that you only run one passenger train per day north from McGregor, and there are several freight trains daily running north; that the passenger train is so scheduled as to time that it leaves McGregor about one half hour before trains on your other lines arrive; that your freight trains do not stop at the station, but at some rather inaccessible point near an elevator, and that by reason of your arrangements passengers are frequently compelled to remain in McGregor nearly twenty-four hours. Will you be so kind as to inform us of the nature of your running arrangements at McGregor, and give consideration to the question whether any change could conveniently be made which would inure to the accommodation of the traveling public. An early reply is requested.

By order of the Board.

E. G. MORGAN, Secretary.

MILWAUKEE, March 4, 1885.

E. G. MORGAN, ESQ., Secretary Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, lowa: DEAR SIR-Replying to your favor of the 26th ult.: As stated, we run only one passenger train per day north from McGregor, being No. 5, leaving North McGregor at 2 :13 P. M. There are in addition three freight trains per day running north from North McGregor, only one of which, No. 17, leaving North McGregor at 12:15 midnight, does not carry passengers, for the reason that we do not carry passengers on any trains unless passengers can procure tickets, and there would be so little travel on that train it would not pay to keep ticket offices open. The other two freight trains run at seasonable hours, and ought to accommodate the travel. Trains going north from North McGregor : .

No. 17, freight, 12 :15 A. M., does not carry passengers.

No. 13, freight, 10 :10 A. M., does carry passengers.

No. 5, 2:13 P. M., passenger train.

No. 15, freight, 4 :45 P. M., carries passengers.

Trains arriving from I. & M. Division at North McGregor :
No. 8, passenger, 6 :00 A. M., from I. & D. and I. & M.
No. 18, freight, 1 :00 P. M., from Calmar, carries passengers.
No. 22, freight, 4 :30 P. M., mixed, carries passengers.
No. 16, freight, 5 :00 P. M., way freight, carries passengers.
No. 2, passenger, 6 :35 P. M., exclusively passenger train.

I do not understand what train or trains are referred to that are so scheduled that they
arrive at North McGregor about one half hour after No. 5 departs, as No. 22, a freight train,
is the next arriving train, at 4:30 P. M. It would not be practicable for us to change the ar-
riving time of any of the freights on the I. & M. or of No. 2 to reach there before No. 5 left,
unless we discommode the passenger and freight business on our entire lines west of the
river. "The inaccessible point near an elevator," (there is no elevator there) which is
referred to as where we start north bound freight trains, comes in this wise: At North Mc-
Gregor we have a heavy grade going north, which commences at the railway crossing of the
Transfer Company, and north bound freights stop for the crossing, cut off the cars for North
McGregor, pass over the crossing, do their work and then back down onto their train, and do
not pull up over the crossing and stop at the platform, for if they had much of a train they
could not start from that point; but the conductor stands on the crossing himself and signals
the train to come ahead, and as they pass over the crossing jumps on. There is no better or
safer way for us to do than as above. As to the passengers who may wish to get into the
caboose while standing where it does, there is not the least difficulty, as our main track is in
the street, and they can walk from our depot down the street on level ground to the caboose.
We do not think it would be prudent to attempt to carry passengers on No. 17, leaving
McGregor at 12:15 A. M.
Yours truly,

ROSWELL MILLER, Assistant General Manager.

BALL & MINERT, BRISTOW, Iowa,

VS.

DUBUQUE & DAKOTA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Filed January 12, 1885.

Discrimination.

On the 9th of January, 1885, Messrs. Ball & Minert, dealers in grain and livestock at Bristow, Iowa, complained that they had been charged by the Dubuque & Dakota Railroad Company sixty dollars per car on live hogs to Chicago; that the dealers at Allison, five miles further east were charged on a special rate but forty dollars per car. The Commissioners in a letter dated January 12th asked the complainants to furnish proof of their allegations. On January 15th Ball & Minert filed in the office of the Commissioners an affidavit stating that on the morning of January 9, 1885, they had applied to the Superintendent of the D. & D. R. R., in his office at Hampton, for the special rate given at Allison, and were refused this rate. On January 14th the following telegram was received at this office:

To the Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa:

Disregard letter and contents of this date unless otherwise directed.

In a letter dated January 20th they asked that the affidavit be returned, and on the 28th they said: "Everything at present is satisfastory.'

While pleased to know that the relations between the road and its patrons are satisfactory, the Commissioners dislike to be held up to the railroad officers as a club to bring them to order. It is probable that in future they will insist on a statement of the terms on which the matters complained of were adjusted.

DEAR SIR-Your letter with bills enclosed addressed to Mr. Coffin has been received and considered. You are understood to complain of the charge of 50 cents on one sack oil meal weighing 20 pounds, shipped from Boone to Galva, Iowa, distance 113 miles.

The Chicago & Northwestern freight tariff, dated August 25 and October 16, 1884, says: "No single shipment will be taken for less than 50 cents." The bills you send show that the C. & N. W. R'y carried for you by weight. 250 pounds from Missouri Valley to Galva, for 36 and 43 cents, no greater charge than the Sioux City & Pacific Railroad makes for 80 miles, the C. & N. W. carrying 120 miles. It seems that for a single parcel shipment the S.. C. & P. charge only 25 cents, while the C. & N. W. charge 50 cents. The Commissioners have always held that a charge of 50 cents for a single or parcel shipment, without reference to distance, was not unreasonable, and they do not see that you have any just cause of complaint.

By order of the Board.

JAMES PHELAN, MAITLAND, DAKOTA,

VS.

E. G. MORGAN, Secretary

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. J

Filed January 28, 1885.

Violation of contract.

The complainant in March, 1884, entered into a contract with the St. Louis, Des Moines & Northern and Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Companies for the transportation of his household effects from Boone, Iowa, to Scotland, Dakota, the agent of the former road at Boone having intimated to him that the contents of three cars of his road could be loaded into two of the C., M. & St. P. cars. When the transfer was made at Madrid it was found that the whole consignment could not be put into two cars, and a pile of some 240 fence-posts were left at that place. In entering complaint against the company, Mr. Phelan asked the assistance of the Commissioners in securing the fulfillment of the contract by the railway company. In their investigation of the case the Commissioners received a letter from Mr. Jas. Donahue, General Freight Agent of the St. L., D. M. & N. R'y, stating that the contract with Mr. Phelan was for but two cars of goods, but that three of the narrow-gauge cars of his road were supplied Mr. Phelan at Boone to save him the trouble of packing his goods closely, "as would have to be done if the cars were going through, instead of to] Madrid, fifteen miles distant. When these cars were set out at the transfer at Madrid and the contents had been removed to the C., M. & St. P. cars there remained 240 posts, which were left at that place. As the complainant did not dispute the statements made by Mr. Donahue, the Board was unable to find. that his contract had been violated.

January 26, 1885, J. W. Kelly & Son, of Osceola, Iowa, made complaint to the Commissioners that several cars of coal loaded for them on January 22d at the Zero coal mines on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad had been detained at said mines, the railroad company having apparently made no effort to move them toward their destination; that the city was destitute of fuel, and any further delay would entail much trouble and perhaps suffering upon the community. On receipt of this complaint the railway officials were promptly notified, and the coal was immediately brought in and delivered to consignees. Supt. Merrill of the Iowa division in explaining to the Commissioners the cause of the delay, stated that the engines sent out to bring in this coal had broken down at two different times, and that on the third day of delay the shipping directions had been taken away through mistake, making it impossible to remove the cars, as no one could be found at the mines that knew where the coal was to be sent.

HON. J. W. MCDILL-Will you inform me whether or not the railroads in this State have the right to charge a mechanic for carrying his tool-box, when the tool-box does not weight over one hundred and fifty pounds, and he has no other baggage? The railroads are in the habit of charging mechanics for their tool-boxes; but some one comes along with twice the number of pounds in a fine trunk and it goes without any fuss. What I think is that it should make no difference whether a man had his tools and clothes in a tool-box or a "Saratoga House," if it comes within the right number of pounds.

The mechanics of this State pay considerable money during the year, which I think they should not be compelled to pay. I ask you about this, because you are one of the Railroad Commissioners, and it should be in the line of your official duty. By answering this you will

favor

H. DUSEY, and many others.

A copy of this complaint was sent to T. J. Potter, Vice-President Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, who in reply wrote the Commissioners as follows :

CHICAGO, March 11, 1885.

E. G. MORGAN, ESQ., Secretary Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Your favor of the 16th of February, in relation to the complaint of H. Dusey, a mechanic, of Creston, for himself and others, that while a trunk and a certain weight of baggage is allowed other passengers, a mechanic is charged extra for the whole weight received. In reply, I beg to recite to you the rules and regulations of our baggage department in reference to this matter :

"To Station Agents and Baggagemen:

'Paragraph 1. Baggage consists of the wearing apparel of passengers, or their personal effects necessary to the journey. Passengers will be allowed 150 pounds free on each full ticket, and 75 pounds on each half ticket; but, in case the baggage exceeds 150 pounds, the agent or baggageman will collect excess baggage, as per tariff rate, for all over 150 pounds.

Paragraph 2. You will receive and check as baggage any trunk or valise offered as baggage by a passenger. If such trunk or valise is known by you to contain articles other than baggage, do not receive it, but refer the passenger to the express company.

"Paragraph 3. Receive no article for transportation as baggage unless accompanied by a passenger. Jewelry, merchandise, or other valuable goods or perishable articles should not be received as baggage. When such things are offered, refer the owner to the express company. Charges on extra baggage will be made as per tariff, pages 58 and 59. Check no baggage with parcels or anything else tied thereto; request that they be removed before checking. Do not check two valises or other pieces of baggage fastened together; have them separated, and check each one.'

The above is uniform on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and will fully answer your inquiry in regard to this matter. Under the rules as above, mechanics' tools would not be accepted as proper baggage.

Yours truly,

T. J. POTTER.

OFFICE OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS, }

DES MOINES, Iowa, April 3, 1885.

T. J. POTTER, ESQ., Vice-President C., B. & Q R. R. Co., Chicago, Ill.:

DEAR SIR-We are in receipt of your letter of March 11, 1885, replying to our letter of February 16th in relation to complaint of H. Dusey, a mechanic of Creston, that while a trunk and a certain weight of baggage is allowed other passengers, a mechanic is charged extra for the whole weight of toolchest received, and have given its contents careful consideration. From the extract from your rules furnished us, it is evident that the mechanic precisely as other persons would be thereunder entitled to carry one hundred and fifty pounds of baggage free. You state that under the rules mechanics' tools would not be accepted as baggage. We are quite aware of the many difficulties which arise in considering the question, but the whole matter must turn on the definition of baggage. We therefore ask you to consider the following matters as bearing thereon. The question in the case is what constitutes baggage; this is a question of law.-Hutchinson on Carriers, section 688.

The facts and circumstances may be submitted to a jury, but the ultimate question is one of law for the court, and the jury must be guided by proper instructions from the court.—Hutchinson on Carriers, Section 688.