and be heard upon the matter, and gave public notice of such contemplated hearing.

At the time and place so fixed the petitioners were represented by the following officials:

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. by E. P. Ripley, vicepresident; Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. by W. H. Newman, vice-president; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. by Geo. B. Harris, vice-president; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. by W. H. Truesdale, vice-president; Illinois Central Railroad Co. by M. C. Markham, traffic manager, and the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co. by C. J. Ives, president.

J. W. Blythe, general solicitor of the C., B. & Q. Rd. Co., also appeared for the petitioners, and several other railway officials were present.

Hon. F. T. Campbell was present and stated that he represented the State Farmers' Alliance, Jobbers' Association of the state, and various coal and manufacturing interests throughout the state. Hon. Spencer Smith of Council Bluffs, appeared for the shippers of that city. A committee of which S. F. Prouty was chairman appeared on behalf of the shippers or Commercial Club of Des Moines. The shippers of Burlington, Dubuque, Ottumwa, Marshalltown, Cedar Falls, Centerville and other cities and towns of the state were also represented by quite a large number of their business men.

The shippers filed a motion for a more specific statement by the petitioners as to what the railroad companies desired, or expected the board to grant, in order that those who appeared as remonstrating against an increase of rates might be informed as to what increase in the rates the carriers were asking for, and the class or classes of freight on which such increase should apply. The board considered such request reasonable, and ruled that such statement should be filed by the petitioners. In the afternoon of the same day an amendment was filed as follows.

Before the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of Iowa.

In the matter of the applicaiion of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, et al., for an advance of rates.

Amendment to the application, by order of the board.

Petitioners attach hereto a table marked "Exhibit A," showing the rates prevailing in the [states of] Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Dakota, as compared with the rates now in force in Iowa, all in printed figures, also in script figures in ink, the rates now asked for by petitioners. And petitioners say that they do not regard the proposed rates as reasonable or just, but on the contrary assert that they are unreasonably low, but in complying with the order of board in a more specific statement, ask for these rates, in the belief that they will, to some extent, relieve the petitioners

and at the same time correct in some measure the inequality now existing between local rates in Iowa and those in other states similarly situated, without injury to Iowa interests.

The Ill. C. R. R. Co., C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., C. & N. W. R. R. Co., C., B. &. Q. R. R. Co., B., C R & N. Ry. Co."

Said exhibit "A" is a printed document of about 33 pages, mostly figures, and purports to give the rates, or tariffs, in force in the states of Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Dakota, in parallel lines or columns so that a comparison can be quite readily made between. them, but the said exhibit is too voluminous to be given here. Upon the filing of that paper, or amendment, the respondents asked for further time to prepare their side of the case, which was granted, and the further hearing of the matter was postponed to the 18th day of September, 1894. At that time the parties appeared substantially as before, with the exception that the Hon. Spencer Smith withdrew his appearance for the shippers of Council Bluffs and entered it for the Western Wholesale Grocers' Association. Some evidence was offered on the part of the petitioning railway companies, tending to show that the table of rates as compiled and presented as exhibit "A" to their amendment before referred to were the rates in force in the states therein named, and some was offered on the part of the shippers, or respondents that tended, in some instances at least, to the contrary. In fact the hearing at that time became somewhat desultory and consisted largely in statements and arguments on both sides of the controversy that could hardly form any proper basis for action by the commissioners. The commissioners thought best for all concerned to let the matter take that course at that time, and they were pleased to note in all that was said on both sides of the controversy, although at times the discussion became very earnest and animated, that there was an almost entire absence of bitterness of feeling, or manifestation of any spirit to demand anything that would work an injustice to any important interests involved.

At the close of that hearing, or whatever it might be called, the commissioners did not consider that they had before them sufficient information or evidence on which they could base any action, and they therefore, through their chairman, made an oral statement or request as to what they desired, which was subsequently reduced to writing, and appears of record in said case, as follows:

"At the conclusion of said hearing, the board, through its chairman, stated that the case on the part of the petitioners seemed to be based very largely upon a comparison made about one year ago by certain officials of the railway companies of tariffs or schedules of rates claimed to be in force in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Dakota, but no such original tariffs or schedules of rates were produced or submitted in evidence. That the board desired the evidence on which they should

base any action or conclusion should be on file in their office and requested the petitioners to furnish the board duly authenticiated tariffs and schedules of rates, including the classifications in force in said states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota and Dakota, and under which the railroads of said states have done their business for the year last past in those states. Also all the interstate tariffs under which the interstate business of the petitioning roads in this case has been done in those states for about the same period of time; this to include all special, general and commodity tariffs, state or interstate. If any business was done except as provided in such tariffs or schedules, the extent and nature of the same and reasons therefor to be stated. That if such evidence was furnished by the petitioners, the board would proceed with the investigation of the matters involved in the present application."

Afterwards on Sept. 21, 1894, Mr. Prouty, as chairman of committee before referred to, filed with the board a request that the various tariffs to be furnished by the petitioners as requested by the commissioners be verified in a certain specified manner, which paper was duly forwarded to petitioners in accordance with the custom of the office, and the same appears at length in a further paper filed by the same parties that is hereafter given in full. Between that time and about October 25, 1894, various packages of tariffs were filed with the board by the petitioners, but the same were not deemed to be, or the same at least were not made to appear to be such, or in such form, as had been requested, and about said last mentioned date, a communication was addressed to several of the petitioning roads, stating that the same were not satisfactory to the board.

November 13, 1894, a large number of gentlemen representing various business interests in the state, had an interview with the commissioners at their office in Des Moines, and filed a paper with the board as follows:

To the Honorable Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa:

GENTLEMEN-We, the undersigned, represent the shipping interests of this state. would respectfully petition your honorable body to grant a continuance of the matter now in hearing before you relative to the raising of freight rates in this state, and for reasons for said application, would state:

That the matter is of unprecedented importance to the commercial, farming and manufacturing interests of this state, and should only be determined after the most extended investigation that could be had by your honorable body, and after all the facts and information available had been furnished to you for your consideration, which we are constrained to believe is not the fact at the present time; and we believe that a determination of the question now involved, would be unfair to the shipping interests of this state.

A brief history of the situation, we believe, will make this apparent.

The railway companies interested filed this application, and at the time of the first hearing filed a schedule of comparative rates in other states as had been compiled by them, without producing any evidence that they were the rates actually in force in adjoining states. The source of the information compiled into these tabulated state

ments was not produced, or in any manner shown. The railway companies relied upon the justness of their claim for advance in rates upon the fact that the rates were higher in other states than this.

The shipping interests challenged the correctness of this statement, and introduced much evidence at the former trial showing that the business in adjoining states was, in fact, transacted on a basis much lower than that shown in the tabulated statements prepared by the railway officials. At this time the railway companies produced no evidence showing the correctness of these tabulated statements, and introduced none of their tariffs to corroborate the same.

After the close of the hearing the railroad commissioners made the following request:

"That the board desired the evidence on which they should base any action or conclusion should be filed in this office, and requested petitioners to furnish duly authenticated tariffs of schedules and rates, including the classifications in force in said states of Michigan, Wisconsion, Illinois, Minnesota and Dakota, and under which the railroads of said states had done their business, for the year last past, in those states. Also all the interstate tariffs-this to include all special, general and commodity tariffs, state or interstate. If any business was done, except as provided in said tariffs or schedules, the extent and nature of the same, and reasons therefor to be stated. That if such evidence was furnished, the board would proceed with investigation."

The railroad commissioners at the time made no order as to the manner and form in which these tariffs should be certified.

Knowing the dexterity with which railway officials manipulate the information that they desire for the public, we felt that they would take advantage of this order to furnish such information, and only such information as might suit their theory of the case. We therefore requested the railway commissioners to require the railway companies to attach to the tariffs thus furnished by them an affidavit in substantially the following terms:

I,

being first duly sworn, do on my oath say that I am.

of the. Railway Company. That the tariffs hereto attached and marked respectively A, B, C, etc, constitute a complete list of all the tariffs now in force upon the above railroad, or of all the tariffs, general, special and commodity, and that the freight over our various lines in the various states has been handled at the price set out in said tariff sheets, and at no lower rate during the time covered by said tariffs, and that we have not made concessions from said rates to any one by rebate or otherwise."

We are informed that your honorable body forwarded a copy of this affidavit to each of the petitioners, and that in disregard of it and the request of your honorable body, they filed certain schedules and tariffs, but in no manner certified the same; and that they failed to so certify the same in any manner until October 25th, at which time the records of your office show that you addressed to them the following letter:

"OCTOBER 25, 1894.

E. P. Ripley, Third Vice-Prest. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., Chicago, Ill.; "DEAR SIR.-Tariffs filed on the part of your company in this office October 17th, 1894, in response to request made at close of hearing on the 19th ult. do not, in the judgment of the commissioners, comply with such request or suggestions made at that time, or in the communication from this office to your company under date of October 10th, 1894. No attempt appears to have been made to authenticate or verify such

tariffs as suggested. If there is anything in said request or communication difficult to understand, and you think a conference of representatives of the companies interested with the commissioners would be more satisfactory than further attempts to reach an understanding by correspondence, such a conference could be had, if desired, on Wednesday, the 31st inst., when the board will be in session at its office here, or if that date is not convenient, another day may be suggested.

By order of the Board.

Very respectfully yours,

W. W. AINSWORTH,

Secretary."

That the railway companies taking advantage of one suggestion contained in your letter, appeared before your honorable body on the 31st day of October, and made certain qualified affidavits; of which meeting the shippers had no notice, and none were present

An examination of the affidavits filed by the railway companies clearly shows that they have withheld much of the information that is necessary for the proper determination of this question

The real showing that the railway companies are attempting to make by the introduction of these tariffs, is that the freight is actually being hauled under the orders of the commissioners of the state, at a less price than it is being hauled in adjoining states. In conceding that this is the material question in this case, it is perfectly apparent that it can not form a guide in this case unless all the evidence is introduced. The railway companies have withheld a great bulk of their special and commodity tariffs. The affidavits did not state whether rebates or concessions are made from the published tariffs, and they have failed to furnish the classifications as requested by your honorable body.

"

The order of the railroad commissioners was to include all special, general and commodity tariffs on state or interstate business," and "that if said evidence is furnished the board will proceed with the investigation." Now we insist that this order has not been complied with by the railway companies, and that your honorable body can not proceed with the investigation until it is complied with.

It must be apparent to your honorable body that the commodity and special tariffs are as important in the solution of this question as any other tariffs. It is doubtless the object and purpose of the laws of this state not only to prevent discrimination between citizens of this state, but so far as practicable to place them on an equality with the shipping interests of other states in the question of transportation. It would be manifestly unjust to allow the railway companies to charge a higher rate in this state on manufactured products than they voluntarily charge in other states, as this would eventually have a tendency to build up manufacturing interests in those states to the detriment of like interests in this state. The affidavits of the railway companies' officials show that they give these special or commodity rates for the purpose of building up interests in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. If the railway companies can afford to put in those rates in those states to build up those industries, they ought not to complain if the commissioners of this state compel them to put in corresponding rates here for the benefit of our industries.

It is evident, therefore, that these special or commodity tariffs constitute essential evidence in the determination of this cause. We therefore think that your honorable body ought to continue the hearing of this matter to some future date, and in the mean time require the railway companies to furnish these tariffs called for in the original order, and that a public meeting ought to be held, at which not only the roads but the