"Tap Line Case" Summary of Poplar Bluff & Dan River Railway  
     
  Abstracted from "Tap Line Case", published in Decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 23 I.C.C. 277, 23 I.C.C. 549, and in Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 234 U.S. 1.  
 
 
 
     
 

POPLAR BLUFF & DAN RIVER RAILWAY. The Poplar Bluff & Dan River Railway Company was organized in February, 1906, with a capital stock of $50,000, practically all of which is owned by Mr. H. I. Ruth, its president, who is also president and treasurer of the Hargrove-Ruth Lumber Company. The two companies are identical in interest; and the mill, timber, and railroad were acquired by the present owners at a receiver's sale. Moreover, the tap line previous to its incorporation was privately operated by the lumber company as a facility of the mill.

The track connects with the Iron Mountain at Poplar Bluff, Mo., and extends for a distance of 22 miles southward to Ruthville. The tap line has 2 locomotives, and 6 cars, not equipped with safety appliances. Practically the entire tonnage is supplied by the proprietary company, the only exception being a few stave bolts and ties shipped by small producers. The tap line owns the logging spurs and per-forms all service necessary in delivering the logs to the mill, setting up a charge of $1 per 1,000 feet against the lumber company. The lumber is loaded at the mill into cars standing on the tracks of the Iron Mountain. The tap line receives, however, a division of 4 cents per 100 pounds out of the joint rates, which includes an arbitrary of 2 cents per 100 pounds added to the rates in effect from. the junction point.

On June 30, 1910, the tap line had a surplus of $19,000, the revenues for the year ending on that date having exceeded the expenses by nearly $10,000. It does not file annual reports with the Commission.

It is frankly stated by counsel on the record that the methods and practices of the Poplar Bluff' & Dan River have been irregular; and his client voluntarily announced a willingness to relinquish all claim to receiving divisions as a common carrier. In fact, the witness, until required by the Commission to do so, refused to testify on the ground of self-incrimination. We hold that no allowance out of the rate may lawfully be made in this case.

 
     
  [top]  
 
 
 
 
Text and images were digitized and proofread from the original source documents by Murry Hammond. Contact Murry for all corrections, additions, and contributions of new material.