I believe I have presented the claims of the people fairly to you. We would like to have you decide whether we are entitled to a crossing or not. If we are, how much longer must we wait? I would be pleased if you would come up, or send a representative to view the situation. If the people have any rights railroad companies are obliged to respect, we think this is one of them. Very respectfully yours,

WALTER CARPENTER.

On February 10, 1896, copy of Mr. Carpenter's letter of February 3d was forwarded Mr. Harahan, and in the letter of transmittal the board said: "We hope, with the record as stated and assuming that Chairman Carpenter is correct as to the facts in the case, that you will see your way clear to open the crossing for the use and convenience of the public," to which Mr Harahan replied as follows:

CHICAGO, February 23, 1896.

Mr. W. W. Ainsworth, Secretary Iowa Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Referring to your favor 10th inst in reference to the construction of a crossing over our tracks between Iowa Falls and Macy: As I wrote you November 23th last. I instructed our local officials to take this matter up promptly with the county officials, and advised that if Hardin county would do the grading on both sides of the track this company would plank the crossing and put in the cattle guards. I did this after our attorneys had advised me that the highway had not been legally established, and that even if it had been, the twenty-one years' failure to use the road was in law an abandonment of the same. They gave this opinion after an examination of all the papers, including the copy of the county auditor's report sent me with your letter of November 22d last.

I am in receipt of communication from our chief engineer, in which he states that our local attorney, Mr. Scales, appeared before the board of supervisors of the county in question presented our view of the matter and told them that if the county would do the grading this company would plank the crossing and put in cattle guards. I am also informed that they took the matter under advisement and promised to let us know their decision later. This is the way the matter stands now. Yours truly, J. T. HARAHAN, Second Vice-President.

After some further correspondence the commissioners, on April 14, 1896, suggested to the complainant, Mr. Carpenter, that "inasmuch as the railway company, among other things, question the legality of the proceedings whereby the highway in question was established, the railway commission think it advisable for your board to request of the county attorney of your county a written opinion regarding the legality of the establishment of such highway."

The opinion of the county attorney, Mr. George W. Ward, sustaining the regularity of the establishment of highway in question, was filed with the commission on April 22, 1896.

On April 28, 1896, a letter was received from Mr. Harahan stating that his company still adhered to its position that the highway had not been legally established for reasons set forth therein.

On May 2, 1896, the commission addressed the following to Mr. J. T. Harahan, second vice-president Illinois Central Railroad company.

DEAR SIR-Replying to your favor of April 27th, I am directed by the board to ascertain from you the manner in which you obtained your right of way which crosses the Macy highway at or near Iowa Falls, and whether the title or occupancy of the railway company appeared upon the transfer books of the auditor's office of that county at the time of the location of the highway in question.

Referring to the other part of your letter in which you discuss at some length the question of notice not being served upon the railway company at the time of the location of the highway in question, your attention is called to the 68th Iowa, page 135, case of State ex rel Patrick v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co.

The commissioners had hoped that this matter might be amicably adjusted between the railroad company and the county. It appears from the best information that they can obtain that this highway has been used by the public for a great many years, with the exception of that part crossed and used by the railway company. They note what you say in regard to

the Fredericksburg case and while expressing no opinion at this time in regard to the merits of this controversy, they trust that the railway company and the county may reach an amicable adjustment without requiring the board to proceed and determine the matter in a judicial manner.

On May 14th Mr. Harahan replied to the foregoing in the following language: CHICAGO, May 14, 1896.

Mr. W. W. Ainsworth, Secretary Iowa Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-Referring to your favor of the 2d inst, in reference to the construction of a crossing over our tracks between Iowa Falls and Macy: I find that our right of way at this point was condemned, and award of damages to owners made, July 20, 1864. The point of crossing desired is between sections 11 and 12, township 89 north, range 20 west, 5th principal meridian, Hardin county, Iowa. No receipt of payment is shown for section 11, but in section 12 a receipt is shown.

While it has been our opinion, as advised you in previous letters, that a highway crossing has not been legally established at this place, the board of supervisors of Hardin county appears to be equally clear that one has been established. A crossing seems to be necessary in any event, and we are willing to waive this point. I have, therefore, instructed our chief engineer to open it as a highway crossing.

We are desirous at all times to get along with our neighbors with as little friction as possible, and to show you that we are not responsible for the delay which has occurred in handling this matter, I beg to call your attention to my letter of November 29, 1895, to you, in which I advised that we were willing to plank the crossing and put in cattle guards, if Hardin county would do the grading on both sides of the track. I still think this was a fair proposition. Yours truly,

J. T. HARAHAN, Second Vice-President.

Under date of July 3, 1896, Mr. Carpenter writes the board as follows: "The crossing over the Illinois Central, between sections 11 and 12-89-20, is opened, and the public is using it. Many thanks for the attention given this case."

The following copy of letter to Mr. J. M. Whitman, general manager of respondent company, transmitting complaint in this case, will indicate the nature of same:

DES MOINES, October 19, 1895.

J. M. Whilman, Esq, General Manager Chicago & North-Western Railway Company, Chicago, Ill.: DEAR SIR--Mr. William Hutchinson, county attorney of Sioux county, under date of October 15th, sends the board a copy of the resolution of the board of supervisors as follows: "Be it resolved by the board of supervisors of Sioux county, That the county attorney is hereby instructed to take the necessary steps, either with the railroad companies or with the railroad commissioners of the state of lowa, to open the crossings on the public highways across the Toledo & Northwestern and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul railways, between sections 10 and 11 in township 94, range 45; and between sections 10 and 3 in township 97. range 48; and between sections 31 and 33, township 97, range 43, all in Sioux county, Iowa." Mr. Hutchinson in transmitting the foregoing, says:

"By resolution of the board of supervisors, I am instructed to enter complaint against the Chie go & North-Western Railway company for their refusal to open the highway crossing

on the laid out road between sections 10 and 11, township 94, range 45. I have done all 1 can to have this done without referring it to the railway commission, but have failed. Will you kindly present the same and let me know the result?

Yours truly,

WM. HUTCHINSON."

Will you kindly have the matter investigated and early answer made in the case?
Very respectfully yours.

By order of the board.

W. W. AINSWORTH,

Secretary.

No response having been received from Mr. Whitman, upon December 12th, and again on December 31, 1895, his attention was called to the matter, and his answer thereto requested.

Under date of January 21, 1896, General Manager Whitman, referring to this case, wrote as follows:

CHICAGO, January 21, 1896.

Mr. W. W. Ainsworth, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa: DEAR SIR-I have not lost sight of the communication from the board, under date of October 19, 1895, in regard to the matter of a highway crossing on the line between sections 10 and 11, 94-45. Sioux county, Iowa, regarding which Mr. William Hutchinson, county attorney, has written you. These papers have been on my desk for some time. but I have not been atle to give the matter careful attention, as my time has been so closely occupied

There is no disposition on the part of the company to interfere with the opening of this highway. I do not, however, understand how the authorities expect to construct this road on the site selected, as there is a forty-six foot pile bridge directly across the highway, and it seems to me that there is no feasible way in which the road can be constructed, either at grade or otherwise. If the authorities have any suggestions to make in this direction, I would be glad to receive them. Yours truly,

J. M. WHITMAN,
General Manager.

Copy of foregoing was sent Mr. Hutchinson, attorney for complainants, on January 22, 1896, and elicited from him the following reply:

COPY.

ORANGE CITY, Iowa, January 25, 1896.

Hon. W. W. Ainsworth, Des Moines, Iowa:

DEAR SIR-Yours of 22d inst. at hand and noted. In reply will say that at the time the railway was built the highway was duly established, and Sioux county will insist that the Chicago & North-Westera company put in the crossing. The company can buy a piece of land and make a crossing and this county will be satisfied. If the railway commissioners have no power to act in these matters the commission should be abolished. If I must go into court to protect the rights of this county I will do it, but it seems to me that in fairness the railway company should put the crossing in without trouble.

Yours truly,

WM HUTCHINSON,
County Attorney.

Upon January 29, 1896, the board directed a communication sent Mr. Whitman, for the company, outlining the position of the commissioners in this matter, copy of which we here set out in full:

January 29, 1896.

J. M. Whitman, General Manager Chicago & North-Western Railway Company, Chicago, Ill.: DEAR SIR-Yours of the 21st inst.. in reference to the matter of a highway crossing on the line between sections 10 and 11, 94-45, Sioux county, Iowa, is received. I am directed to say in reply that a copy of your letter was furnished Judge Hutchinson, county attorney for Sioux county, and a copy of his reply is herewith enclosed. Also to submit that if "there is a fortysix foot pile bridge directly across the highway," as you state, the highway could possibly be made passable under this bridge by a little work on the part of your company.

The commission hopes that your company may be sufficiently advised as to the peculiarities of the ground, and other features of the location, to be able to construct this crossing at an early day. If there is need for it, the commission will visit the site with your representatives to make investigations. Awaiting your early reply, I am

Very respectfully yours,

By order of the board.

W. W. AINSWORTH.

Secretary.

To this letter Mr. Whitman made answer as follows:

CHICAGO, January 30, 1896.

Mr. W. W. Ainsworth, Secretary Board of Railroad Commissioners, Des Moines, Iowa:
DEAR SIR-Referring to the proposed crossing on line between sections 10 and 11-94-45
Sioux county, Iowa:

I have directed our superintendent to raise our track and bridge at the point where this proposed highway shall cross sufficient to enable the county authorities to construct the highway under the bridge. We will, at our own cost, render it possible for the proper authorities to open this highway across our right of way and under our track, but we have nothing to do with the cost of constructing the highway itself. and will not assume any portion of that expense.

Our superintendent will do this work just as early in the spring as it is possible for it to be done. Yours truly. J. M. WHU MAN, General Manager.

Copy of foregoing was sent Mr. William Hutchinson on February 4, 1896. On March 28th Mr. Hutchinson advised the board that "the Chicago & NorthWestern Railway company have agreed to put crossing in as soon as frost is out. If they do so this is all I want, so want the matter to stand till I see if they comply with their contract with me to do so.”

On July 25th, August 13th and August 26th Mr. Hutchinson was asked to advise the board whether matter complained of had been adjusted. On August 29th Mr. Hutchinson said that "the Chicago & North-Western Railway company are putting crossing in, and I hope to report the matter settled in a short time." On October 16th and again on November 10th the attention of Mr. Hutchinson was called to his communication of August 29th, and he was asked to advise the office at once whether the case could be closed.

Mr. Hutchinson wrote the board on November 16, 1896, stating that while some work upon the crossing had been done it was not yet completed.

Under date of December 22, 1896, the chairman of the board of supervisors of Sioux county, Mr. William Dealy wrote the commission as follows: "The Chicago & North-Western Railway company have opened the highway on section line between sections 10 and 11, Sherman township, Sioux county, Iowa. This is the crossing that our county attorney, William Hutchinson, has been corresponding with you about. They have made it so you can cross, and agree to finish it in spring. Thanking you for your help in this matter, we remain, yours, etc." The case is closed.

December 26, 1896.

No. 1693-1896.

C. E. ACHORN. SUTHERLAND,

V.

CHICAGO & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.

Shortage of cars.

October 22. 1895, the following telegram was received from the plaintiff in the above case:

Railroad Commissioners:

I cannot get the Chicago & North-Western to supply me with Wabash cars, furnished by the Wabash company at Des Moines. What can I do? Answer.

C. E. ACHORN.

The matter was immediately taken up with the general agent of the Chicago & North-Western at Des Moines for the reason that this was the station which, from the complaint, seemed to be at fault in transferring cars. As a result of

the conference with the agent the following was sent Mr. Achorn in explanation of existing conditions:

DEAR SIR-Your telegram complaining that the Chicago & North-Western Railway company failed to furnish you Wabash cars ordered, was received at 11:20 A. M. to-day and was immediately referred to the general agent of that company in this city, who states in substance that his company is using every endeavor to furnish the Wabash cars promptly, but of course cannot get them except as they are delivered to them by the Wabash company. He further states that three Wabash cars were forwarded to Sutherland Saturday, and another on Monday, which filled all orders for Wabash cars from Sutherland. He also said that there were other orders for cars of the Wabash company to be delivered to Peterson, but that the Chicago & North-Western had as yet been unable to obtain the cars from that company, and as soon as possible they would obtain the cars and forward them to the point named.

Please advise the office whether cars are being furnished you as ind'cated in the foregoing.

On October 23d Mr. Achorn again wired the office: "Wabash claim they delivered ten cars for Sutherland on the 18th. Have only received four you mention." The Chicago & North-Western were again waited upon for answer and replied: "Only four Wabash cars were ordered for Sutherland and the balance of the number delivered by the Wabash company were ordered for Peterson." Following this there was some correspondence and telegrams bearing upon the difficulty, all with the object in view of adjusting the seeming shortage of foreign cars and relieving Mr. Achorn's too full elevators. The conditions seems to have improved very much, and as nothing was heard from the plaintiff he was on December 12th addressed as follows:

DEAR SIR-In clearing up accumulated correspondence that the commissioners had been compelled to defer action upon in the preparation of their annual report, which has just been placed in the hands of the printer, there is noted your case of complaint on account of inability to get certain cars, and I am directed to inquire as to its present status, and whether you are now supplied with cars for the handling of your business.

In reply to which, under date of December 14th, Mr Achorn says:
Yours of the 12th received

Since my last trouble with the company at this place they have been pretty good to me, but twi e I have had to wire to the superintendent about getting cars. That seems to be the only effective way of receiving attention

The company at one time was out of car door lumber for some time and I had to buy it at the lumber yard. They have also furnished such poor cars that I have bought nails by the keg to fix up the old traps so that they would hold. Can I not claim pay of the company for these nails and lumber? My understanding is that they must furnish suitable cars. I am willing to hire a carpenter to fix them up, but think that they ought to furnish the material. What do you think about this point? Yours truly,

C. E. ACHORN.

To this the board directed the following reply, which closes the case: DEAR SIR-Again referring briefly to yours of the 14th inst in the matter of collecting your expenses for repairing of cars. I am directed to say without going into details, but rather in general terms, that if you have a just claim against the railroad company and will present the same to them, it is quite likely that it will receive their attention.

Under date of November 5, 1895, Mr. Frank Corey, the proprietor of the Corey Coal company, located on the Crooked Creek railroad, filed with this board his complaint of failure to procure cars for the proper transaction of the coal business for his company.