the same language, and the result in this State would have been the same but for the proviso in section one of the act above quoted, that "Nothing in the provisions of this act shall be construed to preven t common carriers subject to the provisions of this act from issuing passes for the free transportation of passengers."

The experience of the past shows that railway managers, officers, and boards of directors will not of themselves do away with this unjust discrimination. Experience under the inter-state law shows how easily the abuse is corrected when it is undertaken in the name and under the majesty of law.

It is the conviction of this commission that the issuing of free passes, as now practiced in this State, is an unjust discrimination as against every passenger that pays, and thus opposed to the spirit of the act passed for the regulation of common carriers; that it is a fruitful source of corruption; that it is injurious alike to public and private interests, and to the interest of the companies themselves, and that it is one of the chief obstacles in the way of proper and necessary reform in railway management and the control thereof under the authority of the state.

The proviso to section one of the act, with the exception above noted of "passes for the free transportation of passengers," and transportation to stock shippers with cars," applies to property only, not to persons.

The Inter-State Commerce Law (Sec. 22) contains the following clause: "Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any common carrier from giving reduced rates to ministers of religion." The act passed by the legislature of the State of Minnesota contains no such provision. Almost the first question raised before the Commission under the new law related to this subject.

The decision of this commission upon this subject will be found in another part of this report, properly indexed, in a letter addressed to E. W. Winter, Esq., general manager of the C, St. P., M. & O. Railway Co.

Section 7 of the act of the Legislature of this State has the following clause, which is not contained in the Inter-State law, nor has it. so far as this commission has any knowledge, been enacted into law by any of the other States of the Union:

SEC. 7. (a) That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, to charge or receive any greater compensation, per ton, per mile, for the contemporaneous transportation of the same class of freight for a longer than for a shorter distance

over the same line, in the same general direction, or from the same original point of departure, or to the same point of arrival; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, to charge as high a rate per ton, per mile, for a longer as for a shorter distance.

THE LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE OF THE ACT.

Section 6 of the act passed by the State Legislature is as follows: SEC. 6. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, to charge or receive any greater compensation for the transportation of passengers or of like kind or class and quantity of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, the shorter being included within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, to charge or receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance.

Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commissioners, be authorized to charge less, for longer than for shorter distances, for the transportation of passengers or property, and the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.

Section 4 of the Inter-State Commerce Law relates to the same subject. The differences between the two sections are in each designated by italics; the words so marked in the one act not being found in the other.

Section 4 of the Inter-State Commerce Law reads as follows:

SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of ike kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com. pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance; provided, however, that upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which said designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.

Under section six of the State act the commission has had one and but one application for the suspension of the long and short haul provision of the law.

This application was made by the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company.

The papers filed by the company, and the opinions thereon by the commission, are given in full in this report. The decision of the commission was against the application, Commissioner Austin dissenting.

It is now believed that the principle embodied in the provisions of Sec. 6 of the State act is acquiesced in by common carriers in Minnesota, and that the rule is general and without exception.

The inter-state law enacts that no advance shall be made in the rates, fares and charges which have been established and published by any common carrier, in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 6, except after ten days public notice. Rates, fares and charges may be reduced in inter-state commerce without notice, but may not be thus advanced.

Our State law, Sec. 8, subdivision (b), provides that there shall be "no change of classification," "and no change shall be made in the rates, fares and charges which have been established and published as aforesaid by any common carrier, in compliance with the requirements of this section, except after ten days public notice.

The State act forbids either an advance or a reduction.

The commission is of opinion that it is not well to prohibit by law common carriers from reducing rates at will, and that the inhibition against advancing rates except upon proper notice is all that is necessary to guard the interests of the public.

The common carriers of the State, so far as is known to the commission, have shown themselves ready to comply with the law which relates to the filing and publication of tariffs.

In other material points, such as those relating to reasonable and just charges, forbidding special rates, rebates, drawbacks and unjust discriminations, undue or unreasonable preferences, concerning interchange of traffic, making the pooling of freights unlawful, prohibiting combinations to prevent continuous carriage, in relation to the pow ers and duties of the commission and methods of procedure before it, and its manner of conducting business, there is substantial accord both in the letter and the spirit of the State act and the act of Congress, and the Commission finds that in its general results the operation of the law has been favorable both to the roads and the public. Many of the evils in the conduct of railroad affairs are disappearing from view, and it is believed that the law will be amply vindicated by its ultimate results.

COMPLAINTS.

A full exhibit of the complaints made to the commission and of the

action taken with regard to them will be found appended to the report. The commission has no power to correct an alleged abuse upon an ex parte statement. It is neither despotic or autocratic in its sphere, but it is a tribunal, created by the State to hear complaints, to investigate them, and, when found to be real and relating to practices or omissions on the part of common carriers which are unlawful, to take the necessary steps to correct the same.

In most cases the commission has found that in the first instance it is a wise and satisfactory policy to open correspondence with the common carrier, with a view to adjust the matter complained of.

The railway companies have been prompt to respond to letters so addressed to them, and in very many instances a satisfactory adjustment has been reached without further procedure. Either the complainant has been mistaken in his facts, or if a wrong has been done it has been the fault or mistake of an agent, which the manager would correct, or the complainant and the company have misunderstood or misapprehended each other, and the commission has been able to make a satisfactory settlement without a resort to more stringent

measures.

It is the experience of the commission that this disposition of many of the complaints made is more satisfactory in its results to both parties than could have been effected in any other way.

There are some cases, however, which cannot be thus disposed of, and which demand and receive the more formal action of the commission. With a view of giving such proceedings an orderly course, the commission has adopted a series of rules of practice in cases and proceedings before it, a copy of which is appended to this report.

Some of the cases which have occupied the attention of the commission deserve a notice in the body of this report because of their public importance, and because, also, they have been taken to the courts for a judicial interpretation. Such are

1. The order relating to switching charges in Minneapolis.

2. Milk rates on the I. & M. Division of the C., M. & St. P. Ry. 3 Passenger rates on the St. P., M. & M. Ry and the Northern Pacific Railroad.

4. The complaint of the Mankato Jobbers Union as to rates on the C., St. P., M. & O. Ry from Duluth to Mankato.

SWITCHING CHARGES IN MINNEAPOLIS.

This was a complaint made originally in 1886, on the part of the

shippers and manufacturers of Minneapolis that the switching and transfer charges in that city were grevious and excessive, and demanding that the same be reduced by the order of the board.

A hearing was had before the board as then constituted; but before a decision was reached a new commission was appointed, and in the mean while the legislature, in the act to regulate common carriers, etc, approved March 7, 1887, took up the subject and made the following enactment:

Sec. 7. (c) There shall in no case be more than one terminal charge for switching or transferring any car, whether the same is loaded or empty, within the limits of any one city or town. If it is necessary that any car pass over the tracks of more than one company within such city or town limits, in order to reach its final destination, or to be returned therefrom to its owner or owners, then the company first switching or transferring such car shall be entitled to receive the entire charge to be made therefor, and shall be liable to the company or companies doing the subsequent switching or transferring thereof for its or their reasonable and equitable share of the compensation received, and if the companies so jointly interested therein cannot agree upon the share thereof which each is entitled to receive, the same shall be determined by the Board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, whose decision thereon shall be final and conclusive upon all parties interested, and the said board are authorized to estab lish such rules, regulations in that behalf as to them may seem just and reasonable and not in conflict with this act.

This enactment provides that there shall in no case be more than one terminal charge for switching or transferring any car whether loaded or empty within the limits of any one city or town, how the same shall be collected, and in case the companies doing the work cannot agree upon a reasonable and equitable division of the charge so made provision is made for a determination thereof by this commission.

No application has been made to the commission to act under this section.

The complaint with reference to switching charges in Minneapolis continued after the passage of this law

On the 7th of July, 1887, after consideration of all the evidence submitted, the commission issued its order establishing one dollar as the maximum charge for the switching or transfer of any car at or within the limits of the city of Minneapolis.

On the 8th of July, 1887, this order was served upon the following companies, to-wit:

The St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba.

The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha.

The Northern Pacific.