L-42-482 MEMORANDUM

Chicago, Illinois September 11, 1942

TO The Director of Retirement Claims

FROM The General Counsel

SUBJECT Creditability of Grain-Door Reclamation and Cooperage Services Performed at St. Joseph, Missouri; St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois; Chicago, Illinois; Peoria and Pekin, Illinois; Springfield, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Lawrenceburg, Indiana; East Buffalo, New York; Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cincinnati, Ohio; Fostoria, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Toledo, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Omaha and South Omaha, Nebraska; Council Bluffs, Iowa; Davenport, Iowa; Des Moines, Iowa; Sioux City, Iowa; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Hutchinson, Kansas; Atchison, Kansas; Memphis, Tennessee; Denver, Colorado; Galveston, Texas; Amarillo, Texas; Enid, Oklahoma; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

(j. A. McNulty; J. A. McNulty and A. E. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Agency; A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Schuyler Brothers.)

QUESTION

Is service rendered by individuals in the performance of grain door reclamation and cooperage work at the above-named points undercontracts between the railroads operating at such points and each of the firms known as J. A. McNulty; J. A. McNulty and A. E. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage -2- Memoranduin to the Director of Retirement Claims

Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing busi­ ness as Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Agency and A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Schuyler Brothers, creditable under the Railroad Retirement Act?

CONCLUSION

Grain door reclamation and cooperage service performed under contracts between the railroads and each of the above-named firms at the places and during the periods listed below is creditable under the Act, as service to the railroads for which the work was performed:

At St. Joseph, Missouri, at least from April 1, 1931 to November 20, 1934; At St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois, at least from November 1, 1912, to November 20, 1934; At Chicago, Illinois, at least from August 10, 1912 to November 20, 1934; At Peoria and Pekin, Illinois, at least from March 1, 1913 to November 20, 1934; At Springfield, Illinois, at least from July 31, 1928 to November 20, 1934; At Indianapolis, Indiana, at least from May 1, 1912 to November 14, 1934; At Lawrenceburg, Indiana, at least from July 31, 1927 to November 14, 1934; At East Buffalo, New York, at least from October 4, 1929 to July 31, 1935; At Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at least from November 1, 1912 to November 20, 1934; At Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas, at least from January 15, 1927 to November 20, 1934; At Cincinnati, Ohio, at least from April 15, 1924 to November 14, 1934; At Fostoria, Ohio, at least from July 31, 1930 to November 14, 1934; At Columbus, Ohio, at least from July 31, 1930 to November 14, 1934; At Toledo, Ohio, at least from July 31, 1912 to November 14, 1934; At Cleveland, Ohio, at least from July 22, 1930 to November 14, 1934; At Omaha and South Omaha, Nebraska, at least from July 1, 1911 to November 20, 1954; At Council Bluffs, Iowa, at least from July 1, 1911 to November 20, 1934; At Davenport, Iowa, at least from May 10, 1923 to. November 20, 1934; -3- Memorandum to the Director of Retirement Claims

At Des Moines, Iowa, at least from May 10, 1923 to Novem­ ber 20, 1934; At Cedar Rapids, Iowa, at least from November 23, 1917 to November 20, 1934; At Sioux City, Iowa, at least from May 10, 1923 to Novem­ ber 20, 1934; At Hutchinson, Kansas, at least from July 31, 1926 to November 20, 1934; At Atchison, Kansas, at least from August 15, 1925 to November 20, 1934; At Memphis, Tennessee, at least from March 1, 1912 to March 10, 1933; At Denver, Colorado, at least from September 1, 1915 to November 20, 1934; At Galveston-Texas City, Texas, at least from July 1, 1914 to November 20, 1934; At Amarillo, Texas, at least from July 31, 1928 to November 20, 1934; At Enid, Oklahoma, at least from July 31, 1927 to November 20, 1934; and At Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at least from July 31, 1928 to November 20, 1934.

FACTS AND DISCUSSION

From the information and material submitted to the Board it appears that the reclamation and cooperage of grain doors, during the periods and at the places mentioned above, was performed under con­ tracts between J. A. McNulty; J. A. McNulty and A. E. Schuyler doing business as Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Recla­ mation and Cooperage Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Agency; or A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Schuyler Brothersl/, and various railroad "employers"2/ operating at such places. We have been supplied with 133 of such agreements. Most of the contracts were executed under the names of J. A. McNulty and A. E. Schuyler, doing business as the

1/ Grain door reclamation and cooperage services at Clinton, Iowa, under contracts with Schuyler Brothers have heretofore been held creditable under the Act. L-38-984.

2/ A list of railroads for which the grain door reclamation and cooperage services were rendered is attached hereto. -4- Memorandum to the Director of Retirement Claims

Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Bureau; J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Agency; and A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Schuyler Brothers. However, agreements were also executed under the names of J. A. McNulty, individually and J. A. McNulty, A. E. Schuyler and F. L. Schuyler, doing business as Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Bureau.

The agreements supplied to us are basically the same, and appear to be typical of the arrangements under which the reclamation and cooperage services were performed by the McNulty and Schuyler grain door firms. The agreements are similar to those heretofore considered in connection with the reclamation and cooperage service performed by Goodwin Grain Door Agency for railroads at Kansas City, which service has been held to be creditable as service to the rail­ roads. L-41-598. y

The contracts with the McNulty and Schuyler grain door agencies provided that they would, at specified rates, remove, reclaim and collect grain doors and boards; repair and return to the railroads such doors and materials "in serviceable condition"; and cooper and prepare cars "in suitable condition" for the shipment of grain and other commodities. Records of the work done were to be kept and monthly bills rendered. In some contracts the agency, was also required to render a monthly inventory and the railroads had the right to examine the books of the agency at any time. The contracts provided that arrangements for the switching of cars carrying reclaimed material would be made by the railroads at their own expense. The railroads agreed to render assistance, by all reasonable means within their power, to enable the agency to perform its functions under the con­ tract, and in some instances, the contracts provided that the rail­ road would furnish the contracting firm and its employees free trans­ portation when necessary in order to perform the work under the contracts. The agency assumed liability for all injuries to its property and to the firm members, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the contract work. While the early contracts make no mention of the status of the agency or its employees under the contract, several of the later contracts contain specific state­ ments that the contracting firm shall be regarded as an independent contractor. On the other hand, several of the contracts expressly provided that the work be performed in "a manner satisfactory" to the railroads. Without exception, the contracts were terminable upon thirty days notice in writing by either party.

It appears from the agreements in our possession and infor­ mation furnished by Mr. F. L. Schuyler that the periods in which the -5- Memorandum to the Director of Retirement Claims

agencies performed the grain door reclamation and cooperage services at the various points began as follows: St. Joseph, Missouri, at least from April 1, 1931; St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois, at least from November 1, 1912; Chicago, Illinois, at least from August 10, 1912; Peoria and Pekin, Illinois, at least from March 1 1913; Springfield, Illinois, at least from July 31, 1928; Indianapolis, Indiana, at least from May 1, 1912; Lawrenceburg, Indiana, at least from July 31, 1927; East Buffalo, New York, at least from October 4, 1929; Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at least from November 1, 1912; Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas, at least from January 15, 1927; Cincinnati, Ohio, at least from April 15, 1924; Fostoria, Ohio, at least from July 31, 1930; Columbus, Ohio, at least from July 31, IS30; Toledo, Ohio, at least from July 31, 1912; Cleveland, Ohio, at least from July 22, 1930; Omaha and South Omaha, Nebraska, at least from July 1, 1911; Council Bluffs, Iowa, at least from July 1, 1911; Davenport, Iowa, at least from May 10, 1923; Des Moines, Iowa, at least from May 10, 1923; Cedar Rapids, Iowa, at least from November 23, 1917; Sioux City, Iowa, at least from May 10, 1923; Hutchinson, Kansas, at least from July 31, 1926; Atchison, Kansas, at least from August 15, 1925; Memphis, Tennessee, at least from March 1, 1912; Denver, Colorado at least from September 1, 1915; Galveston-Texas City, Texas, at least from July 1, 1914; Amarillo, Texas, at least from July 31, 1928; Enid, Oklahoma, at least from July 31, 1927; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, at least from July 31, 1928.

On November 15, 1934, the grain door reclamation and cooper­ age work performed at eastern locations^/ was taken over by the Central Inspection and Weighing Bureau, an "employer" under the Railroad Retirement Act. On March 10, 1933, the grain door reclamation and cooperage work performed at Memphis, Tennessee, was taken over by the Vfestern Weighing and Inspection Bureau, an "employer" under the Act, and subsequently, on November 21, 1934, that Bureau took over the grain door reclamation and cooperage work performed at western locations.i/ Service performed by Schuyler Brothers at the East Buffalo Yards of the Erie Railroad was continued until July 31, 1935, when it was taken over by the Erie Railroad.

3/ Indianapolis, Indiana; Lawrenceburg, Indiana; Cincinnati, Ohio; Fostoria, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Toledo, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio.

4/ St. Joseph, Missouri; St. Louis, Missouri, and East St. Louis, Illinois; Chicago, Illinois; Peoria and Pekin, Illinois; Springfield, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Little Rock and North Little Rock, Arkansas; Omaha and South Omaha, Nebraska; Council Bluffs, Iowa; Davenport, Iowa; Des Moines, Iowa; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Sioux City, Iowa; Hutchinson, Kansas; Atchison, Kansas; Denver, Colorado; Galveston-Texas City, Texas; Amarillo, Texas; Enid, Oklahoma; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. -6— Memorandum to the Director of Retirement Claims

Y/hile the statement in some of the contracts as to the inde­ pendent status of the contracting firm is a factor to be considered in determining the relationship between the parties, as stated in my opinion, L-38-815, on W. J. Conner, Car Repair Contract, "These pro­ visions are by no means conclusive, for, in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists, it is the substance of the arrangements which is decisive. Such statements, by parties to a contract, as to the legal effect of their agreement, may be taken as some indication of the intent of the parties, but the relationship in fact established under the contract is controlling if the legal char­ acter of that relationship is inconsistent with the stated intent of the parties." Gulf Refining Co. v. Brown. 93 F. (2d) 870 (C.C.A. 4th, 1938); Gulf Co. of Louisiana v. Huffman, 155 Tenn. 580, 297 S.W. 199, 200-201 (1927); W. P. Brown & Son Lumber Co. v. Crossly. 230 Ala. 403, 161 So. 536 (1935); Press Publishing Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission. 190 Cal. 114, 210 Pac. 820 (1922). Analysis of all the factors indicates that the contracting grain door firms did not enjoy an independent status and that the railroads possessed authority to supervise and direct the manner of the rendition of the grain door cooperage and reclamation work.

The nature of the work performed substantiates this con­ clusion. As stated by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Chicago Board of Trade v. Abilene & Southern Ry. Co.. 220 I.C.C. 753, 756, "These grain doors are used in barricading side and end doorways of cars for the loading of bulk grain, so as to prevent sifting of the grain from the car while in transit. Hinges are not used in attach­ ing grain doors to cars, and the doors do not form a permanent part of the car. The method of installing grain doors is well understood, but in addition the Association of American Railroads issues from time to time, in pamphlet form, recommendations for inspecting, pre­ paring, and coopering cars, as well as instructions for releasing grain doors when the bulk grain is unloaded." Since July 1, 1935, grain doors have been installed by the railroads upon additional charge under published tariffs, and prior to that date it was the practice of the carriers to furnish and install at terminal elevator points grain doors in connection with line-haul movements without charge to the shipper. Chicago Board of Trade v. Abilene & Southern R.y• Co.. supra. The preparation and cooperage of cars for grain load­ ing is an accessorial transportation service, and when undertaken by the railroads imposes the same responsibility on the railroads as the execution of their obligations as common carriers. Interstate Com­ merce Act. Section l(ll); Merchants Exchange of St. Louis v. Alton Railroad Co.. 232 I.C.C. 230, 235 id. 5; Chicago Board of Trade v. Abilene & Southern Ry. Co., supra; Farmers' Cooperative Assn. v. -7- Memorandum to the Director of Retirement Claims

C. B. & Q. R.R. Co., 34 I.C.C. 61; Claims For Loss And Damage of Grain, 48 I.C.C. 530; Lowden v. Simonds Grain Co., 306 U.S. 516 (1918). The efficient performance of the railroads' obligations as common carriers requires the proper execution of the cooperage and reclamation work.5/ And it is not to be supposed that the railroads would permit individuals to perform such functions on railroad prop­ erty without subjecting them to the rules, regulations, practices and orders promulgated to insure the safety of operations. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that supervision of such work would be retained by the railroads in order properly to execute their re­ sponsibilities. General Counsel's opinion, L-41-598W Reclamation and Cooperage Contracts with Railroads at Kansas City (J. G. Goodwin, R. G. Jamieson, Doing Business as Goodwin Grain Door Agency; Goodman and Caklev Cooperage Company).

Moreover, as distinguished from an independent contractor who is engaged intermittently for particular jobs, the contracting firms in question were employed continuously and for an extremely long period of time. Such general continuing services, unrestricted by a limited amount of work for a specific lump sum, conforms more to a master and servant relationship than an independent contractual relationship. Louisville, Evansville and St. L. R.R. v. Wilson. 138 U.S. 501, 505 (1891); Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Continental Trust Co., 166 Fed. 597, 601, 502 (C.C.N.D. Ga. 1908).

Finally, the contracts under which the service in question was performed were terminable on thirty days notice without cause. The ability of the railroads thus to end summarily the relationship without cause provided an effective means of compelling obedience to their directions as to how the work shall be done. Such subserviency is incompatible with the independence of action essential to an inde­ pendent contractor. Gulf Refining Co. v. Brown, supra, at pg. 873; Press Publishing Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, supra; Cockran v. Rice, 26 5.D. 393, 128 N X . 583, 585 (1910).

In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that the railroads for which the grain door reclamation and cooperage services were per­ formed, retained continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of such services and, therefore, that the individuals en­ gaged in the performance of such grain door reclamation and cooperage services were "employees," within the meaning of the Railroad Retire­ ment Act, of the railroads for which such services were rendered.

Joseph H. Freehill General Counsel

5/ The action of the railroads in taking over and performing the grain door cooperage and reclamation work directly, through their associ­ ations, is consistent with this requirement. List of Railroads for Which the Grain Door Reclamation and Cooperage Services Were Performed by the McNulty and Schuyler Firms

Location Railroads Served

Lawrenceburg, Indiana Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company

Indianapolis, Indiana Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Illinois Central Railroad Company New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company Peoria and Eastern Railway Company

Cincinnati, Ohio Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company Southern Railway Company Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company Norfolk and Western Railway Company

Fostoria, Ohio Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company New York Central Railroad Company New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company

Columbus, Ohio Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company New York Central Railroad Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company Norfolk and Western Railway Company Location Railroads Served

Toledo, Ohio Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company Pere Marquette Railway Company Michigan Central Railroad Company Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company Ann Arbor Railroad Company

Toledo, Ohio (Continued) Pennsylvania Railroad Company Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company New York Central Railroad Company New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Wabash Railway Company Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company

Cleveland, Ohio Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Erie Railroad Company New York Central Railroad Company New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company

St. Joseph, Missouri Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago Great Western Railway Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company St. Joseph and Grand Island Railway Company Union Terminal Railway Company/

St. Louis, Missouri, and Alton Railroad Company East St. Louis, Illinois Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company -3-

Location Railroads Served

St. Louis, Missouri, and Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis East St. Louis, Illinois Railway Company (Continued) East St. Louis, Columbia and Waterloo Railway Illinois Central Railroad Company Illinois Terminal Railroad Company Litchfield and Madison Railway Company Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company Southern Railway Company Wabash Railway Company

Chicago, Illinois Alton Railroad Company Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Belt Railway Company of Chicago Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company Chicago and North Western Railway Company Chicago and Erie Railroad Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago Great Western Railway Company Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Chicago, South Shore & South Bend Railroad Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company Illinois Central Railroad Company Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company Michigan Central Railroad Company Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company * /

, * -4-

Location Railroads Served

Chicago, Illinois New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad (Continued) Company New York Central Railroad Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company Fere Marquette Railway Company Wabash Railway Company

Peoria and Pekin, Illinois Alton Railroad Company Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Company Chicago and North Western Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company Illinois Central Railroad Company Illinois Terminal Railroad Company Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company Pennsylvania Railroad Company Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad

Springfield, Illinois Alton Railroad Company Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Company Chicago, Springfield & St. Louis Railway Company Illinois Central Railroad Company Illinois Terminal Railroad Company Wabash Railway Company

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Chicago and North Western Railway Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company Pere Marquette Railway Company Location Railroads Served

Little Rock and North Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Little Rock, Arkansas Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company St. Louis-San Francisco Railxvay Company

Omaha and South Omaha, Chicago and North Western Railway Company Nebraska, and Council Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Bluffs, Iowa Company Chicago Great Western Railway Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railxvay Company Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company Illinois Central Railroad Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company Union Pacific Railroad Company Wabash Railway Company

Davenport, Iowa Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paxil and Pacific Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company

Des Moines, Iowa Chicago and North Western Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago Great Western Railway Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Des Moines & Central Iowa Railroad Company Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company Wabash Railway Company Location Railroads Served

Cedar Rapids, Iowa Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway Company Chicago and North Western Railway Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Rail­ road Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Illinois Central Railroad Company Waterloo, Cedar Falls and Northern Railway Company

Sioux City, Iowa Chicago and North Western Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Rail­ road Company Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company Illinois Central Railroad Company

Hutchinson, Kansas Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

Atchison, Kansas Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

Denver, Colorado Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Colorado and Southern Railway Company Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company Denver and Salt Lake Railway Company Union Pacific Railroad Company Location Railroads Served

Galveston-Texas City, Burlington-Rock Island Railroad Company Texas Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company International-Great Northern Railroad Company Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company

Amarillo, Texas Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway Company Fort Worth and Denver City Railway Company Panhandle and Santa Fe Railway Company

Enid, Oklahoma Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Fort Smith and Western Railway Company Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Railway Company St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

Memphis, Tennessee St. Louis, Southwestern Railway Company

East Buffalo, New York Erie Railroad Company