second street tracks for storage of cars. It appears also that Mr. Tuttle's complaint has been served upon the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company and that that company on June 24, 1908, answered, admitting that cars had formerly been allowed to occupy the streets by employees in disobedience of orders of the company, and that the cars had now been removed and special orders had been issued to prevent a repetition of the offense. The complaint was made under section 48, subdivision 2 of the Public Service Commissions Law, setting forth acts done claimed to be in violation of certain provisions of law and of the terms and conditions of the railroad's franchise. A copy of this complaint was properly forwarded to the corporation complained of, accompanied by an order requiring that the matters complained of be satisfied. An answer to this was received, in effect admitting violations of law in the past and stated that the violations had ceased and would not be continued. Under the provisions of this subdivision the Commission, if satisfied with the company's answer, need take no further action on the matters complained of. If, however, the Commission is not satisfied it may, after a hearing, direct the company to satisfy the cause of the complaint by discontinuing storing of cars in the street. I have confined myself to a discussion of the storing of cars in the street for the reason that that seems to be the only matter raised by Mr. Tuttle's complaint of June 9th, and the Commission by serving that complaint upon the company has practically confined itself in that proceeding to the matters contained in the complaint. I note that in your letters of July 7th and July 30th, addressed to Joseph N. Tuttle, Esq.. you properly advised Mr. Tuttle that the Borough President was the proper authority to secure the removal of the tracks and cars from Fifty-second street. It appears, however, from Mr. Tuttle's answers that he has understood your letters to mean that the Borough President was the only proper authority and that the Commission had no power to order the company to discontinue its practice of obstructing Fifty-second street by storing cars therein. I believe that Mr. Tuttle is right in pointing out that the Commission has power to investigate and issue an order in the matter of the storage of cars in the street. It appears that the Borough President is prevented from acting by an injunction. and I think it would be quite proper for the Commission to hold a hearing and issue an order without waiting for action by the Borough President. Respectfully yours. GEO. S. COLEMAN, Counsel to the Commission. Complaint Order No. 674 (see form, note 1) issued August 14th. |