fact we find we are now brought face to face with a proposition to reduce the railway fares in your state to a maximum of two cents per mile.

That we are in a very difficult position with regard to all these matters, I think is very plain, and how to do all the people want, in the matter of furnishing them accommodations at prices less than it costs us to do it, and at the same time meet the competitive conditions of our line, and those of our connections, is indeed a difficult thing for us to figure out, either to the satisfaction of the management or the parties who have their money invested in this railway property. I do not see what further I can now say with regard to the matter of furnishing additional train service and accommodations to the people at Atalissa. We cannot make the stop with our No. 19 which they desire.

Truly yours,

W. H. TRUESDALE, Vice-President and General Manager.

In reply the following letter was sent to Vice-President Truesdale. DES MOINES, January 27, 1897.

Mr. W. H. Truesdale, Vice-President and General Manager of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. Railway Company:

DEAR SIR—I am directed, in reply to your favor of the 21st inst., to suggest to you the advisability of changing the time of your train running from Muscatine to Atalissa. That might obviate the necessity of stopping No. 19. There is no disposition on the part of the commissioners, as you must well know, to interfere in any manner with the operation of through trains where no discrimination is shown to the different towns, but there is a good deal of force in the claim made by the people in this instance, as well as in other instances where the train service gives them no opportunity to attend the county seat of the county in which they reside. They should be provided, where it can be done without any extra expense, with quick and convenient means of going to and from the county seat of the county in which they may reside. It is the opinion of the board that if an investigation is made that it will be apparent to you that the people in this locality have some ground of complaint. It might not be necessary for you to change the time of No. 19, or to stop it at this station, but the question then remains, are the people in that locality getting ample and reasonable train service? Kindly examine into this question and let the board know what suggestions you have further to make in this matter. Very respectfully yours,

For the commission.

W. W. AINSWORTH,

Secretary.

In response Vice-President Truesdale wrote as follows:

CHICAGO, Ill., January 29, 1897.

W. W. Ainsworth, Esq., Secretary Railroad Commission, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Replying to yours of the 27th instant as to the desires of Atalissa people for additional train service.

We cannot, as you suggest, provide this by changing the time of our train running from Muscatine to Atalissa, without running this train as far as West Liberty and return to Wilton, which would increase the expense, and that is something we cannot afford to do.

Furthermore, should we do this, as you suggest, the hours of the men running the Muscatine-Wilton train would be increased beyond what they are

already working, the fact to which you call our attention in another letter, which was received by me at the same time with your letter relative to the Atalissa matter.

We think that the Atalissa people are now getting all the passenger train accommodation which the amount of business they do will justify this company in furnishing. The ticket sales from that station average about $94 per month, and a reference to our time cards will show that considering this small amount of business they are provided with very liberal train service.

The fact of the matter is, our passenger train earnings are decreasing right along, and we cannot afford, under these conditions, to go to any more expense in providing additional service. Truly yours,

W. H. TRUESDALE, Vice-President and General Manager.

On February 2, 1897, Hon. H. B. Watters called and, in addition to his former statement, showed that:

No. 19 is required to stop at Atalissa to pass No. 4 going east, I am told, nearly half of the time. I am also told that they stop or slow up to allow passengers to get off frequently. There is no especial hurry from the fact that it waits at Cedar Rapids twenty minutes.

On April 27, 1897, a conference was held between Vice President Truesdale, general manager, etc., and the board of railroad commissioners, and it was then arranged that the service desired would be given the complainants, and on May 11, 1897, Hon. H. B. Watters informed the board that the service had begun.

On January 26, 1897, the following letter was addressed Mr. W. H. Truesdale, vice-president and general manager Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway company, Chicago, Ill.:

A statement claiming to represent more or less the crystallized sentiment of the people residents of Muscatine has reached this office, alleging in substance that your company is running a passenger train out of Muscatine, as per the enclosed schedule; "it is on the road nearly all of twenty hours and compelling one train crew to run it. These men are allowed less than four hours for sleep out of the twenty-four." The statement goes on to specify that the complaint does not come from the train crew, but that it does come from the public who believe the lives of passengers are endangered by the train being "in charge of men who are frequently found asleep while standing on their feet.” The party making the complaint says: "Is this safe? Is it humane? Is it not

such a state of affairs that requires action at your hands? All Muscatine is talking of this outrageous treatment of men who have worked long and faithfully for the Rock Island road."

This is sent you for your information and for such early reply as you may wish to make.

On February 15, 1897, Mr. Truesdale said:

I beg to say that this matter is under consideration by us and we expect to arrange a schedule of those trains so that these men will have a longer period of rest than they now have during the middle of the day.

Again on February 17th Mr. Truesdale said:

We have arranged so that this crew will be relieved from the early morning run, Muscatine to Wilton Junction and return, thus giving them, as we believe, abundant rest from the time they quit work at night and the hour when they are required to go on duty in the morning.

This arrangement was communicated to complainants and the case closed.

C. 1796-1897.

M. LINDEMAN, EPWORTH,

V.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.

Commutation tickets.

On February 8, 1897, the following letter was received and reply made:

EPWORTH, Iowa, February 2, 1897.

Honorable Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa:

GENTLEMEN-I would inquire if railways are obliged to sell commutation tickets. The reason I ask is this: At least one of the roads running into Dubuque is selling commutation tickets from Dubuque and other points to any point on their road. Sometime ago I made application for a commutation ticket between Epworth and Dubuque, on the Illinois Central railway, but was informed by the general passenger agent that none were for sale. Now, as I understand the railway law one road has no more privileges than another If this is so how can one road sell commutation tickets and another refuse to sell the same? If there is no law obliging railways to sell same, I think it would be a great accommodation to a large part of the people of Iowa if one was passed to that effect.

Yours respectfully,

M. LINDEMAN.

DES MOINES, Iowa, February 12, 1897.

Mr. M Lindeman, Epworth, Iowa; DEAR SIR-In yours of recent date you inquire whether railway companies are obliged to sell commutation tickets.' Replying thereto, I beg to call your attention to the following provision of law relative to commutation tickets:

"Section 2077. Nothing in this act (referring to law prohibiting discrimination, etc) shall apply to the carriage, storage or handling of property free, or at reduced rates for the United States, or this state or municipal governments, or for charitable purposes * * * or the issuance of mileage, excursion or com

mutation passenger tickets. While the law contains this provision it does not provide that any action taken by one railroad company must of necessity be followed or imitated by another railroad company, but it does provide that whatever rate, privilege or concession a railway company makes to one person, firm, locality, or particular kind of traffic, it must, under similar circumstances, make to all other persons, firms, localities or particular kinds of traffic.

You close your letter by saying, "If there is no law obliging railways to sell the same (commutation tickets) I think it would be a great accommodation to a large number of the people of Iowa if one was passed to that effect. Concerning this statement it is probably evident to you, if you have given the matter consideration, that this commission is itself a creature of the statute and is not clothed with powers which are not therein defined or outlined. It is, hence, their duty to see that such laws as they find upon the statute books are executed, rather than to designate what laws shall be enacted. If, in your judgment, such a law as you refer to would be equitable to all interests and beneficial to the people, you can doubtless gain all the information you desire by addressing your senator or representative on that subject. Very respectfully yours,

W. W. AINSWORTH,

Mr. A. J. Hadley of Delta, Col., temporarily at Earlham, Iowa, called at the office on February 16, 1897, and stated that on November 16, 1893, he chartered a car from Dexter, Iowa, to Delta, Col., from the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, and prepaid $122, supposing that he had a guarantee that his goods would be delivered there, but at Pueblo, Col., he was detained and compelled to pay $52 in addition to what he had already paid. The contract with the Rock Island was made in the presence of two witnesses.

I understood that if I had more stuff than would go into one Denver & Rio Grande narrow gauge car I would have to pay local charges on excess, but my goods weighed 17,550, an excess of 1,550 pounds over the minimum of 16,000 on the narrow gauge road. I offered to pay local charges, but they insisted on me paying for the whole car, $52, an overcharge of $39.21. They are doing this thing right along. A neighbor of mine at Earlham shipped his goods about three

months later, and was served the same way, but he had 24,000 pounds. They claimed in one letter that I had 24,750 pounds, but they got my case mixed up with my neighbor's shipment.

Mr. Hadley filed a somewhat extensive correspondence he had had with the officials of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway company, and after reviewing the same the case was taken up with Mr. E. T. Jeffery, president and general manager of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad company, in the following letter:

February 18, 1897. Mr. E. T. Jeffery, President and General Manager Denver & Rio Grande Railway Co., Denver, Col.:

DEAR SIR—There called at this office, on the 16th inst., Mr. A. J. Hadley, temporarily stopping at Earlham, Iowa, who made a statement to the commissioners relative to the shipment of his household goods from Dexter, Iowa, to Delta, Col., in November, 1893 After listening to the statement the commissioners informed him that it being an overcharge on an interstate shipment it was outside their jurisdiction, but that in accordance with a long established custom of this office, it would be laid before the proper authorities with the hope that they would show the same courtesy and willingness to adjust errors, if any had been made, as had so many times been done in similar cases. With this view and sole object they desire to call your attention to the matter, with the confident belief that you will give it your careful consideration and will refund all overcharge, if, as appears by the case, one has been made.

Mr. Hadley's statement was in substance as follows: That on November 16, 1893, he chartered a Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific car for the shipment of his household goods from Dexter, Iowa, to Delta, Col., prepaying the freight of $122, as per contract, which with all other correspondence he has filed in this office; that he understood the charge of $122 would prepay his goods the entire distance, but that upon arriving at Pueblo an additional charge of $52 was demanded before his goods would be forwarded. He, however, stated that he understood that if he had more goods than could be loaded into a narrow gauge Denver & Rio Grande car he would have to pay local charges on the excess. His goods weighed, according to the certificate of the Pueblo inspector, bearing date of October 8, 1894, 17,550 pounds, being an excess of 1,550 pounds over and above the minimum of 16,000 pounds provided upon a carload of emigrant movables on your road. In accordance with the above he tendered the local rate upon the 1,550 pounds excess, taking rate of 82.5 cents per 100 pounds, one-half first-class, as per your tariff, this being declined by your agent and he was compelled to pay under protest the full carload rate on another car, based on the 16,000 pounds minimum, although, as previously stated, there was but 1,550 pounds excess, making an overcharge of $39.21. A refund of this amount he has since that time been endeavoring to secure and he has filed with this board a somewhat voluminous correspondence between himself and the then division freight agent of the Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway company at Des Moines, Mr. J. R. Graham, Jr., also between Mr. Graham and General Freight Agent H. Gower, of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific at Chicago, and also between Mr. Gower and some of your agents at Pueblo. Quotations from that correspondence showing their attitude concerning the overcharge are set out below and are, of course, self-explanatory: