or auto stage lines and to fix the division of such joint rates, fares or charges.'

§ 212. Interstate Rates-Application to Commerce Commission. The Commission shall have the power to investigate all existing or proposed interstate rates, fares, tolls, charges and classifications, and all rules and practices in relation thereto, for or in relation to the transportation of persons or property or the transmission of messages or conversations, where any act in relation thereto shall take place within this state; and when the same are, in the opinion of the Commission, excessive or discriminatory or in violation of the act of Congress entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and the acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, or of any other act of Congress, or in conflict with the rulings, orders or regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Commission may apply by petition or otherwise to the Interstate Commerce Commission or to any court of competent jurisdiction for relief."

§ 213. Service, Equipment, Facilities-To be Fixed by Commission.-Whenever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon complaint, shall find that the rules, regulations, practices, equipment, appliances, facilities or service of any public utility, or the methods of manufacture, distribution, transmission, storage or supply employed by it, are unjust, unreasonable, unsafe, improper, inadequate or insufficient, the Commission shall determine the just, reasonable, safe, proper, adequate or sufficient rules, regulations, practices, equipment, appliances, facilities, service or methods to be observed, furnished, con

Section 34, p. 36.

structed, enforced or employed and shall fix the same by its order, rule or regulation."

§ 214. Rules and Regulations, etc., to be Prescribed by Commission.-The Commission shall prescribe rules and regulations for the performance of any service or the furnishing of any commodity of the character furnished or supplied by any public utility, and, on proper demand and tender of rates, such public utility shall furnish such commodity or render such service within the time and upon the conditions provided in such rules.10

§ 215. Power of Commission to Order Additions, Changes, Improvements.-Whenever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon complaint, shall find that additions, extensions, repairs or improvements to, or changes in, the existing plant, equipment, apparatus, facilities or other physical property of any public utility or of any two or more public utilities ought reasonably to be made, or that a new structure or structures should be erected, to promote the security or convenience of its employees or the public, or in any other way to secure adequate service or facilities, the Commission shall make and serve an order directing that such additions, extensions, repairs, improvements or changes be made or such structure or structures be erected in the manner and within the time specified in said order."

Section 35, p. 36.

10 Ib.

11 Section 36, p. 36.

An order of a state Railroad Commission directing the installation and use of an interlocking plant at the crossing on grade of two railroads and apportioning between the companies the expense of executing the order is not an infringement of the constitutional guaranty of the right of contract where there is an existing contract between such intersecting railroad companies, under which contract the junior road has the duty of constructing and properly maintaining the physical

§ 216. Site of New Structure may be Fixed.— If the Commission orders the erection of a new structure, it may also fix the site thereof.12

crossing and providing and maintaining semaphores and other signals, and providing and maintaining the requisite watchmen to take charge of and operating the same. Grand Trunk W. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 221 U. S. 400, 31 Sup. Ct. 537, 55 L. ed. 786.

The Railroad Commission has power after hearing complaint and determining facts to make an order requiring the erection and construction, at a point named on the line, by a common carrier, of a platform suitable for the loading and unloading of cream and other merchandise shipped by express; and that such platform be constructed so as to be useful to teams, and of the kind and dimensions usual and customarily furnished at small stations where no depot is maintained; and also that it be sufficient to enable passengers to get on and off trains with safety. See Minneapolis, St. P. & Ste. Marie R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 136 Wis. 146, 116 N. W. 915.

Statute requiring railroad corporation to build and maintain depots are sustainable under the police power of the state. State ex rel. Barton County v. Kansas City F. T. S. & G. R. Co., 32 Fed. 722.

Railroad company may be required at its own expense to construct a railway bridge over a highway made necessary by the opening of a road. Cincinnati, I. & W. R. Co. v. Connorsville, 218 U. S. 336, 31 Sup. Ct. 93, 54 L. ed. 1060.

Railroad company not entitled to be reimbursed for moneys thus necessarily expended. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 562, 582, 584, 591, 26 Sup. Ct. 341, 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1175, 50 L. ed. 601, 605, 606, 608; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Drainage Commrs., 197 U. S. 453, 25 Sup. Ct. 471, 49 L. ed. 831; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 571, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. ed. 269, 274; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 254, 17 Sup. Ct. 581, 41 L. ed. 979, 990; Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. ed. 336. See, also, Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 367, 51 L. ed. 523.

12 Section 36, p. 37.

Power of the legislature to enact a statute requiring the establishment of union depots has been established by numerous and well-considered decisions. Industrial Siding Cases, 140 N. C. 239, 52 S. E. 941; Corporation Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 139 N. C. 126, 51 S. E. 793.

It is competent for the legislature to compel a railroad to turn over its property to its competitors, or, what is the same thing, to enter into a union depot arrangement with its competitors. Mo. O. & G. R. Co. v. State (Okl.), 119 Pac. 117. See Mayor of Worcester v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 109 Mass. 103; State ex rel. Barton Co. v. Kansas

§ 217.

Making at Joint Cost-Apportionment of Cost. If any additions, extensions, repairs, improvements or changes, or any new structure or structures which the Commission has ordered to be erected, require joint action by two or more public utilities, the Commission shall notify the said public utilities R. Co,, 32 Fed. 722; Dewey v. Atlantic Coast Line 392, 55 S. E. 292.

City, Ft. S. & G.

R. Co., 142 N. C. In an action to recover the penalty under the Texas statute for failure to establish a depot at a railway crossing, the defense was that the act authorizing the requirement of such depot was in violation of sections 1 and 2 of article X of the Constitution of Texas; but the court, in effect, held that the regulation prescribed by the statute for the purpose of carrying out the sections of the constitution might very properly extend to just such matters as were embraced in the act in question, and that said act simply prescribed more fully than did former laws what accommodations should be furnished at such places. San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. State, 79 Tex. 264, 14 S. W. 1063.

An act of Massachusetts (Stats. 1781, c. 343) provided for a union passenger station and for the removal of tracks from certain public ways and grounds in the city of Worcester. In an attack on the validity of statute, proof was offered to the effect that to extend the roads named to a union passenger station, at a point selected, would make it necessary for each of them to extend the tracks a great distance, amounting in the aggregate to many thousand feet, and at a cost amounting in the aggregate to several hundred thousand dollars, etc., the court held that this act requiring named railroads to unite in a union passenger station at a point to be determined by commissioners to be constitutional and valid, being a reasonable exercise of the right reserved to the legislature to amend, alter or repeal the charters of those corporations. Mayor of Worcester v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 109 Mass. 103, approved in Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Dustin, 142 U. S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. 283, 35 L. ed. 1092.

Statute or order of Railroad Commission establishing station is not to be interfered with except upon clear and satisfactory evidence showing that it is unjust and unreasonable. In Matter of Auburn & W. R. Co., 37 App. Div. 162, 55 N. Y. Supp. 895.

An order of the Railroad Commission for the establishment of a union depot being found to be just and reasonable must be affirmed, Mo. O. & G. R. Co. v. State, 119 Pac. 117, citing Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. R. Co. v. Osborn, 189 U. S. 383, 23 Sup. Ct. 540, 47 L. ed. 760; So. Pac. R. Co. v. Minn., 298 U. S. 583, 38 Sup. Ct. 341, 52 L. ed. 630; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 45 L. ed. 194; Railroad Commrs. v. Portland & O. Cen. R. Co., 63 Me.

that such additions, extensions, repairs, improvements or changes or new structure or structures have been ordered and that the same shall be made at their joint cost, whereupon the said public utilities shall have such reasonable time as the Commission may grant within which to agree upon the portion or division of cost of such additions, extensions, repairs, improvements or changes or new structure or structures, which each shall bear.13

§ 218. Fixing Proportion of Cost by Commission. If at the expiration of such time such public utilities shall fail to file with the Commission a statement that an agreement has been made for a division or apportionment of the cost or expense of such additions, extensions, repairs, improvements or changes,

269; Fitchburg R. Co. v. Grand Junction R. Co., 86 Mass. (4 Allen) 198; 8 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 385.

Order of Commission, made on petition filed, not having the effect to interfere with interstate commerce, the Commission has jurisdiction to enter the same. See authorities in paragraph above.

Point selected by Commission for erection of depot as being for best interests of public along line of road should also be a point at which the business of the road is remunerative, is a contention not supported by the authority, nor is it sustainable on principle in view of theory upon which state grants franchises and corporations rights. Morgan's La. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 109 La. 247, 33 So. 24.

Ability of railroad, in view of its entire business, to maintain and establish depot, and not situated at some particular locality, is to be taken into consideration. Morgan's La. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 109 La. 247, 33 So. 24.

Where a state, either by statute or through the order of its Board of Railroad Commission, requires a railroad to establish a station at a particular place on the line of its road, such statute or order is not to be overthrown by the courts as unreasonable merely because the establishing or maintenance of such station would prove unremunerative. Regard is to be had to the financial ability of the railroad, in view of its entire business, to establish and maintain such station. Morgan's La. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 109 La. 247, 33 So.. 24. See In Matter of Auburn & W. R. Co., 37 App. Div. 162, 55 N. Y. Supp. 895.

13 Section 36, p. 37.

1