the officials of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway company, who reported that there was no overcharge so far as their line was concerned, neither was there, technically speaking, any on the Burlington & Missouri River railroad, yet the freight department of that company had agreed to refund for 1,000 pounds alleged excess, which was afterwards done, and Mr. Jennings notified the board that this settlement was acceptable to him.

On October 10, 1897, the following letter was received by the commission: WHITTEMORE, Iowa, October 8, 1897.

To the Iowa Railway Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa:

DEAR SIR-I wish to call your attention to the method pursued by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway company in furnishing cars for the shipment of hay to the Chicago market from this station. They furnish cars to some and refuse to furnish to others. The agent here informs me that it is necessary for me to have some commission firm in Chicago order the cars for me from the general freight department.

Yesterday I had three cars of hay to load but could get no cars. I sold two of the loads to a Chicago commission man and he got the cars and is loading to-day, although I spoke for cars a day before he came here.

I asked for a car to-day and was again refused. I offered to pay the freight charges in advance.

I hope you will give this matter your early attention.
Yours truly,

J. M. FARLEY.

To which the following reply was directed to be made. A copy of the complaint was also sent to A. C. Bird, freight traffic manager of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway company for his information and reply:

Mr. J. M. Farley, Whittemore, Iowa:

October 12, 1897.

DEAR SIR-Yours of the 8th inst. alleging discrimination on the part of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway company in furnishing cars at your station, has been received. The laws, both of this state and national, upon the subject of discrimination are quite explicit. The section of the Iowa statute upon the point is as follows:

"If any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback or other device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service, rendered or to be rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges, demands, collects or receives from any other person or persons for doing for him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful; this section, however, is not to be construed as prohibiting a less rate per 100 pounds in a carload lot than is charged, collected or received for the same kind of freight in less than a carload lot.

"It shall be unlawful for any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality or any particular description of traffic to any prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any common carrier from giving preference as to time of shipment of live stock, uncured meats or other perishable property." ***

These sections are virtually a copy of the corresponding portion of the interstate law. The attention of the company has been called to the case, although interstate shipments are not directly under the jurisdiction of this commission. The traffic manager of this company has always shown a willingness to investigate and rectify conditions of this character if they really exist, and it is believed the case will receive his early attention.

Very respectfully yours,

Mr. Bird replied as follows:

W. W. AINSWORTH,

Secretary.

CHICAGO, October 16, 1897.

Mr. W. W. Ainsworth, Secretary Iowa Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Replying to your letter of the 12th inst., enclosing copy of letter from Mr. J. M. Farley, at Whittemore, Iowa. Shipments of hay to Chicago are subject to two particular difficulties, namely, the glutted condition of the market and our inability to fill car orders promptly. The market has frequently been glutted and on many occasions it has been impossible to sell the hay for a sufficient amount to pay freight charges. We are unwilling to receive hay for shipment to Chicago when our tracks are blocked with that commodity, and therefore we frequently issue "blockade notices" refusing to receive hay for Chicago. When we find commission merchants or receivers here who are prepared to promptly unload the freight and to pay charges and who give us satisfactory guarantees that the car will be promptly released, we instruct agents at country stations to receive such hay. The only instance of this kind that has come to my personal knowledge is an arrangement made with consignees in Chicago to handle hay to be shipped by Mr. J. M. Farley, the complainant in this case. If Mr. Farley thinks that this is evidence of unjust discrimination we can remove the cause of his complaint by refusing to handle his or any other hay until the tracks are clear, and if he will express a wish to that effect I will cheerfully issue the order.

The second difficulty, as before stated, lies in the fact that we are not always able to supply all demands for cars. Yours truly, A. C. BIRD, General Traffic Manager.

This correspondence indicates a condition of the hay market, in Chicago, which the commissioners found to be true, not only at the date specified but at another time when complaints were reaching them of a like refusal to receive hay for shipment. It was found that cars of hay remained on the side tracks in Chicago, and other terminal points, for two weeks or, at times, even longer, because consignees were unable to sell or furnish room to store it. It is not an unreasonable procedure for the carrier, under such circumstances, to issue 'blockade notices," or even to give precedence to shippers who can guarantee prompt unloading by the consignee. The demand for storage for coarse forage has never been met at such times in any market so far reached by Iowa products. Until this is done there will probably be periodical blockades and calls for relief, which no usual supply of cars will be fully sufficient to correct or to meet. February 4, 1898.

No. 1902-1898.

J. W. TURLEY, MASONVILLE,

V.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.

Filed March 25, 1897.

Train service-stopping fast train at small stations.

On March 23, 1897, Mr. J. W. Turley, salesman, wrote the board, stating that the people of Masonville were very much inconvenienced on account of train No. 1, going west at or about 10:20 P. M., not stopping to let off or receive passengers; that although there was another train arriving about 7 P. M. daily, it was only a local running between Dubuque and Cedar Falls; that passengers coming from

points east of Dubuque are obliged to stop off at some nearby town and take the morning train; that in order to get home on Sunday morning, he has to stop at a station east of Masonville and drive home, as there is no train he can use to get home Sunday morning.

The case was at once taken up with the officials of the railroad company, who were asked to give the same their immediate attention and answer.

On April 12, 1897, Mr. J. T. Harahan, second vice-president, wrote the board in reference to this matter, as follows:

Referring to your favor, 25th ult., enclosing copy of communication from Mr. J.W. Turley, of Masonville, asking that our train No. 1, which passes that station at 10:25 P. M., be stopped to let off and take on passengers. Masonville, according to the census of 1890, had 190 inhabitants, and now has the following train service:

Passenger, No. 3, west, 6:57 A. м; No. 31, west, 7 P. M.; No. 4, east, 8:10 P. M.; No. 32, east, 9:57 A. M. Freight, No. 91, west, 1:45 P. M.; No. 92, east, 9:40 A. M.

Passengers can leave Chicago at 10:30 A. M. or 11:35 P. M. and make direct connections through to Masonville. They can leave Masonville at 8:57 A. M. or 8:10 P. M. and make an uninterrupted journey to Chicago, making in both directions practically a twelve hour division of the twenty-four. Passengers can be further accommodated by using local freight trains Nos. 91 and 92 for adjoining stations.

If we should stop train No. 1 at Masonville, we could not consistently decline to stop the train at any other station on our western lines, as, with few exceptions, the other stations at which the train does not stop are as large or larger than Masonville. If the train stopped at all stations, its present schedule would have to be materially lengthened.

In order to avoid stopping train No. 1 and its opposite train No. 2 at stations on the Dubuque division, trains 31 and 32 were scheduled to do the local work and provide a further service than we give by trains 3 and 4, the company going to the expense of these additional local trains, to enable it to make its present schedule time with trains 1 and 2.

I note Mr. Turley states in his letter of March 23d: "It is true they have another train which arrives about 7 P. M. daily, but this is only a local running between Dubuque and Cedar Falls, passengers coming from points east of Dubuque being obliged to stop off at some nearby town and take the morning train."

Mr. Turley is mistaken about this train, as it runs through between Chicago and Cedar Falls, leaving Chicago at 10:30 A. M., Freeport 2:15 P. M., arrives in Dubuque at 4:45 P. M., leaves Dubuque 4:50 P. M., arrives at Masonville 7 P. M., arrives in Waterloo at 8:25 P. M., and Cedar Falls 8:45 P. M. This train makes practically all the stops between Chicago and Masonville, and, as will be observed from the schedule, is a continuous train.

Copy of the foregoing was sent Mr. Turley, accompanied by a letter from the board stating the views of the commissioners upon the subject of through passenger trains and the right of the board to interfere in the running and management of the same. In this letter the commissioners expressed themselves as follows, which may be considered as a final disposition of the case:

The demands of the public on the service of the Illinois Central railroad require a limited train such as their Nos. 1 and 2, which must make the quickest possible speed between initial and terminal points. If this limited train service was required to stop at the smaller towns, it would at once cease to be a limited or quick service and become a local, and hence slower service.

These limited trains are a public necessity on all through lines of railway. Vast sums of money are spent in their equipment, which must be especially fitted for this service.

The entire public is interested in them, seeking their accommodation on every considerable journey, and a railway that would not, or did not, maintain such trains for through travel would be avoided by it, and soon these trains would, of necessity, be abandoned, and the public be a loser thereby.

January 4, 1898.

No. 1903-1898.

INCORPORATED TOWN

CITY, CALHOUN COUNTY,

V.

OF ROCKWELL

Street crossing.

THE DES MOINES NORTHERN & WEST-
ERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Complaint filed November 5, 1897.

On above date the following petition was filed with the board in the above entitled case:

Your complainant alleges that it is an incorporated town duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Iowa, and located in Calhoun county, Iowa. That said Des Moines Northern & Western Railroad company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Iowa and is operating a railway through said incorporated town and county; that the incorporated town of Rockwell, by the original plat, is located on the northeast quarter of section thirty-six (36), township eighty-eight (88), range thirty-three (33), west of the fifth P. M., as appears on the plat and dedication thereof filed in said county and now of record in the office of the county recorder of said county, to which said plat and record thereof reference is hereby made. That said Des Moines Northern & Western Railroad company is now operating its said road through said town of Rockwell and the same has been constructed and is now operated and maintained by said railroad company over, across and upon Third street in said town. That said Third street is a public street of said town and was when said railroad was constructed appears in said plat, and that said railroad so constructed and now maintained by said company has caused said street to be in bad condition. That said street is not in good condition for public travel and is impassable; that said railroad company has failed to construct at the point where its road crosses said street (the same being a public street) a good, sufficient and safe crossing, and that an excavation has been made for said road and is now maintained and permitted by said company to remain in said street by said crossing and that the public cannot use said street for public travel. That on the 30th day of May, 1896, your complainant, who has jurisdiction over said street, gave said railroad company notice in writing, through the chairman of the street and alley committee, viz., J. H. Bradt, asking that said street at said place be put in good condition for public travel, a copy of which said notice is hereto attached, marked exhibit "A," and make a part hereof; that written notice has been served upon the railroad company and its officers at diverse and sundry times and that said officers have been repeatedly requested and asked by said town through its officers to put said street in condition for public travel. That said company have at all times ignored, refused and still refuse to put said street in condition for public travel and persist in placing their cars on the side track crossing said street and blocking same.

That the railroad company now absolutely refuses to put in the crossing at said place of crossing of said street, and that a good, substantial grade crossing should be maintained by said railroad company across said street; that the same is needed for use by the public; that said incorporated town is greatly inconvenienced and the public interest hindered thereby; that said railroad company by refusing to put said crossing in passable condition, fails to comply with the laws of Iowa in respect to the said crossing and the wishes of the public.

Wherefore, complainant asks that the railway commissioners of Iowa investigate the matter complained of herein and make findings and report according to law, and that said company be required to put in said crossing on said Third street within a reasonable time and for such other relief as may seem just and right by said railway commissioners. By order of town council.

(Signed)

CHAS. D. CASE,

Mayor of the Incorporated Town of Rockwell, Calhoun County, Iowa.

EXHIBIT "A."

To the Des Moines Northern & Western Railroad company:

You are hereby notified that the crossing of your road at Third street, in the incorporated town of Rockwell, Calhoun county, Iowa, has made such street impassable for public travel and use. You are hereby required and requested by said town to put said crossing in good condition for public travel and use and to keep the same free and clear from obstruction of your cars.

Dated this 29th day of May, 1896.

J. H. BRACT,

Chairman of Street and Alley Committee, for Rockwell, Calhoun County, Iowa.

The matter was taken up at once with the respondent railway company, and after a somewhat extended correspondence, Mr. F. F. Hunter, who had evidently succeeded Mr. Charles D. Case as mayor of Rockwell City, wrote the board on August 5, 1898: "I am glad to inform you that the Third street case, of which I was instructed to write you, has been amicably settled and disposed of." August 6, 1898.

The petition filed in this case reads as follows:

Mr. N. A. Pine is the owner of the ne1⁄4 sec. 2-95-28, Kossuth county, Iowa. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railway crosses this land from east to west in a diagonal line, coming on the land about forty-four rods from the north end, and coming out a little farther from the north end on the west side. His house stands on the northeast corner of the quarter. The principal part of his farm lies south of the said railway. He has only one crossing between his house and outbuildings and the principal part of his farm. This crossing is enclosed with gates. One gate is about opposite and a little west of the house on the north side of said railway. The other gate is across the railway, and exactly opposite the first gate. Eighteen rods east of the west line of this farm there is a ravine which the railway has heretofore crossed with a bridge about two rods in width. This bridge was of sufficient height to afford an under ground passageway for the stock kept on the farm. The land on both sides of this ravine, and on each side of this said railway, is adapted to pasture land, and so used by Mr. Pine. About a month ago the railway company, against the wishes and protest of Mr. Pine made known to them, filled up this natural passageway, or ravine, with dirt, thus depriving him of his natural under ground passage for his cattle, stock, etc., through and under said bridge, and obliging him to take his cattle and stock from one part of the farm to the other.

Mr. Pine's pasture at the present time is on the north side of said railway, opposite the under ground passageway. In the near future, as a matter of necessity, his pasture will have to be enlarged so as to take in ground on the south side of said railway, hence said passage under the railway will be a necessity. It is almost impossible with any degree of safety to his stock and the railway company, for Mr. Pine to use exclusively this open crossing enclosed by gates.

From the foregoing facts it appears to us that the railway company should be compelled to reopen the under ground crossing, and we ask that you bring this matter to the attention of the railway commissioners, and fully investigate it. The said railway company has absolutely refused to permit said under ground crossing to be made.

The matter was presented to the railway company, and Mr. A. J. Earling, second vice-president and general manager, under date of November 12, 1897, filed the following answer:

In reply to the application of Mr. N. A. Pine, by his attorney, J. O. Raymond of Algona, for the reopening of a pile bridge known as R-560, in the vicinity of Sexton, lowa, I have to say that after an experience of a number of years we have found that there has never been enough water to require such a bridge as was provided at the time the road was constructed, and when the time came for renewal it was replaced by a 4x4 timber culvert, which is ample in size to carry all the water that may accumulate at that place.

In view of the fact that Mr. Pine has been provided with a suitable and convenient grade crossing, and the further fact that he has never made any use of the bridge as a crossing, there seemed to us to be no reason why we should maintain a pile bridge when a culvert will answer all purposes so far as a waterway is concerned.