station, for which the simple switching charge would not pay. The C., St. P. & K. C. Company says that they were ready to transport the car, but it was refused them. Finally, however, they unloaded the car and transferred. The parties desire, however, the Board to make a finding in the case for future guidance.

It may be as well to restate the case. The Hampton Mills are situated on the side tracks of the Iowa Central Railway. The Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway runs to Hampton and connects by a Y with the tracks of the former road. Both compete for St. Paul traffic. Mr. Ackert's position in this case is that had the Milling Company ordered the car from the line on which they shipped the goods, he would have switched it at usual charge of three dollars per car, but instead of this they ordered the car from him and he claims the value of the service rendered; that is, hauling car from another station on his line, placing it at the mills, was five dollars.

The opinion of the Board is that the shipper should have ordered the car from the company over whose line he intended to ship, and if he decided to change the route he should have paid the company furnishing the car an adequate compensation for the service rendered in getting the car to the mills and transfer, and on payment the lowa Central Company should have switched the car to the transfer. It is not here determined what the value of the service was, as no testimony was introduced covering this point. Des Moines, Iowa, May 9, 1890.

FIRMENICH MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA,

VS.

IOWA CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY,
AND CHICAGO & NORTWESTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.

Complaint filed December 9, 1889.

Refusal to switch cars from C.,
St. P. & K. C. to the Firmenich
Manufacturing Co.'s works.

The Firmenich Manufacturing Company complains to the Board that on 13th day of November, 1889, the Iowa Central Railway Company instructed its local agent to discontinue switching cars to and from the Glucose Works and the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City transfer for all shipments destined to points off the line of the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Company; that since that time they have refused to switch empty and loaded cars and that the Chicago & Northwestern, joint proprietor of said switching tracks also refuses to switch cars and that they are compelled to transfer large quantities of corn to, and glucose, sugar, meal, etc., from the factory to the tracks of the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City to the serious injury of the business and at great loss. A copy of order to the Iowa Central and a statement of the verbal order of the Chicago & Northwestern are submitted. The complaint is made under the provisions of section 4, chapter 28, laws

of the Twenty-Second General Assembly; the clause reads: "Any common carrier may be required to switch and transfer cars for another for the purpose of being loaded or unloaded, upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the board of railroad commissioners."

On December 18, Mr. Daly, general solicitor of the Iowa Central Railway Company, in answer to the complaint, notifies the Commissioners that the road has resumed switching cars of the C., St. P. & K. C. R'y and on December 20, the complainants write that the Iowa Central has resumed switching and the C. & N. W. promises to do so in a few days, and in case of a failure to do so will notify the Commissioners.

Sufficient time having elapsed without further communication from the complainants, the presumption is that the switching facilities are satisfactory and the complaint is dismissed. Des Moines, Iowa, May 22, 1890.

On the 8th of May, 1890, a complaint signed by Chittenden & Eastman, Lyman H. Drake, S. R. & I. C. McConnell, Biklen, Winzer & Co., Chas. F. Smith, Robert Donahue, Brooks, Smith & Co., Embalming Burial Case Co., and John Blaul & Co., shippers of Burlington, was filed with the Commissioners, alleging that the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company is "discriminating against said shippers by charging a higher rate for the transportation of freight from Burlington to all points on their line of road in Iowa, north of Cedar Falls, than they are charging for the transportation of similar freight from St. Louis, via Burlington to all points on the same line of road in Iowa." Attached to the complaint are distance tariff 2740, from St. Louis to Burlington and local tariff 2751 of respondent road, which complainants allege constitute a joint tariff from St. Louis to points on the B., C. R. & N. road which unjustly discriminates against them, by giving lower rates from St. Louis than from Burlington to points on same road in Iowa.

On the 10th of May, C. J. Ives, president of respondent company telegraphed the Board "If agreeable to the Commissioners we will publish a local tariff fifteen per cent higher than the local tariff of class A roads, issued March 19. Please advise by wire." Complainants were unwilling to accept the proposition of respondent, and a hearing took place at Burlington, May 13th, all parties being represented.

The statutes under which the complaint is brought, (sections 18 and 19 of chapter 28, laws of the Twenty-second General Assembly) is as follows:

SECTION 18. Whenever any person, upon his own behalf, or class of persons similarly situated, or any firm, corporation or association, or any mercantile, agricultural or manufacturing society, or any body politic or municipal organization, shall make complaint to said Board of Railroad Commissioners, that the rate charged or published by any railroad company, or the maximum rates fixed by said Commissioners in the schedules of rates made by them under the provisions of section 17 of this act, or the maximum rate that now or hereafter may be fixed by law is unreasonably high or discriminating, it shall be the duty of said Commissioners to immediately investigate the matter of such complaint.

*

*

*

SECTION 19. Upon such hearing as provided for, the said Commissioners shall receive whatever evidence, statements or arguments either party may offer or make pertinent to the matter under investigation; and the burden of proof shall not be held to be upon the person or persons making the complaint, but the Commissioners shall add to the showing made at such hearing whatever information they may then have or can secure from any source whatsoever, and the person or pessons complaining shall be entitled to introduce any published schedule of rates of any railroad company, or evidence of rates actually charged by any railroad company for substantially the same kind of service whether in this or any other State, shall, at the instance of the person or persons complaining be accepted as prima facie evidence of a reasonable rate for the services under investigation, and if the railroad company complained of is operating a line of railroad beyond the State of Iowa or if it appears that it has atraffic arrangement with any such railroad company, then the Commissioners in determining what is a reasonable rate, shall take into consideration the charge made, or rate established by such railroad company or the company with which it has traffic arrangements for carrying freight from beyond the State to points within the State and from within the State to points beyond the State.

In addition to freight tariffs 2740 and 2751, complainants introduced oral testimony and expense bills, showing that rates from St. Louis to points on the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway more than double the distance, are lower in the aggregate than charges for similar freight shipped from Burlington over the same line in Iowa to the same points; in some instances the rate for the longer haul being 40 per cent lower than for the shorter one, the effect of which, it is alleged, has been to shut Iowa merchants out of territory properly tributary to them, and giving an unfair advantage to shippers outside of the State, by such discrimination. The effect of this has been to place our shippers at a great disadvantage, in some instances driving them from points in northern Iowa, where formerly they had enjoyed a fair business.

In a communication to the Board May 7th Mr. E. P. Eastman states that when he asked the agent of the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company at Burlington why they did not make a reduction in their lowa distance tariff, similar to the one made by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad and other roads March 19, he replied that Mr. Ives had said that "on local business in lowa they would make more by charging Class B rates, therefore they intended to make no reduction."

Robert Donahue testified that in order to do business at one of these points he had to fill his orders for barb wire from the factory at Joliet, Illinois, shipping via Burlington to Clermont, Iowa, on an inter-state rate of 17 cents, while the rate from Burlington to same point for same goods is 20.63 cents. E. P. Eastman, S. R. McConnell, John Blaul and other shippers, testified that the discriminations existing are disastrous to their business, and virtutually exclude them from points on the B., C. R. & N. R'y in northern Iowa. Expense bills, giving the rate for fourth class goods on State and inter-state shipments, were introduced, from which the following comparison of charges is tabulated:

Until the railway crosses the northern boundary of Iowa the discrimination continues, but once across the line the rate from Burlington to Minnesota points drops 40 per cent, and to Albert Lea, nineteen miles further than Northwood, the same rate as from St. Louis is established, 17 cents.

Complainants testified that their discriminations have existed since the cut rate made by the trunk lines were put in last February; that at the time of the promulgation of the emergency tariff, March 19, by which the reductions made by the trunk lines on inter-state business, were also applied to Iowa, on north and west bound freights, the respondent, the B., C. R. & N. R'y Co. refused to put in said rates on its local business; further, that the proposed reduction of rates by respondent to 15 per cent above class A rates. will only partially remedy exisiting evils and will still leave Iowa shippers at a great disadvantage on account of lower inter-state rates.

Respondent company, through President C. J. Ives and C. D. Ives, general freight agent, admitted the discrimination as charged, but claimed that a reduction to within 15 per cent of the rate of class A roads would virtually remedy exisiting evils; that under the classification fixed by the Commissioners they are entitled to such rates, being a class B road.

FINDING.

The Commissioners having carefully considered the evidence in this case, together with the expense bills and tariffs of respondent company, both inter-state and local, arrive at the following conclusions:

First. That the respondent company, though classified as a 'B" road by the Commissioners, having voluntarily put in the rates of a class A road, on its inter-state business, that unjustly discriminates against Iowa industries and shippers, cannot now plead in defense of such discriminations, such classification, or claim any advance in rates on its local business that would be a discrimination when compared with its inter-state rates.

Second That the inter-state rates in force on the line of respondent, and lines with which it has joint traffic arrangements, are unjustly discriminating against Iowa interests, and in favor of shippers outside of the State; rates that in the aggregate are much lower on the long haul than the short, by which St. Louis merchants are enabled to transport goods into Iowa, double the distance, at lower rates than from Burlington to points within the State, whereby Iowa shippers are placed at a disadvantage, their business crip

pled and a heavy loss entailed; that such discriminations are illegal, unjustly, discriminating, and against public policy.

The respondent, the B., C. R. & N. R'y Co. is hereby ordered to, at once, so adjust its tariff of rates in Iowa, as to remove any such discriminations and remedy the evils complained of.

Third. That it is the opinion of the Commissioners that when the interstate rates of any of the railways running into Iowa are lower from points without the State to points within the State, than the local rates within the State to the same points, on the same line of railway, that such discriminations are illegal and contrary to public policy, and are hereby forbidden. Des Moines, Iowa, May 22, 1890.

On April 21, 1890, J. H. Martin makes the following complaint: That the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway has put in gates in the fences along their line on his land, and are preparing to take out the cattle guards and open crossing.

Mr. Martin owns the southeast quarter of section 3, township 92, range 12, west of fifth principal meridian, and also forty acres north of, and adjoining, the east half of the quarter section above described. The railroad, as constructed, separates this forty acres and a narrow strip from the north half of the quarter section from the rest of the farm. Mr. Martin's house and stock water are very near the center of the quarter section; from them he has had, for the last twenty-five years, a lane leading to the west line of the forty acres which the road now crosses. The land north of the railroad, fifty acres or more, he is using for pasturage. He submits a plat of the ground showing the conditions above stated.

Ever since the road was built he states that he has had an open crossing, with wing fences and cattle guards. They now have put in gates and have ordered him to keep them closed, so that he will be compelled to drive his stock, seventy-five to one hundred head, back and forth whenever they need water. He asks the Commissioners to allow him to retain an open crossing with wing fences and cattle guards. The distance to the crossing from his stock water is about one-quarter of a mile.

The railway company in reply states that in some instances they had put in open crossings upon a verbal understanding that if any stock was killed that they would not be required to pay for it. At one of these crossings