Mr. Tittemore's complaint was forwarded on the same day to W. H. Newman, vice-president of the Chicago & North-Western railway, and he was requested to "telegraph answer. This he failed to do but under date of November 2d says: Your letter of the 19th, about two cars of coal at Jefferson, was, on receipt, promptly forwarded for investigation, and reply to you has been delayed by my absence at the St. Louis meeting. On my return I find that the cars referred to have been delivered to the consignee, wagons, I believe, being used for that purpose. Mr. Tittemore was furnished copy of Mr. Newman's reply on November 4th and as no response has been received up to December 1st from Mr. Tittemore it may be presumed the difficulties are amicably adjusted and the case is closed. No. 70, 1895. E. M. WAYNE, WOOLSTOCK, V. CHICAGO & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Failure to furnish cars. Under date of October 28, 1895, E. M. Wayne, of Woolstock, made complaint to this board of what he considered unjust discrimination against him and the town of Woolstock in furnishing cars for the transportation of grain, alleging that Webster City, eight miles south of them, had all the cars they can use and more than they wanted. Upon receipt of Mr. Wayne's complaint it was sent Mr. Whitman, as follows: October 30, 1895. J. M. Whitman, Esq., General Manager Chicago & North-Western Railway Company, Chicago, Ill.: DEAR SIR-This office is in receipt of a communication dated October 28th, from E. M. Wayne, grain dealer, Woolstock, eight miles north of Webster City, who complains of his inability to get cars for shipment of his grain, while, according to his statement, "Webster City has plenty of cars, in fact more cars than they are using." Will you have the kindness to give this matter your early consideration and reply? To which Mr. Whitman says: CHICAGO, November 13, 1895. W. W. Ainsworth, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, lowa: grain: On October 25th, 26th and 28th the elevators and grain warehouses on the west end of the northern Iowa division became so nearly filled with grain that it was necessary for us to divert all our cars to that locality in order that the receipt of grain from the farmers need not be stopped. With this single exception of the three days named Mr. Wayne has been furnished with all of the cars that he has called for, and has been furnished with very great promptness. He has no reasonable ground for complaint. Very truly, J. M. WHITMAN, The explanation of Mr. Whitman being such as to convince the commissioners that it was his intention to treat the patrons of his lines fairly and furnish them the best facilities possible under the extra pressure for cars, the following was addressed Mr. Wayne, which may be considered as closing the case: DEAR SIR—Upon receipt of your complaint alleging inability to secure Chicago & NorthWestern cars, the matter was taken up by the commissioners with the general manager of 1e company, Mr. J. M. Whitman. His reply was received November 14th, and inasmuch as it indicated that your immediate wants had received attention, and also because of the fact that the attention of the office has been required upon the annual report now in process. of completion, answer has not been forwarded to you. Unless you are heard from immediately to the contrary, the commissioners will regard your case as satisfactorily closed. October 30, 1895, the following was filed in the office of the commissioners: GRUNDY CENTER, Iowa, October 29th. Interstate Railway Commission, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIRS-Are our interstate laws any good? If so, how is it that the coal costs us (freight) from Chicago $2 per ton while coal that passes on through 140 miles is charged 81.75 a ton? This is a sample case only of discrimination. Very truly, W. J. PALM. Mr. Palm's complaint was forwarded to President C. J. Ives, with request that he investigate and reply, to which he says: "Yours of October 30th, with copy of complaint of Mr. W. J. Palm of Grundy Center, has been investigated, and we will have to have a much more specific statement of Mr. Palm's complaint, before any action can be taken thereon. There being no rate on our line of $1.75 per ton on coal from Chicago to any point 140 miles west of Grundy Center. Mr. Palm may have read in newspapers about low rates to Missouri river points and elsewhere, but we are not involved in such rates, and we must have a more specific statement from Mr. Palm before we can answer the complaint." Copy of Mr. Ives' reply was sent to Mr. Palm with the request: "If there is anything further which you desire to communicate to the board in this matter kindly file at an early convenience." Nothing further having been received from Mr. Palm, the case is closed. November 4, 1895, the following was received at this office: GRINNELL, Iowa, October 30, 1895. J. W. Luke, Railroad Commissioner of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-I write you this morning to find out whether a passenger has any rights on the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railway passenger trains which they are bound to respect. Yesterday morning I went to the ticket office at this place to get a ticket to Newton, Iowa. The office was open, but the ticket agent was not there nor did he put in an appearance at all. The train pulled out, I got on, the conductor came around and I informed him I was unable to get a ticket because the agent wasn't in the office and I offered him the regular fare, 60 cents, to Newton, but he would not take it, saying the rules of the road was to pay 10 cents extra. Is there a law in Iowa limiting the roads of Iowa to charge 3 cents per mile? If so, can they charge 10 cents above the 3 cents a mile, when a passenger has no opportunity to purchase a ticket? I have repeatedly paid 10 cents extra because I could not get a ticket, and wish to know what rights, if any, I have in this matter. The conductor threatened to put me off the train. He finally said if I would buy a ticket when we got to Newton, back to Grinnell for him, he would let me ride. I did so and got through all right. Some say there is no law controlling them and that the railroads brought the fare to 3 cents per mile themselves. Is this so? By kindly giving me the information you will greatly oblige, Yours truly, D. F. WHITE. P. S.-As I am on the road most of the time, I wish to know something about my rights. Following is the reply directed: F. White, Esq., Grinnell, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Yours of October 30th to Commissioner Luke has been received and submitted to the commissioners. I am directed to reply as follows: The statutes of this state, after providing for the rate that may be charged for passenger fares have this provision: "A charge of ten cents may be added to the fare of any passenger when the same is paid upon the cars, if a ticket might have been procured within a reasonable time before the departure of the train." This statutory provision and digest of the decisions of the supreme court on the construction of the same, can be found on page 92 of the Statutes of Iowa Relating to Railways, which is sent you under another cover. The same matter has also been before the commissioners in several cases and in their report for 1891, pages 779 to 782, which is also sent you, you will find the law quoted and some of the decisions of the supreme court more at length. From those documents sent you, you can probably derive the information you seek. If you fail to do so, however, you can at your pleasure further communicate with the board. Very respectfully yours, By order of the board. W. W. AINSWORTH, Secretary. No. 73, 1895. ALONZO STRINGHAM, KELLERTON, V. Personal injury. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAIL ROAD. November 2, 1895, the following was received at the office: KELLERTON, Ringgold County, Iowa, October 31, 1895. To the State Railroad Commissioners of Iowa, at Des Moines: DEAR SIRS-On the 14th of August last, I being employed as a section hand on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railroad; my leg was broken through the neglect and mismanagement of said company and others of its employes. I notified the company of my injury and the incidents pertaining thereto and claimed $5,000 for same. They have paid no attention to the matter. It has been near a month and a half since I wrote them, and I now most respectfully request that you have them make answer to my Yours very respectfully, letter at once. To which this reply was made: Alonzo Stringham, Esq., Kellerton, Iowa: ALONZO STRINGHAM. November 7, 1895. DEAR SIR-Yours of the 31st ult. has been received and submitted to the commissioners. I am directed to say in reply that your claim is one for damages, and not of such a nature as to properly come before them. Your remedy is properly in the courts, as the commissioners have no authority under the law to render a judgment that would afford you relief. Very respectfully yours, By order of the board. W. W. AINSWORTH, The following communication was received at the office November 12, 1895: ATLANTIC, Nov. 11, 1895. To the Railroad Commissioners: GENTLEMEN-There are stockyards built in the city of Atlantic, adjacent to the track, for the purpose of loading and unloading live stock. Now, gentlemen, there are certain buyers and shippers here who own lots near and adjacent to the said stockyards, and they object to we who don't own lots so situated from using said yards. The vacancy is all taken close around the yards, and there is no opportunity of ingress and egress to said yards unless going over this private property. Why is it, that all along the road in other places there are scales put in by the company for use of shippers and nothing done here? We want to use these yards as is done elsewhere along the road, or know why we are prevented. We either have to drive out in the country, under the present arrangement, to yard our stock, or we will have to quit the business. We want what they have elsewhere, and appeal to you. Respectfully yours, (Signed) I have shipped for twenty-one years over this road. DR. P. CALLOWAY. The above letter seeming to lack definiteness in its nature, the following was addressed Dr. Calloway: DEAR SIR-The commissioners have yours of the 18th inst. in which you refer to the matter of the stockyards at Atlantic, but they are a little uncertain as to your meaning and take the liberty to make further inquiry in regard to the matter. You say: "There are stockyards built in the city of Atlantic, Iowa, adjacent to the track for the purpose of loading and unloading live stock. Now gentlemen there are certain buyers and shippers here who own lots near and adjacent to the stockyards, and they object to we who don't own lots so situated, from using said yards." Will you have the kindness to say whether the stock yards are built and owned by the railway company or by private individuals? If they are railroad stockyards it would appear, from your letter that your difficulty was in matter of approach to said yards. In other words the commissioners want clearly to know whether your trouble is with the railroad company or with the land owners who own the lots "situated near and adjacent to the stockyards," Upon receipt of further information more clearly defining the situation, the commissioners will take the matter up with the railway company, if it appears that they have in any way been remiss in their duty to the public. Very respectfully yours, W. W. AINSWORTH, In reply to the above Dr. Calloway says: Railroad Commissioners of Iowa: Secretary. ATLANTIC, Iowa, November 13, 1895. GENTLEMEN-Yours received to-day. What we want to know and all we wish to know is, whether we are entitled to same use of the yards here as the shippers have elsewhere. If not, we want the reason why. Why should the railroad put in scales at many places and close around here too and at the same time try to stop us even from using their yards, as they do at these other places all along the road. As we are situated at present all the ground convenient to railroad stockyards is taken but we do not propose to go out in country to build for sake of carrying on business. Now, will we have the same right, they have at other places along the line where scales are put in by the railroad and lots and conveniences of all kinds furnished or not? This is what we want to know. There must be some object or scales would be in all yards if in any. Certainly there is room for other shippers to build scales and yards if there is for us. Respectfully, DR. P. CALLOWAY. The above reply seemed to call for this further inquiry: Dr. P. Calloway, Atlantic, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Your second communication, bearing date November 13th, in reference to stockyards, scales etc., has been received. In reply thereto, I am directed to say that in yours of the 13th you make this statement: "What we want to know, and all we wish to know, is, whether we are entitled to the same use of these yards here as the shippers have elsewhere?" In the board's letter of November 12th they asked you "whether the stockyards are built and owned by the railroad company or by private individuals?" This question you do not answer. Will you have the kindness to do so? Further, in the board's letter of November 12th, the commissioners say that they "want clearly to know whether your trouble is with the railway company or with land owners (other than the railway company) who own the lots 'situated near and adjacent to the said stockyards?'" Will you also please answer this question? Direct answers to the above will place the commissioners in possession of information which will aid them in determining what steps to take to correct any evils that may exist. The matter of the erection and use of track scales will be further considered by the board. To which he replies: Railroad Commissioners Iowa: ATLANTIC, Iowa, November 15, 1895. DEAR SIRS-We do not know how to explain more definitely to you than was in last letter. Now, will you please determine, if you desire to, whether we are entitled to same privileges of the railroad yards as other shippers have along the line. We do not ask for scales, but only ask to use these yards the same as other shippers do at other points, or we desire to know the reason why. We only mentioned scales as being put in at other points in railroad yards for the benefit of shippers. As I have been shipping from here on Rock Island for twenty-one years steady, I believe I am entitled by this time to all privileges that other shippers have along the road. Now, can you understand? Certainly, the yards belong to railroad. Respectfully, DR. P. CALLOWAY. So far as the commissioners were able to understand the existing conditions, the following solution or explanation was sent Dr. Calloway, which may be considered as closing the case without prejudice: Dr. P. Calloway, Atlantic, Iowa: November 22, 1895. DEAR SIR-Yours of the 15th inst. and prior letters have been submitted to the commissioners, and I am directed to reply as follows: It is the duty of the railway company as a common carrier to provide proper and reasonable stational facilities, such as platforms, warehouses, approaches and the like, and in the case of a carrier of live stock, it includes the furnishing of proper yards, gates and other appliances necessary to enable the stock to be received, loaded, unloaded and delivered to the consignee. If you are a shipper of live stock you are entitled to such facilities. If you are denied them you have a just cause of complaint. Your question "whether you are entitled to same privileges of the railroad yards as other shippers have along the line?" is too broad and indefinite to admit of a direct answer. You are entitled to all the facilities that the law requires the railroad company to furnish and no other. You do not inform the commissioners as to what facilities or privileges are denied to you that you claim are furnished to other shippers along the line. Your legal rights are not necessarily gauged or measured by what the company may do for others, if no right of yours is violated thereby. The company has no right to discriminate against you, or to give any preference or advantage to any other person in the way of furnishing or refusing to furnish proper facilities that the law requires for doing business with the public along its line of railway. It is not required to furnish yards for feeding purposes for stock. Respectfully yours, By order of the board. No. 75, 1895. HAMBLETON MILLING COMPANY, KEO W. W. AINSWORTH, KUK, V. Failure to furnish cars. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAIL WAY. September 26, 1895, the Hambleton Milling company, of Keokuk, addressed the board as follows: KEOKUK, Iowa, September 25, 1895. Honorable Board of Railway Commissioners, Des Moines Iowa: GENTLEMEN-We beg to advise you that we have quite a good deal of grain, oats and wheat, bought up on the Rock Island road from such points as Exira, Adair, Casey, Guthrie |