of, or more easily obtainable by, the shipper than of the road receiving it there.

For these reasons we hold that it is incumbent upon the shipper to settle that question with the road making them rather than with the one paying them.

As to the alleged over weight put upon the cars, it seems that they were billed at the minimum carload weight, and that to have billed them at actual weight, but not at carload rates, would have cost the shipper as much or more than he paid

The fact is admitted by the company, as charged by the complainant, that the transfer charges on cars destined for Duluth are borne by the defendant company, but that when destined to other points on its line, not competing points, they must be borne by the shipper.

The complainant claims that he is entitled to the benefit of the rule applied to Duluth shipments. The commission, as at present advised, is not prepared to sustain this position. The legality of the claim can be readily and inexpensively tested in the courts by an appeal from this decision.

The only question remaining to be passed upon is whether the rate charged, $18.90 per car from St. Paul to Rush City, a distance of fiftyfour miles, as stated by complainant, is unreasonable or unequal, in the sense in which those terms are used in the law. It will be seen from a comparison of the rate charged in this instance with the tariffs of other railroad companies for the transportation of like freight over an equal distance, that the defendant company will not be shown to disadvantage. In other words, none of the other companies doing business in the State render similar services for less compensation. So long as such is the fact, we are not prepared to say that the charge is in a legal sense unreasonable or unequal.

Opinion per Austin, the other commissioners concurring.

RALSTON J. MARKOE, ST. PAUL,

vs.

ST. PAUL & DULUTH RAILROAD COMPANY.

Rights of passengers.

Filed May 23, 1887.

DECISION.

ST. PAUL, July 7, 1887.

Ralston J. Markoe, Esq.,

DEAR SIR: Your complaint against the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad

Company has been fully considered. The complaint is that "the conductors of the road inform passengers that the regular full fare firstclass tickets between St. Paul and White Bear do not entitle them to transportation on certain regular daily trains, which pass by White Bear and stop there, both going from and coming to St. Paul."

The management answer this complaint by saying that the train referred to is a special limited train put on to accommodate the through travel; that it does not stop at White Bear in the common acceptance of the term, but for the purpose of attaching the Minneapolis car.

It appears by the answer of the railway company, which is not denied, that a sufficient number of trains are run daily between St. Paul and White Bear to accommodate the local travel. This has an important bearing upon the case. Railroad companies have a right to make such regulations as they deem proper, provided they are reasonable. In this case the commission is of the opinion that the regulation is a reasonable one The opinion of the attorney general covering the point raised is inclosed for your perusal.

OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

ST. PAUL, June 28, 1887.

To the honorable, the Railroad Commissioners of the State of Minnesota, GENTLEMENTne complaint and accompanying papers in the matter of Ralston J. Markoe vs. St. Paul and Duluth Railroad Company, have been duly considered. The complaint in this case is that the conductors of the road informed passengers that the regular full fare, first class tickets between St. Paul and White Bear, do not entitle them to transportation on certain daily regular trains which pass by White Bear and stop there both going and coming to St. Paul. The answer of the railroad company, which is not denied, and which we assume to be a true answer, shows that the train in question is a special train running from Duluth to St. Paul, and in order to make quick time, stopping only at certain stations; that it does not stop at White Bear, in the common acceptation of the term; that it only stops to attach a car; that in order to make the time desired it is necessary that the stoppages be few and the way traffic limited, otherwise it would be necessary to increase the carrying capacity, and consequently increase the length of time at present required for making the run. It also further appears by the answer that a number of trains run to accommodate the White Bear traffic.

Two questions are presented in this case: Is this regulation a rea

sonable one? which of course is wholly within your province; and secondly, If so, has the company a right to make such regulation? To obtain an opinion upon which latter question the matter was referred to this office.

There can be no doubt of the right of the company to make such regulations, if reasonable. It rests not upon the question of how far the rights of the company go, but what are the rights of the traveling public; and if it is found that a large number of people are afforded quick transit, their right would be involved as much as the occasional traveler who desired to get on at some particular point; and as to the mere right of the company to make this regulation, if reasonable, there can be no question. That railroad companies have a right to exclude passengers from certain trains, as for instance, freight trains, even though they have room for them, is too well settled to be doubted; that they also have the right to enforce the rule that only parties holding certain class or kind of tickets shall ride upon such trains, is firmly entrenched behind judicial decision; and, applying this same principle, if this rule is a reasonable one, they have a right to refuse to carry persons from points not included in the list of stations at which their special or fast train is advertised to stop.

I have the honor to be,

Very respectfully yours,

MOSES E. CLAPP, Attorney General.

MARTIN MADSON, MISSION CREEK,

vs.

ST. PAUL & DULUTH AND MINNEAPOLIS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPA

NIES.

Overcharge.

Filed June 22, 1887.

This was an alleged overcharge on a carload of lumber from Mission Creek, on the St. Paul & Duluth road, to Belgrade, on the Minneapolis & Pacific road.

On examination it was found, however, that the charges were in accordance with published tariffs.

CITIZENS OF HAMLINE,

vs.

ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed August 21, 1885.

Depot.

Hamline is a station between St. Paul and Minneapolis. The depot consists only of one small room, which has been used for ticket, telegraph and express office, baggage, freight, and passenger waiting room, all combined.

At an interview with the general manager, on Aug. 28, 1885, he promised to have a new station building erected as soon as the company could get title to the additional ground needed, and certainly before winter.

Difficulty was encountered in getting the necessary land at a reasonable price, so the company determined to change the location. Then they had to wait for the city to open certain streets, then they had determined to lay down two additional tracks between St. Paul and Minneapolis, and their location had to be determined first, and so on; there was always some reason for delay, until finally, on June 11, 1887, the commission issued a premptory order to the company to begin the construction of a new depot without further delay, and to carry the same to an early completion. If this notice was not heeded, the matter would be referred to the attorney general for prosecution, which was done.

In July the attorney general was informed that the company then had between fifty and sixty men engaged in clearing out the foundation and preparing for the depot at Hamline, and work thereon progressed until it was completed.

J. R. HARRIS, MCCAULEYVILLE,

vs.

ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY Co.

Filed Dec. 7, 1886.

Overcharge.

In September, 1886, Mr. Harris had a second-hand top carriage, two seated (not boxed), shipped from St. Paul to Breckenridge, on which the freight charges were $36. The company offered to reduce the charges to $25, but Mr. Harris thought that also too high. On examination it was found that the carriage was shipped on flat car, which

had to return unloaded, and that the charges were in accordance with the published rates and classification, and hence no overcharge.

C C. WOLCOTT & Co., MINNEAPOLIS,

vs.

ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY CO.

Filed Dec. 9, 1886.

Platform for sidetrack loading.

The complainants' agent at Princeton had built a platform along the sidetrack of the road at that point for use in loading cars with grain from wagons. Supt. Rice ordered the platform removed.

On conferring with general superintendent, Mr. Egan, with reference to this matter, the commission found the platform had been built without permission or authority from the company, but if Messrs. Wolcott & Co. would make proper application for grounds to erect either such platform or a grain house on the company's sidetrack, they would be granted a site.

C. E. SOUTHMAYD, EAST GRAND FORKS,

vs.

ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY.

Filed Jan. 22, 1887.

Station agent wanted.

for

East Grand Forks is a village of some five hundred inhabitants, has three elevators, etc., and a depot building, but no agent with whom they could transact business, and who would keep the depot open the accommodation of passengers, hence a request for an agent was forwarded to the company through this commission.

Under date of January 26th the general manager informed the commission that he had also had some correspondence with Mr. Southmayd in regard to the matter, and that he had been informed the matter would have early attention, and that an agent would be supplied at that point possibly in less time than a month.

No further communication having been received concerning this case, it is inferred that such agent has been supplied.

Merchants of Argyle and farmers in the vicinity complained of the