On May 4th, complaint was filed by J. G. Brown against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company together with the expense bills of the Central Iowa Railway Company and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company claiming that he had been charged for excessive weights which were not in the car. That the Central Iowa Railway Company had refunded its proportion of the over-charge but that he was unable to get a settlement with the respondent and that his claim was for about $24.00. The complaint was forwarded to J. F. Tucker, Assistant General Manager of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, and on May 7th, respondent advised the Commissioners by letter that a voucher for twentythree dollars and ninety-nine cents had been made on March 12, 1887, and that on April 22, respondent had advised Dale & George of Coon Rapids to draw for that amount. It appears that Dale & George had handled the grain for complainant and had filed the claim for the overcharge with the company. The Commissioners regard this as a closing of this case so far as they are concerned.

Des Moines, Iowa, May 21, 1887.

CITIZENS OF POLK COUNTY, IOWA,

VS.

CHICAGO, ST. PAUL & KANSAS CITY RAILWAY Co.

Filed May 7, 1887.

Highway crossing.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

On May 7, 1887, C. L. Watrous and others filed a petition with the Commissioners, complaining that the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railroad Company had located its crossing of Seventh street at a grade, and at a point where the north rail would be but twelve feet from the end of the south span of the wagon bridge which crosses 'Coon river on Seventh street; that the bridge is a very long one and too narrow for a team to turn in, and that a crossing at that point would be fraught with great danger, as the travel from points south of Des Moines over this bridge is very heavy; that

a change in the alignment of the road further south would enable the petitioners to cross over the proposed track, and thereby greatly reduce the danger, if not entirely remove it.

The petition was signed by over 100 citizens of Bloomfield township, and a petition of similar purport was subsequently filed, signed by one hundred and seventy-five" wives and mothers of families "residing in said township. The Citizens' Association of Des Moines filed a formal protest against the proposed crossing, and the following resolution:

"Be it resolved, That we, the members of the Citizens' Association of Des Moines, Iowa, voicing as we believe the sentiment of a decided majority of the most intelligent citizens of Des Moines, who are acquainted with the facts, do hereby enter a most earnest protest against the building of said track as proposed, and do request said company to construct it further south, a sufficient distance to admit of the building of a viaduct over said track."

On the 3d of May, the common council of the city of Des Moines entered upon its records the following proceedings:

WHEREAS, It is reported to this council that the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Company has located its proposed new line of road across the south end of Seventh Street bridge; and,

"WHEREAS, The location of said railway line as now located will be dangerous to life and property when operated by said company, there being a large amount of travel to and from the southern portion of the county; therefore,

Resolved, That the mayor is hereby instructed to notify said company that the public interest, as well as the safety of life and property, requires a change in the location so as to secure greater safety to public travel, and that in the event of said company or its officers refusing to make such change, the mayor shall enjoin said company from constructing its line as now located.”

George C. McMichael, General Manager of the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway, was advised by the Commissioners of the complaints and proceedings, and on the 11th day of May, the Commissioners viewed the proposed crossing. From the examination made of the proposed grade crossing and the surroundings, the Commissioners conclude that it would be dangerous and a burden that should not be put upon the public, if it can be avoided. They regard an over-crossing at that point as practicable, and as involving an expenditure that under the relations of the parties they do not regard as unreasonable. They, therefore, under the provisions of section 3. of the Commissioner Law, inform the railroad company that "in order to promote the security, convenience and accommodation of the public” a crossing should be made that will allow the travel from that section to pass over the railway tracks at an elevation sufficient to allow the trains to go below.

Des Moines, Iowa, May 26, 1887.

The railroad companies refused to be governed by this order, and the

Commissioners, under the provisions of chapter 133, laws of the Twentieth General Assembly, advised the Attorney-General of the refusal. Proceedings were instituted in the District Court, in which the Commissioners were sustained, but the company took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Iowa, where the case is now pending.

Mr. Mohr made complaint to the Commissioners that no cattle-guards had ever been constructed by the respondent company where their line runs through his farm near Fort Dodge, and that there was a very urgent necessity for them, in order that he might have the use of his land on both sides of the track for pasturing his stock. The matter was taken up by General Manager Smith immediately after his notification by the Board, and the structures finished to the complete satisfaction of the complainant.

On May 10, 1887, the Commissioners received a communication signed by fifty-three citizens and business men of the town of Luverne, asking that the name of the station Whitman, on the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, be changed to Luverne, the name of the town, postoffice and station on the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway. From the papers it seems that either the officers of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway or other parties acting with their consent and approval, had laid out a town eighty rods from the town plat of Luverne, and named the town and station Whitman, but had subsequently vacated all the plat except two blocks, and there is no building on said town plat of Whitman except a parsonage.

These citizens further state that owing to the annoyance in the delivery of

mails and merchandise they have repeatedly petitioned the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company to change the name. At the time the postoffice was established the name of Whitman was proposed, but the departme it declined to recognize the name, as there was an office named Whittemore in the same county, and substituted Luverne, the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, changing the name of their station from Vernon to Luverne, to correspond. The managers of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company have long since abandoned the idea of making a town at their station, and as Luverne is now a growing town of five hundred inhabitants, and as all trains on the Chicago & Northwestern Railway stop at the station, they see no reason why the name of the station should not be changed to correspond with the name of the town. The petition was submitted to the officers of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, and elicited a reply which contains the following statements: That it has been the wish of the company to change their station to the crossing of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway for the last two years, but the citizens of Luverne do not wish to have the station moved. If the citizens would open and grade the streets necessary to reach the crossing, the railway company would move its station to that point (we understand, inside the town of Luverne), and make the name to correspond, otherwise they see no propriety in the change. In reply the complainants state that they would prefer that the station should remain where it is; that a removal would be a detriment to property and the town, which has grown toward the present station, and if the railway, for its own purposes, desires to remove its station, it certainly should be at the cost of opening and improving the streets leading to it.

The question of changing the names of railway stations is not a new one to this Board, and in every instance, as in the present case, they regard the reasons for the change of name as sound, and those which in their judgment should govern the action of the parties under whose control the naming of stations comes. In but a single instance, in their judgment, has there been a valid reason assigned why the name should not be changed. Yet they have uniformly declined to interfere, the reason assigned being that "an examination of section 3 of the Commissioner law has satisfied the members of the Board that fixing the names of stations is not one of the powers conferred by the law upon the Commissioners.”

While they regard the position of the company as a mistake on their part, they believe that as the station is in the civil township of Whitman, and Luverne is the name of another civil township in which the Minneapolis & St. Louis station is situated, the railway company may properly name the station from the township in which it is located.

It may be that this can be corrected, and that the proper tribunal may grant the remedy, but they do not find it in the powers conferred upon the Board.

Des Moines, Iowa, July 6, 1887.

S. E. HUSE, COON RAPIDS, IOWA,

VS.

Terminal charges.

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY CO.

Filed May 13, 1887.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

The complainant, S. E. Huse, states that the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company is charging him on coal hauled from Perry to Coon Rapids, Iowa, a distance of thirty miles, one dollar and twenty cents per ton, while the Des Moines & Fort Dodge Railroad Company haul the same coal from Des Moines to Perry, 33 miles, for 46 cents per ton. The complainant asks for such relief as the Commissioners may think right to give. Roswell Miller, General Manager of respondent company, replying to this complaint says: "In the Iowa distance tariff in effect prior to April 5, 1887, there was a column naming rates on coal mined in Iowa. On April 5th, a new distance tariff for Iowa was issued, in which the rates on coal mined in Iowa were not given, thus making such coal subject to class D rates, according to the Western Classification, which made the rate for 30 miles 6 cents per hundred pounds. On May 10th, our road issued a special tariff giving rates on soft coal from Perry to various points. This names the rate to Coon Rapids as 4 5-100 cents per hundred pounds. This would make an over-charge on the shipment in question of $5.40, which should be refunded."

The rate fixed by the Commissioners in the Glenwood case on first-class roads would make the local rate from Des Moines to Perry, 33 miles, 29.7 cents, and from Perry to Coon Rapids, 30 miles, 27 cents per ton, with terminal charges added. The only question to be determined is whether the terminal charge of 30 cents per ton properly applies to both local hauls.

In fixing a "reasonable coal rate" for Iowa in the Glenwood case the Commissioners were of the opinion that a terminal charge of fifteen cents at each end, or a total terminal charge of thirty cents per ton was a proper allowance for the service. In constructing a statute or the decision of a court, the primary consideration is the first intention of the legislature or court, and second, the meaning of the language used to express that intention.

This case, however, is quite different, as the parties who used the language are called upon to define the meaning thereof, and presumably are advised of the application intended, and the necessity for an exhaustive analysis and argument is obviated.

The term “terminal charge,” while it was used in the opinion in a general sense, when applied to the operating of trains refers to the end or extremity, and is designed to cover the cost attending the switching of cars to side tracks leading to the mines for the purpose of loading, and for the use of the cars while being loaded, and the delays attending the same at the point