blockade of freights anticipated and now partially existing, the railroad companies in this State are hereby notified that no avoidable blockade of freights will be permitted; and that when such avoidable blockade occurs, because of any arrangement existing between railroad companies for distributing amongst themselves for transportation, according to percentages, the cotton or other freight offered for shipment, such companies will be held accountable for damages arising from such detention. And the railroad companies are requested and directed to remove cotton and other freights when delivered for shipment, to the extent of their facilities, without unnecessary delay, and without regard to any contract, express or implied, that may exist amongst themselves in reference to the division and distribution of freights between the respective companies.

By order of the Commissioners.

R. A. BACON, Secretary.

Your Excellency will observe that this order contemplates nothing more, nor requires more of the railroad companies than a faithful discharge of their duties, as contemplated by the laws of the State governing common carriers, irrespective of the powers conferred by the act creating this Commission.

MANUFACTORIES.

It has been the intention of the Commissioners to permit the railroads to offer such inducements to manufacturers, as would encourage them to make investments in the State. This is clearly effected by Note 1 of our rules, from which we give the following extract:

"The rates specified for ores, sand, clay, rough stone, common brick, bones, lumber, shingles, laths, staves, empty barrels, wood, straw, shucks, hay, fodder, corn in ear, tan bark, turpentine, rosin, tar, household goods, and for articles manufactured on or near the line of said road, and for materials used in such manufacture, are maximum rates; but the roads are left

free to reduce them at discretion, and all such rates are exempted from the operation of Rule 6."

This note permits the railroad companies to make lower rates for articles manufactured on or near their own lines, or the lines of connecting roads, without coming under the restraining clause in Rule 6; provided that no more is charged for a less than for a longer distance.

COMPLAINTS.

Numerous requests and complaints have been received by the Commissioners, both from the citizens and the railroads, and occasional discussions have been heard of conflicting interests. Considering the number and importance of the questions presented for solution, the changes made in our tariffs and regulations have been few. The railroad companies, in some instances, casually omitted to furnish us with full information of their unprinted or special rates. Most of the changes made by us, after the first publication of the standard tariff, were rendered necessary by these omissions.

With a view of placing ourselves in possession of the information needed for a proper revision of our standard tariff, we issued a circular, addressed to all the railroad companies of the State, calling on them to furnish us a comparative statement of the earnings and expenses of their respective roads, during the months of May and June, 1879 and 1880. The action of the Commissioners, based upon responses to this Circular is embodied in Circulars Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, herewith transmitted.

The operation of Circular No. 10 has led to some discussion, not so much in regard to actual as to relative rates. The Commissioners gave the whole subject their most thoughtful consideration, and we think that their action will be found satisfactory.

The question of the operation of the Central Railroad as a unit, or in the several divisions expressed in Cir

cular 10, was much argued. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the Commissioners was correct, and the only one consistent with authority. Enforced unity, against the consent of the railroad companies, we did not consider within our province.

The whole subject of joint rates between railroads in this State, is gradually opening before us, the chief principles having been, to some extent, involved in the relation of local and joint rates on the several divisions of the Central railroad. The Commissioners have never believed that they had the power, under the law, to make a joint rate between points on any two roads, which would be less in amount than the sums of the local rates charged on such roads between these points, except by the request or consent of the roads interested.

CLASSIFICATIONS.

The classifications of railroad freight tariffs have ever been undergoing changes. That adopted by the Southern Railway & Steamship Association, and stereotyped in February, 1880, it was thought by many prominent railroad officials, would remain unchanged for a considerable time. Since then, however, another and different classification has been found necessary. Some persons have thought the Commissioners too unyielding, because of the very few changes made in our standard tariff and classification, since they went into effect. As every change involves heavy expense for printing, we have made only such, as in our judgment, strict justice and pressing necessity required.

PRINTING.

The Commission has no choice in the method of publishing its tariffs, revisions, etc., as the law specifies how it shall be done. A large amount of printing expenses has been saved, however, by adopting a "standard tariff," and then adapting it to each particular road, by circulars. This was done, upon the most

careful consideration, as the best means of economy consistent with carrying out the law.

The first publication of tariffs, rules and regulations was necessarily very expensive, as it embraced a full classification of all freights covered by the rates.

Had we attempted to make a separate tariff and classification for each road in the State, the expense of printing the same would necessarily have been the amount of the present expense multiplied by the whole number of railroads in the State.

No law exists providing the means to pay the expenses of printing the tariffs, etc., issued by the Commission.

The law requires that the rates and revision of rates established by the Commissioners shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in some public newspapers published in the cities of Augusta, Albany, Atlanta, Savannah, Macon, Rome and Columbus,in this State, before going into operation. We found it necessary to appeal to the proprietors of the newspapers to make the required publications and to await the action of the General Assembly for compensation. A copy of the circular letter of the chairman on this subject is herewith transmitted. Your Excellency furnished the Commission with twelve hundred dollars to be used as an advance on account of printing expenses. Accompanying this report will be found a full statement of the disposition made of this amount. We respectfully suggest to your Excellency the propriety of recommending to the General Assembly an appropriation for the payment of such just balances as may be found due on account of printing done for Commissioners.

OFFICE EXPENSES.

The Legislature appropriated the sum of five hundred dollars to pay for office rent, stationery, etc. Commissioner Wallace furnished us rent-free the commodious offices over the Merchant's Bank on Alabama

street, which we have occupied during the present year. The whole of the appropriation mentioned has been drawn from the Treasury and applied to the uses directed by law. There is still a small balance on account of expenses incurred, amounting to ($39.13) thirty-nine dollars and thirteen cents, remaining unpaid.

Below we give a statement showing the disposition made of the appropriations paid on the following ac

In the spring of the present year, Morris K. Jesup, trustee, &c., filed his bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia, praying that the Commissioners be restrained from enforcing their rates and regulations on the Savannah, Florida & Western Railroad. Upon the hearing of the application for injunction, the bill was dismissed. Immediately thereafter another bill was filed, however, by George H. Tilley, in the same court, asking for a similar remedy. A restraining order was granted in this case by the court, enjoining the Commissioners from enforcing their established rates on