North-Western Railway company; that as the Des Moines, Northern & Western Railway company is the road desirous and anxious for the construction of the wye, it is, therefore, the opinion and judg ment of the railroad commissioners that if an order is made for such construction it ought to be done by the Des Moines, Northern & Western Railway company. It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged by the board of railroad commissioners that the Des Moines, Northern & Western Railway company within sixty days from the date hereof build and construct a connecting track or wye connecting the track of the Des Moines, Northern & Western Railway company with the track and rails of the Chicago & North-Western Railway company at or near the town of Lohrville, in the county of Calhoun, state of Iowa, where one railway crosses the other at grade; that such wye and connecting track shall be constructed upon the southwest angle of the two railways; that it shall be built and constructed of standard sixty-pound steel rails, laid upon standard oak ties, switches to be of the split-rail pattern with Ramapo stands, roadbed to be well graded and ballasted, and all to be constructed in a safe and reasonable manner, so that cars may be transported from the track of one company to that of the other in a safe, convenient and proper manner; that upon the completion of the construction of such connecting track or wye and when the same is ready for use and operation said Chicago & NorthWestern Railway company shall pay to the said Des Moines, Northern & Western Railway company a sum of money equal to one-half of the whole cost and expense of the building and construction of said wye and connecting track, but that said sum to be paid by the Chicago and North Western Railway company shall in no case exceed the sum of three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($375); that in the construction of said wye or track no excavation shall be made whereby any substantial injury shall be done to the property of the Chicago & North-Western Railway company, and that the use and convenience of the station grounds by the public shall not be impaired, injured or damaged by excavations or borrow pits or removal of earth. DES MOINES, Iowa, June 23, 1897. No. 1770-1897. C. C. WERTZ, GREENE, Iowa, V. BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & Site for coal house. DECISION OF COMMISSIONERS. Mr. C. C. Wertz, by letter to this board, stated that he had recently engaged in the business of selling coal at retail at Greene, Iowa, and that he had applied to the proper officials of the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway for ground to build coal sheds upon its side track, and stating that there was sufficient ground remaining therefor, not in use by the company, and further stating that there were two other coal dealers at that place who have all the ground allotted to them that they need, and requesting the board to take such steps as may be necessary to compel the railroad company to furnish the ground needed for such coal sheds. The matter was submitted to the railway company by correspondence, and replying thereto, Mr. C J. Ives, president of the railway company, interposed two objections to granting the request made by the commissioners, the first being that the railway company has furnished all the ground necessary at that station for coal sheds, as well as grain and live stock, which have been allotted or leased to two other coal dealers, and that there was no public demand therefor; and second, that the railroad commissioners have no authority or control over railway companies so far as the same relates to grounds which may be required for warehouses or other purposes, and in support of his position our attention is called to the case of the Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. State of Nebraska, ex rel, Board of Transportation, reported in Supreme Court Reporter, vol. 17, pt. 7, on page 131. Considerable correspondence passed between the board and Mr. Ives upon this case and being unable to adjust the matter a day was fixed for a hearing at Greene, and all the parties notified thereof. At the hearing Mr. Wertz was present and also Mr. W. P. Brady, who represented the interests of the railway. The facts upon said hearing were found to be about as follows: That Mr. Wertz, during the month of December, 1896, engaged in the retail coal business at Greene, Iowa; that up to about January 17, 1897, he had handled about fifteen or twenty carloads of coal and had sold nearly that amount; that four carloads thereof were hard coal; that it was claimed by Mr. Wertz that the price of hard coal had declined from $9 per ton to $8.50, which he claimed was solely due to competition among the coal dealers; that he has purchased, a short distance from the side track of the railway, a small piece of ground and that he has now erected thereon a coal shed about 20x40 feet; that he is obliged to carry the coal from the car to shed in wagons when it is not delivered from the car to his customers, thus necessarily increasing the expense of the coal, we think from the information we obtained from Mr. Wertz, at least 25 cents per ton. Mr. Wertz admits that the other coal dealers, so far as being able to furnish and provide coal for the inhabitants living in and about the town of Greene, is ample and sufficient to meet all public demands. We find that the two coal dealers who have been allotted privileges upon the land of the company are substantial and active business men, carrying a large stock of coal, and are in a situation to carry in stock and furnish all the coal necessary to meet the demands therefor in that locality; that no complaint is made that the price of coal is higher at this station than at others located in and about that particular section of the state; that both of said dealers deny that the decline in the price of coal was occasioned by competition, but was from other causes. Whatever right the railroad commissioners have to pass upon and determine the questions herein submitted are derived from the general statutes of this state relating to the general powers and authority of the railroad commissioners. We have reached the conclusion that it clearly appears in this case that the railway company has furnished the necessary ground to the coal dealers at Greene, Iowa, for the purpose of handling coal at that station, and that ample and adequate means have been by the railway provided therefor, and that at this time there is no public demand for additional ground or privileges to handle coal at this station. The writer hereof is of the opinion that the railroad commissioners, in questions of this kind, can act only when the interests and demands of the public require it. We cannot concur in the opinion entertained by Mr. Ives that this board, by reason of the Nebraska case above cited, has no authority or right to act in cases of this kind. From a careful reading of that case we are of the opinion that the question therein decided is not analogous to the one under consideration. This board, as we understand, has always assumed to act in matters of this character, and until the courts hold that this board has no right or authority to so act, we are inclined to the opinion that it is the plain duty of the commission to exercise that right in all cases when it believes that a question affecting the general public is concerned. We have reached the conclusion in this case that we ought not to make an order requiring the railway company to furnish additional ground for the handling of coal at this station, for the reason stated in the first ground of this ruling, and the application is therefore dismissed, with the right at any time, in case the conditions now existing at Greene should change, to apply for a change or modification of this ruling. DES MOINES, Iowa, February 4, 1897. A communication was duly received by the board, dated November 19, 1896, from Dr. William M. Anderson of St. Charles, Iowa, stating in substance that the Des Moines & Kansas City Railway company, in making its recent change in the location of its line of railway through St. Charles, had deprived him of reasonable means of reaching his land. This matter was taken up with Mr. A. C. Goodrich, general manager of the railway company, for the purpose of reaching a mutual agreement between the land owner and the railway company, but on account of the place where Dr. Anderson requested the crossing to be made, the railway company deeming it an unreasonable one, refused to build or construct a crossing. Thereupon the board fixed February 2, 1897, as time for hearing of such complaint at St. Charles, giving all parties interested therein due and timely notice thereof. At the date fixed the board met with Dr. Anderson, together with President Hughes and General Manager Goodrich, and fully investigated the claim of Dr. Anderson, as well as the position taken by the railway company. The facts in relation to that part of the claim made in reference to the street crossing, which is one subsequently made to the one filed originally in this case, are about as follows: That Dr. Anderson owns a small lot or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the town of St. Charles, on the northerly side of the railroad track and adjoining an alley, extending along one side of said lot or parcel of land and up to the railway company's right of way, and possibly said alley may extend over and across the companys' right of way. Upon this latter point, however, the board is not fully advised, but for the purpose of this case it will be treated the same as though it was fully established over and across the company's right of way. That immediately opposite and on the other side of the company's right of way the land is not owned by Dr. Anderson, but by other persons; that the alley is now used as such on the northerly side of said railway right of way, but is not so used on the other side of said right of way; that St. Charles is a town of less than 500 inhabitants; that it has three or more good grade street crossings, located at suitable and convenient places for the use of the public over and across the company's right of way, one of which crossings is upon a street extending along the same block in which the alley in question is located, and another but a short distance in an opposite direction; that Dr. Anderson asks and requests the establishment of a grade crossing over and along where the alley crosses the company's right of way; that the farm of Dr. Anderson, and the one upon which he asks another crossing, is located a short distance from and adjoining the town of St. Charles, this farm containing something over eighty acres and is divided by the railway company's track and right of way, the company's right of way extending within about fifty feet of the dwelling house and barn upon said farm; that immediately opposite the house and barn is a deep cut, perhaps ten to twelve feet in depth, in which cut the railway track is laid; that a short distance from the barn, and between the barn and the town of St. Charles, there is a suitable and convenient place for a grade crossing, the track and roadbed at this point being about on the natural surface of the ground; that he has no crossing or other means by which he can go from one piece of his land to the other without going first upon the public highway and crossing the company's right of way. The board has reached the following conclusions: That the complainant, Dr. Anderson, is not entitled at this time to a crossing over and across the company's right of way where the alley extends over such right of way, or at any other place opposite or adjoining his land or lots within the town of St. Charles, for the reason that there is no such public demand or necessity therefor, as would authorize or justify the board in requiring the railway company to |