Edward J. Bickerstaff Takes on the Railroad, 1907

What I understand from this article is that Edward J. Bickerstaff, my mother's maternal grandfather, bought property  because the railroad promised to build an electric railroad nearby.  The railroad did not build the line and Edward did not get railroad service.  He filed a complaint with the the Ohio Railroad Commission against the Steubenville, Mingo & Ohio Valley Traction company. 

This article was published in The Sandusky (Ohio) Star-Journal, on December 10, 1907, page 1.

                    RAILROAD
                   ---------------
         Cannot Abandon a Line,
         Where Rights of Public
              are Jeopardized
              -------------------
  COLUMBUS, O., Dec. 19.---Although
this particular case was decided
against the complainant, that a rail-
road company has no right under the
laws of Ohio to "recklessly and wan-
tonly" abandon its line is the gist of
a decision handed down Tuesday af-
ternoon by the railroad commission
of Ohio in the case of Edward J.
Bickerstaff vs. the Steubenville, Min-
go & Ohio Valley Traction company.
   It seems that the complainant and
others were induced to buy real es-
tate at a certain point with the in-
ducement of electric railroad service
held out to them.  The company lat-
er applied to the county comission-
ers for a franchise to operate a par-
allel line, except that it was a low
grade road, free from dangerous
grades and curves.  Another com-
pany made a similar application at
the same time, and the Steubenville,
Mingo & Ohio Valley sold out to the
new company.  The old line was then
abandoned, and the complainant ask-
ed the commission to compel its op-
eration.
   The commission finds, in effect, that
the old line was so full of dangerous
curves and grades that if it had not
been abandoned some authority should
have compelled it to cease operation.
One significant statement in the de-
cision of a company to build a par-
allel and competing road, the old com-
pany is justified in abandoning that
portion of the old road which suffers
by this action of the state.  So the
finding of the commission is in fact
that no company has a right to aban-
don a road, unless there are certain
surrounding circumstances making it
a necessity.  A company may not
abandon without due regard to its
public duty.  The law is silent on this
point, except that it prescribes under
what conditions a road may be aban-
doned or changed for the purpose of
eliminating curves and grades.
   As to the damages the complainants
have sustained, the commission refers
them to the civil courts.  The peti-
tion was dismissed.

This next article sheds more light on Edward's complaint and the Commission's reasons for its decision.  It was published in the Street Railway Journal, Volume XXX, No. 26, page 1216, on December, 28. 1907, by McGraw Publishing Company, 239 W. 19th Street, New York.  You can view the article here.

             AN IMPORTANT DECISION IN OHIO
    The Ohio State Railroad Commission has decided that, where the State grants a charter to one electric railway company to parallel another, the latter has a right to abandon that portion of its tracks which may be damaged through competition.   The commission also justified the sale of such portion of the track to the competing company, the same ground being taken, that the State has through chartering the other company made dam- age by competition possible.   The case is that of Edward J. Bickerstaff against the Steubenville, Mingo & Ohio Valley Traction Company and the Steubenville & Mingo Traction Company.  The complaint was that the companies abandoned a portion of their line over a high summit known as Altamount [sic], between Steubenville and Mingo, and Mr. Bickerstaff asked that the companies be forced to perform their duties as common carriers and afford service to the residents of that place.  It was shown that certain persons had purchased lots in Altamount [sic] through the inducement that electric railway service would be furnished them.  The commission says that, if a private contract was made to that effect, the remedy lies in the courts of law and not in the commission.
    After the line had been built the County Commissioners relocated the public highway along the river and a new electric railway track was built between Steubenville and Mingo at a heavy outlay of money.  Under these conditions, the commission holds that the change was warranted.  The work was done by the Steubenville & Wheeling Traction Company, which had purchased the line from the original company, the transaction having been made in good faith.  The chief reason for upholding the company, as pointed out by the commission, is the fact that the Altamount [sic] line was too dangerous to operate on account of the character of the territory over which it was built, and that the change is justified, since the public is provided with service by the low-grade division.  The significant points mentioned above were brought out in the course of the decision, however, although not meant to be the principal reasons.

Notes and Comments
I find it sad that Edward's petition was dismissed.  It makes sense for safety reasons but I think the railway was negligent in not determining the safety of the property where they intended to put the rail line before enticing people to buy land. 

This was not a legal court case.  Edward took his complaint and petition to the Railroad Commission of Ohio.  The Commission dismissed his petition and suggested that he could file a claim in a civil court.  I have no evidence that he did so. 

It is surprising to me that this petition received coverage in the railway news publication and in a local newspaper.  As for the local newspaper article:  Edward lived in Jefferson County, on the eastern border of Ohio, about midway dpwn the state.  I find it interesting that the news of this case was published in a newspaper in Sandusky, a city on the northern border of Ohio.  News travelled far a century ago!  Steubenville newspapers for this time period are not available online but I'm sure the local papers kept tabs on this and published at least an article or two.  The State Archives of Ohio is the only place I know to find these newspapers. 

I've been digging into Jefferson County, Ohio, property record indexes at FamilySearch.  I hope to find a record of the property Edward purchased before or in 1907.  The only hint about which property it could be is found in the article in the Street Railway Journal, which states that Edward and other individuals had purchased property in Altamount [Altamont].  There's an entry in the index indicating Edward purchased land there in Altamont on October 17, 1906.  There may also be others.  I'll have to decide whether or not it's worth pursuing property purchases before devoting more time to the effort.

Edward was in his mid-40s when he filed this petition.  In the 1900 census he is listed as farmer and in the 1910 census as a contractor.  Who knows which he was doing in 1907!  The fact that he filed a petition at all indicates to me that he was not a man to be walked on, that he stood up for what he believed were his rights.

—Nancy.

Copyright © 2023 Nancy Messier.  All Rights Reserved. 
Do not copy or use any content from this blog without written permission from the owner.