CITIZENS OF BELMOND, Iowa, VS. Failure to keep road open. CENTRAL IOWA RAILWAY COMPANY. Filed February 27, 1884. Under date of February 26, 1884, Hon. W. T. R. Humphrey addressed a communication to the Board stating that the branch of the Central Iowa Railway from Hampton to Belmond had been blockaded for some time with snow, and the company were making no effort to open it; that the supply of fuel in Belmond was nearly exhausted, and if another storm should come there would be great suffering among the people in that vicinity. The superintendent of the road being notified of this complaint made answer February 28th, that the company had had great difficulty in keeping the north end of their line open, especially the Belmond branch, the snow blowing back into the cuts within a few hours after they were cleaned out. Superintendent Dudly further stated that a large force of men were at work and he hoped to get the line open within twenty-four hours. On March 19th a petition was received by the Commissioners from the Governor, signed by fifty-five citizens of Belmond and vicinity, who asked that the Central Iowa Railway Company be ordered to keep their road open for business as all branches of industry were suffering on account of the abandonment of said road. The attention of Superintendent Dudley again being called to this matter, he reported that the line was now open and running smoothly, and that no further trouble was anticipated. D. J. McDougall and forty-nine other citizens of Arcadia, Iowa, petition the Board to require the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company to stop its fast express trains at that station to receive and discharge passengers, alleging in support of their claim that said trains stop at West Side, Vail and other stations no larger than Arcadia, and that the latter station furnishes about twenty-five passengers per day each way; that persons desiring to reach Chicago or other distant points are obliged to drive to West Side or Vail to take the train, and returning, have to get off at one of these stations and walk or drive to Arcadia. In defense of their arrangement of express trains at this station, the officers of the company state that it has been customary to stop express trains at Arcadia whenever there were passengers on board who had come from Chicago or other distant points, but it would not be convenient to stop them to take up or leave local passengers, as ample accommodations were provided by their local traius for passengers desiring to reach this point, and they would be unable to make their connections if required to stop their fast express trains at every small station. The company furnished two passenger trains per day each way for local traffic, which they deemed amply sufficient for the business. The Commissioners were of the opinion that public interests demand fast mail, fast freight, and fast express trains, and private convenience must yield to public demands. As they found that the respondent furnished ample facilities for the traveling public outside of the express train in `question, they declined to order the stopping of the express train at Arcadia. CHAPIN, MERRITT & CO., DES MOINES, Iowa, VS. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. Diverted shipment. Messrs. Chapin, Merritt & Co., of Des Moines, write the Commissioners that they shipped a car of sugar from Philadelphia, and for their own convenience ordered it shipped from Chicago over the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway via Madrid, but the latter road without any orders from consignees diverted the shipment to the Wisconsin, Iowa & Nebraska Railway-known as the " Diagonal" route-and brought it to destination via this latter road. Complainants wish to know if there is a statute in Iowa prohibiting diversion of shipments in this way, and if there is any redress for their grievance. The Commissioners replied that there was no such law in this State, but that complainants had the right, at common law, to designate the lines over which they desired their freight shipped, and railway companies would be obliged to respect the directions, unless there was a condition in the bill of lading, as in this case, reserving the right to the receiving and forwarding companies to forward the goods by any route they might select. With this condition in the bill of lading, complainants should have consigned their goods to Chicago, and then directed the route of re-shipruent. J. V. JOHNSON, Red Oak, ÏOWA, VS. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. J Filed March 14, 1884. Overcharge. Mr. Johnson makes complaint to the Board that in November, 1881, be shipped twelve car-loads of cattle from Ackley, Iowa, over the Central Iowa and Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railways to Griswold, and that when they arrived at their destination he was charged $60.00 more than the contract price. The freight bill had been sent to the officers of the C., R. I. & P. R'y for adjustment, but complainant had never received the amount of the overcharge. On inquiry, the Commissioners were informed by the officers of the company that in December, 1882, ten cars of cattle were shipped from Ackley to Griswold by Messrs. Johnson and Taylor. The overcharge on the shipment was $30, which was refunded to the shippers Sept. 25, 1883, the latter giving a receipt for the amount in full of all claims against the company. The money had been paid to Mr. Taylor, and receipt taken from him for the firm, and it appeared that Mr. Johnson was not aware of this fact, as he had neglected to examine their books after they dissolved partnership. In view of these facts complainant withdrew his case. G. W. MCDONALD, DYSART, Iowa, VS. BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RAILWAY Co. Filed March 14, 1884. Overcharge. Complainant claims to have been overcharged on a shipment of goods from Chicago to Dysart, Iowa. The goods being shipped via Chicago & Northwestern Railway to Cedar Rapids, thence via Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway to destination. Being notified of this claim by the Commissioners, Mr. Ives, Superintendent of the B., C. R. & N. R'y, stated in reply that complainant had been charged only the regular rate on his goods, the division of the rate being a matter of no consequence to him. The Commissioners find that Mr. McDonald had no cause of complaint, his case being précisely similar to the one made by him and decided by them in December, 1883, and reviewed in their report for 1883, on page 733. C. W. NORTON, DURANT, IOWA, VS. Overcharge. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Filed March 15, 1884. DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS. On the 13th of February, 1881, complainant, C. W. Norton, delivered to the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company at Durant, certain live stock destined for Mitchell, Dakota, stipulating that they should be sent by way of Council Bluffs and Yankton. His purpose in making this stipulation for a route by way of Council Bluffs and Yankton seems to have been that he might have the privilege of unloading part of the stock at Earlham, Iowa, a point not greatly distant from Council Bluffs. It is the custom of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company to deliver the freight to that line upon which the point of destination is located, and such would seem to have been its duty as a forwarder. In pursuance of this custom the stock was delivered to the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company at Council Bluffs, Mitchell being a point on the line of the latter road. This delivery seems to us to have been in the line of the duty of the C., R. I. & P. R'y. Co. Complainant could have directed the delivery of the stock to any other carrier, but failed to do so. It happened, what, perhaps, was unforseen by the shipper, that the line operated by the C., M. & St. P. R'y ran directly east for a long distance, and led to distance charges which seem to him unduly large. The fault, if any, is in the shipper himself), who could have directed the route to be used from Council Bluffs. If he had ordered the shipment on the Chicago & Northwestern Railway and the defendant's road, there is no evidence that the local charges of the two roads would not have equalled or exceeded the charge made in this case. It is therefore the opinion of the Commissioners that there is no ground of complaint against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific and Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Companies. Des Moines, May 22, 1884. JAMES FRAZER, JR., PAULINA, IOWA, VS. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Filed March 15, 1884. Personal Injuries. Complainant writes the Commissioners under date of March 1, 1884, that the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company cut a ditch across the public highway near their track about one mile west of Sutherland in the summer of 1883, leaving said ditch uncovered; that his mother, while passing along said highway in a buggy, in August, 1883, was thrown out of the buggy and severely injured, by running into said ditch at the point where it crossed the highway. Complainant, for his mother, asks for damages by reason of said injuries received, in the sum of three hundred dollars. He was advised by the Commissioners that as the company disputed its liability, the relief desired would be a money judgment, which the Board had no power to render his relief must come from the courts. JOHN. T. HANCOCK & SON. DUBUQUE, Iowa, VS. Detention of goods. BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN R'Y Co. Filed March 22, 1884. J. T. Hancock & Son, wholesale grocers at Dubuque, made complaint to the Commissioners that the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company does not forward freight from Independence as promptly as they should; that there has been great dissatisfaction among complainants' customers at Oelwein, Iowa, a station on respondents' road, and complainants are informed that their shipments are frequently held at Independence from four to six days before they are forwarded. The agent of the company at Independence states in reply that freight is usually forwarded on the first train after it is received from the Illinois Central; that shipments were occasionally delayed, but this was mainly on account of the fact that freight must be hauled by team transfer from one depot to the other, making it necessary to handle it several times. IIe would, however, see that no avoidable delays occurred at that station in future. |