SYNOPSIS OE EVIDENCE
Before the Railroad Commissioners from August,
1853, to January, 1854, relating to charges against
thS Railroad Corporations, by Jesse Babcock and
others.
[Printed by order of the House of Rpresentatives, January Session, 1854.]
In support of the first allegation, the complainants refer¬
red to the tariff of charges of freight on the Boston and Prov-
idenee, and the Stoning toff Railroads, which were produced, }J ^
and by which it appeared that the charges on the former v
road for goods between Boston and Providence are, for first
class fifteen cents per 100 lbs.; and on the Stonington Road
for goods of the same class over the whole length of their
road, fourteen cents per 100 lbs.; and for way stations an
average of eighteen to twenty cents per 100 lbs.
The tariff of freight from Boston to New York, specifying
only the aggregate charge of these two roads and the steam¬
boats, complainants proposed to examine the President of
the Stonington road, as to the proportion received by that
road. The President objected to such examination, and sta¬
ted, among other grounds, in substance, that this arrange¬
ment was secret, that he did not even know what proportion
the Boston and Providence road had, and to give it publicity,
especially in the presence of a Director of that road, might
be injurious to his company.
That Director, however, saying that the Boston and Prov¬
idence Company had twenty-five per cent, of the whole
charge from Boston to New York, the President of the Ston¬
ington Corporation said their road had thirty-seven per cent,
of the balance; and these statements, though not sworn to,
have been adopted by the Commissionrs in their estimates,
from which it appears that when the price for through freight
is made by the agreement of the Fall River, the Norwich
and Worcester, and the Stonington roads, at a combining price,
the way fre'ight on the Boston and Providence road is fully
HEi^i ^ /
>7? U-
9
three fold that of the through freight; and that on the Ston-
ington Railroad the way freight pays in a still greater ratio ;
and further, that when the above three lines were recently
in competition, the charges on local and way freight were
not far from six fold that of through freight. It thus appears
that the charges from Boston to some points on the Stoning-
ton Railroad, are generally very nearly double what they
are to carry the same goods all the way through to New
York ; and that when the freights are at competing prices
this difference is in still greater ratio.
One case in which the Boston and Providence company
charged a citizen of this State fifty per cent, more than his
Boston competitor on the same article, has already been sta¬
ted in the general report. It appeared in that case that the
difference in charge of freight amounted to about four per
cent, on the whole value of the article. In regard to price
of passengers there is a similar discrepancy, though not to so
great an extent, the charges for the local business being only
about twenty-five to thirty-five per cent, above the through ;
but still passengers from some points of the Stonington Rail¬
road have to pay more to go to New York than those start¬
ing at Providence.
The case of the transportation of coal, on the Providence
and Worcester road, to Worcester, 43 miles, for $1 10 per
ton, when $1 00 is charged to Woonsocket, 16 miles, the
owners of the coal in both cases loading and unloading the
•cars, has already been stated in the general report.
' The second allegation is sustained by the facts already
alluded to, and is apparent from the freight tariffs furnished
by the companies. In one instance the price of transporta¬
tion being four cents for ten miles, while "on the same road
seven cents is charged to another community for five miles.
Proof was also made that a citizen having paid his passage
from Providence to New York, and procured a ticket for the
same, was required to pay more, for the reason that he did
not commence the journey in Providence, but at a point
nearer New York, and on refusing to comply, was threatened
with violent expulsion if he did not.
A number of other parties who also procured through tick¬
ets, were refused a passage in the train for which the tickets
were given, on the ground that the holders had not ridden
from Providence to Kingston in the train ; and the conduc¬
tor told the holders of said tickets that if they got into the
cars without making further payment, he would throw them
3
out. This language was addressed to ladies as well as gen¬
tlemen, and the money extorted by the threat.
In one case the party bought a ticket to New York by
steamboat train of same day, then paid the usual fare to ride
in the accommodation train'to Kingston, and was then obliged
to pay extra again to be allowed to complete the balance of
his journey on the ticket which entitled him to a passage
for the whole distance, and by the same train upon which
he paid the last extra demand. The company in all these
cases refused to allow anything for the tickets which they
had issued the same day, and for the same train, and for
payment of which they had rendered no service whatever
to any one, as fully appeared by the proof before us. Most
of the cases in proof occurred within two or three years past,
but the abuse appears to have been practised for at leat ten
or twelve years back.
The Attorney of the Company, who is also a Director,
stated that this was not in conformity to the rules of the
road, and subsequently introduced as witnesses persons who
had been conductors, to prove that such was not the prac¬
tice, but so many cases were affirmatively proved, and by
such testimony, as to place the facts beyond doubt.
It also appeared that such refusal was notorious, and this
the complainants contended prevented many from obtaining
through tickets, who otherwise would have done so, and
thus swelled the number of cases. In second allegation it
is stated that the charters require the tariff of charges or toll
to be at established rates per mile. Some discussion arose
as to -whether this meant that the ratio should be pro rata.
This is one of those matters of opinion referred to in the re¬
port ; complainants contended that such was the generally re¬
ceived import of the phrase "per mile," and in the present case
it did not admit of any other construction, any other hypoth¬
esis making it wholly unmeaning ; and that if there was any
doubt as to the meaning which the legislature attached to
these words, it was settled by the act appointing Railroad
Commissioners, in which it declares it shall be their duty
" to examine into the transactions and proceed
railroad corporation that now is, or hereafter may be, author¬
ized and established in this State, in order to secure all the
inhabitants the same and equal privileges of transportation
of persons and property, either directly or indirectly, by any
such corporation to the inhabitants of any other State ; and
ratably in proportion to distance any such persons or proper¬
ty may be so transported
4
The counsel for corporations contended that the sections
in which this phrase occurs, do not apply to the carriage of
freight and passengers in the cars of the company. That it
was copied from the old canal charters, upon which boats
owned by others than the corporation paid a toll per mile,
and that it was intended only to apply to any cars which
might be put on the road by other parties than the corpo¬
ration.
Complainants replied that copying the phrase did not
change its signification, and that the terms of the section did
not admit of the construction contended for by the coun¬
sel for the corporations; and that if they were so construed,
the corporations would have no power by their charters to
charge for freight and passengers; and further, that the tes¬
timony of Hon. B. P. Thurston shewed that the intention
of the legislature, and of the corporations, was to have es¬
tablished rates in proportion to distance. He says, " the
charter for the Stonington Railroad was granted while I was
a member of the House of Representatives. It was consid¬
ered then that it was a monopoly, and the Hon. E. R. Pot¬
ter and Benjamin Hazard argued, and others replied, that
that monopoly might impose on our citizeus, and required
that if such monopoly was granted, our citizens should have
freight and passage at the same rate in proportion to distance,
as freight and passage should be between Boston and New
York. Council for petitioners stated that they wanted an
extension grant, to enable them to get the stock taken, and
also to control the through business ; and that if the State
would give the exclusive grant, they would agree to .carry
freight and passengers for the citizens of this State as cheap¬
ly per mile, as they carried the through freight for; and
that it would bd worth more to carry for short distances than
for long. This would be giving the people of this State some¬
thing in return for the exclusive grant. This was substan¬
tially the debate upon the passage of the charter.''
One of the Directors of the Boston and Providence Rail¬
road Company stated to the Commissioners that they had
recently investigated the subject, and ascertained that thirty
cents per ton would fully pay for loading and unloading
freight, and for breaking up and attention at the depots, and
that they had arranged their tariff on the principle of charg¬
ing an uniform rate per mile for the transportation, and ad¬
ding the thirty cents per ton in all cases to that rate."
With regard to the third allegations, it was proved that
the Railroad Company are in the habit of unloading the
5
freight received in Providence, from or going to way-stations,
and of transporting the same by wagons a short distance
alongside of the rails and of charging the cartage on the
same, and that full car-loads were so transported ; that this
not only adds a very considerable per centage to the cost of
transportation but that much damage is done to the goods in
the process of loading, unloading, carting, &c. It was ad¬
mitted by the Companies that this was never done in the
case of through freight. The local Master of Transporta¬
tion, 011 the Boston and Providence Railroad, at Providence,
testified that they generally send the way freight by wagons
from one depot to the other, but if there is a Stonington car
in their freight-house they put the freight in it, or if a car¬
load of freight comes from Boston to go to any portion of
the Stonington Railroad, they intend to send the same car
over. Tt appears, however, that the officers in direct charge
of this freight has acted under a different understanding of
the matter from that stated by the Master of Transportation,
for, on the 19th December, in answering a letter complain¬
ing of this charge for carting, this officer says : " My orders
are imperative to unload all cars and forward by teams ail
merchandise for other roads," and on the £9th of the same
month, in a letter to the same party, after stating that Mr.
Brooks left the city on Tuesday last for a few days, says—
"Mr. Brooks reiterated his order to me before leaving to un¬
load all freight received at this station, and forward all des¬
tined for other roads, by teams as heretofore;" and in the
same letter, says—"This order has been in existence several
months, and emanated from our local Superintendent."
The proof shows as might be expected that the practice
of the Company conforms much more nearly to the state¬
ments of the officer directly in charge of this portion of the
business, than to the testimony of the local Superintendent
of Transportation. »
In support of the charges in the fourth allegation it was
charged that the Company refused to deliver freight to the
owners until the freight money had been paid, however
much the property might have been damaged in the trans¬
portation. A Director of the Boston and Providence Com¬
pany admitted that this was true as regarded their Company,
and stated that the rule of their road was, that the freight
money should, in all cases, be paid, and the Company would
pay the damages when they were liquidated. Whether the
same rule is established on the other roads did not appear.
It was further provided, that there is often great difficulty
6
and delay in procuring the payment of such damages,—the
claimants being referred from one officer to another, and from
one end of the road to the other, often requiring more labor
than the claim is worth; and further, that payment was, in
some instances, denied, because the claimant had been trou¬
blesome to the Companies. Most of the facts thus far stated,
were admitted, or proved only in regard to the Boston and
Providence road. It was further proved, that the Stonington
Railroad, on the 13th of Oct., 1847, transported a planing
machine, consisting principally of long timber, from Provi¬
dence to Kingston, and charged eight dollars for the same.
It was proved by several of the witnesses that there was
nothing in the character of this freight to make the trans¬
portation of it worth more than other freight, (and the agent
of the Company stated that it was on a car with other long
timber,) that the price, at the established rates, would have
been about two dollars; and further, that a very few weeks
after, the same Company charged for a similar machine over
the same portion of their road three dollars, the two machines
being, to common observation, the same, though on examin¬
ation it proved that the first was about l-15th part larger,
and the last was furnished with a large cast-iron plate. The
owner of the first refused to pay the eight dollars, but re¬
peatedly offered to pay the bill if reduced to a fair price.
The Company declined to make any reduction but threaten¬
ed to compel him to submission by inflicting greater injuries
upon him. These threats were made by a Director, of the
Company, and reiterated by its agents, in offensive language.
While this bill was still unpaid the same party had nine
valuable wool carding machines transported to the Kingston
depot; he sent up five teams and a number of hands to re¬
move them at once. The agent of the Company refused to
deliver them, giving as a reason that the payment of freight
of the planing machine was refused. The agent of the
owner demanded that the machines should be delivered, and
only enough retained to cover the freight, or that they
should be stored and protected from damage as there was a
prospect of a storm. The agents of the road said they had
their instructions, and would do neither; and in consequence
of the delay thus occasioned by the necessity of sending a
messenger to the establishment of the owner a very great
damage was done to the machinery, by a storm which com¬
menced before the machinery could be transported to its
place of destination, besides the delay of so many teams and
hands. It was further proved that it was not customary for
7
the Company thus to refuse at that depot. The simple facts
of this case seems to be that the Company demanded of the
owner of the planing machine four times the amount due,
and made his refusal to pay an 'excuse for departing from
their usual custom in delivering freight, and of doing him a
damage, proved to have been very large in consequence, and
threatened further damage if he did not comply with their
demand.
It was also proved, that the payment of the bill was event¬
ually obtained of the teamster without his knowledge, by
putting it among some other bills which he was paying, $3
having been first deducted from it, and still making a pay¬
ment of more than double the tariff rate.
In further support of this allegation, it was proved that in
January, 1S53, Messrs. Davis & Thurber, of North Atidover,
Mass., delivered three jacks at the Boston depot of the Bos¬
ton and Providence Railroad, and offered to load them all in
one car, having come to Boston to see that it was properly
done. (It further appears, that six such machines can be
loaded on one car.) The agents of the road assuring Messrs.
Davis & Thurber that they could and would load them pro¬
perly, they left the machines in their charge, with direc¬
tions to carry them to Kingston depot. The jacks were
carried to Providence, there unloaded, carted to the Stoning-
ton Railroad depot, and carried to Kingston, where they
were found to be much damaged. The Boston and Provi¬
dence road charged, for transportation to Providence, $16,
or, one-third more than the price of a car, and $5 additional
for carting from their depot to the Stonington Railroad depot,
making $21, which the owner of the jacks refused to pay,
on the ground that the damge to the machinery exceeded
the whole freight money, but paid the bill of freight to the
Stonington Company, they asserting that the damage was
done on the Boston and Providence road.
The Boston road refused to refund to the Stonington road,
alleging that the damage was done on the Stonington road.
The Stonington Railroad then refused to advance to the
Boston and Providence Company the freight of any goods
consigned to the owner of the jacks, and the Boston road
commenced stopping the goods consigned to him. Some
weeks after the affair of the jacks the Boston and Providence
Company received at their depot in Boston six large wool
cards marked for the Kingston depot, with directions to carry
them there for the same party who owned the jacks. The
Company stopped them at their depot in Providence, and de-
8
mantled that the freight should be paid before they were for¬
warded to their destination. These machines were also un¬
loaded and carted in Providence, and damaged, as proved by
the agents of the two Companies, after they arrived in Provi¬
dence, fully $200 ; but the payment of the freight (over $50)
was obtained of the owner in the following manner: the Su¬
perintendent of the Boston and Providence road assured him
that he had individually, and in good faith, paid the freight
for the benefit of said owner, who, on that statement repaid
the amount to him, though the machines were damaged as
proved before the Commissioners, over $200, which he has
not been able to obtain from the Company. The agent of the
Boston and Providence road, Mr. Blodget, testified that these
machines arrived at their depot in Providence in good order,
and were there broken in the process of unloading, and he
ascribed the damage to the want of shoes on the machines.
On further investigation it appeared, however, that the ma¬
chines had been transported on another road, and carted across
the city of Boston. As, by the statement of Mr. Blodget,
they still arrived in good order at Providence, they must have
been moved, as they were, without damage. Notwithstand¬
ing the amounts thus due from the Company for damage on
the jacks, and the cards being, as proved before us, not less
than about $230 after deducting all that the Company claim¬
ed from the owner for transportation, the Boston and Provi¬
dence Company still continued to detain all his property which
fell into their hands on the plea that he did not pay the freight
of the damaged jacks, adducing their rule as stated by one of
the Directors in reference to this very case.
In they stopped a machine of the same party
which the Company received in Boston. He wrote the Presi¬
dent that he was suffering a large daily loss for want of it.—
Some days after the President wrote him, declining to for¬
ward the machine unless the demand on him for payment of
freight at Providence was first complied with, and put the
letter into the hands of his Superintendent in Providence, with
instructions to the effect that there was no need of haste in
sending it. The owner of the machines was thus kept in
suspense a number of days. After receiving the decision of
the President he procured other machinery as soon as practi¬
cable, but before this could be accomplished upwards of
$20,000 worth of his goods were piled up, unfinished, in his
mill, which, before they could be finished fell very much in
market value.
It appeared, also, that other property of his, including wool
for the use of his mill, received by the Company to transport
to Kingston, was detained from him at the depot of the Com¬
pany in Providence, and his mill stopped some days in conse-
9
quence. The agent of the Company gave as a reason for
this conduct, that the freight of the jacks had not been paid.
The Commissioners stated to them that it had been proved
by the agents of the road that the Company owed the owner
of the jacks on that transaction, but it appears that they con¬
tinue to stop all goods of his coming into their hands, though
they receive of the parties in Boston and promise to deliver
at Kingston depot.
One individual has been repeatedly threatened by the Bos¬
ton and Providence Company with arrest in Massachusetts
and prosecution for fraud on behalf of the State, for having
traveled over their road with a through ticket on a different
day from that on which the ticket was issued. The testi¬
mony on this point was the proof that the threatening letters
were in the hand-writing of the Superintendent of the Bos¬
ton and Providence road, and the affidavit of Mr. Thomas
Stead* as to what occurred at the time of the passage, and
which is hereto annexed.
In support of the fifth allegation, the cases of discrimina¬
tion made between two rival manufacturers by the Boston
road, before stated, was adduced ; also the carriage of pas¬
sengers free of charge. This is admitted by the President of
the Stonington road, but to what extent we have not ascer¬
tained.
* I was in the cars of the Providence and Boston Railroad Company, on my way
to Taunton, sometime between the first of Decembor, 1852, and April,£1853, the par¬
ticular date I cannot now recall. Mr. Rowland G. Hazerd was in the same car
with me. Previous to our arrival at Pawtucket the Conductor examined our tick¬
ets. Mr. H. presented his, it was a through ticket from New York to Boston,
which the Conductor declined to receive for his p issage, claiming payment for it,
which Mr. H. declined doing in any other way than by his ticket; for his authority
in refusing the ticket the Conductor showed the instructions of the Superintendent
of the road. I became somewhat interested in the case as from the manner of the
Conductor (though very respectful) I did not know but he would leave Mr. H. at
Pawtucket. On the Conductor's passing through the cars again after leaving Paw¬
tucket, Mr. H. tendered his ticket again with an endorsement on it, that he (H.)
had received a passage from Providence to Boston in the mid-day train for this tick¬
et. A long discussion ensued between Mr. H. and the Conductor, during which
Mr. H. stated that it had been his custom for years to pass over the road in the mid¬
day train on through tickets, and that no objection had ever been made to it, which
fact was not disputed by the Conductor, and for refusing it now he alone referred to
his orders, which he said were consequent upon the reduced fare on the through
trains, and that through tickets only, gave through passages over the road the day on
which they were issued. Mr, H. went into an argument proving that by usage he
was entitled to pass—that he paid for service, an4 thus was entitled to it—that
then was no lack of room in the cars—that if a passage over the road was worth
more at that time of day that he would pay the difference ; and that, having paid
his passage he was entitled to a passage over the road in any of the regular passen¬
ger trains, provided there was room in the cars, and that they must either give him
the passage or refund the money paid for it. He adduced many arguments in sup¬
port of his right to passage. I left the cars at Mansfield and only learn from Mr. H.
that he passed over the road, but that the Conductor would not receive the ticket.
Providence, Dec. 28, 1853. THOMAS J. STEAD.
10
It was also proved that three different parties engaged in
carrying passengers to the Stonington road, had been obliged
to give up business and incurred heavy losses inconsequence
of the Stonington Company's giving their competitors an ad¬
vantage over them, charging the injured parties three-fold
the price they charged to their competitors.
In support of the sixth allegation, the abuses already stated
were referred to, and from the fact that they had been con¬
tinued for a long series of years, the complainants urged that
the existing laws were not sufficient for the protection of the
public. Particular facts were also proved. One witness
stated that the Stonington Company had withheld goods be¬
longing to him, that he commenced suit for the same, that
he eventually obtained judgment, but the Company, by de¬
laying trial, put him to an expense of five times the value of
the property ; and further stated, that he believed there was
a general opinion that the Companies pursued the policy of
making suits expensive, to deter claimants from prosecuting.
Another witness stated that the Boston and Providence Com¬
pany transported for him a large lot of wool, to the value of
about $7,000, and threw the same upon the ground, and part
of it in a ditch, where by a rain it was partly immersed in
water, and damaged to the amount of over $1,000, and but
for extra effort on his part would have been damaged much
more ; that he wrote to the President of the road, requesting
him to have the wool examined and damage ascertained, but
he declined doing anything in regard to it, and refused to
pay any damage. This witness further stated, that he in¬
tended to sue for the damage, but was satisfied if he did so
that the Company would make it cost him more than the
amount of the damage, and that he was afraid to involve
himself in a suit with a corporation having a capital of two
or three million dollars. As an excuse for having caused
this damage, the officers of the Company stated to the Com¬
missioners that a portion of the track of their road was taken
up at the time, and that they could not run their cars to their
depot house to put the wool under shelter; and the owner
had told them he would send a vessel for it, which they ex¬
pected would take it away. Several witnesses testified that
they were unwilling to enter into legal contests with the
Railroad Corporations, and that they believed this unwil¬
lingness was very general.
One witness testified that he did not feel inclined to sue
the Railroad Company on claims in which they manifested
a disposition not to pay, and one of which was refused on
11
the ground that he had been troublesome, because the Com¬
pany always contend as long as possible, and are enemies
ever after, which is a serioqs loss or inconvenience to a per¬
son who is having freight over tho road.
In addition to the foregoing allegations, some complaints
have been made, and it was found that the accommodation
train on the Stonington Railroad, which arrives at Providence
in the morning and leaves in the afternoon, is much delayed
by the large amount of freight attached to it—the Conductor
of it says from six to twenty cars—and that it frequently did
not get to Providence in time to make the contemplated con¬
nection with the Newport boat in the morning. That on
the return trip in the afternoon it is also much delayed, and
sometimes waits a quarter of an hour, or even more, for the
freight train to come from Boston, that it may be attached.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHUYLER FISHER, Chairman, and
N. A. EDDY, Secretary, of the
Board of Railroad Commissioners.
mn