pounds; revenue collected, $5.85; amount passenger fare, $12.44; total revenue for 1892, $18.29. Business done at station for 1893: Shipped out, nothing; shipped in, 828 pounds; revenue collected, $1.48; passenger fares during the year, $7.35; total revenue for 1893, $8.83. Total receipts credited to said station for the five years: Freight receipts, $55.53; passenger receipts, $74; total for the five years, $129.53. It is claimed by petitioners, that had an agent been maintained at the station much more business would be done than what the reports show, which claim the Board believes to be well founded; yet we are of the opinion that as the junction of competing lines with shipping facilities is located only about three miles from Guilford station, the larger part of the business will continue to go to Benedict in the future as in the past; yet as the representatives of Guilford station claim that they are greatly discommoded by the failure of respondent to keep an agent at said station, and that they are paying heavily in interest upon bonds voted to respondent company to assist in construction of respondent's road, and the further representations made by petitioners of increased business being done at said station, conditioned upon the maintenance of an agent as prayed for, this Board recommends that respondent company place an agent in charge of said station to test the question of a compensating business being done at said station, on or before March 1, 1894, and continue the same for a period of six months. Attest: M. D. Henderson, Secretary. By Order of the Board. CASE No. 1323. Topeka, Kas., February 9, 1894. H. P. Woods et al., Complainants, versus Union Pacific Rld. Co., Respondent. Application for a Station Agent. Petitioners filed their application for a station agent at Tasco, Valley township, in Sheridan county, Kansas, in this office November 9, 1893. Petitioners allege that the citizens of Valley township voted and delivered to respondent company the sum of $18,000 of township bonds to aid in the construction of respondent's road through Valley township; in view of which they ask this Board to order that an agent be stationed in respondent's depot at Tasco. The complaint was heard at said station, on January 26, 1894. It was stated in evidence that respondent removed their agent from said station about three years since, and employed one of the citizens to look after respondent's property at said station and transact any business offered, at a compensation of $5 per month, to the satisfaction of the public. This arrangement was continued for about three years, until some time in the fall of 1893. It was stated that the public interest would be met by a continuance of the former arrangement. It was not made to appear that any considerable amount of business has been transacted at said station-not enough to justify the respondent company in maintaining an agent at said station as prayed for. Yet, in view of the aid granted respondent company in the sum of $18,000 of township bonds and the annual payment of interest on same, this Board would recommend that respondent re-establish the former arrangement, to the end that petitioners and taxpayers of Valley township may receive such service as their interests demand. By Order of the Board. Attest: M. D. Henderson, Secretary. CASE No. 1282. Topeka, Kas., February 9, 1894. The City of Wichita, Complainant, versus The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rld. Co., The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rly. Co., and Rate on Lumber. The city of Wichita complains of the respondents above named, and alleges that the rates for freight charged by said railroad companies for the transportation of lumber by said companies respectively, from Kansas City, Kas., and all other points at or near the eastern border of the state to the city of Wichita, are excessive, unjust, and unreasonable, and praying the Board to make an examination of the rate of freight tariff charged by each of said companies for the transportation of lumber as aforesaid to the city of Wichita, and to require of said companies a reduced, modified and reasonable charge for such service, and for such other and further relief as they may be justly entitled to. The distance from the eastern border of the state to Wichita, counting shortest route, is 212 miles, and, being over 210 miles, is counted, under the rule, at 220 miles. The rate charged is 17 cents per 100 pounds in car-loads, or about 15.45 mills per ton per mile. From a careful examination of the evi dence, and from all the data obtainable, we believe this rate too high. Just what sum will be fair to the people of Wichita and the railroad companies is a question upon which the Commission has spent considerable time, and upon which they have found it quite difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion. Taking, with estimated cost of operating, amount necessary to pay taxes and necessary fixed charges, the rate charged in Iowa and other Western states, together with comparative density of population and volume of business, the Commission has arrived at the conclusion that 13 cents per 100 pounds is a rate that will be just and fair to all parties concerned. The Commission therefore find that the complaint is well founded, and further find that the sum of 13 cents per 100 pounds is a reasonable charge for freight on lumber in car-loads from Kansas City, Kas., and other points on the eastern border of the state to Wichita, Kas. The complainant's attorneys ask in their brief that the Commission find what is a reasonable rate from Yates Center to Wichita; but the complaint on file contains no allegation of unjust or exorbi tant charges from Yates Center to Wichita, and as the statute under which the complaint is made does not authorize the Board to make any finding or order with reference to matters not complained of, and as complainant has not amended the complaint or in any manner put the Commission in a position to render any valid decision with reference to rates from Yates Center, we presume that upon investigation counsel for complainants have considered the matter of no consequence. The Board, however, believe that the sum of 8 cents per 100 pounds would be a reasonable rate for freight on lumber in car-loads shipped from Yates Center to Wichita, and recommend that this rate be put into effect on or before March 15, 1894. By Order of the Board. Attest: M. D. Henderson, Secretary. Topeka, Kas., February 10, 1894.-Notice is hereby given that the decision rendered by the Board of Railroad Commissioners in case No. 1282, in which the mayor and council of the city of Wichita are complainants and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Companies are respondents, shall take effect and be in full force on and after March 15, 1894, and this notice shall be a part thereof. Attest: M. D. Henderson, Secretary. By Order of the Board. CASES Nos. 1304, 1306, 1310. Topeka, Kas., February 12, 1894. H. Gray, J. M. Eagan, H. McDonald, and 195 others, Complainants, versus The Missouri Pacific Rly. Co., Respondent. Train Service. Plaintiffs filed their petition in the office of the Board of Railroad Commissioners August 16, 1893, asking that respondent company be directed and required to place a passenger train upon their line of road from Fort Scott, Kas., to Topeka, Kas., and to maintain the same. The complaint was heard, and an order made as prayed for, November 14, 1893, requiring respondent company to place a passenger-train service upon said line of road December 1, 1893. Comes now respondent company, by its attorney, David Kelso, and files its motion, of date November 25, 1893, in this office, under date November 24, 1893, and asks that this Board rehear the case, for the following reasons, to-wit: 1. That this Board took under consideration the matters and things involved in complaint of petitioners without giving respondent company any opportunity to offer any evidence against the complaints and demands of said complainants. 2. That the Board took under final consideration and decision the matters involved in the case without giving to respondents any notice thereof prior to such decision. 3. That the decision of the Board in the above and foregoing matter was formed and made up without any notice being served upon respondent company, and without any opportunity given respondent company to furnish evidence and proof of the injustice of said complaint. 4. Respondent company specifically denies that it ever received from any of the municipal townships, through which the line of the Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota Railway Company runs, any municipal bonds, aid or other consideration whatever as a consideration for the maintenance and continuous operation of first-class passenger service as stated in said complaint, and respondent further denies that it ever asked any such consideration; but, on the contrary, it avers "that this respondent only operates the said Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota division by and through an arrangement made and entered into between it and the Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway Company, which is a consolidated company, of which company the said Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota division is a constituent." Other reasons are set up by respondent why it should not be required to maintain a passenger train or trains upon said line of road which it is not necessary here to recite. The motion for a rehearing was granted, and the time set for making further investigation of the matters and things was set for January 30 and 31, 1894, at which time this Board, in company with Hon. S. D. Shankland, superintendent of said line in the employ of respondent company, passed over the entire line, stopping at the several stations and conversing with the citizens, patrons of said line of road, in reference to the matters and things complained of. It is not denied that the several municipal townships through which said line of road passes voted large sums of municipal bonds to aid in the construction of the road in question. It is not denied that the citizens and the public were to receive in return the construction of a standard-guage road, to be constructed and operated as a first-class road in all particulars; such road was constructed and service established and maintained by the said Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota company to the entire satisfaction of petitioners and the public, and the bonds of the several municipalities, which had been voted as aforesaid, were executed and delivered to the said Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota Railway Company, subsequent to which the said line was merged into the consolidated company, known as Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway Company, and is now operated by respondent company. Admitting each and the several reasons set up by respondents in their motion for a rehearing of the cause to be true, it yet remains a matter of public interest, of which this Board is bound to take cognizance. It is not denied that the several townships along said line did vote to the said Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota Railway Company large sums of bonds to secure the construction and operation of said line of road as a first-class road, of which contract the successors to the Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota company were bound to take cognizance. The questions relating to contracts are judicial, and belong rather to the courts than this Board to consider and settle. The question for this Board to consider is one of public interest. It is admitted that respondent company did not at any time enter into any contract with the citizen taxpayers or voters in the several townships or any of the munici palities voting bonds to the Kansas, Nebraska & Dakota Railway Company to aid in the construction of said line of road. From the representations of the people in interest relating to the cause of complaint, and from the volume of business done by respondent company over said line of road, this Board is of the opinion that the order made on November 14, 1893, directing that |