On the 12th of July, 1889, John G. WILLIS, and other citizens of Mount Ayr and Ringgold county, filed with the Commissioners a complaint against the above company of inadequate passenger and postal service on the branch line of its road running from Bethany Junction to Mount Ayr. Complainants set forth that "the line of railway operated through this county by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, and the only line within several miles of this place [Mount Ayr], has as the only service thereon one train per day each way, the same reaching this city from Grant City, Missouri, about 11:45, a. m., and on its return from Bethany Junction, reaches here about 6 or 6:30 p. m. This train is what is generally styled a mixed train, containing a passenger coach and a combined coach, baggage and mail car, sufficient, perhaps to accomodate the demands. "This train does a general business all along the route, stopping at almost all points along the route to load and unload any and all kinds and classes of freight that may be offered for transportation, taking their own time to load and unload the same, to the very great inconvenience and annoyance of the traveling public, who, by reason of the oneness of the system, are compelled to go and come by this route. This train leaves Bethany Junction, a distance of twenty miles from this place, at 2:45 p. m., and does not reach this place until about 6 p. m., making about three hours and fifteen minutes squandered on this distance of twenty miles."

The respondent company was at once notified and furnished by the secretary of the Commission, with a copy of complaint, and prompt attention invited.

Under date of August 7, E. P. RIPLEY, general manager of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company replies: "It is true, as stated in the complaint, that we run but one train a day each way on this line, and that this train has all the work to do, both passenger and freight, and that its progress over the road is therefore necessarity slow. It cannot do claimed that the service is first-class but it is the best, we can afford; indeed there is room for grave suspicion that it is better than we can afford. I regret that our accounts have been so kept that we cannot give you the earnings of the Grant City Branch, (c. c., the line between Bethany Junction and Grant City, along which the petitioners are located; but we have treated the two lines together, that is, we have included the earnings of this branch with those of the line between Chariton and Albany; we know, however, that the tariff between Bethany Junction and Grant City is made lighter than between Chariton and Albany, and therefore when we show you that the entire 141 miles barely paid operating expenses in 1887 and 1888, you will doubtless readily see that the Grant City branch, being the poorer part of the line, is run at a positive loss under existing conditions and that the incurring of any additional expenses cannot be considered. In fact, we have seriously considered the question of running these trains twice a week or every other day, which would easily do all the business, though we hope not to be obliged to do this."

This is followed with a statement of the earnings of the branch from Chariton to Albany and Grant City (Mr. RIPLEY claiming these accounts are so kept that they cannot give separate earnings for the Bethany Junction and Grant City branch). This statement shows:

Total branch earnings, Chariton to Grant City $190.781

Expenses $208,721

Deficit $17,940

Add taxes.. $8,310

Total deficit $26,250

It is claimed that the returns for 1889 will show a still further deficit on account of reduction in local rates under Commissioners' schedule.

"Allow me in conclusion" says the general manager, "to say, that when there is the remotest probability that a passenger train on this branch shall pay expenses, we will be most happy to put it on. At present no such probabilities exist.

"In answer to further questions contained in your letter I have to say that it has been and is our custom, as a matter of convenience, to credit this branch, as other branches, with its mileage proportion of earnings, meaning by this that the branch is credited with the same proportion of gross receipts as its mileage bears to the total number of miles hauled. This is our general rule, and the same rule was adopted in regard to such general expenses as cannot be localized; that is to say, in charging up expenses, we charge the branch with the amount of work actually done upon it and with the salaries of men employed upon it exclusively, and we also charge it with such proportion of other expenses as its mileage bears to the total mileage. It is not claimed that this division of earnings is entirely fair to the branch. If it were an independent corporation it would doubtless be granted more than a mileage pro rata; on the other hand, if it were an independent corporation, its expenses would necessarily be considered heavier than they are now."

The Board fixed Friday, September 6, for the hearing of the complaint. On that date, by consent of parties, complainants were given ten days further to obtain additional evidence and respondent ten days to answer. September 16, complainants filed an amended complaint setting forth that in the building of the Leon, Mount Ayr & Southwestern Railroad, (now the branch of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, in the present controversy.) certain head officials of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company contracted with the citizens of Mount Ayr and Ringgold county to build and equip a first-class road from Leon to Mount Ayr, and maintain a first-class passenger and train service on the same; that in consideration of the same, the citizens of Mt. Ayr and Ringgold county, voted a tax for the building of said railroad, and levied, collected and paid over to the Leon, Mount Ayr & Southwestern Railroad the sum of $42,674.53 and in addition, certain citizens gave a personal bond, guaranteeing the payment of some $6,000 to $8,000 additional to said road.

On the 18th day of September, testimony was taken at Mouut Ayr, according to notice, some twenty-four witnesses being examined on part of complainant. Respondent road was not represented, but was furnished with a copy of same. The testimony confirmed the statement of petitioners, that the service on the branch of the road is irregular, inadequate and of the poorest character, both as to equipment, convenience and speed, and that the traveling public are subject to great inconvenience and delay, by the manner in which the trains are run, the mixed train frequently being held to allow stock trains to be pushed ahead.

Complainants established by evidence that at the time the road was projected, a committee of citizens went to Burlington on invitation and transportation furnished over the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy road by officials of that company; that they had a meeting with President PERKINS, of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Mr. BALDWIN, land commissioner of the same and president of the new projected road, and other Chicago, Burlington & Quincy officials; that they were promised by President PERKINS, that if they would secure a five per cent tax along the line, they, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, would build and operate a first-class road for them. It was urged by many that a second-class road would be thrust upon them similar to the narrow gauge in the eastern part of the county, in aiding which they felt they had been deceived, and to allay opposition on this point, the demand for a first-class road was made and conceded. On these representations of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy officials, the committee secured the five per cent tax voted and other local aid. After the road was built and the subsidies secured, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad bought up tin; stock held by citizens (giving, as required by law, at six cents on the dollar) and leased the road for a term of ninety-nine years, the lease carrying with it the obligations of the original company.

The very inferior character of the service on this branch has resulted in driving a large amount of travel and traffic to competing lines, which will account somewhat for reduced receipts and lack of business, and that the business and growth of Mount Ayr has been seriously retarded thereby, and travel and traffic driven from them. It appears also from the testimony that for the first three or four years after the opening of the line, a daily freight train each way, with caboose attached, and a daily passenger train each way were operated, thus recognizing the agreement to make it a first-class line.

After a careful review of the testimony in this case, the Commissioners are of the opinion, and inform the respondent, company, that the passenger service on this branch of their line is insufficient and not such as the demands of the public require, or their obligations to the citizens along its line demand. The Commissioners hold:

First. That an obligation exists on the part of respondent company to furnish first-class train service, in fulfillment of pledges made at the time of the building of the road, in consideration of the taxes voted and local aid given by citizens on its line.

Second. That the method of computation by which respondent road, separating the branch from the main line, seeks to prove it not self-sustaining, is unfair to the branch in that it computes its business on a purely mileage basis, instead of crediting it with the profitable stream of traffic it furnishes, which is carried along the entire line of the parent stem at a profit. Even were it operated at a loss it is becoming a conceded theory in railroading that lateral lines an; profitable as feeders, even if operated at a loss in themselves. They are thrown out on either side to secure and occupy territory and shutout competition. They are frequently built mostly by local aid; are the feeders that supply the main artery of trade with life and traffic, and are an individual part of the great system of which they are arms. The recent reports of the Union Pacific Railway show a number of branches whose earnings fail to pay the fixed charges guaranteed by that company, and yet the traffic they bring the main line is conceded to be worth more than the guarantee, and they are regarded as a profitable part of the great system on that account.

The respondent, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, is hereby informed that it is required to operate one passenger train a day each way from Bethany Junction, via. Mt. Ayr, to Redding, Iowa, and one freight train with caboose attached a day, each way, and that in the operation of euch trains the time cards thereof be so adjusted as to best accommodate the business and travel of the entire branch, and all the stations thereon. This ruling is made at this time with the view of testing the passenger and freight business that may be done on this line with ample facilities afforded. Should, however, a practical test establish the fact that the light business of this line still continues, regardless of the increased facilities, the case will be reviewed for further ruling.

Des Moines, Iowa, November l, 1889.

I cannot agree with the ruling of the Board in this case. I understand the only passenger trains on the line from Chariton to St. Joseph meet at Bethany Junction at 2:15 p. m., and at 2:45 a mixed train leaves for Mt. Ayr, Redding and Grant City. If the speed of this train is increased to fourteen miles-an-hour, it appears to me, from the testimony in the case, to furnish reasonable facilities for the travel on this branch. It is claimed by the company that the experiment of a passenger train has been fairly tried, with unsatisfactory results. While I do not believe that the company is justified in detaining its passengers on the road, as shown in the testimony, hours beyond a reasonable rate of speed, I see nothing to require more than a mixed train service, provided, that it is promptly rendered, making time on a schedule rate as above indicated.

(Signed) Peter A. DEY.

12th Annual Report of the Board of Railroad Commissiners Pp. 1004-5. General Assemby, G. H. KAGSDALE, State Printer. Des Moines. 1889.

The Mount Ayr Case.This suit arose out of a controversy between the citizens of Mount Ayr and other towns on the branch with the railway company in regard to the train service furnished on the branch running from Bethany Junction through Mount Ayr to Grant City. The Commission held that the present train service, consisting of one mixed train each way per day, was inadequate and insufficient, and ordered the company to run one passenger and one freight train each way per day, Mr. DEY dissenting.

A suit was brought in the State District Court of Polk County to enforce the order of the Commission. The company filed a petition for its removal to the United States Circuit Court. I filed a motion to remand it, raising for decisive determination the very important question as to whether the enforcement of the railway legislation of the State of Iowa shall remain in the hands of its courts.

The motion was argued before Judge SHIRAS, but on account of its importance, set down for re-hearing and again argued. The motion to remand was sustained upon the ground that the legislation affecting railways was a matter of internal state policy regulation which the federal courts ought not to control. The company promptly served a citation for an appeal to the Uuited States Supreme Court. The same questions are involved as in the joint rate cases hereinafter mentioned.

Peter A. DEY, et al, vs. C., M. & St. P. Ry. The Dubuque Switching Case. This was a suit brought to enforce an order of the Commission fixing the rate for hauling coal from the city of Dubuque to a point two or three miles from the depot. The Commission held that it was a switching service and that the company was entitled to charge for it as a switch and not as an ordinary haul. Messrs. FOUKE & LYON of Dubuque have assisted me in the case.

The case was removed to the federal court and Judge SHIRAS remanded it, upon my motion, on the same grounds as he did the Mount Ayr case. It was not appealed and on trial in the District Court of Dubuque county, it was held that the action of the Commission was erroneous. I have caused an appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court.

14th Annual Report of the Board of Railroad Commissiners p. 40. General Assemby, G. H. KAGSDALE, State Printer. Des Moines. 1891.

Transcriptions by Sharon R. Becker, May of 2009