Statement of Stock and Bond Issues and other Securities, Approved by the Railroad Commission of Georgia, Since August 22nd, 1907. NAME OF CORPORATION. Amount of Bonds Approved. Amount of Stock Approved. Date of Approval. $ 80,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 June 25th, 1908 250,000.00 Oct. 18th, 1907 150,000.00 Oct. 17th, 1907 10,000.00 Oct. 23rd, 1907 1,000,000.00 Nov. 14th, 1907 2,570,000.00 Oct. 24th, 1907 200,000.00 Oct. 29th, 1907 2,240,000.00 April 9th, 1908 3,000,000.00 3,979,950.00 Mar. 21st, 1908 6,000,000.00 April 10th, 1908 30,000.00 April 23rd, 1908 120,000.00 135,000.00 June 16th, 1908 500,000.00 May 13th, 1908 Georgia, Southwestern & Gulf Railroad Company. 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 May 29th, 1908 200,000.00 10,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 Columbus Automatic Telephone Company Fitzgerald, Ocilla & Broxton Railroad Company $14,981.16 (Time Notes) & $10,000.00 Stock 16,008 00 (Time Notes with interest) 3,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 250,000.00 8th, 1908 Sept. 24th, 1908 Aug. 6th, 1908 May 1,200,000,00 42,000 00 Oct. 2nd, 1908 250,000.00 200,000.00 10,000 00 Dec. 8th, 1908 Dec. 17th, 1908 750,000.00 Jan. 21st, 1909 CHARTERS GRANTED RAILROADS. Since August 22, 1907, eighteen railroads have been granted charters by the Secretary of State, representing a total capital of $2,710,000.00, and total mileage of 521.50 miles, as set out in the following statement: NAME PRINCIPAL CAPITAL LENGTH Abbeville & Northwestern Railway Coweta, Franklin & Troupe Railroad Company Middle Georgia Interurban Ry. Company. Valdosta, Moultrie & Western Ry. Company.. Total 18 Lines. CLAIMS. By reference to the statement of formal complaints, petitions, etc., appearing elsewhere in this report, it will be noted that the Commission is called upon to handle claims of every description. In many instances, claimants have complained that their claims have been pending with the company complained against for months, and not infrequently, for one and two years, and some times longer, and that notwithstanding their repeated efforts to secure proper disposition, the railway companies still refuse to dispose of them. Oftentimes the Commission handles such claims and upon taking them up with the railway companies at interest, satisfactory settlement is secured within a few days. This is accounted for by reason of the fact that the Commission thoroughly considers the papers and points out to the company complained against whatever rights claimants have; if their rights are plain, the Commission presents them to the defendant company and points out plainly wherein and to what extent correction should be made; if the contentions of the claimants are not well founded they are so advised and usually withdraw the claims. Less trouble is incurred in the satisfactory disposition of claims for overcharge than probably any other class of claims, and this is due, in a large measure, to the fact that the extent of the liability of the defendant company is more easily ascertained, in fact is fixed as there can be only one correct rate, and the only requirement in such cases is to ascertain what the correct rate is covering the shipment out of which claim accrued. When such claims are filed with the Commission the papers are thoroughly examined, the correct rate determined and the amount of the overcharge, if any, ascertained and a full statement of all of the facts in the case plainly pointed out to the company against which claim is filed. In cases of overcharge claims against railroad companies, unless there is a difference between shippers and the railroad company as to the proper classification of the article shipped the correct rate is easily applied. Where the proper charges are brought into question by reason of difference of opinion as to what class the goods shipped should be rated, if the shipment is intra-state, or local to the state of Georgia, and therefore, within its control, the Commission specifies the proper classification or rating, and notifies the railroad company as to the basis upon which claim should be settled. If the claim grows out of an inter-state shipment, the Commission handles same with the railroad company, in an informal way, advising it as to its opinion in the matter and requesting disposition accordingly. If the railroad companies refuse to carry out its suggestions in such cases, the Commission informs claimants of its inability to further serve them, but always informing them of its readiness to assist them in prosecuting their claim before the Inter-state Commerce Commission, if that Commission has jurisdiction in the matter, and if not, in serving them in any other way that claimants might suggest. Claims for loss are handled in the same manner; that is, notwithstanding a lack of authority to require such claims paid, the Commission always makes a thorough investigation of this class of claims and takes the same up with the companies complained against, furnishing them with the result of its investigation and urging the companies to give preferred attention to same. The same is true as to claims for damage, but this class of claims is probably the most difficult to satisfactorily handle. Some of the difficulties incurred in handling such claims grow out of the differences between the claimant and the defendant company as to the extent of damage sustained; the claims oftentimes are made account of concealed damage, or damage which was not detected until the goods were unpacked, and after delivery was made and the defendant com. pany held receipt for delivery in good order. Many claims for damage are filed for goods lost or broken in transit, which were shipped under a released valuation, claimants contending for full value of goods lost or damaged. In such cases the railroads decline to admit of liability beyond the value specified in the bill-lading, while the shippers contend that the damage complained of and for which claim was made, was the result of carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendant company, and for which shippers could not be required to give a release. In addition to these questions, there also arises from time to times differences as to the extent of damage, due to the value of the goods at the time same were purchased and at the time they reached, or should have reached, destination, claimants contending that the damage not only extended to the specific invoice value of the goods, but also prevented them from obtaining the benefit of an increased market price, etc. Thus it will be seen that claims of this character are not always brought to a satisfactory conclusion, but the Commission has, nevertheless, been instrumental, in a large number of cases, in bringing about settlements of damage claims which were satisfactory to all parties concerned. Claims for penalty demurrage; the claims filed under the reciprocal demurrage rules of the Commission are filed in large numbers, but the number of this class of claims has been much less during the last year than previously, due, in a very large measure, to the fact that the railway companies have had during the time stated a larger supply of idle equipment, and hence they could more readily supply the demands of the public in the way of empty cars and also in transporting shipments with less delay; on account of their yards not being congested, notice of arrival of freight at destination, and placing of cars could be more readily accomplished, and compliance with all rules of the Commission in this respect could be had, as their office forces, yard crews and their other various departments were not crowded as was the case in 1907, when so many claims were filed under the reciprocal demurrage rules of the Commission. When claims of this character are filed, the same are carefully reviewed in this office and a detailed statement made as to the application of the rule in question. If the claims are filed account delay in transportation, the Commission estimates the time which the railroad company was allowed within which to complete the transportation, and serves the defendant company with a notice to show cause why the amount due shippers under its rules should not be paid. And, if the claim is filed account delay in giving notice of arrival, delay in placing, delay in forwarding, delay in furnishing cars, or under some other rule, the correct amount of penalty due, if any is found to be due, is determined by the Commission and the matter taken up with the company complained against. See briefs of files No. 8207; 8355;; 8356, and other like cases under the subject of penalty demurrage claims, reference to which can be had under the Subject Index. Various reasons are given by the railroad companies why they should not be required to pay different claims filed by shippers under the reciprocal demurrage rules of the Commision. In some cases, the railroads decline to admit of liability, because shippers sustained no actual money damage by reason of the delay; that the movement out of which claim accrued took place at a time when the yards of the railroad company were congested or during a strike of its employees; or that an accident to the car in transit rendered necessary certain repairs before car could be forwarded; or that the railroad company alleged to be at fault exercised all reasonable diligence in transportation of the shipment and delivered same as soon as practicable. The Commission has never recognized any of these reasons as sufficient to relieve the railroad companies of the penalties incurred by reason of failure to comply with its rules; and with few exceptions, each case, of course, being handled on its own merits, has received as a sufficient excuse for delays only occasions which caused delays that were beyond the control of the transportation companies. Claims for refund of demurrage charges, which claimants contend were improperly collected under the rules of the Commission are more easily disposed of, as in such cases, like claims for overcharge, the Commission interpreting its rule and applying same to the case in question; and the railroad companies, in nearly all instances, promptly dispose of claims in line with the ruling of the Commission. As examples of the way the Commission handles claims, a few references are here given for the guidance of shippers who might have occasion to call upon the Commission for assistance in such cases. File No. 8242.-On July 27th, 1908, Lon Dickey Lumber Company, Fitzgerald, Ga., complained to the Commission that they had been endeavoring since January 24th, 1908, the date upon which claims were filed, to secure settlement of eleven claims, which they held against the Seaboard Air Line Railway for overcharge on shipments of cross-ties, shipped from local stations on said line; the eleven claims aggregating the sum of $75.00. A detailed statement of the claims showing the railway company's claim reference, or file numbers, was furnished by claimants and the Commission promptly took same up with the railway company, on July 29th, 1908. On August 5th, the railway company informed the Commission that papers covering the various claims referred to had been gotten together and all of them referred to the proper officials of said company for preferred attention. On August 10th, the Commission traced the railway company for information as to the status of these claims and urging prompt disposition, and said company replied advising that eight of the claims had been vouchered and that the others were still being investigated, and would be closed out as soon as possible. Claimants advised the Commission on January 21st, 1909, that all of their claims had been satisfactorily adjusted. File No. 8153.-On June 9th, 1908, Mr. O. Von Beglenburg, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, advised the Commission that in December, 1907, he had a piano to arrive over the Central of Georgia Railway at Atlanta, Ga., which was damaged to such an extent that same was worthless to him, and that accordingly he had filed claim against said company in the amount of $190.00, that being the wholesale price of the piano. The Commission advised claimant that if he would send all papers covering this claim to this office, same would have preferred attention and that the Commission would assist him in any way it could in securing settlement. On June 20th, claimant filed with the Commission all papers covering this claim and reduced the amount claimed from $190.00 to $110,00, as, after investigation, it was found that the piano could be repaired and made as good as new for that amount. Amongst the papers were letters from the railway company declining to pay claimant more than $52,50, that amount being, in the opinion of the railway company, sufficient to cover actual damages to the shipment. On June 22nd, 1908, the Commission wrote the railway company the following letter: "The Commission is in receipt of papers covering claim of the Von Beglenberg Company, your C-36182-B. We note your letter to claimants dated December 24th, in which you advise that you are only willing to voucher claim in the amount of $52.50. In a letter from claimants dated the 20th instant, they state that after correspondence with your office they consented to amend their claim to actual cost of repairs, provided your company would ship piano to the factory and have same thoroughly overhauled. This, they state, your company agreed to do and accordingly shipped the piano to New York last January, but that they |