Page images

determination can be made by the Circuit court, that suits brought to enforce orders made under the State law are not removable under the acts of Congress. The cause will come on for trial in the State court in March next, when I hope to secure a speedy determination of it.

Twelfth-The Joint-Rate Injunction Cases: The injunction suit brought against the Commissioners by the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railroad Company in the Johnson county district court was brought in June last. Judge Fairall ordered that injunction be issued, and it was served almost immediately afterward. At the request of the Commissioners I filed a motion in this case to dissolve the injunction, upon the ground that no cause of action was stated in the petition. It had been alleged in the petition that the joint-rate act of the Twenty-third General Assembly, and the railway act of the Twenty-second General Assembly, were unconstitutional, and upon this issue of the law a hearing was had before Judge Fairall, commencing on the 7th of July last, Commissioner Dey being present, Judge Fairall took the motion under advisement, and later on decided it adversly to the Commissioners. I appealed the case at once to the supreme court of the State, and at the last October term moved to advance it on the calendar, which was done. The cause was submitted to the court upon a full argument at that time, and at the recent term of the supreme court Judge Fairall's decision was reversed. The effect of this decision is to hold the joint-rate act of the last session constitutional.

Thirteenth-The Leslie Case: Suit was brought on the order made in this case in the district court of Polk county. Issue has been made and a large quantity of evidence taken, and hearing is expected at an early date.

Fourteenth-The Sunny-Hill Alliance Case: I called to my assistance in this case Mr. J. B. Dunn, the efficient county attorney of O'Brien county. Suit was brought in the district court of that county and the defendant demurred to the petition. The demurrer was sustained. I have caused an amended petition to be filed in the case. The suit was originally brought in the name of the Commissioners. I have also caused a suit to be brought in the same matter in the same court in the name of the State of Iowa. The latter suit, as you know, is brought under the act of 1884. The suit in the name of the Commissioners is brought under section 16 of the acts of 1888. It is now being claimed by the railway companies that this latter section repeals the provisions of the act of 1884, under which section the suit shall be brought in the name of the State of Iowa to enforce the order of the Commissioners. I desire that this question shall be determined and hence have brought the suit in both forms in this case to have this heard. I hope to obtain a decision in the one case at the same time that it is obtained in the other, so that this important question of law as to the repeal of an important statute can be determined, and at the same time it can be determined under such circumstances that we shall have lost nothing by the delay.

Fifteenth-The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Overcharge case: The order made in this case has been sued on in the same District Court of Polk county, and the cause is now pending in that court undetermined. Since this was written the court has sustained a demurrer to the petition, on the ground that order was indefinite and no notice given.

Sixteenth-The Wiley case, of Davenport: Suit has been brought on the order made in this case in the District Court of Scott county, or at least I have sent the petition for suit there, but it has been begun so recently that nothing has yet transpired in the


Seventeenth- The Le Mars case: I have sent the papers of suit in this case to attorneys who were satisfactory to the citizens of Le Mars who made the complaint, and the matter will be pressed with all possible vigor.

Eighteenth-The Stark Station Facilities: I have brought suit on this order in the District Court of Mahaska county, and have turned the cause over for local management to Messrs. McCoy & Boulton, who are the choice of Mr. M. W. Crozier, the complainant. Court is now in session there, but I am not advised as to what steps have been taken at this term.

The joint rate cases under the order made by the Commissioners in October last, I have brought a large number of suits upon, against the companies that have refused to yield obedience. Most of these suits are pending at Council Bluffs. I have brought them here in the name of the State of Iowa, under the act of 1884; and a petition was filed in each one of these cases for a removal to the United States Court. I

have filed objections to these petitions, and the matter still remains undetermined. I should be of the opinion, however, that the recent opinion of Judge Shiras would be potent with the court. I have concluded, after mature deliberation, to bring all these suits in another form, viz: In the name of the Commissioners, as stated under section 16, chapter 23, acts of the Twenty-second General Assembly. While in some respects the act of 1884 would be better for us, I have thought it not best to take any chances upon the railway proposition that the act of 1884 had been repealed, by implication, by section 16, above mentioned. I will thus have two suits pending upon each matter in quite a number of cases, and of course, one or the other of them, if properly resisted will fail, because of such double method, but I hope we may have a decision that is favorable in one case, at the same time that a decision is rendered unfavorable in the other.

The costs of this method will be insignificant, when compared with the importance of speedy action and the avoidance of delay.

You may say to the Commissioners that I am pressing their business at all possible opportunities. Yours truly.

[blocks in formation]


Attorney-General for Iowa.










[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad-estimated
Kansas City, St. Joe & Council Bluffs Railroad-estimated.

Total tonnage for Iowa....

Total tonnage entire lines.


Number of passengers carried earning revenue.......
Total passenger revenue

Passenger earnings per mile of road.

Number of tons carried of freight earning revenue..
Total freight revenue......

Freight earnings per mile of road..

Passenger and freight revenue.
Passenger and freight earnings
Gross earnings from operation


Mileage of loaded freight cars-north or east..
Mileage of loaded freight cars-south or west.
Mileage of empty freight cars-north or east..
Mileage of empty freight cars-south or west

[blocks in formation]

5,955,852 .$ 5,677,613.90 890.51

12,753,676 $18.561,512.73 2.912.87

.8 24,429,772.47 25,436.513.72 25,810,786.71

.8 20,203,417.56





In this table the Chicago, Burlington Quincy, Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City, Kansas City, St. Jo. and Council Bluffs, St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, Clarinda & St. Louis, and Crooked Creek make no report on passenger and freight train mileage for Iowa. These seven omitted roads represent a mileage of over 2,000 miles.


[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »