affidavits of A. J. Hess, and Seward Fauser, who state that they were present when the right of way was procured, and that Mr. Forgrave agreed to put in an under crossing for cattle, as part of the consideration for righ of way; that Mr. Fauser asked that it be put in the contract, but that Forgrave stated that it was not necessary to put this in writing. The statements are contradictory and seem to indicate that one party or the other had forgotten exactly what did take place. In a strictly legal proceeding, the written contract would be the evidence of the bargain, and courts would not recognize anything that was not contained in it.

This commission, however, from the evidence furnished has reasonable grounds to believe that the underground crossing was a subject of discussion between the parties, and that three of them think it was a part of the consideration. They would therefore advise that it be put in at as early a date as practicable.

They recommend this more readily from the fact the cost is light, and as Mr. Fauser's water is on one side of the railroad and his buildings on the other, it would be of very great value to him.

Mr. Fauser having proposed to remit any claim for land covered by waste dirt if the crossing is put in, the Commissioners have considered his proposition as part of their finding.

Des Moines, Iowa, April 22, 1887.

CITIZENS OF WALNUT AND VERNON TOWNSHIPS,
PALO ALTO COUNTY, IOWA,

VS.

BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RAIL-
WAY CO.

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY CO.

Filed January 6, 1887.

Station at crossing.

On May 4, 1886, the Commissioners recommend that a station be located and built at the crossing of Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern and Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul Railways, seven miles north of Emmetsburg in Palo Alto county, in accordance with the wishes and necessities of residents of that vicinity, it being understood at that time that a large amount of business would be done at the point, if station facilities were furnished. December 29, 1886, a letter was received from E. P. McEvoy, a resident of Palo Alto county, informing the Board that the station had not yet been built, and furnishing a number of certificates from person residing in the neighborhood of this crossing, showing that they were raising large amounts of grain, and stock which would be marketed there, if station facilities were provided. Replying to a letter from the Board, President Ives of the Barlington Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway stated that a sidetrack had been constructed at this point, and he had been waiting for the farmers and shippers to furnish business at the point, but that nothing had been shipped from there up to the commencement of the present year. He, however, promised to put in stock yards and cover a platform for the use of passengers at the point, which was accepted by the complainants as satisfactory to their demands for the present.

S. P. BARR, EAGLE GROVE IOWA,

Vs.

Overcharge.

MASON CITY & FORT DODGE RAILROAD
COMPANY.

Filed January 10, 1887.

Complainant was overcharged in the sum of twenty-five cents on a shipment of empty market baskets from Mason City to Eagle Grove on respondent's road. It was found to be the result of a mistake on the part of the company in publishing their tariff of rates, and the amount of overcharge was promptly refunded.

Mr. Dawson's complaint is that in March or April, 1886, he made an agreement with Mr. Meek, Superintendent of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway, by which the railway company was to put in a siding for the purpose of loading wood and coal, on land that he occupied by lease in section 9, township 77, range 21 west, in Percy township, Marion county, Iowa, Mr. Dawson to do the grading necessary at his own expense.

The track was completed in the latter part of August, 1886, and used consecutively until January 11, 1887, when Mr. Meek ordered the frog removed. and by this action Dawson has since then been kept out of market with his wood and coal.

A copy of the complaint was forwarded to Mr. Meek, who in reply, dated January 18, 1887, admits the facts as charged, and justifies his action on the ground that the siding is a public one, constructed for the use and benefit of the public, and that Mr. Dawson refused to allow other parties to reach this track over the lands he leased without the payment to him of two dollars per car, there being no highway or approach to this siding except through private property.

On January 24th, Mr. Meek writes the Commissioners that he has received a petition from parties in the vicinity interested in the maintenance of this switch, asking him to replace it, and that it is his purpose to put the frog back and give a reasonable time to have the highway opened to it.

In case this is done, the interest of all parties would seem to be fully served, and the case will be dismissed. Des Moines, Iowa, January 28, 1887.

January 18, 1887, Mr. S. R. Cross, in behalf of the business men and trustees of the town of Norman, writes the Commissioners, asking them to interfere in behalf of the town and prevent its business being diverted by the action of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company. To understand the case fully, it may be well to state that the town of Norman is a station on this road in Iowa, within one mile of the south line of Minnesota; that the citizens paid a bonus of five per cent on the valuation of their property to secure the location of the depot, side-tracks and town, and donated to the company a strip of land through town three hundred feet in width for station facilities.

The complaint is that the company has built a spur track in Minnesota, a short distance north of the State line, which results in a diversion of business that would otherwise go to Norman. The complaint seems to be that having taken the money and land of the citizens of Norman, the railway company in equity should not establish a rival point for business so near. The answer of the railway company is that the portion of their line in Iowa is very poor paying property, and that the effort of the officers has been to develop and draw business to it. That at the request of certain citizens of Minnesota, representing that owing to the location of several main roads that converge at the point complained of, the company by putting in a spurtrack could secure considerable grain and other business which now goes to other railroads, they had put in this track in the expectation of increasing their traffic.

It seems to the Commissioners that they may properly exert their authority and influence in securing to citizens of Iowa additional railroad facilities, but that "public policy" would hardly justify them in using their official position to prevent any parties getting all the business advantages they can from the railroads.

This case, however, is entirely outside their jurisdiction. Neither the Commissioners nor the State of Iowa could dictate to a railroad company what facilities should be furnished in Minnesota to citizens of that State, the jurisdiction of neither extending beyond the State line. Des Moines, Iowa, January 28, 1887.

C. C. RISK, FAIRFIELD, IOWA,

vs.

CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY.

Filed January 20, 1887.

Rates on corn.

C. C. Risk, of Fairfield, Iowa, made complaint to the Board that on October 7th, and November 1st he was charged twenty cents per hundred on two cars of corn from Red Oak to Fairfield, a distance of 191 miles, and on October 29th was charged the same rate on a car to Lockridge, 203 miles. He thought the rate unreasonable.

According to the Iowa distance tariff of this company the rate on corn for any distance in excess of 190 miles is twenty cents per hundred pounds, this being the highest charge for any distance in the State. The complaint was referred to General Freight Agent Ripley, who wrote the Commissioners on February 8th that in view of the fact that they had reduced their rates since the time these shipments were made to fifteen cents, he would refund five cents per 100 on these cars, making the rate the same as since the reduction.

The rate of fifteen cents per 100 was a reduction made at the request of the Commissioners, in view of the deficiency of corn for feeding purposes in Eastern Iowa.

The decision of the Commissioners in the case of the citizens of Murray vs. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Compony, set forth in their report for 1886, page 565, being unsatisfactory to Mr. Gafford, the owner of the elevator mentioned in that decision, he addressed the Board on the 17th of January, 1887, claiming that the Commissioners (only one being present at the former hearing) had been led into some errors, and had overlooked some points. He gave the distance of the depot as 203 steps east of the crossing; he alleged that all trains west bound which stop at Murray come to a full stop at the depot, and as most trains step, the percentage of danger from west bound trains is slight; that the elevator stands sixty-two steps east of the street, being between the street and depot; that the street in question is built upon solidly to within twenty steps of the track; that a person before crossing can see a clear track sixty-two steps from the crossing, when looking eastward, and from the same point a clear track twenty-nine steps when looking westward, on account of buildings on private lots running up to the right of way; that from the westward the track is down grade 779 steps to the depot, "so that all trains east bound pass this point without stopping, having to pass this point ere they reach the depot, and those trains passing east not stopping at Murray go at a greater rate of speed than those going west (barring the fast mail), as they have 576 steps distance from the top of grade at the west in which to get up speed ere they reach the point in question." He further claims that eight-tenths of the towns in Iowa have crossings far more dangerous than this one; that there are country crossings near curves equally as dangerous; that under the circumstances, as the railroad company has notified him to remove his elevator, an unjust burden is placed on him as to his private property. He asks the Commissioners to look over the ground again, verify his measurements and statements, and if their views are not changed by said inspection, to state definitely whether the removal of the elevator alone would change their views as to the danger, and whether they would consider the removal of the elevator to be the removal of the cause, or the great danger.

In accordance with Mr. Gafford's request, and desirous to save him, if possible, from what he deemed an unjust and unequal burden placed on him, Commissioner Dey, on the 15th of February, 1887, visited Murray, carefully inspected the crossing and its surroundings, and made sundry measurements, and now reports that the plat furnished by Mr. Gafford is mainly correct, but hardly gives a fair idea of the situation; that a man in the road within fifty feet of the track can see a train coming from the west for at least onehalf a mile, the curve beginning a short distance from the crossing.