Eleventh.-The average amount of tonnage that can be carried over each road in the state with an engine of given power.

To enable the commissioners to make such report the statute further provides that:

The president or managing officer of each railroad corporation doing business in this state shall annually make to the said commissioners on the fifteenth day of the month of September such returns, in the form which they may prescribe, as will afford the information required for their said official report.

The commissioners have furnished the forms and have requested from every such railroad corporation the reports as required by law, and have, to the extent the information furnished them enables them to do, set forth herein, in tabulated form, under suitable headings, what the statute so requires. In their report for 1893 the commissioners set forth quite fully the difficulties labored under by them in obtaining the required information from the railway companies, and they do not think it necessary to add anything to what was there stated. The condition in that respect has not materially improved since that report was made, and they simply repeat here the statement made in their report for 1894, as follows:

The statistics furnished by the railway companies doing business in the state give the capital, indebtedness, earnings and expenditures of the entire lines or systems they control and are generally full reports of such entire systems. It has, however, been very difficult to obtain information from these companies that would disclose the working of the system of railroad transportation in the state, and this report, while it attempts to give detailed statements of the operation of the roads as limited by state lines, is little more than an approximation. The commissioners have given all the information that could be obtained from the data furnished.

This report also gives the decisions and reports of the investigations made by the board in cases where complaints were filed, investigations of serious accidents, statements of the cases decided by the courts during the year and those pending in cases instituted by the board to enforce its rulings, a digest of the decisions of the supreme court of the state made since the last report so far as the same relate to the business of railway transportation and a digest of the decisions of the Interstate Commerce commission for the past year.

The term of office of the Hon. Peter A. Dey expired on the second Monday, being the fourteenth day of January, 1895. The Hon. Charles L. Davidson having been elected to fill the vacancy so caused, he duly qualified and took his seat as a member of the board on that date, and on the same day the board organized by the election of John W. Luke, chairman, and W. W. Ainsworth, secretary.

There are thirty-eight roads doing business in the state that report to the commission a total mileage of 27,401.19.

The number of miles of road in Iowa, is 8,486.36.

It is generally known that for the period covered by this report, namely, from June 30, 1894 to June 30, 1895, the railroads of the state were suffering, in common with the other business interests of the state, from the general depression in business as well as lack of traffic caused by a partial failure of the crops. A decrease of the revenue of the roads would naturally follow under such circumstances. A less amount of money would be expended for improvements and fewer men would have to be employed to conduct the business of the roads. It is probable, however, that the losses of the railway companies in that respect are relatively no more severe than those caused to the agricultural and some other business interests of the state. At the present time, and for some months past, owing to the bountiful crops, there has been a very material increase in the

traffic of the roads, and many of them are now employing as many or more men than usually, and their rolling stock is fully utilized in this increased amount of business. So far as this state is concerned, this condition of affairs bids fair to continue for quite a long time in the future.

FREIGHT RATES.

When the last report was submitted there was pending before the board the petition of the Illinois Central Railroad company, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway company, the Chicago & North-Western Railway company, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway company, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad company and the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway company, alleging that the classification and schedule of rates adopted by the board and then in force had by long experience proven to be inadequate and unremunerative and did not yield to petitioners adequate compensation for the service rendered, and asking the board to revise the said schedule and classification and increase the maximum rates that might be charged in this state to the extent shown by an exhibit attached to said petition.

At the time said last report was made a partial hearing had been had of said matter and at the conclusion thereof, as stated in said former report, 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 authenticated 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 bu-iness 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 said application.

By the 13th of December, 1894, the petitioners had filed or presented tariffs that they claimed fully complied with said request of the board, and thereupon the board fixed the 27th day of December, 1894, at their office in Des Moines, as the time and place of the final hearing of said matter, of which due notice was given. Such hearing was had at the time stated, and the board took the matter under advisement, until the 12th day of January, 1895, when a decision was rendered; a majority of the board declined to sanction a raise of the rates as asked, one member dissented, and their reasons for such conclusion were set forth in opinions then filed, and the same were printed in the report for 1894, pages 184 to 232. As showing the issues involved and the nature of the evidence submitted to substantiate the allegations of the petition, the following extract from the opinion of the board is given:

The members of this board have fully appreciated the importance of this application, and ever since the petition was filed in August last, have devoted considerable of the time that

could be spared from other official duties largely to investigating some of the matters that were known to have a material bearing upon the issues involved. These issues were distinctly joined by respondents mostly by oral statements at the various hearings, and some, particularly by a part of the coal interests, represented at the hearing of September 18th, by an answer in writing, as follows:

"Come now the undersigned, shippers of soft coal and slack within the state of Iowa, and for separate answer to the petition and amendment thereto of the above named complainants: "Deny that the existing rates on soft coal, lump and nut, and soft coal, slack and pea, as heretofore established by said commissioners are unreasonably low; deny that said rates are unremunerative to said complainants; and deny that said rates are lower than rates on the same commodities actually in force in adjoining and neighboring states.

"And said answering contestants aver that the rates on soft coal, lump and nut, and soft coal, slack and pea, prayed for by said complainants, are unreasonably high, and are higher than the rates on the same commodities actually in force in other states, and higher than the rates on interstate traffic for equal distances.

"That said proposed rates, if put in effect, would work great and irreparable injury to the undersigned and other shippers of Iowa coal, and would, in many cases, practically exclude them from extensive markets in this state.

"That the undersigned and others, shippers of soft coal from Appanoose county, Iowa produce the only coal in the state suitable for domestic uses, and that said proposed rates, if put in effect would render it impossible for them to compete with the coals of Illinois and other states in a large portion of Iowa.

"Wherefore the undersigned contestants ask that said rates be not raised, but that the existing rates be continued in force, and contestants will ever pray, etc."

(SIGNED BY SEVENTEEN MINE OPERATORS.)

And which is so set out in full for the purpose of showing substantially the claims put forth before the commissioners by many of the other business interests of the state represented at said hearings.

At the said hearing on the 18th of September, 1891, quite a large amount of evidence in the way of tariff sheets, state and interstate, in force in adjoining states, and numerous expense bills showing the actual rates of freight on different classes of shipments in such adjoining states or the states mentioned in the comparative table submitted by way of amendment to the original petition, were submitted by the shippers and respondents present opposing any advance of rates in this state. This evidence, as well as that submitted by the petitioners in the way of tariffs upon request of the commissioners, and all of the other evidence, statements and arguments upon both sides of this controversy have been given as full an examination and have received as full consideration as has been practical under the circumstances for the commissioners to give the same. While there is a great mass of evidence submitted in the way of tariffs, expense bills, etc., there is really but very little conflict in regard to what this board deems to be the material facts necessary to be ascertained in order to dispose of the said application. The conflict arises upon the inferences to be drawn from the facts disclosed by the evidence, and not in the evidence establishing or tending to establish such material facts. Nearly every expense bill and every tariff or rate sheet submitted by the respondents or persons opposing the advance in rates was either admitted to be correct, or what the same purported to be, or the same was not denied and no evidence was offered to contradict or impeach the same. The scope of the investigation that might, under certain circumstances, have been necessary in order to determine the truthfulness of the allegations in the original petition that the rates now in force in this state are inadequate and unremunerative has been very much narrowed by the position assumed by the petitioners at the commencement of and throughout the entire proceedings before the board.

Mr. Ripley, in his opening argument or statement to the board on the part of the petitioners at the first hearing on the 21st of August, 1894, after briefly reviewing the history of railway legislation, national and in this state, the making of the present schedule of rates by the commissioners of this state, and the facts and circumstances leading up to the filing of said petition for an increase of said rate, uses the following language in stating the basis of said claim for such an advance:

"We, therefore, base our claim solely on comparison of the rates with those in effect elsewhere and we ask that they be advanced to something like what is being charged for the same services in other states where conditions are certainly no more favorable, and in some of them where conditions are not as favorable as they are here."

In concluding his argument on the part of petitioners, at the close of the last hearing, he said:

"It is only necessary to say in general that our friends (referring to the other side) in making their case have gone through the tariffs and taken every case they could find where the rates were influenced by water competition, where the road was the long one and had to meet the short line rate, or for any reason the rates in Illinois were shaded, they have used it, naturally having neglected to read those portions of the tariffs that did not go to support their case. If the commissioners go through these tariffs they will see where that has been done. The will see that in the main they support our contention that the rates actually charged and received in the state of Illinois are higher than rates actually charged and received in Iowa. We are entirely content to rest our case there. We never said we got Illinois rates on all our Illinois business. We stated that we got most of it."

If this is all true and the facts are as so claimed and stated by Mr. Ripley, does it necessarily or properly follow that the petitioners are entitled to what they demand in this proceeding? Certainly, if the proof fails to sustain the material portion of those allegations, it would hardly be claimed that the commissioners would be justified in granting said demand. if they are to be governed by the showing made or evidence submitted.

The laws of the state of Michigan provide certain limitations upon the right of railway companies in that state to charge for carrying passengers, but as to freight charges there seems to be, so far as this board is advised, only the following restrictions as to their tolls and compensation therefor:

"Provided, that in transporting freight by the car loaded by the shipper and unloaded by the consignee. no railroad company shall charge for transporting each of such cars more than $8 for any distance not exceeding ten miles, nor more than 50 cents per mile for the second ten miles, nor more than 25 cents per mile for the third ten miles, and for distances exceeding thirty miles in no case shall the charge between any two points on the said railroad exceed the minimum charge on the entire line. This provision shall not apply to the Upper Peninsula, nor to any company operating less than fifteen miles of railroad."

The evidence in this case discloses that the rate set forth for that state in what is called the comparison of state tariffs, filed as an amendment to the original petition herein, is substantially the tariff of rates charged by the Chicago & North-Western railway on its lines situated in that state, and a tariff sheet submitted by the respondents showing the rates in actual use on the Michigan Central or Michigan Southern roads in that state showed lower rates than many now in force in this state. There has nothing been submitted to show the relative amount of traffic carried at the higher or the lower rate in that state under those different schedules, and the car load rate fixed by statute is much lower than allowed under the Iowa schedule upon all articles, except soft coal.

The laws of the state of Wisconsin do not provide for the promulgation of any schedule of rates in that state similar to the one required by the laws of this state.

The evidence before the commissioners as to the rates on which local business is done by the roads in the state of Wisconsin, shows a very large amount of traffic carried on under commodity rates lower than the rates fixed in this state for like articles, and while a large amount of such traffic in that state may be at higher rates, there is nothing before the commissioners from which any reasonably definite conclusion can be reached as to the relative amount or importance of the traffic at either the higher or the lower rates in that state.

Under the laws of the state of Minnesota the railway companies subject to the laws of that state are required to file their tariffs of rates, fares, charges and classifications with the board of railroad commissioners of that state, and if such commissioners find that the same are in any respect unequal or unreasonable they are authorized and directed "to compel any common carrier to change the same and adopt such rate, fare, charge or classifications as said commission shall declare to be equal and reasonable." Under the power so given, the commission of that state has adopted, under date of September 8, 1894, a schedule fixing rates on grain to be transported over the lines of the Great Northern Railway company in that state. that is materially lower than those set forth in the table of rates for that state as set forth in said comparison of state tariffs filed by the petitioners. and the only other rates fixed by said commission of the state of Minnesota, as appears from a letter of the secretary of said commission, filed with this board, "are rates on hard coal, Duluth to Mankato, a distance of 256 miles, at $2.40 per ton, with two transfers; and from Duluth to Moorehead. a distance of 213 miles. at $2.25 per ton," all of which orders and rates so fixed by said commission seem to be or are likely to be contested in the courts by the railway companies affected by the same. As to the state of Missouri, according to the evidence submitted to this commission, the railroad companies doing business in that state make their own tariffs, subject to approval or revision by the commissioners there, and no two lines seem to be governed by or receive the same local rates. The tariffs in force on the St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern in that state submitted to this commission, seem to show materially lower rates, caused, as claimed, by

water competition, than the rates now in force in this state under the present schedule, while those in force on the Hannibal & St. Joseph road show materially higher local rates than in force here.

In the state of Illinois, where the laws and conditions generally seem to be more analagous to those of this state than any other, and upon which the petitioners seem, as before stated, chiefly, if not almost exclusively, to rely in this proceeding, we find from the evidence submitted in this case, that what are called commodity tariffs are in force applicable to such towns and cities as Rockford, Forreston, Oregon, Aurora, Batavia, Geneva, Polo, Sterling, Rock Falls, Peoria, Peru, Quincy, etc., that cover a very large number of articles used for manufacturing purposes, as well as numerous articles that are not to be so used, and that altogether certainly must make up a very large portion of the traffic locally upon the railroads of that state, and giving lower rates than are in force in this state under the present schedule upon similar articles, and much lower than the maximum fixed by the Illinois commissioners' schedule, The reasons why that is done in that state are not very material so far as this case is concerned, but the fact that it is done is material as affecting the weight that should be given to the commissioners' schedule of that state in this controversy. There is no doubt that the roads of that state charge and receive the maximum rates fixed by the commissioners whenever they can practically do so, but it is equally well established by the evidence, and admitted by the petitioners in this case, that in many instances, and covering a large portion of traffic, they do not receive those rates. The short line of the Chicago & North Western road from Chicago to Clinton on the Mississippi river, a distance of about 138 miles, seems to limit and control to a great extent the amount that the Chicgo, Burlington & Quincy road can charge on their longer line between Chicago and Quincy on the same river, a distance of about 263 miles. At nearly all junction points where different roads cross or intersect in the state, the longer line takes the short line rate. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific road, where it comes in competition with the canal, takes less than the commissioners' rates, and where it does not it will, when practicable, again charge the maximum rate. The roads running from Chicago to East St. Louis by a direct or somewhat circuitous route, all make a very low rate to that point on about 250 commodities, lower than either the Illinois or Iowa commissioners' rates, and will charge, may be, the Illinois commissioners' rate out for a distance of about 185 miles, and will then run about flat, as it is called, to the terminal point, for the remainder of the distance. If it is necessary for an interior manufacturing town in that state or the state of Wisconsin to have a low rate on their raw material from points further east and north, in order to enable them to compete in the western markets, where their product is largely distributed, they get such rates, although the same may be much lower than either the Illinois or Iowa commissioners' schedule upon the same class of articles. This states the situation briefly as to rates in said state of Illinois, and without setting out here tables of comparisons of such rates and other details that do not affect the real merits of this controversy.

It is conceded in this case by the petitioners, no matter whether it arises by reason of the statutes of this state, or by reason of the peculiar situation or surroundings in the state, that all of the railroads doing business in this state, receive upon all of their local business, subject to the provisions of the present schedule, the full amount allowed as maximum rate by that Iowa schedule, and that they can continue so to do as long as the same is in force and present laws and conditions continue to exist. It is just as clearly a fact that no such state of affairs exists at the present time in the state of Illinois, or any other state with which a comparison of tariffs is asked by the petitioners in this proceeding.

Another important allegation is made in these proceedings as to the state of affairs existing in the adjoining state of Illinois, and not in this state, and in substance, at least, conceded to be true by the petitioners, is that in relation to the difference regarding what is called the in-haul on freight from east initial and manufacturing points to points in Illinois, as compared with Iowa, and that matter is stated in one of the papers, or arguments submitted to the board upon the part of the respondents as follows:

"Almost every cross point in the state of Illinois, which includes all the jobbing points, enjoy what is known as the pro rate on all their in freight; that is to say, the railroads in the state of Illinois only get a percentage of the through rate made from New York to destination, the rate which is made by the eastern roads and always on a much lower basis than the basis of rates from Chicago west This is determined by percentages, as the following illustrations will show: Suppose the rate on fifth class goods, New York to Chicago, is 25 cents, the rate to Rock Island or Quincy both on the Mississippi-river and across the state of Illinois would be 122 per cent of this rate, or say 311⁄2 cents; of this rate the western road only gets 20 per cent, or 6 cents per hundred, to which is added perhaps 2 cents per hundred terminal charges, making at the outside 8 cents per hundred for a haul in one case of 165 miles, and in