The board of railroad commissioners, as heretofore stated, has made repeated attempts to get all parties together who are interested in the coal rates in Iowa. Notices of hearings were published in the daily press and written notices sent mine operators and railway companies. At the hearing no one requested a lower coal rate or suggested any change in the present coal rates in Iowa, Mr. Porter himself sending a letter explanatory of his absence. Under these circumstances the commissioners sought to ascertain the real situation concerning the coal industry in the state of Iowa, so far as its relation to the transportation question is concerned, and have set out quite fully abstracts of statements made by interested parties in Iowa, that the public may know upon what statement of facts the board must base its conclusion. The statistics furnished by the state mine inspecting department not only disprove the statement that, "the coal output of Iowa, during the past several years, has not only not increased, but very materially decreased," but, on the contrary, show a material increase in the output of Iowa mines since the year 1895, and a fluctuating condition prior to that time. The testimony offered at the hearing clearly establishes that the shipment of Illinois coal into Iowa is decreasing to a very marked extent year by year; that the rates charged by the railroad companies on coal shipped from points in Illinois to points in Iowa are higher than the Iowa rate would be for the same distance, and that no undue advantage or preference is given to Illinois operators as against Iowa mines. Inasmuch as all the testimony offered before the board by coal operators and representatives of the railway companies, as well as other information which the commissioners were able to obtain, seems to prove the inaccuracy of the statements made in the preamble to the resolution under which this investigation was had, the board of railroad commissioners can reach but one conclusion in this matter. We can find no reason, at this time, why the rates on soft coal in Iowa, as heretofore established and promulgated by this board and now in effect, should be disturbed. DECISION OF COMMISSIONERS. On date named the commissioners received the following: State Board of Railroad Commissioners: The undersigned citizens and land owners residing near a railroad switch or siding on the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern railroad, known as the "Pioneer Hay Camp," and located on section twelve (12) in township one hundred (100), range thirty-nine (39), in Osceola county, Iowa, respectfully represent to your honorable board that said switch or siding has been in existence or use for more than ten years last past, and has been of great convenience and benefit to farmers and others residing in the vicinity thereof. That for more than ten years it has been the custom of the railroad company to furnish its cars to all persons desiring to ship freight from said switch or siding, and that large quantities of hay and grain and other farm produce have been shipped from said siding to the mutual advantage of the shippers and railroad company, and said business of receiving and shipping freight from said switch has been continued through each year for more than ten years last past. That said siding or switch by the nearest traveled wagon road is six miles from either Lake Park or Round Lake, the nearest stations on the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern railroad. That at the instigation and request of the grain dealers at Lake Park, as your petitioners verily believe, the said railroad company is about to close and remove said siding and switch to the serious inconvenience and great damage of your petitioners, who, if this their petition is denied, will hereafter be compelled to take their farm produce for shipment to Lake Park or Round Lake. That as citizens and residents of said vicinity, your petitioners respectfully request your honorable board to investigate the facts with reference to the establishment, continuance and final removal of said siding or switch, and that your board make an order directing said railroad company to establish, erect and maintain a depot and station at the place where said siding has existed, and that the same be kept open for the transaction of such business as is usual and ordinary at railroad stations in Iowa. That if after such investigation your board should find that the facts do not warrant the making of an order for the erection and maintenance of a depot and station that you then make an order that said siding and switch be restored and kept open for the shipment and receipt of freight in carload lots as heretofore. (Signed) The Honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners: J. W. SALYARDS, S. L. WEAVER, JOHN P. GREENLAND, THOS. MCCORMACK,} A. R. HATFIELD, R. E. KNUDSON, OREN GOWEN, And about 140 others. LAKE PARK, Iowa, September 26, 1898. DEAR SIRS-I want to cite you to some facts not set forth in the petition. In the fall of 1896, I represented H. L. Williams, of Primghar, and put up a temporary house at Harris and made application for grounds to build a freight house, and Mr. Knapp, their traveling freight agent, who is in charge of these matters, or seems to be, promised grounds provided we would build at once, but as he seems to be interested in the firm doing business at Round Lake, Harris and Lake Park, he granted the Winfield Bros. the grounds, although they did not build until the next harvest, showing he is either interested in their business or prejudiced against me, for this switch has remained here for years until I bought five cars this fall and at that time they were putting new steel rails down. As soon as requested by grain dealers (they) tore out the switch. If this is, not discrimination I don't know. I was at Round Lake and they bought oats 16 cents for 33 pounds; track bids was 18% for 32 pounds, leaving a profit of $27.15 on 1,000 bushels, allowing 10 bushels for shrinkage. Lake Park was running at 17 cents, leaving $17.15 per car and the 1 pound, which they take. They take 33 pounds of oats, 50 pounds of barley and from 60 to 64 of wheat, and there is no place you can sell 100 or 200 bushels of grain and have them take legal weight. I can build a house suitable for the grain business of the place. The complaint was forwarded to the railway company, and Mr. W. P. Brady, general agent, filed its answer thereto as follows: "The siding in controversy was located by this road many years ago, to accommodate large hay shipments that the Pioneer hay camp made tributary to that point, but, as is well known to the members of the commission, the cultivation of the land has been a serious detriment to wild hay shipments in that vicinity of the state during the past five or six years, and I think I can say that in that period very little hay has been gathered for shipment at this point. It was decided, in view of the extra risks and hazards to trains by the location of a switch between stations in a country community, and the further fact that the object for which the siding was put in rendering it no longer necessary, to take the switch out about two months ago. Our freight records do not show that any material quantity of freight has ever been marketed at that point except hay shipments. The Pioneer hay camp was located just six miles from Round Lake, Minn., and the same distance from Lake Park, Iowa, and the same distance from Harris, Iowa, all on the Iowa Falls division of this road, and all the stations being Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern shipping points. Prior to the track being taken up an investigation was had, and it was proved conclusively to the management of this railway that it was superfluous in its present location, and the risks of having it on the main line of our road greatly offset the advantages it extended to either the railway company or the residents in that community. "On behalf of the company I most strenuously deny all the allegations and charges made in the copy of letter addressed to your honorable board by Mr. Jesse Hill, of Lake Park, Iowa, under date of September 26, 1898. If there have ever been any suggestions made by the grain shippers at any of these points to have the company vacate this siding, they have never reached the ear of the management. The reasons for its being taken out, we think, were just and sufficient, and, if any more arguments are necessary, we feel persuaded we can fully convince your honorable board that we did not act either hastily or in a prejudicial manner in regard to doing away with this siding.” A great amount of correspondence passed between the board and the parties to the controversy, and, as it seemed impossible for any settlement of the case to be reached in this way, November 22, 1898, was set for a hearing of the matter, and all parties given due notice thereof. On date named, however, severe snowstorms blocked the train on which the commissioners were striving to reach this point, and the hearing had to be abandoned. At a later date, however—February 28, 1899-after due notice, the commissioners went to Pioneer Hay Siding and heard all parties desiring to appear before them. From the testimony offered at the hearing, and from letters and statements filed and made a part of the case, the commissioners find the facts to be about as follows: That there is no town or station at what is known as Pioneer Hay Camp, but that several years ago the railway company maintained a siding there for the purpose of accommodating the shipments of the large amount of hay at that time raised annually on adjoining land; that the siding in question was located about midway between Lake Park, Iowa, and Round Lake, Minn., flourishing stations on this line of road twelves miles apart; that when the land tributary and adjoining to this siding was taken up by settlers who broke the land and engaged in the ordinary diversified farming, the railway company removed the siding, claiming that hay shipments in such quantities that warranted its maintenance had ceased, and that the switch located in the country, far removed from regular stations, was a menace to the safe operation of trains; that some of the complainants wished to erect grain warehouses or elevators at this siding should it be restored, for the purpose of doing a regular grain business. Many farmers testified at the hearing, a number of them being residents of Minnesota, and while all stated they desired the siding restored, it was not shown that they were greatly inconvenienced by the present arrangement of stations on this and other lines of railroad running into that territory, no one testifying that he had a greater distance to haul his product to market than six miles, and the greater number having less than that distance. It was not shown that the business at this place would be of sufficient importance to require a regularly appointed station, and parties testifying did not so represent, but asked that the siding be restored, and that they be allowed to load cars with grain and other merchandise for shipment, and receive their coal and other freight thereon. Some complaint was made that there was a combination formed by the grain buyers of neighboring towns to fix prices, and that grain had often been wrongfully classified, to the disadvantage of the producer, and that for this and other reasons independent buyers should be allowed to do business at Pioneer Hay Camp. From such information as is before them, the commissioners would hardly be justified in holding that any such combination existed, and there may be serious doubt whether, if such combination did exist, it could be considered by the board in passing upon the merits of the petition that the railway company restore the switch and set out cars for loading and unloading thereon. In the case of W. C. Smith et al., v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad company, decided September 14, 1898, which may be found on page 27 of report of this board for 1898, in matter of re-establishing switch between Glendale and Lockridge, the commissioners say: "In reaching a conclusion and a decision in this matter, other interests as well as those of the railway company and the mine owners or lessees, must be considered, and one is the interests that the public has in requiring the railway company to operate its line of railway so that there will be the least possible danger or hazard to life or property. "Would this board be justified in any case in making an order requiring a railway company, that is conducting and carrying on the immense volume of business that this road is at the present time, to construct upon its main thoroughfare a sidetrack for the purpose of placing thereon empty and loaded cars, at a point not protected by any agent or employe of the company, but on the contrary exposed, without protection, to the dangers that naturally arise in allowing cars to remain unprotected where they might be carried from the sidetrack onto its main line, and thus become a standing menace to the property of the railway company, its employes and the traveling public? This is a matter of public con cern. "We believe that it will not be seriously controverted that at times, on account of storms and high winds, cars may be carried from the side track to the main line or wrecked thereon, or, through the unlawful interference of persons, switches may be left open, thereby endangering the trains upon the main line. "There may be a class of cases requiring sidetracks to be constructed upon the main line of a railway, not at or near a regular station thereon, but this board would hesitate before making such an order in any case, and a much stronger showing would have to be made than has been made in this case, and, if the occasion should require such an order in the future, this board would feel that its duty to the public would demand that every possible safeguard should be made against accident or casualty which might be occasioned by the construction of such a switch at such an unusual place. The public has a right to every possi ble protection against accident or extra hazard in the operation of railway trains." The commissioners, after carefully considering all the facts and circumstances connected with this case, have reached the unanimous conclusion that they would not be justified, at the present time, in making any order herein. Des Moines, Iowa, August 8, 1899. No. 2003-1899. In the matter of approval of an interlocking switch system or safety device at grade crossing of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul and Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway companies' lines near Ottumwa, Iowa. Be it remembered, that the board of railroad commissioners of the state of Iowa, on the 7th day of February, 1899, inspected and examined an interlocking switch system or safety device equipped and to be operated jointly by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad company, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway company and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway com. pany, at or near Ottumwa station, in the county of Wapello, and state of Iowa, and at a point where each of said railways crosses the other at grade, for the purpose of rendering it safe for engines and trains to pass over such crossing without stopping, and the board of railroad commissioners of the state of Iowa, on the 7th day of February, 1899, approved the equipment of such interlocking switch system or safety device as aforesaid. Done under the hand and seal of the board of railroad commissioners of the state of Iowa, and the secretary thereof, at the city of Des Moines, state of Iowa, this 7th day of February, 1899. No. 2004-1899. CITIZENS OF RIVER JUNCTION, V. BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTH ERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Petition filed February 18, 1899. Petition for telegraph operator. To the Honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners of Iowa: GENTLEMEN-The undersigned citizens and residents of Johnson county, Iowa, who reside near the station called River Junction in said county, and who transact business in connection with the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway company at said place, would respectfully show your honorable body that said station, to-wit, River Junction, is one at which considerable business is transacted, stock and grain shipped to various points in and out of the state, and considerable public business of such character is transacted with said company at said place. That for many years said railway company, to-wit, the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway company, have employed, kept and maintained a telegraph operator at said place in order to transact business for the public generally; that within the last year past said company have failed and neglected to keep a telegraph operator to transact such business as the public may want to do; that by reason thereof great inconvenience in doing business at said place has been brought about, and that an operator is greatly needed at said |