tion during the summer months, for which permission was obtained, and I believe the company to be within its rights in not stopping trains at Kensington station at the present time. Should they continue running by this station after September 1st, action can be taken at that time. The complainants raised the further point that the permission to abandon the Kensington station for the summer months was coupled with a recommendation that a proper station be built in the new location, and that this has not been done. The nature of the station building was not raised in the complaint and cannot be considered in this hearing. I, therefore, recommend that the complaint be dismissed. This matter coming on upon the report of the hearing had herein on July 23, 1908, and it appearing that the said hearing was held by and pursuant to Hearing Order No. 638 of this Commission, made July 14, 1908, upon the complaint and answer herein, and that the said hearing was held on the matters in said complaint, answer and order specified on July 23, 1908, before Mr. Commissioner Eustis presiding, R. B. Cushing, Esq., appearing for the complainants, Arthur Du Bois. Esq., appearing for the Public Service Commission, and Arthur N. Dutton, Esq., appearing for the South Brooklyn Railway Company. Now, it being made to appear that the South Brooklyn Railway Company had obtained permission from the Board of Railroad Commissioners to discontinue the use of the Kensington station during the months of June, July and August, and that the discontinuance of train stops at Kensington station complained of occurred during these months, it is Ordered, That the said complaint be and the same hereby is in all respects dismissed and that this order be filed in the office of the Commission. And it is further Ordered, That this order shall be without prejudice for an order for further hearing and action thereon by the Commission, in respect to any of the matters covered by said complaint or by said hearing Order No. 638, or by the proceedings thereon. Staten Island Midland Railway Company.- Failure to stop cars at Steuben street and Richmond road, Concord, Staten Island. COMPLAINT OF ERNEST Cuozzo against STATEN ISLAND MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY. Complaint Order (see form, note 1) issued November 27th. Case 1003. Union Railway Company of New York City and Westchester Electric Railroad Company.- Discontinuance of through service by the Union Railway Company on White Plains avenue between Two Hundred and Twenty-ninth street and Two Hundred and Forty-second street and failure of said company and Westchester Electric to exchange transfers to provide such service. Complaint Order No. 775. UNION COMPLAINT OF JOHN CLAREY RAILWAY COMPANY OF NEW YORK Complaint Order No. 775 (see form, note 1) issued October 10th. Hearings held October 22d and November 5th. The matters complained of were satisfied by the company and the following dismissal order was issued: JOHN CLAREY, against FREDERICK W. WHITRIDGE, receiver of UNION Defendants. DISMISSAL ORDER No. 824. This matter coming on to be heard on October 22, 1908, pursuant to Hearing Order No. 788, and sessions having been held before John E. Eustis, Commissioner, on sald October 22, 1908, and thereafter by adjournment on November 5, 1908, and Albert H. Walker, Esq., having appeared for the Public Service Commission, and William J. Clarke, Esq., of the office of the counsel to the corporation of the City of New York having appeared for the city of New York, and Henry C. Henderson, Esq., having appeared for the complainant, and Evarts, Choate & Sherman having appeared for Frederick W. Whitridge, receiver of Union Railway Company of New York city, and Bowers & Sands having appeared for Union Railway Company of New York city, and Arthur M. Johnson, Esa.. having appeared for J. Addison Young, receiver of the Westchester Electric Railroad Company; and evidence having been taken upon said hearing; and it having appeared by statement of complainant's counsel that since the hearing began the grievance complained of had been remedied by Union Railway Company of New York city to the satisfaction of the complainant, it is Ordered, That the said complaint be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. Union Railway Company. Failure to run cars of the White Plains avenue line north to the city line. COMPLAINT OF C. E. ARNOLD against UNION RAILWAY COMPANY OF NEW YORK CITY AND FREDERICK W. WHITRIDGE, ITS RECEIVER. Complaint Order No. 848 (see form, note 1) issued November 20th. OTHER MATTERS RELATING MAINLY TO SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT. Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company.— Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.- Traffic conditions at Graham and Flushing avenues and Broadway, Brooklyn. COMPLAINT OF BOARD OF ALDERMEN against BROOKLYN, QUEENS COUNTY AND SUBURBAN Complaint Order No. 417 (see form, note 1) issued April 17th. The companies answered on April 25th claiming that they had a sufficient number of inspectors employed, and the complainant was so informed, but that a hearing would be held if desired. No further action. Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company.Unsanitary condition of horse cars, Canal street line. COMPLAINT OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN against DRY DOCK, EAST BROADWAY AND BATTERY Complaint Order No. 257 (see form, note 1) issued February 25th. The company answered March 6th stating that immediate attention would be given to the cars in question. Forty-second Street, Manhattanville and St. Nicholas Avenue Railroad Company. Lack of heat on Broadway cars. COMPLAINT OF JAMES H. CANFIELD against FORTY-SECOND STREET, MANHATTANVILLE AND CEIVER. Complaint Order No. 302 (see form, note 1) issued March 3d, It is hereby ordered, That a hearing be had on the 13th day of February, 1908. at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon or at any time or times to which the same may be adjourned, at the rooms of the Commission, No. 154 Nassau street, borough of Manhattan, city and State of New York, to inquire whether the requirements, practices, equipment, appliances or service of said company upon its elevated lines, in the boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, city of New York, in respect to the transportation of persons, are unreasonable, unsafe, improper or inadequate, and if it be so found then to determine whether changes in said regulations, practices, equipment, appliances or service in the particulars following would be just, reasonable, safe, adequate and proper and whether such changes shall be put in force, observed and used on the line of said company; and also to inquire and determine whether repairs, improvements, changes or additions to or in tracks or other property or device used by said company in the particulars following ought reasonably to be made, in order to promote the security or convenience of the public or in order to secure adequate service or facilities for the transportation of passengers, namely, whether said company should be directed to maintain a temperature of at least 60 degrees Fahrenheit in all cars operated by said company on its elevated lines at all times when said cars are in use for the transportation of passengers, said temperature to be tested at or near the centre of the car at a point not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) feet from the floor of the car and to be maintained without any interference with the regular and proper operation of the ventilators of said cars. And if such change, improvement and addition be found to be such as ought to be made as aforesaid, then to determine what period would be a reasonable time within which the same should be directed to be executed, all to the end that the Commission may make such order or orders in the premises as shall be just and reasonable. Further ordered. That the said Interborough Rapid Transit Company be given at least two (2) days' notice of such hearing by service upon it, either personally or by mail, of a certified copy of this order and that at such hearing said company be afforded all reasonable opportunity to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses as to the matters hereinabove set forth. Hearings were held February 13th, 14th, and 19th. Nassau Electric Railroad Company. Condition of cars and method of transferring passengers on the Fifth avenue surface line. COMPLAINT OF TRACY GREY against NASSAU ELECTRIC RAILROAD COMPANY. Complaint Order No. 539 (see form, note 1) issued May 29th. 1 New York and Long Island Traction Company and Long Island Traction Company.- Exchange of transfers at the intersection of lines on New York avenue, near the line of the Brooklyn Aqueduct. COMPLAINT OF FREDERICK K. WINSLOW against NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND TRACTION COM- Complaint Order No. 687 Complaint Order No. 687. (see form, note 1) issued August 21st. Staten Island Railway Company; United States Express Company.— Inadequate facilities for handling baggage between Staten Island and Manhattan. Complaint Order No. 461. COMPLAINT OF FRED H. COZZENS against STATEN ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY. Complaint Order No. 461 (see form, note 1) issued May 5th. This matter was taken up by Commissioner McCarroll who made the following report: COMMISSIONER MCCARROLL : OPINION OF COMMISSION. In this complaint there is disclosed a substantial grievance of the people of Richmond borough. The difficulty, however, does not lie in the direction indicated by the complaint, which is made against the railroad company in connection with the express company. The investigation shows that the United States Express Company does not make collections of baggage to be forwarded by express on Sundays. There is a further difficulty in the fact that the railroad company can only check the baggage to St. George, instead of checking it through to New York, the company furnishing what is called a "claim check." There seems to be a lack of proper arrangement between the city in the operation of the ferries and the railroad and express companies. It is a case in which, I judge, that results can best be obtained by correspondence, at least as a preliminary, rather than by other action of the Commission. I have, therefore, instructed my secretary to ascertain facts in this way and report will be made at a later date. Unless action seems to be demanded earlier on the part of the Commission, I would recommend that it be left with the committee for such further action as may seem to be desirable. May 27, 1908. |