ment. Sect. 13 says that any person "complaining of anything done, or omitted to be done, by any common carrier subject to the provision of this Act, in contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commissioners by petition, which shall briefly state the facts," etc. If, then, the case comes under the operation of the Act of 1888, the procedure is plain. The difficulty arises, however, in cases coming under the Act of 1878; and these cases are steadily surpassing in number those that arise under the later law. In this class of cases, in which the supervisory power of the Board is so extended, the Commissioners have always preferred to conduct their investigations in the most informal way, and have resorted to the courts only under pressure of necessity.1

1 Their method of procedure they describe as follows:

"A single letter is written to the Board, stating the matter complained of. A copy or statement of the substance of this is by the Board forwarded to the proper officials of the railroad company. They reply generally, stating either that the request cannot be granted for reasons stated, or that an investigation will be made by them, and the matter adjusted if practicable. In this latter way, very many cases are arranged and settled satisfactorily to all parties concerned, without further action by the Board. If the matter is not thus disposed of, and the party complaining is not satisfied with the reasons stated by the company as its grounds of refusal, the Board notifies the complaining party to substantiate his claim by proper evidence; or where a personal examination by the Board will disclose the substantial facts, or it will save material expense to have the investigation at the locality in question, all parties are duly notified, and the Board then meets and examines the premises, hears all persons interested in an informal way, without much regard to the technical rules of evidence, but aiming to be guided by the essential principles thereof, to the end that the materia] facts be ascertained, and such a finding or order be made as to the Board seems reasonable and just and in accordance with the law governing in the premises. A very large proportion of the findings, recommendations, or orders made by the Board under such circumstances are followed or complied with by the railroad companies. If any are not, and are deemed of sufficient importance to justify it, suit is brought for enforcement under the Act of the Twentieth General Assembly." (Report, 1892, p. 36.)

A case involving the same question was that of the State vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway Company. Here there was an open crossing near a cut, which obstructed the view of trains approaching from the east. The Commissioners, after a personal examination, held that the crossing was dangerous to the parties. crossing, and to passengers on the train. The road refused to put in the crossing. Suit was brought in the District Court, which ordered an overhead crossing. The Supreme Court, in reversing the decision of the lower Court, questioned whether the order of the Commissioners could form a proper basis for an action in Court, because the finding of the Board was not placed before the District Court in the form of sworn testimony.

The Commissioners argue rightly, that if these decisions of the Supreme Court are to apply to cases in which the informal method of procedure is used, the plaintiff will be compelled to draw up his case formally and fully before presenting it to the railroad. If this is required of the complainant, why not of the defendant? Why shall not the railroad be compelled to set up the defence before the Commissioners which it intends to employ in the Court? This would in effect transform the Board into a court, involving formal trial, with all the delay and expense incident to court procedure, a state of things which the legislature intended expressly to avoid in the passage of the law of 1878. It makes the District Court merely a Court of appeal from the hearing of the Commissioners, and not a Court. of original jurisdiction, passing upon all the facts which

1 Report, 1892, p. 893.

can be adduced at the time to prove the reasonableness and justice of the order which the Commissioners desire. to see enforced. It was held in the Cutler case, before mentioned, that "the order of the Board, as a result of its investigation, is not the judgment or conclusion that binds the parties. It is merely by the law made the basis of an action wherein the rights of the parties are investigated and determined by the prescribed rules of judicial inquiry." It is evident that this Cutler decision endeavored to draw a line of distinction between the Court and the Board of Commissioners, but the later decision practically does away with the line of demarcation.

In this question of procedure, is involved the entire problem of railroad control. It has long since been settled that the people, through their legislative body, have power to control the railroads, and that this power can be delegated to a board of railroad commissioners. The important question, which it may take years of patient study to solve, is the manner in which this power is to be exercised so that it may be made effective. If the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in these decisions is adhered to, the power which the Commissioners possess of effective control over the railroads will be seriously impaired.

CHAPTER VII.

CONCLUSIONS.

THE Commission of 1888 has, all things considered, met with gratifying success in its labors. The untold benefit to be derived by a State from stable rates has been realized in large part by Iowa, and complaints of discrimination have come to occupy but little of the time and attention of the Commissioners. It would be rash to say that all discrimination has ceased in Iowa, but the fact that complaints have fallen off to such an extent is evidence of a change in conditions. Almost all the business of Iowa is being done upon the Commissioners' rates; and, although these are only maximum rates, there seems little disposition on the part of the railroads to lower them. The Commissioners maintained, in their report for 1891, that the rates in force, while they materially reduced published tariff rates of 1889, promoted a steady increase in tonnage and revenues on roads doing business in Iowa. The fiscal year 1891 showed a net increase in tonnage of 1,369,882 tons over 1890. From tabulated statements it was shown that, since the legal rates had been in force, there had been a steady increase in the revenues of nearly all the roads in the State, the aggregate earnings on Iowa business mounting from $37,148,399.75 in 1889 to $43,102,399.25 in 1891.

Ex-Governor Larrabee has the following to say re

garding the law of 1888, in reply to the extreme criticisms of the railroads:

"From July 1, 1889, to June 30, 1892, the gross railroad earnings of the Iowa roads, which for three years had been at a standstill, increased, and were over $7,000,000 more in 1892 than they had been any year previous to 1889, as will be seen from the table below:

"The net earnings per mile of the Iowa roads were $1,421.91 in the year 1888-1889, and $1,821.37 the year following. The total net earnings of all Iowa roads during the year ending June 30, 1891, were $14,463,106, against $11,861,310 during the year ending June 30, 1889, and were still greater for the year ending June 30, 1892. No further vindication of the Iowa law is necessary. These figures show plainly that the lowering and equalizing of the rates not only increase the roads' business and income, but also their net earnings. And it must be remembered that the reports showing these facts were made by the railroad companies, and were certainly not made with any intention of prejudicing the cause of the railroad managers." 1 "Still better results

could have been secured if the railroad managers had been in sympathy with the law. There is no doubt that they would gladly suffer, or, rather, have their companies suffer, a loss of revenue, if this would lead to a repeal of the laws, and restore to them the power to manipulate rates for their own purposes.'

The great benefit to Iowa has been found in the development of home industry. New coal-mines have been opened, new mills and manufacturing concerns erected, the jobbing business has extensively increased. Products are now exchanged much more largely between 2 Ibid., p. 293.

1 "Railroad Question," p. 265.