houses, is reasonable and expedient in order to promote the security, convenience, and accommodation of the public, said Railway Commissioners shall inform such railroad corporation . . . of the changes which they adjudge to be proper," etc.

The companies interpreted the law regarding wyes to mean that they were not bound to put in connecting tracks provided both of the roads intersecting agreed that they were not needed. It was a matter for the roads to settle. Private parties were not interested.1 In a case filed Nov. 29, 1881, "there seemed to be a persistent determination on the part of one of the companies to ignore the requirements of the law, and the findings of the Commissioners, the theory being that the managers of the road were the judges of the necessity of the connecting tracks, and that the law being founded in reason, they should not be required to obey its mandates if there was not a demand for the interchange of cars at that station." 2 The Commissioners were obliged to call the attention of the company to the imperative character of the law. Seventeen cases of complaint of this kind were reported during the time of the advisory commission, and almost without exception the recommendations of the Board were complied with.

On Sept. 19, 1883, a petition was filed by citizens of Herndon and vicinity for a passenger-depot at the crossing of the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul, and Wisconsin, St. Louis, and Pacific Railways. The Commissioners, after investigation, decided that a station was needed, but they held that the law creating the

1 Report, 1880, p. 136.

2 Report, 1882, p. 422. J. O. Hanna vs. C. and N. W. Ry.
3 Report, 1883, p. 708.

Commission did not intend to convey to it power to compel companies to erect and maintain passenger-stations at such points. Thirty cases of the same kind were pending in the State, and the Commission therefore recommended the passage of a general law requiring all railroads crossing at grade to erect and maintain suitable station-houses at crossings. In accordance with the recommendation of the Board, a law was passed providing for the erection and maintenance of station-houses at points of intersection of railroads, whenever it should be so ordered by the Board.1 The Board was also given the power to order the warming and lighting of the passenger-houses, and the fixing of a reasonable time in which the houses should be kept open for passengers, both before and after the arrival of trains. The Commissioners were authorized to fix the proportion of expense of construction and maintenance to be paid by the companies, and to order the connection of tracks for the transfer of freight. Failure on the part of a railroad company to comply with the order after ninety days' notice subjected it to a fine of twentyfive dollars for each day's failure to comply. The Commission at once took into its hands the establishment of needed stations, and many were located. Aside from petitions relating to location of stations, petitions were received asking for permission to change the names of stations in cases where the names of post-offices and the names of stations were different, and in cases where different names had been given to the same point, or nearly the same, by connecting roads. The Board, while recognizing the soundness of the

1 Chap. 24, 20th G. A.

reasons for the change in almost every case, held that "an examination of Sect. 3 of the Commissioner law has satisfied the members of the Board that fixing the names of stations is not one of the powers conferred by law upon the Commission."

The question, whether the requirement upon railroads to handle the cars of connecting lines applied to switch-tracks, arose in a case filed April 14, 1884.1 The Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska Railway Company had sent a shipment of live hogs to the packing-house at Marshalltown over the side-track of the Chicago and Northwestern upon payment of the usual switching charges. But the Northwestern refused to allow empty cars of complainant to go to the packing-house for the shipment of product out. The Commissioners held that the Chicago and Northwestern was justified in its refusal to grant the use of its track to a competitive line; that it was built as an individual enterprise; that the usual mileage rates charged for switching would not be a compensation for the service rendered, and that "the implied contract in making the expenditure the Commissioners believe to have been the transportation of hogs in and the product out to market over a long line of its own road, and any other is hardly consistent with the motives that prompted the outlay." The Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska Railway was not precluded from building a spur-track to the packing-house, and thus securing the advantages of the business.

Under the provisions of the Act of 1878, requiring the Board to inform the railroad corporation when "a change in the mode of operating its road and conduct1 W. I. and N. vs. C. and N. W., Report, 1884, p. 530.

ing its business is reasonable and expedient in order to promote the security, convenience, and accommodation of the public," the Board took cognizance of a number of cases involving the question of adequate train service. These included the demand that roads should be required to furnish additional facilities, that trains should be stopped at crossings, that roads should be kept clear of snow, etc., and in almost all cases, when the complaints were substantiated, the roads complied with the findings of the Commissioners. In a case filed May 31, 1882, involving a petition that trains should be stopped for passengers at a crossing, the Board said: "The travelling public has some rights acquired by the use of the railway, and among them there is none that partakes more of the character of the railway itself than that they are entitled to the privilege of reaching their destination without great delay, certainly without unnecessary delay, and that delays that in other modes of conveyance might not be serious, in railways are."

1 Report, 1882, p. 529.

CHAPTER V.

MAINTENANCE OF WAY.

ANOTHER class of complaints closely allied with those of railroad service concerned the maintenance of way, and the keeping of the road in proper repair. Such were cases of the need of drainage facilities, cases of obstruction and overflow, unsafe condition of roads and bridges, the construction of viaducts, the maintenance of proper crossings and cattle-guards, the fencing of track, and the like.

Cases of obstruction and overflow involved the definition of a navigable stream. Railroads had in many cases built bridges in such a way as to obstruct navigation, either failing to provide a draw or neglecting to furnish the means of operating it. The abandonment of the investigation in one case, and the modification of conditions after the road was built in the second,2 prevented the Commissioners from rendering a decision. upon the question of navigability; but the Board held that the general supervisory powers granted them authorized inquiry into such cases and justified decision.

In the matter of unsafe condition of roads and bridges, the duties of the Commission were explicit. Sect. 3 of the law says that the Board shall "from time to time carefully examine and inspect the condition of 2 Report, 1886, p. 474.

1 Report, 1885, p. 491.