BEFORE THE

STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF COLORADO.

Case No. 18.

JOHN J. SERRY, PETITIONER,

VS.

THE FLORENCE & CRIPPLE CREEK RAILWAY COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted November 1, 1909.

Dismissed November 1, 1909.

FINDINGS AND ORDER OF COMMISSION.

Alleged overweight on car of red spruce lumber.

This cause coming on for consideration this 1st day of November, 1909, and it appearing to the Commission that a settlement has been reached between the parties hereto, and the Commission having received a written statement from the said petitioner informing them of a settlement and authorizing them to dismiss the petition herein,

It is hereby ordered by the Commission that the said petition be and the same is hereby dismissed.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.

(Signed) AARON P. ANDERSON,

DANIEL H. STALEY,

WORTH L. SEELY,

Commissioners.

Dated at Denver this 1st day of November, 1909.

BEFORE THE

STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF COLORADO.

Case No. 19.

ERNEST WHILES, ET AL., CITIZENS OF FIRESTONE, EVANSTON AND FREDERICK, COLORADO, PETITIONERS,

This cause coming on for hearing on the 6th day of December, 1909, before the Commission.

Mr. William V. Hodges appearing for respondent company. Mr. H. M. Orahood for the citizens of Firestone, Mr. E. L. Williams for the citizens of Frederick.

This action was brought by petitioners asking that a depot be located at some point in or near one of the petitioning towns. They alleged in their petition that the present location of the depot at Dacona is over one mile south of where the petitioning towns are situated.

Many witnesses were sworn and testified before the Commission, each of the said towns offering witnesses to show the advantage to the railroad, as well as to the different towns, by locating the depot within their respective townsites.

The Commissioners, each of them, made a personal inspection of the different towns and localities, as well as the railroad at these several points.

The defendant in this case for many years has operated a standard gauge road from Brighton (a station on its main line north from Denver) to the city of Boulder; this line being known as the Boulder Valley branch.

It appears from the evidence at the trial that sometime about the year 1905 Mr. Charles L. Baum made certain arrange

ments with the officials of the respondent railroad company, whereby it was to build a spur track from St. Vrain, a point on the Boulder Valley branch, to his property (the Baum mine), a short distance from Dacona. This spur, as alleged, was completed about February, 1906, Mr. Baum having aided the respondent company in securing the right of way, and also by giving the said company the land necessary for station and yard purposes at or near where the town of Dacona is now situated, the said land being given in consideration of respondent company building and maintaining a depot and station at the point now known as the town of Dacona.

It also appears that when this spur track was surveyed and built to the Baum mine, the question of extending the Union Pacific Railroad to La Salle was not considered. Since that date, however, several mines have been opened up in that immediate vicinity; the towns of Frederick, Evanston and Firestone have been built, and the country settled by farmers within the vicinity and to the north of Dacona and adjacent to the petitioning towns.

The rapid development of this section of the country has led the respondent company to deem it advisable to build a line of railroad from Denver to La Salle by way of Dacona, Frederick, Evanston and Firestone.

There are two or three points which the Commission must determine in disposing of this case, namely:

First. Is the service which the people of Frederick, Evanston and Firestone, and the country adjacent thereto, reasonable and adequate?

Second. Can the defendant company erect a good and sufficient depot within the limits of any one of the aforesaid towns, and construct the necessary sidetracks at a reasonable cost, giving proper consideration to the interest of all concerned and each locality desiring a depot?

Third. If so, which is the most desirable location, and should the order be made at the present time?

We shall first consider the claims of Frederick, which town, from the evidence, is located between Dacona and Evanston and about one mile north of the depot at Dacona, and is much larger than either of the other towns. Owing to the topography of the land adjacent to Frederick and through which the respondent's line runs, on which it would be necessary to build additional trackage in order to properly care for the business, to locate the depot there would work unnecessary hardship and expense to respondent, as the level of the grade is much higher than the town, and it would require extensive filling in to raise the switches and sidetracks up to the level of the main line-all of which would have to be done to be consistent with good railroading.

The respondent company has a station and depot at Dacona, about one mile south of the town of Frederick, which was installed prior to the building of the other petitioning towns. The distance to said depot from said town is no greater than the distance from other towns to stations all over the country, and the fact that most of the mines have spur tracks where they load coal and also carlots of farm produce, tends to lessen any inconvenience in this particular.

Therefore, we do not consider the service which the community of Frederick is receiving at the present time as wholly unreasonable.

The Commission is also confronted with the fact that at the present time there is no track laid on the new grade north of Dacona, the road not being completed, and the Commission therefore hesitates to make any order requiring the railroad company to establish any station and depot at any point beyond where the new line is now completed.

It is the opinion of the Commission, however, that these towns and the country surrounding the several towns will rapidly develop with the building and completion of this new line of road, and when said line is completed the community to the north of Dacona will be entitled to additional facilities.

The Commission therefore recommends that respondent at as early a date as possible locate and build a suitable depot and sidetracks at a point near the north line of Evanston, on the new line of road, as this will, we believe, better meet the demands and requirements of this rapidly growing section of our State. THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF COLORADO.

(Signed) AARON P. ANDERSON,

DANIEL H. STALEY,

WORTH L. SEELY,

Commissioners.

Dated at Denver, Colorado, Monday, January 3, A. D. 1910.

Petition for scales to be installed at Fort Collins.

Petition for through rate on grain, Wellington or Waverly to Denver, with milling in transit privilege at Fort Collins.

This cause coming on for consideration this 8th day of November, 1909, it appearing to the Commission that a settlement has been reached between the parties hereto, and the Commission having received a written statement from the said petitioner, by its attorneys, that the petition has been satisfied by the Colorado & Southern Railway Company and authorizing a dismissal of the complaint,

It is hereby ordered by the Commission that the said cause be and the same is hereby dismissed.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.

(Signed) AARON P. ANDERSON,

DANIEL H. STALEY,

WORTH L. SEELY,

Commissioners.

Dated at Denver, this 8th day of November, 1909.