high rate of speed. On one day in the week preceding the 25th of June, a record was kept, and there were one hundred and sixty vehicular conveyances and three hundred pedestrians crossed the railway tracks.

The volume of traffic has not dimished. Apparently the attempted protection by means of an electric bell is a failure.

The Board caused the crossing to be inspected by one of its officers and his recommendation was that the electric bell did not afford sufficient protection, and he thought gates should be installed; and I am of the same opinion.

I do not know the specific terms under which the Wabash Railroad Company operates over this section of the Grand Trunk Railway Company; but it is the latter company only that the Board must look to to afford protection at this point. It is only fair to say, however, if it has any bearing on the matter as between the two companies, that this order would not be made were it not for the fast trains operated by the Wabash which do not stop at Jarvis. The Grand Trunk operations there would not require the establishment and operation of gates.

The danger is greatly enhanced by reason of the location of the hotel, the trees surrounding it, and the mill. It was said that even when the bell was in operation that the running of the mill prevented to some extent the ringing of the bell being heard.

For these reasons, the municipality should contribute towards the expense of maintaining these gates; and the order will be that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, within thirty days, file with the Board plans for the location of gates at the point in question, and install and fully equip the same within ninety days after the approval of the said plans.

That thereafter the railway company shall maintain and operate these gates between the hours of seven in the morning. and eight in the evening, and that there be paid out of the railway grade crossing fund twenty per cent. of the cost of installing the gates and equipment; and that after the said gates are installed and commenced to be operated, the township of

Walpole shall pay to the Grand Trunk Railway Company ten per cent. of the cost of the operation of the said gates; that these payments shall be made upon accounts being presented by the railway company to the township of Walpole, monthly or quarterly as the parties may arrange.

I am directing, in the meantime, that the gates be operated only from seven in the morning until eight in the evening, because when the application was originally before the Board, counsel for the township asked that a watchman be on duty only during these hours, and stated that after eight o'clock traffic at the highway was very limited. If, however, at any future time, it be found that these gates should be operated between the hours of eight in the evening and seven in the morning, the township shall have leave to make an application to have such extended operation.

CANADA.]

SWITCHING CHARGES.

[BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.

GRAND TRUNK RY. Co. v. CHRISTIE, HENDERSON & Co.

(File No. 9171.)

Switching and Handling Traffic-Fixing Tolls-Absorption - Competitive Plants-Similar Treatment-Special Charge-Railway Act, sec. 315 (4).

Application of the railway company to fix the toll for switching and handling traffic to and from the respondents' spur, two and a half miles north of Hespeler. The applicants relied on a similar order made in the case of the Pilon spur on the Canada Atlantic Railway near Casselman, where an additional charge of $3.00 per car was allowed, on the increased cost of construction, on the increased cost of operation on account of grade, and that the $3.00 per car which the respondents had paid under protest did not cover cost of operation. The respondents contended that they were not bound by the Pilon order, of which they had no notice, there was a discrimination of $6.00 per car as compared with free service to competitive plants between stations on the line from Guelph to Galt. Held, that under sec. 315 (4) of the Railway Act it is required that all competitive industries should be treated alike.

Held, that the railway company were not entitled to make an extra charge for switching services.

The application was heard at Toronto, October 16th, 1909.

M. K. Cowan, K.C., for the Grand Trunk Ry. Co.

The respondents, Messrs. Henderson & Christie, appeared in person.

November 10, 1909. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER:-It was stated at the hearing that the railway company made no charge for switching services at many other industries situated as that of Messrs. Christie, Henderson & Co.'s is. Some of these were competitive plants. When the Board made the order requiring the company to put this spur in, provision was made for the payment of a switching charge, but there was then no information furnished to the Board that it had been the custom of the company for many years to perform the like service without making an extra charge,-the law requires all to be treated alike and it is absurd for the Board to require Messrs. Christie, Henderson & Co. to make payments for services that the railway company makes no charge for at other industrial plants.

An order must go declaring that the railway company is not entitled to make any extra charge for switching performed at the spur in question.

MR. COMMISSIONER MILLS concurred.

CANADA.]

JOINT TARIFF-COMPETITION.

[BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.

BONNERS' FERRY LUMBER Co. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. Co.

(File No. 11143.)

Joint Tariff-Competition-Intermediate Point-Continuous Route-Basing Point-Collection of Tolls Illegal-Railway Act, secs. 314 (5), 315 (5), 335.

On a complaint that the Great Northern Railway Company charged higher tolls from Nelson to Gateway, B.C., than from the same point to Fernie, B.C., or Spokane, in the United States, the distance from Nelson to Fernie, via Canadian Pacific short line being 197 miles, by Great Northern 476 miles.

The goods were shipped from Nelson (the basing point) at a toll based on a combination of tolls on Spokane, thereby making a joint tariff and through toll by a continuous route over Canadian and foreign lines. A joint tariff at a through rate over a continuous route between Gateway and Nelson, B.C., had not been filed as required by sec. 335. Held, that under sec. 315 (5) of the Act, although Gateway is an intermediate point, Fernie is a competitive point; the charging of a higher local toll to Gateway than the through toll to Fernie was not a violation of this sub-section.

Held, that under secs. 314 (5) and 335 of the Act, the failure to file a joint tariff with the Board, rendered the collection of tolls illegal.

THE application was disposed of on the material filed with the Board.

The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Mr. Commissioner McLean.

September 27, 1909. MR. COMMISSIONER MCLEAN:-The Bonners Ferry Lumber Company of Bonners' Ferry, Idaho, purchased some small lots of goods from the branch of the Ashdown Hardware Company located at Nelson. These goods were shipped from Nelson and billed by the initial carrier to Gateway, B.C. The depot at Gateway is on the international boundary; part of the depot being in British Columbia and the other part in Montana.

Gateway is a point intermediate to Fernie. The short line

C.P.R. mileage from Nelson to Fernie is 197 miles, while by the Great Northern route over which the goods moved, the distance from Nelson to Fernie is 476 miles. In meeting the short line mileage no necessary obligation is created to apply the same basis on intermediate distances not subjected to the same short line mileage competition.

It is stated that the applicants were assured that the shipments would move from Nelson to Gateway, B.C., on the Fernie rate. The goods moved on this rate and payment of charges on this basis was apparently accepted. Later there was a refusal to protect this rate and the applicants were billed for under charges. No tariff basis either for so applying the Fernie rate or for the under charges over which contest arises is any where before us. The applicants contend that the charging of a higher rate for the intermediate distance to Gateway, B.C., as compared with a lower rate on the longer haul to Fernie is in violation of the "long and short haul" clause contained in sub-sec. 5 of sec. 315 of the Railway Act. But the Fernie rate is a competitive one, and this contention advanced by the applicants must fail.

The question is, what, if any rate, was available for the movement between Nelson and Gateway, B.C. The Fernie rates and the rate the applicants were subsequently asked to pay are as follows:

Fernie rate. Rates subsequently billed.

The assistant traffic manager of the Great Northern Railway states that the rates from Nelson to Gateway, B.C., are based on combinations on Spokane. It also appears that a basing point rate made up of a combination of Nelson-Fernie and Fernie back to Gateway, B.C., may be built up. Goods might move under either of the following combinations: