Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

TRUSTEES OF PALESTINE TOWNSHIP, STORY COUNTY,
IOWA,
CHICACO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY,
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed, February 2, 1884.

VS.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

Petition for depot
at crossing.

On January 23, 1884, Mr. E. L. Viland writes to the Railroad Commissioners that there is no station or waiting-room for passengers changing from the Chicago & Northwestern to the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway at the crossing north of Sheldahl; that he lives in a small house near the crossing, which is filled with strangers every night, to the great inconvenience of himself and family, and that unless some provision for passengers is made, he will be compelled to abandon his house. The weather is so cold that it is impossible for passengers to wait for trains without some protection from the wind and storm. On February 1st the trustees of Palestine township, Story county, in an official complaint to the Board, repeat the statement made by Mr. Viland, and say that there is great suffering, particularly with women and children waiting for trains at this crossing. They ask them to order a waiting-room to be erected at the crossing of the two railroads, and ask immediate attention to this. The Commissioners in a similar case reported on page 708 of their report of 1883, H. F. Shipley and one hundred and twelve other citizens of Herndon vs. C., M. & St. P. and W., St. L. & P. Railways, held “that a passenger-room should be maintained at the crossing, and that it should be kept comfortable for passengers waiting for trains," but that "in their view the law did not intend to convey power to the Board to compel the companies to erect and maintain passenger stations at these points." In this case the Board recommend the passage of a law similar to that of Missouri or Michigan. Mr. Roswell Miller, Assistant to the General Manager of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, declines to erect and maintain a depot at the crossing, on the ground that there is not business enough to justify it, even though the expense should be shared by both roads. The Board can simply repeat what they said in the case above reported; that they believe that a waitingroom comfortably warmed and lighted should be maintained at the joint expense of the two roads, but they are powerless in their view of the law to compel it, and would suggest to the petitioners the propriety of urging on the member representing them in the legislature the passage of a law similar to the Michigan or Missouri law, both quoted in our former decision. Des Moines, February 21, 1884.

[ocr errors]

TRUSTEES OF PALESTINE TOWNSHIP, STORY COUNTY,
lowa,
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY,
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed, February 2, 1884.

VS.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

Petition for depot at crossing.

On the 21st of February, 1881, the Commissioners decided this case by holding that from the evidence before them a station should be maintained at this point, but there was no power in the law to compel it. On May 16th, Mr. M. Hughitt, General Manager of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company in reply to a communication from the Commissioners, says that prior to the construction of the so-called "Diagonal" Road, a considerable number of passengers were transferred from the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company to the C. & N. W. R'y at this crossing, but that there are now no transfers made, and the necessity for the erection of a station does not exist. On June 9, 1884, the trustees of Palestine township in reply to a communication of the Commissioners, say that the necessity still exists, and although there are not as many changing as before the completion of the Diagonal, still there are many changes. One of the trustees living near the crossing has kept an account of the persons changing from the C., M. & St. P. to the C. & N. W. on the noon train only and finds from this train the average to be six per day. On July 28th, the Commissioners examined the crossing and from the evidence furnished them reached the conclusion that suitable platforms and a station-house warmed, lighted and opened for the use of passengers a reasonable time before the arrival and until after the departure of trains, was necessary for the conveniencǝ of passengers desiring to transfer from one road to the other, and therefore order that a house for that purpose be erected and maintained at the equal and joint expense of the two roads.

Des Moines, Iowa, August 16, 1884.

O. W. WILLIKSEN, THOR, IOWA,

VS.

CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed, February 6, 1884.

Failure to fence right of way.

The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company passes through complainant's farm in Humboldt county near the village of Thor, and has never fenced its right of way adjoining his land. There is a herd law in the county and farms are not generally fenced, but nearly every farmer has a pasture fenced for his own use. Complainant desires to fence a piece of land for pasture adjoining the right of way of the railroad, but cannot do so until the latter is fenced, and he asks the aid of the Commissioners in getting the matter adjusted. The officers of the company were advised of Mr. Williksen's claim and reply was received from General Manager Hughitt, saying that he had ordered the fence built as soon as the weather would admit of it in the spring.

1

CENTRAL IOWA COAL COMPANY, DES MOINES, IOWA,

VS.

DES MOINES & FT. DODGE RAILROAD COMPANY,
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed February 12, 1884.

Fuilure to comply with section 1292, Code of 1873.

Under date of February 8, 1884, the Central Iowa Coal Company, of Des Moines, makes complaint to the Board that there is no connecting switch or Y between the Chicago & Northwestern and Des Moines & Ft. Dodge roads at Rolfe, Iowa. The company wish to market their coal along the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway in western Iowa and Dakota, but have been unable to do so on account of transfer facilities at Rolfe. The officials of both roads being notified of this complaint, reply was received from Superintendent Gilmore, of the Des Moines & Ft. Dodge Railroad, that his company had already constructed their part of the switch and would be ready for the transfer of cars as soon as the Chicago & Northwestern should build their half of the line. After some delay, General Manager Hughitt, of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, notified the Board that his compary were nearly ready to begin work and hoped to complete it in a short time.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Dennis states that by an arrangement with the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, on all goods purchased in Chicago or the east he prepays and consigns his freight to Cedar Rapids, care of Mr. Stevens, agent, who delivers it to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway, where it is billed from Cedar Rapids to Traer. Some freight consigned and billed in this way has been carried for him from Cedar Rapids at the local rate, but the company is now charging him more than local rates, or the proportion they are allowed by the C. & N-W. Company on through freight from Chicago to Traer on their joint arrangement. The facts stated are admitted by the B., C. R. & N. Company, and an attempt is made to justify this excessive charge on the ground that this is Chicago not Cedar Rapids business, and whatever arrangement Mr. Dennis may make with his goods they cannot be deprived of their proportion of the through rate; that if they are billed to Cedar Rapids without any further destination, the C. & N-W. Company would charge him a rate nearly the same to Cedar Rapids as the through rate to Traer, and he would in addition be required to pay the local rate from Cedar Rapids to Traer, which would make the entire cost of carriage higher than he now pays.

The question for the Commissioners to determine is whether, irrespective of where it comes from, freight tendered at Cedar Rapids to the B., C. R. & N. K'y Company can be charged more than the local rate.

Mr. Dennis has the right to get his freight to Cedar Rapids in any way he chooses. He may ship it by the C.& N-W. R'y, he may haul it by team, or he may carry it on his back. When he tenders it to the B., C. R. & N. Company at Cedar Rapids, to be transported to Traer, he can be required to pay the local rate, and the company have no right to ask him more. Whatever his contract may be with the C. & N-W. R'y, if it is tendered to the B., C. R. & N. R'y at Cedar Rapids, it is their duty to bill the goods and ship them, charging local rates. The distinction between this and the case originally presented, is this: the former was a through shipment and the rate was supposed to be reasonable, and by an agreement between the companies a division of the joint charges was made that only concerned the two carriers. Mr. Dennis, in the present case, makes a contract with the first carrier and prepays him for delivering his goods to his order in Ce

dar Rapids. He then, after getting them there and having them fully in his possession or that of his agent, tenders them to the B., C. R. & N. for shipment to Traer at local rates. The Commissioners are of the opinion that the latter company cannot exact from him more than local rates for the service.

Des Moines, February 29, 1884.

An order in regular form in accordance with the above decision was made May 22, 1884, and sent to C. J. Ives, President B., C. & N. R'y Co., and on May 23d the Commissioners were advised by Mr. Ives of his having complied with said order.

JOHN R. OLSON, ET. AL., THOR, IOWA,

VS.

CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed February 18, 1884.

Fencing track.

Under date of February 15, 1884, complainants petitioned the Commissioners to compel the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company to fence along their right of way passing through and by their farms, near the sta tion of Thor, Humboldt county, Iowa, as they were very much discommoded by the frequent killing of stock and lack of pastures.

In reply to this complaint, the Commissioners called their attention to sections 1268 and 1269 of the Code. The first requires a railway company to build one causeway and cattle-guard, when the party owns land on both sides of the road. The second section makes the company "that fails to fence its road where it has the the right to fence, liable to the owner for any injury to stock, by reason of the want of such fence." No power is given this Board or any other agency to compel a railway company to fence its road. The Commissioners suggested, however, that the company would perhaps do what complainants wished, if they would call the attention of the proper officers to the matter.

[ocr errors]
« ПредишнаНапред »